Debating Grand Strategy After the Bush Presidency

Barry Posen has an interesting piece over at the new American Interest, "The Case for Restraint," an argument for strategic pullback in American grand strategy after the Bush presidency.

Posen's a top scholar. I especially liked his piece from 2003 on "The Military Foundations of U.S. Hegemony." I don't think this new American Interest article is all that well conceived, however. I'm not favorable to neo-islolationism, which is basically what Posen proposes; and I'm especially against his suggestion that the U.S. end its military support of Israel:

U.S. military assistance to Israel makes the occupation of the [Palestinian] territories relatively inexpensive for Israeli political leaders, and implicates the United States in the deed. This may not be “central” to U.S. problems in the Arab world, as so many insist, but it certainly does not help. The United States should therefore develop a ten-year plan to reduce U.S. government direct financial assistance to Israel to zero. Israel is now a prosperous country that happens to be surrounded by military powers lacking any capacity to conquer it.

Read the whole thing.

The editors have assembed a set of responses to Posen's arguments, including: Francis Fukuyama, Josef Joffe, Walter Russell Mead, Niall Ferguson, Owen Harries, G. John Ikenberry, Lilia Shevtsova, Stephen D. Krasner, Wang Jisi, James Q. Wilson, Bronislaw Geremek, C. Raja Mohan, Ruth Wedgwood and Itamar Rabinovich.

Here's Wilson's rebuttal:

Barry Posen believes that the United States should follow a policy of restraint instead of activism. By “restraint” he means a defensive rather than offensive strategy in which the United States would avoid playing a leadership role, rely on intelligence operations rather than military force, withdraw troops from many overseas bases and count on deterrence for protection.

I believe that Posen’s argument is either unclear or wrong. It is vague to say that restraint should have been our policy since the beginning of the Cold War because he fails to discuss American military activities since that time, leaving us uncertain as to what he means. Which of the following should we not have done: Fight in Korea and Vietnam? Use a naval blockade to induce the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba? Force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? Send troops to Haiti in an effort to block a dictatorial regime? Overthrow a Marxist regime in Guatemala? Seize Manuel Noriega in Panama?

It is wrong to assert that our general policy should lead us to defer to others, supply logistical aid rather than use military force, avoid preemptive strikes in areas that tolerate Islamic radicals, not supply guarantees and assistance to allies, and counter al-Qaeda with intelligence operations rather than invasions. Doing these things would leave the world unprotected and confirm Osama bin Laden and others in their view that the United States, though still the Great Satan, is an impotent and helpless devil, no better than the Soviet Union that the mujaheddin threw out of Afghanistan.

Indeed, when we look at the last forty years, America has relentlessly, until the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed a policy of restraint. The Shah was overthrown in Iran, 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon, a CIA station chief was tortured and murdered there, the ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and an American was killed, Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Scotland, a bomb was detonated under the World Trade Center, two of our Embassies were destroyed in Africa, the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, and American soldiers were murdered in Somalia. When these and other attacks, all carried out by Islamic radicals, occurred, the United States did nothing except occasionally to lob a few cruise missiles into some empty buildings. By 1998, bin Laden had drawn the right conclusion. In an interview, he described the American military as a “paper tiger” who “after a few blows ran in defeat.”

The notion that these attacks could be handled by intelligence officers is laughable. I commend to Posen the new book by Tim Wiener, Legacy of Ashes (2007), about the failure of most covert operations undertaken by the CIA.

At the end of his proposal, Posen suggests that we eliminate all aid to Israel because it is surrounded by “military powers lacking any capacity to conquer it.” Lacking any capacity? Is he counting Iran after it acquires a nuclear weapon? Or even without that, he says little about the roughly $1.8 billion in aid we give Egypt every year—aid that, if continued, will make Egypt stronger by the time power there is seized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

When President George W. Bush clarified our commitment to preventive attacks—a policy that had in fact been in effect long before he took office—he said that “the war on terror will not be won on the defensive” because “time is not on our side.” This does not mean that we should intervene everywhere, but only where an intervention will make a decisive difference. Afghanistan was one such case, Iraq is another.

The struggle in Iraq has been costly, and it will not stop soon. But we have gained a great deal: We ended a regime that had in the past built and used—and if left alone would again have built and used—weapons of mass destruction; that invaded two neighboring countries; that murdered its own people with chemical weapons and summary executions; that provided aid to the families of terrorists; and that, if left alone, would have brought Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to heel. This was only possible because we exercised leadership and did not wait, with restraint, for others to pass yet another meaningless Security Council resolution.

I'd also suggest Niall Ferguson's response, where he notes that some of Posen's suggestions "would impress even Noam Chomsky, to say nothing of Osama bin Laden."

Media Silence on Progress in Iraq

Investor's Business Daily notes the strange silence in the mainstream press on progress in Iraq (via Memeorandum):

There's an eery silence out there about what's going on in Iraq. It's almost as if the silence is, well, intentional. Here are just a few examples of what we're talking about, pulled from last week's developments:

• In Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, British Major Gen. Graham Binns said that attacks against British and American forces have plunged 90% since the start of September.

• Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reported that terrorist attacks of all kinds are down almost 80% from last year's peak — thanks directly to the U.S. surge of 30,000 new troops.

• Amid growing signs that even Iraq extremists have tired of terrorism and killing, a Sunni religious group closed down the high-profile Muslim Scholars Association because of its ties to terrorists.

• U.S. Major Gen. James Simmons, speaking in Baghdad, said Iran's pledges to stop sending weapons and explosives into Iraq "appear to be holding up." Roadside bombs, the leading killer of U.S. troops, have plunged 52% since March, he added.

• Perhaps most touching, according to a report from Michael Yon, who deserves to be the first blogger to win a Pulitzer Prize, Muslims are asking Iraqi Christians to return to help build Iraq.

Iraqi Muslims recently crammed into St. John's Catholic church in Baghdad to attend a Christian service. According to Yon, "Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. 'Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.' "

• Finally, there's this from Douglas Halaspaska, a reporter on the Web site U.S. Cavalry ON Point: "I came to Ramadi expecting a war and what I found was a city that has grown from the carnage, and all its inhabitants — both Iraqi and American — healing. I was not expecting what I found in Iraq . . . it was better than all of that."

Again, all this has taken place just in recent days, weeks and months. The positive news has become simply overwhelming.

Which makes it all the more curious why major newspapers and network TV news programs can lead with a barrage of news out of Iraq when things there go bad, but can't seem to find the space or time when things turn good. As the bad news dries up, their interest in the good remains nil.

The editorial goes on to discuss the Democratic Party's "sheepishness" on the war (more on that here). Be sure to check out Michael Yon's online magazine.

Joseph Lieberman Matters

The major media ignored Senator Joseph Lieberman's major speech on the politics of Iraq last week. The Weekly Standard discusses why Lieberman's views matter for the 2008 presidential race:

If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:

Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.

The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .

Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.

. . . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.

Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?

Lieberman would make an outstanding vice-presidential running-mate. I would have preferred to see him running in the 2008 presidential primaries himself, as a Republican!

The Silver Neocon

Ron Silver, of television and movie fame, writes a blog over at Pajamas Media. He's got an interesting piece over there on his political philosophy, what he calls "revolutionary liberalism":

Often when I walked onto the set of the West Wing some of my colleagues would greet me with a chanting of “Ron, Ron, the neo-con.” It was all done in fun but it had an edge.

Since speaking in support of George Bush at the 2004 Republican convention I’ve become increasingly disadmired by members of my profession as well as many others. As of this writing my family tells me they still love me. I believe them, but stay tuned, as another presidential cycle is upon us.

I find myself increasingly amused as folks extrapolate my support for the Bush Doctrine and our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan to how I feel about everything. When backed into a corner I often describe my politics, quite snarkily I admit, as a little bit to the right of the left of center.

As far as I can tell, my politics, with regard to American foreign policy and projection of American power haven’t changed very much from what they’ve always been—what I would call revolutionary liberalism. I have always resisted reactionaries from the left or right, Democrat or Republican. At the moment, the reactionary forces on the left, the Democratic netroots and their supporters—Mickey Colitis from the Daily Cuss, MoveOn.org and the Moores and Sheehans—are more fearful to me than the traditional reactionary forces of the extreme right. And the Democratic Party seems to be listening to them.

Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate only eight years ago, gave an extraordinary speech on national security last week that the mainstream media did not cover. It’s a shame. And it’s a shame the Democratic Party shunned Lieberman and tried to defeat him in a primary. They made it clear that there is no place for him in the party he’s dedicated his life to. I’m a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

JFK reportedly remarked, “sometimes the party asks too much.” He was referring to the deal his Democratic Party made with southern segregationists to maintain control of Congress. His words are as true now as they were then. Sometimes the party asks too much.

I count myself firmly in the tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy…and yes, Reagan and George W. Bush. “Go anywhere, bear any burden,” “try to do our best to make a world safe for democracy.” Our national mission, a worthy and ennobling one, is to expand freedom where we can. These are revolutionary goals very much in keeping with our Founders’ vision. They are hardly conservative, let alone neo-conservative goals.

My reactionary former colleagues and friends were quite content with the status quo with Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world. I was not. Revolutionary, not reactionary. My friends sound a bit racist when they insist on Arab-Muslim incapacities to expand freedoms and maintain their faith. I believe the Arab world will work its way to achieve this. I know that it will most likely come about through internal Arab-Muslim struggles and not via external pressures, but I believe we are uniquely capable of helping it along. Uniquely, because our Founding scriptures declare, “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.” Revolutionary, not reactionary.

Many people felt that the threat posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him. I disagreed and still do. Many of these people now feel that the threat of a nuclear Iran is more tolerable than the risk involved in making sure Iran doesn’t have such capabilities. I think they have it backwards. Many people feel reluctant to acknowledge that the “war on terror” is a real war. There is an unwillingness to identify the enemy, which is clearly a world-wide, malignant, metastatic Islamic jihadism, that will only be defeated ultimately with the Islamic world rising to reject the cancer. We cannot fight a war by pretending we’re not in one. This requires transformative, upset the apple cart thinking. It requires people who are revolutionary, not reactionary. As much as we might like, we cannot return to a pre-9/11 world.

The President is challenging the world with a new order. There is always passionate opposition to change. Have grievous mistakes been made? Yes. But just as Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan laid the foundations for fighting and prevailing in the Cold War, Bush has responded to 9/11 with a foreign policy revolution of similar magnitude: a reorganization of government institutions and appropriate legislation to meet the emerging threats.

Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.

I believe the President’s critics are profoundly mistaken. I believe they misunderstand how he’s trying to protect us. I believe they misunderstand the nature of the threat. I believe they misunderstand history. If they succeed in dismantling what President Bush has set in motion, the results may well be catastrophic and history will never forgive them.

George W. Bush: a revolutionary liberal internationalist? History may so decree. Let’s wait and see.

My philosophy, at the end of the day, bottom line, as they say: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but labels never hurt me.”

That's an outstanding statement of values. The "Silver Neocon." Sounds like a superhero!

For further discussion of "the projection of American power," see my inaugural post, "Welcome to American Power."

Hat tip: Liberty Pundit.

CNN's Descent

Tim Rutten has a nice analysis of CNN's increasing descent from objective journalism, at the Los Angeles Times:

If you're one of those dutiful souls who felt that the responsible exercise of citizenship required you to watch Thursday's debate among the Democratic candidates on CNN, you probably came away feeling as if you'd spent a couple of hours locked in the embrace of a time share salesman.

We're not talking about the candidates here, but about the shamelessly high-pressure pitch machine that has replaced the Cable News Network's once smart and reliable campaign coverage. Was there ever a better backdrop than Las Vegas for the traveling wreck of a journalistic carnival that CNN's political journalism has become? And can there now be any doubt that, in his last life, Wolf Blitzer had a booth on the midway, barking for the bearded lady and the dog-faced boy?

It all would be darkly comedic if CNN's descent into hyperbole and histrionics simply represented a miscalculation in reportorial style, but it signals something else -- the network's attempt to position itself ideologically, the way Fox and MSNBC already have done. In fact, we now have a situation in which the three all-news cable networks each have aligned themselves with a point on the political compass: Fox went first and consciously became the Republican network; MSNBC, which would have sold its soul to the devil for six ratings points, instead found a less-demanding buyer in the Democrats. Now, CNN has decided to reinvent itself as the independent, populist network cursing both sides of the conventional political aisle -- along with immigrants and free trade, of course.

In other words, for the first time since the advent of television news as a major force in American life, the 2008 presidential campaign will be fought out with individual networks committed to particular political perspectives. Why does that matter? As far back as 2004, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that "cable now trails only local TV news as a regular source for (presidential) campaign information. In several key demographic categories -- young people, college graduates and wealthy Americans -- cable is the leading source for election news." Thus, for key segments of the electorate -- groups rich in what the pollsters call "likely voters" -- the main source of political news is now a partisan, or at least, a politicized one.

It would be one thing if all this had occurred as the result of conviction, but the conglomerates that own the cable news networks -- Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., GE and Time Warner -- don't have convictions. They have interests, particularly in ratings. They're all mindful of what occurred in the run-up to the last election, when -- as Pew found -- the reliably Republican Fox increased its audience by nearly half, from 17% to 25%, while audiences for CNN and MSNBC, then still nonpartisan, remained flat.

A Pew survey earlier this year found that all this has had its consequences: "Republicans outnumber Democrats by two-to-one (43% to 21%) among the core Fox News Channel audience, while there are far more Democrats than Republicans among CNN's viewers (43% Democrat, 22% Republican) and network news viewers (41% Democrat, 24% Republican)."

Because the ratings-driven world by which the cable networks now measure themselves feeds on the culture of celebrity, each now has a signature personality -- Bill O'Reilly on Fox, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the neopopulist Lou Dobbs on CNN. Among the three, Dobbs has been given the greatest license by the network's increasingly desperate executives. His endless fulminations against immigrants and free trade now have been interwoven into the fabric of CNN's political coverage, where Dobbs plays the role of both pundit and populist partisan. The network has relentlessly sold his new book, "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit," since it came out last week, despite the fact that it's quite clearly meant to give him a platform for his own political aspirations.

Read the whole thing.

I think Rutten should have continued his analysis with further discussion of the implications of a partisan press for American society. When the media becomes a partisan actor, it no longer works as a representative of the people; it no longer serves as a watchdog against corruption and malfeasance.

Rutten's right about hyperpartisanship and a market for mindless media mudslingling, but Lou Dobbs' presidential aspirations might have been handled in a stand-alone essay.

The True Costs of War

As the United States closes in on victory in Iraq, I'm noticing a new twist among antiwar types: Criticizing, for political purposes, the total costs of the war - financial, human, even opportunity costs.

Check out Eleanor Clift's essay over at Newsweek for a bit of this theme:

The Democratic-controlled Congress is once again trying to change the course of U.S. policy in Iraq; once again they've failed. Without 60 votes in the Senate, the latest war-funding bill, passed by a narrow margin in the House and with a quarter of the money requested by the White House, fell short—and President Bush has emerged the victor. We've seen this movie before, except this time it has a new wrinkle: a huge drop in public consciousness about Iraq.

It's happened in part because American casualties are way down—even though this year has been the bloodiest since the war began. The news media have backed off in their coverage, paying more attention to a prospective military clash with Iran and the Musharraf meltdown in Pakistan than the day-to-day turmoil in Iraq. "The media requires change, and the story hasn't changed," says Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. "People's mood about the war hasn't improved, but they aren't tracking it because they can't find it."

At a breakfast last week a reporter asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer if Democrats were so wedded to the story line of Iraq as a failure that they risked embarrassment if it turns out to be a success.

Whatever is meant by success in Iraq, it would have to be pretty spectacular to justify the $1.6 trillion that the war could cost by 2009, according to a report by the Joint Economic congressional committee, which includes such hidden costs as the interest on borrowed money to pay for the war and health care for tens of thousands of wounded. Administration planners assumed a certain number of injured and some dead, but not this many—not in a war billed as a cakewalk with grateful Iraqis strewing the path with flowers and candy. For the 3,859 fallen soldiers and their families, the cost, as they say in that American Express commercial, is priceless. With the exception of Cindy Sheehan, who took her rage public after losing her son, these families are hidden from view, partly because of their own choice, but also because of administration policy banning pictures of returning coffins and a society that too often prefers to look away.

Clift concludes her essay with a cursory discussion of the Iraq war in current cinema. Recent feature films on Iraq have bombed at the box office, most likely because the public's not going for antiwar moviemaking nihilism. Therefore, Clift focuses on the poignancy angle, suggesting that some releases are offering stories of "pain, loss and coping."

That's all well and good, even necesary: No American should dismiss the hardship our fighting forces have sustained. But we ought not feel sorry for them, and heartfelt films on the war should not be presented as surrogates for some broader national antiwar sentiment.

We are at a turning point in the war, where all of the costs we've borne as a nation are redounding to the benefit of the Iraqi people and to America's increasing international efficacy.

But one wouldn't know this by reading Tyler Cowen's essay over at the Washington Post, "What Does Iraq Cost? Even More Than You Think." Cowen offers some useful ways of thinking about the enormity of the war's costs to American society (for example, opportunity costs: What might we have done with war resources in the absence of the conflict?). But Cowen's agenda is deeper. His goal is to impugn the administration and discredit the cause of toppling Saddam's regime. We thus get more claims along the lines of it's "a disastrous war" based on "administration lies."

After laying out the bottom line, here's Cowen's indictment:

Following your lead, Iraq hawks argued that, in a post-9/11 world, we needed to take out rogue regimes lest they give nuclear or biological weapons to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups. But each time the United States tries to do so and fails to restore order, it incurs a high -- albeit unseen -- opportunity cost in the future. Falling short makes it harder to take out, threaten or pressure a dangerous regime next time around.

Foreign governments, of course, drew the obvious lesson from our debacle -- and from our choice of target. The United States invaded hapless Iraq, not nuclear-armed North Korea. To the real rogues, the fall of Baghdad was proof positive that it's more important than ever to acquire nuclear weapons -- and if the last superpower is bogged down in Iraq while its foes slink toward getting the bomb, so much the better. Iran, among others, has taken this lesson to heart. The ironic legacy of the war to end all proliferation will be more proliferation.

The bottom line is clear, Mr. President: The more you worried about the unchecked spread of doomsday weapons, the stronger you thought the case was for war in the first place. But precisely because you had a point about the need to stop nuclear proliferation, you must now realize that the costs of a failed war are far higher than you've acknowledged.

Ironically, it's probably the doves who should lower their mental estimate of the war's long-haul cost: By fighting a botched war today, the United States has lowered the chance that it will fight another preventive war in the near future. The American public simply does not have the stomach for fighting a costly, potentially futile war every few years. U.S. voters have already lost patience with the pace of reconstruction in Iraq, and that frustration will linger; remember, it took the country 15 years or more to "get over" Vietnam. The projection of American power and influence in the future requires that an impatient public feel good about American muscle-flexing in the past.

Even if the wisest way forward is sticking to our guns, the constraints of politics and public opinion mean that we cannot always see U.S. military commitments through. Since turning tail hurts our credibility so badly and leaves such a mess behind, we should be extremely cautious about military intervention in the first place. The case for hawkish behavior often assumes that the public has more political will than it actually has, so we need to save up that resolve for cases when it really counts.

Someone needs to break it to Cowen: This is a case that really counts. We are in Iraq to finish the job we began in 1991, and to enforce the will in the international community in sanctioning the Iraqi regime for frequent and egregious violations of U.N.-imposed sanctions. Rather than continue the tired old attacks on the origins and justification of the war, Americans need to be pulling together to compete the mission in national unity. That's the American way.

All wars are expensive, in all the financial and human totality of the word; and there's no discounting the burdens many Americans have shared in prosecuting this conflict.

But at some point the partisan rancor needs to stop. War opponents need to stand tall in facing our challenges, especially as a new American political alignment appears likely. The ulitmate cost of not doing so will be to continue the increasing and debilitating political polarization of foreign policy, precisely when the call of unity and purpose is at its loudest.

In Ron Paul We Trust?

Things just keep getting better for those monitoring Ron Paul's whacked out presidential campaign.

It turns out just days after Paul made a speech at a Philadelphia rally in front of the U.S. Mint's facilities in Philadelphia, federal agents seized a batch of about 60,000 "Ron Paul Dollars," copper coins decorated with the haggard image of the Texas congressman. The Washington Post has the story:

The ardent supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Texas libertarian whose campaign for the presidency is threatening to upend the battle for the Republican nomination, got word yesterday of a new source of outrage and motivation: reports of a federal raid on a company that was selling thousands of coins marked with the craggy visage of their hero.

Federal agents on Thursday raided the Evansville, Ind., headquarters of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code (Norfed), an organization of "sound money" advocates that for the past decade has been selling a private currency it calls "Liberty Dollars." The company says it has put into circulation more than $20 million in Liberty Dollars, coins and paper certificates it contends are backed by silver and gold stored in Idaho, are far more reliable than a U.S. dollar and are accepted for use by a nationwide underground economy.

Norfed officials said yesterday that the six-hour raid occurred just as its six employees were mailing out the first batch of 60,000 "Ron Paul Dollars," copper coins sold for $1 to honor the candidate, who is a longtime advocate of abolishing the Federal Reserve. The group says it has shipped out about 10,000 silver Ron Paul Dollars that sold for $20 and about 3,500 of the copper $1 coins. But it said the agents seized more than 50,000 of the copper coins -- more than two tons' worth -- plus smaller amounts of the silver coins and gold and platinum Ron Paul Dollars, which sell for $1,000 and $2,000.

"They took everything, all of the computers, everything but the desks and chairs," the company's founder and head, Bernard von NotHaus, said in a telephone interview from his home in Miami. "The federal government really is afraid." Von NotHaus changed the name of Norfed to Liberty Services earlier this year, but affidavits for government search warrants served yesterday continued to use the older name.

News of the raid lit up Ron Paul online forums yesterday, the latest unlikely episode in a campaign that began as an idiosyncratic bid by the veteran congressman but has grown into a cause with the potential to influence the GOP contest. Paul, 72, has attracted droves of disaffected Republicans and independents to his platform, which includes ending the war in Iraq, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and adhering to a strict libertarian interpretation of the Constitution.

He raised a record-breaking $4 million in a single day this month and nears double digits in some New Hampshire polls.

A Paul campaign spokeswoman said yesterday that the campaign has "no affiliation" with the Ron Paul Dollars. But Paul's supporters said the seizure of the coins is sure to further stoke support for the campaign.

"People are pretty upset about this," said Jim Forsythe, head of the Paul Meetup group in New Hampshire, who said he recently ordered 150 of the copper coins. "The dollar is going down the tubes, and this is something that can protect the value of their money, and the Federal Reserve is threatened by that. It'll definitely fire people up."

Here's Paul's speech at the U.S. Mint, via YouTube:

It turns out the Philadelphia crowd was filled with neo-nazis and skinheads. Paul's not returned the money he gets from the stormtroopers, nor has he denounced their support. I've blogged about Paul's whacked out campaign here, here, here, here, here, and here. See also Flopping Aces, on "More Ron Paul Nuttiness."

Some of the Paulite fringe have started to freak out, posting hare-brained attacks on me in their desperation. This is getting too easy!

**********

UPDATE: I really am getting to the Paulites! Check out this attack on my "neocon" credentials, at Conservatives Times (Ron Paul ringmaster's headquarters!).

Hillary Fights Back

Here's the YouTube introduction to the Democrats' Las Vegas debate, with Hillary Clinton denouncing her opponents' mudslinging attacks (drawn from "the Republican playbook"):

Dan Balz over at the Washington Post argues Hillary's quieted talk of her pitiful debate performance last week in Philadelphia:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.

"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."

Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."

Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.

The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.

I don't think there's much doubt that Clinton's got the Democratic nomination pretty much wrapped up. Obama looked befuddled in Las Vegas. He wasn't even cerebral, just mostly clumsy and limp.

Note as well that the liberal blogosphere is up in arms over CNN's planted questions, especially "diamonds or pearls"?

Can't make anyone happy nowadays, I guess!

Cut-and-Run Lives at the Old Grey Lady!

Unlike the editors of the Los Angeles Times, who at least recognized victory in Iraq before calling for a precipitous withrawal, the boys in the editorial office at the New York Times just can't seem to shake their relentless cut-and-run ideology:

It has been two long months since Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, cowed Congressional Democrats into silence, championing President Bush’s misguided course on the war. We’re pleased to see that the effects of his briefing are finally wearing off. The bad news, as ever, is that Mr. Bush and his Republican allies continue to resist reason.

House Democrats distinguished themselves this week when they stood up to the White House’s latest military funding steamroller: approving only $50 million of the additional $196 million the president requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also set conditions on the funding, including demands that troops start coming home from Iraq within 30 days and that the withdrawal be completed by mid-December 2008.

Senate Democrats quickly brought the House plan to the floor. But, ever the spoilers, Republicans blocked it, as they have other attempts to rein in Mr. Bush’s war-without-end in Iraq.

Predictably, the White House — which always prefers fear-mongering to serious debate — accused Democrats of undermining the troops. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates got into the act, threatening to direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts next year unless Congress approves new funding within days.

Lawmakers, regardless of party, and the American people will always stand behind the brave men and women in the armed forces. Congress has already approved some $800 billion in funding since Sept. 11, 2001, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that hardly measures the full cost in blood and treasure. More than 800 troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 alone, making it the deadliest year yet for the American military there.

There have been some advances since President Bush sought to salvage his misadventure by sending even more troops into Iraq. Violence has declined and Al Qaeda in Iraq is said to be weaker. But Mr. Bush’s main argument for his escalation — that it would create political space for Iraqis to work together and achieve national reconciliation — has proved wrong.

Even Mr. Bush’s generals know that these gains are unlikely to last. The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported this week that senior American commanders now see the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the American effort in Iraq — rather than Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias. America can’t want peace and democracy for Iraq more than the Iraqis.

Democrats say they will continue to push the president and his Republican allies to concede their failed war policy and change course. They must keep at it. It’s far past time to begin a swift and orderly withdrawal of forces from Iraq’s civil war and to refocus on Afghanistan, where America’s win over the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in danger of being reversed.

House Democrats distinguished themselves with their depressingly ill-considered antiwar withdrawal bill?

That's supposed to be funny, right? Maybe some of the comedy writers' on strike stopped-in over at the Old Grey Lady to liven the place up!

The Power of American Alliances

Charles Krauthammer's got a killer indictment of the Democratic Party's "our frayed alliances" meme, over at the Washington Post.

When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.

Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?

France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but also with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.

All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the past half-century.

So much for the disarray of our alliances.

Even before the elections of new leadership among our traditional alliance partners, the Democratic attack on the Bush administration's alliance relations was a myth. The U.S. had deep policy differences with a few alliance partners, but there's never been any serious expectation that our post-World War Two treaty partnerships were in danger of disintegration.

Not only that, the post-9/11 media infatuation with global anti-Americanism masqued a robust trend in pro-Americanism internationally, and in recent years American good will, in countries like Indonesia, has resulted in a burst of America-backing in international life.

Krauthammer notes, as well, that strategically-placed states in the Middle East are tightening their interests closer to those of the U.S. The reason, success in Iraq.

Giuliani's Gamble

Kimberly Strassel, over at the Wall Street Journal, argues that Rudy Giuliani's rolling the dice with his bold campaign strategy of skipping the early primary contests to focus on bigger states like Florida, California, and New York. It's a risky bet, because the frontloaded nomination process reward winners in Iowa and New Hampshire with tremendous momentum. Then why do it? What's Rudy's game?

Strassel's says he's got a plan, based on the campaign's prediction that electoral circumstances in 2008 are different:

Changed circumstance No. 1 is this year's hypercompressed primary season. Whereas winners once got to bask in the glow of their early victories - and rake in the cash - for many weeks before Super Tuesday, this year they'll get to bask a few hours. Mr. Giuliani's Florida, his "firewall" where he has spent his biggest chunk of cash and currently holds a 17-point lead over Mr. Romney, will take place on Jan. 29, just 10 days after South Carolina.

Meanwhile the races on Giga Tuesday (Feb. 5) alone, which include other big Giuliani prospects such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, represent nearly half the delegates necessary to secure the nomination. The Giuliani bet is that the time frame has collapsed enough that he can check any rival "momentum" by cleaning up big in the mega-states.

Changed circumstance No. 2 is the unusual nature of the Republican field itself, in which there is no clear front-runner and voter confusion. Evangelical endorsements are scattered. Terrorism is also making its debut in a Republican primary, and has splintered the usual cohesion of social conservatives and single-issue voters. No one candidate has been able to break away, which means no one is likely to emerge with early landslide victories. Mr. Giuliani is counting that this muddle will deny a Mr. Romney or Fred Thompson the decisive victories they'd need to later challenge in bigger states. It might also allow the mayor some respectable finishes in the early races.

Finally, there's Mr. Giuliani, superstar. The big seduction of the early primaries is that they allow candidates who aren't well known to catapult into the news, thereby becoming household names. Thanks to September 11, Mr. Giuliani is right up there in household names with Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. While a onetime Southern governor like Mr. Huckabee has to get a ticket out of Iowa if he wants a shot, Mr. Giuliani may have more flexibility.

The caveats? The New Yorker's ability to pull this off hinges on his ability to truly clean up in the mega-states. His campaign is already boasting that his leads in some of those places are "momentum-proof." But that's the sort of bold statement that borders on hubris. Even with a sped-up primary schedule, five hard-fought contests (the usual three, plus Nevada and Michigan) will still go down before the nation ever bats an eye at Florida. Allowing a campaign to go 0 for 5 in the run-up to that big day gives a new meaning to the word "risk."

The very idea is apparently giving even the Giuliani campaign the cold sweats. So much so that now that the mayor has built up his position in the bigger states, he's working backward. Yesterday the campaign unveiled its first television ad, and its home will be . . . New Hampshire. It's even hinting it hopes to take the state.

This is itself risky. Of all the early plays, New Hampshire's the best bet for Mr. Giuliani, and his TV spot about his economic and crime success in New York is designed to appeal to state Republicans looking for a fiscally sound tough guy. Think of it, too, as a potential death blow to one or more competitors. Mr. Giuliani sure is. Mr. Romney needs to show he can win in his own backyard (and he currently holds a double-digit lead), while John McCain continues to count on the state he won by 19 points in 2000. The downside is that the Giuliani campaign is now playing the expectations game, and losing will only give a boost to the winner.

Primaries are inherently unpredictable, and Mr. Giuliani's foes have no intention of letting the mayor set the rules. But win or lose, Mr. Giuliani deserves marks for daring to play big.

I don't know if I'd be willing bet as big as Giuliani. My advice would be to put more chips on the New Hampshire table. Some polls have Giuliani trailing Romney by just bit over 10 percent. Even if he can't take out Romney in the Granite state, a strong second there ought to keep his campaign rolling long enough the pocket some big victories on February 2, 2008, next year's de facto national primary.

Memo to Ron Paul Supporters

Mona Charen, in a nifty "Memo to Ron Paul Supporters" over at Townhall, argues that Paul's a kook. Check it out:

Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?

Charen also swiftly rebuts Paul's strange claim to draw on President Eisenhower and a supposed legacy of Republican isolationism. She briefly notes as well how unserious are Paul's proposals for the elimination of such agencies as the CIA.

But you've got to love this part:

Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."

Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.

No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.

I've noted many times Paul's whacked out views, and his support among extremist elements on both sides of the poltical spectrum (see here, here, here, here, and here).

The Democratic Debate in Las Vegas

Here's Chris Cillizza's take on Hillary Clinton's perfomance last night at the Las Vegas Democratic debate:

Clinton's performance in tonight's debate will quiet (if not totally silence) talk that her campaign is struggling. Clinton set the tone early on by pushing back aggressively against Obama and Edwards and, in our mind, got the best of both exchanges. She was clearly aided by a sympathetic crowd who decided early on that they weren't interested in watching the candidates fight. As a result, Clinton largely got a pass on her three biggest weaknesses: her equivocation on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, her vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and her vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq. On a question about playing the gender card -- another potential problem area -- Clinton was clearly prepared and delivered her line of the night: "People are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I am ahead."

The New York Times' Caucus blog's got more:

The short answer to the question on everyone’s mind is this: She did better than last time. Hillary Rodham Clinton may not have been electric, but she was back on solid ground after having wobbled in the last debate two weeks ago.

I suggested to my students during lecture yesterday that Clinton was too cerebral in her reponses at the Philadelphia debate, which resulted in contradictory statements, and well-deserved attacks by her opponents. Last night we saw Slick Hillary, obviously primed to deflect a reprise of last week's line of fire. She came off scripted, but kept her demeanor as the campaign's frontrunner, and the one to beat.

**********

UPDATE: CNN says Clinton's recovered from last week. See also the hot posts on Clinton (she was sorta for immigrant driver's licenses before she was against them ) and the "Communist News Network."

Democrats Must Cope With Victory in Iraq

James Ceaser, at the Weekly Standard, argues that the Democrats face a monumental dilemma in the politics of foreign policy: How will they cope with U.S. victory in the Iraq war:

WILL ANY OF the Democratic candidates be able to summon the courage to concede an American victory in Iraq?

No one, of course, can know the ultimate outcome of this long war. But the vaunted "facts on the ground" now at least admit a trend leading to what might reasonably be called victory: a suppression of the insurgency; a steep reduction in the level of domestic, sectarian violence; the existence of a constitutional government not unfriendly to America; a gradual reduction of American force presence with diminishing American casualties; and the assurance for a period of a continued base of operations from which to handle other possible contingencies in the region.

But if this outcome "on the ground" can be called victory--and why should it not be?--there is a huge potential problem looming in our ability to acknowledge it. Generic opinion polls for the presidential election all indicate a much better than even chance that a Democrat will be elected president next year. All of the Democrats now have been running on a platform that, if it does not recognize defeat, certainly does not envisage victory. And moving beyond the candidates, a large part of the Democratic base is heavily invested in defeat, which is seen as condign punishment for a despised president.

Imagine then the dilemma facing a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. It might be too much to think that steps would be taken to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, although a lack of firm policies and rigor in the endgame could have that effect. More plausibly, if victory is near, could the new president proclaim it and cement its benefits for America's future strategic role? Could the new president suspend his or her disbelief and accord the full measure of praise to a general who had saved the day? Could that president give full honor to the American troops, not just for their service--that's always easy--but for their achievement in winning. Could that president show up on an Army bases and declare, in full-throated pride, well-done and mission accomplished?

Historians can cite many instances of nations that have been pulled apart by the difficulty of dealing with defeat in war. Will America be the rare case of a nation that is unable to cope with a victory?

Note first that Ceaser's piece is another sign that more and more commentators are speaking of an impending American victory in Iraq (see my earlier post, "Victory in Iraq? The War Has Been Won").

Now what should the Democrats do? That's easy: They need to reject the white flag politics of their nihilist, antiwar base and embrace the phenomenal success of America's fighting men and women in Iraq.

Ceaser makes a good point, though: Republicans need to give the Democrats political space to integrate victory into the party's talking points. It will not be necessary for Democrats to fully disown their last four years of criticisms and recriminations; and the party can be in fact heartened by its politcal victory in winning control of Congress (and its likely win of the presidency in 2008). But a strong Democratic leader must step forward to denounce the party's defeatist base, repudiating the politics of partisan destruction in foreign affairs.

I would add that this very leader needs to be unequivocal in announcing America's lasting support to the Iraqis in the consolidation of their democratic regime.

Democrats Revive Antiwar Push in Congress

House Democrats have renewed their antiwar efforts in Congress. The Los Angeles Times has the story:

Nearly two months after Democrats suspended their legislative push to force a withdrawal from Iraq, House Democratic leaders restarted their campaign Wednesday with a measure to compel President Bush to bring troops home.

But with Republican resistance to congressional intervention in the war stronger than ever, there appears little chance that this gambit will advance any further than previous failed efforts.

On Wednesday, a $50-billion war funding bill that would order the president to start withdrawing troops within 30 days and set a goal of completing the pullout by the end of next year passed, 218 to 203.

It attracted just four Republican votes, dozens short of a two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.

And in the closely divided Senate, many Democrats concede that they probably won't get close to the 60 votes necessary to end a promised filibuster, which would effectively kill the bill.

"They seem determined to keep bringing up resolutions that they know the president won't agree to," said Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a moderate Republican who has urged Bush to adopt a new strategy in Iraq but has rejected all timelines. "We look pretty silly when we lecture Baghdad on being in political stalemate and insist on staying in one ourselves."

Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino accused congressional Democrats of planning "to send the president a bill that they know he will veto."

"This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," she said.

Democratic leaders countered that they had the broader public on their side. "Democrats are committed to bringing the American people what they deserve and demand," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). "An end to President Bush's 10-year, trillion-dollar war."

Pelosi's obviously got no new ideas or initiatives, and the Democratic Party keeps rolling out the tired old meme that "the public's demanding withdrawal."

See also the commentary over at Michelle Malkin and Memeorandum.

Capabilities or Intentions? Defense Priorities and Realistic Threat Assessment

Richard Betts has a thought-provoking piece on military spending in the current Foreign Affairs, "A Disciplined Defense." Here's the introduction:

If Rip Van Winkle had fallen asleep in the Pentagon's budgeting office 20 years ago and awoke today, his first reaction would be that nothing had changed. President George W. Bush has asked for $505 billion for the peacetime U.S. military establishment in 2008 -- almost exactly the amount, in real dollars, that President Ronald Reagan sought in 1988. Rip would start scratching his head, however, when he discovered that the Soviet empire and the Soviet Union itself had imploded more than 15 years ago and that Washington now spends almost as much on its military power as the rest of the world combined and five times more than all its potential enemies together. Told that Pentagon planners were nonetheless worried about overstretch and presidential candidates were vying to pledge even higher budgets and even larger forces, Rip's head might just explode.

The current strains on resources and forces are due, of course, to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the costs of those wars are not included in the half-trillion-dollar "baseline" figure noted above. A supplemental request for an extra $142 billion covers them, bringing the total 2008 military budget request to a whopping $647 billion -- a budget more than 25 percent larger, in real terms, than the one for 1968, at the height of combat in Vietnam, a bigger and bloodier conflict than any the United States has seen since. And even that total figure does not include the $46 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Security, whose functions would be handled by the Defense Ministry in many other countries.

How would one answer Rip's inevitable questions about what is going on? One might note that everything costs more these days. And one might argue that even so, military spending takes up less of GDP today than it did during the Cold War -- 4.2 percent today compared with 5.8 percent in 1988 and 9.4 percent in 1968. But when pressed, one would have to concede that Washington spends so much and yet feels so insecure because U.S. policymakers have lost the ability to think clearly about defense policy.

In recent years, U.S. national security policy has responded to a visceral sense of threat spawned by the frightening intentions of the country's enemies rather than to a sober estimate of those enemies' capabilities and what it would take to counter them effectively. The United States faces very real dangers today and potentially bigger ones in the future, but these are not threats that can be tamed by current spending on the most expensive components of military power.

U.S. political leaders, meanwhile, have forgotten the craft of balancing commitments and resources responsibly. Nobody younger than 80 can remember a peacetime United States without vast standing armed forces, even though that was the norm for the first 150 years of the republic. So the post-Cold War situation does not seem as odd as it should. Contractors who live off the defense budget have also become more adept at engineering political support by spreading subcontracts around the maximum number of congressional districts. And the traditional constituencies for restrained spending in both major political parties have evaporated, leaving the field free for advocates of excess.

The last two U.S. presidents, finally, have embraced ambitious goals of reshaping the world according to American values but without considering the full costs and consequences of their grandiose visions. The result has been a defense budget caught between two stools: higher than needed for basic national security but far lower than required to eliminate all villainous governments and groups everywhere. The time has come to face the problem squarely. The sole coherent rationale for increasing military spending -- to try and run a benign American empire -- is dangerously misguided. But a more modest and sensible national security strategy can and should be purchased at a lower price.

Read the whole thing.

Betts' game is to deflate current threat assessments in support of cutting defense spending. He argues that contemporary proponents of a forward military role suffer from historical amnesia, that the country faces dangers today nowhere near the magnitude of America's Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. What Betts doesn't note, though, is that there were officials at the time who argued we weren't doing enough back then to adequately fund defense priorities.

The United States certainly needs more clear thinking on defense priorities. Of particular concern is our need to rebuild and strengthen the Army and Marines who've borne the brunt of current war-fighting. Betts' article, however, bolsters the case for liberal retrenchment hawks and opponents of the administration's war in Iraq.

Fortunately, some of the GOP candidates, not persuaded by left-leaning retrenchment arguments, are proposing hikes in defense spending and boosts in military manpower.

The Political Psychology of Bush Hatred

Peter Berkowitz has a great piece up day over at the Wall Street Journal on Bush hatred in American politics:

Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. The people, or various factions among them, have indulged in Clinton hatred, Reagan hatred, Nixon hatred, LBJ hatred, FDR hatred, Lincoln hatred, and John Adams hatred, to mention only the more extravagant hatreds that we Americans have conceived for our presidents.

But Bush hatred is different. It's not that this time members of the intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.

This distinguishing feature of Bush hatred was brought home to me on a recent visit to Princeton University. I had been invited to appear on a panel to debate the ideas in Princeton professor and American Prospect editor Paul Starr's excellent new book, "Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism." To put in context Prof. Starr's grounding of contemporary progressivism in the larger liberal tradition, I recounted to the Princeton audience an exchange at a dinner I hosted in Washington in June 2004 for several distinguished progressive scholars, journalists, and policy analysts.

To get the conversation rolling at that D.C. dinner--and perhaps mischievously--I wondered aloud whether Bush hatred had not made rational discussion of politics in Washington all but impossible. One guest responded in a loud, seething, in-your-face voice, "What's irrational about hating George W. Bush?" His vehemence caused his fellow progressives to gather around and lean in, like kids on a playground who see a fight brewing.

Reluctant to see the dinner fall apart before drinks had been served, I sought to ease the tension. I said, gently, that I rarely found hatred a rational force in politics, but, who knows, perhaps this was a special case. And then I tried to change the subject.

But my dinner companion wouldn't allow it. "No," he said, angrily. "You started it. You make the case that it's not rational to hate Bush." I looked around the table for help. Instead, I found faces keen for my response. So, for several minutes, I held forth, suggesting that however wrongheaded or harmful to the national interest the president's policies may have seemed to my progressive colleagues, hatred tended to cloud judgment, and therefore was a passion that a citizen should not be proud of being in the grips of and should avoid bringing to public debate. Propositions, one might have thought, that would not be controversial among intellectuals devoted to thinking and writing about politics.

But controversial they were. Finally, another guest, a man I had long admired, an incisive thinker and a political moderate, cleared his throat, and asked if he could interject. I welcomed his intervention, confident that he would ease the tension by lending his authority in support of the sole claim that I was defending, namely, that Bush hatred subverted sound thinking. He cleared his throat for a second time. Then, with all eyes on him, and measuring every word, he proclaimed, "I . . . hate . . . the . . . way . . . Bush . . . talks."

And so, I told my Princeton audience, in the context of a Bush hatred and a corollary contempt for conservatism so virulent that it had addled the minds of many of our leading progressive intellectuals, Prof. Starr deserved special recognition for keeping his head in his analysis of liberalism and progressivism. Then I got on with my prepared remarks.

But as at that D.C. dinner in late spring of 2004, so again in early autumn 2007 at dinner following the Princeton panel, several of my progressive colleagues seized upon my remarks against giving oneself over to hatred. And they vigorously rejected the notion. Both a professor of political theory and a nationally syndicated columnist insisted that I was wrong to condemn hatred as a passion that impaired political judgment. On the contrary, they argued, Bush hatred was fully warranted considering his theft of the 2000 election in Florida with the aid of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore; his politicization of national security by making the invasion of Iraq an issue in the 2002 midterm elections; and his shredding of the Constitution to authorize the torture of enemy combatants.

Of course, these very examples illustrate nothing so much as the damage hatred inflicts on the intellect. Many of my colleagues at Princeton that evening seemed not to have considered that in 2000 it was Al Gore who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors. Nor did many of my Princeton dinner companions take into account that between the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 of 16 higher court judges--five of whom were Democratic appointees--found equal protection flaws with the recount scheme ordered by the intermediate Florida court. And they did not appear to have pondered Judge Richard Posner's sensible observation, much less themselves sensibly observe, that while indeed it was strange to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide a presidential election, it would have been even stranger for the election to have been decided by the Florida Supreme Court.

This is all very frustrating.

Berkowitz's discussion reminds me of my own recent experience as a panelist at a town hall meeting on the Iraq war. The left-wing participants on the panel fit perfectly into the mold of the irrational Bush-hating intellectual Berkowitz describes.

Majority of Blacks Cite Individual Factors in Plight of Lower-Income African-Americans

Today's Los Angeles Times discusses the results of an important Pew Research Center poll that finds black Americans citing individual-level factors in the economic difficulties of lower-income African-Americans:

A majority of black Americans blame individual failings -- not racial prejudice -- for the lack of economic progress by lower-income African Americans, according to a survey released Tuesday -- a significant change in attitudes from the early 1990s.

At the same time, black college graduates say the values of middle-class African Americans are more closely aligned with those of middle-class whites than those of lower-income blacks, the poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found.

And 40% of those surveyed said African Americans could no longer be viewed as a single community.

The report said that in 1994, 60% of African Americans believed racial prejudice was the main thing keeping blacks from succeeding economically. Only 33% blamed the individual. Though views on the issue have shifted over time, this was the first year that a majority of blacks, 53%, said individuals were responsible for their own condition.

The original Pew Research Center poll is here.

I'm pleased with the black majority finding on individual responsibility, although overall I'm not that impressed with the survey. Too many blacks - 60 percent - continue to see racism as a dominating presence in the contemporary life chances of African-Americans. (This is a nationally representative sample as well, so it's likely that academic multiculturalism - the ideology of the racially oppressed - had little influence on lingering perceptions of institional racism.)

Ron Paul's Storm Troopers

Ron Paul's in the news again this week, following his big fundraising haul on November 5. The Chicago Tribune discusses the Paul campaign liftoff:

No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq -- or anywhere else on foreign soil.

The Internal Revenue Service would be history in the first week that Ron Paul sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. And the dismantling of the above-mentioned entities and relationships -- plus a long list of others -- soon would commence.

Think that sounds eccentric, strange, even crazy? Many of the libertarian-minded, 10-term congressman's rivals for the GOP presidential nomination think so and have said so.

But, to a growing, Internet-based pool of supporters, the silver-haired obstetrician turned politician is the sanest man at the Republican debates and perhaps in all of Congress. Paul attracts an unusual political potpourri of people of all ages and viewpoints, including a sprinkling of conspiracy theorists and other extremists whose views Paul's campaign disavows. While most supporters ardently oppose the Iraq war, what they all share is a deep disenchantment and distrust of the federal government in its present form and a fervent belief in Paul's plans to change it.

On Nov. 5, they demonstrated their passion for Paul in spectacular fashion, raising $4.2 million, mostly online, in 24 hours, rocketing him close to his $12 million goal for the fourth quarter. In terms of 2008 GOP presidential candidates, Paul's take broke the previous one-day record of $3.1million set by Mitt Romney Jan. 8.

Hammering home a singular message of freedom, free markets, smaller federal government and greater personal responsibility, Paul, at 72, is nothing if not consistent. Personally, he seems very much the same in a one-on-one conversation as he does on the stump: earnest, serious and slightly stunned. Although pleasant, he, unlike most politicians, makes no effort to charm. He leaves an impression that he is out to sell ideas, not himself.

Andrew Walden over at the American Thinker penetrates deep into the Paul internet contributor base to unearth the group remants of the shady side of American politics:

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.

Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.

Paul's fringe element support's not only among far right strom troopers:

Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.

An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America." MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy"....

The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories.

The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.

Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't. Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11". Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic."

See my earlier posts on the Paul campaign, here, here, here, and here.

Paul is endlessly fascinating, from a political science perspective in particular. His campaign is like a real-world laboratory on extremist ideology. We sometimes forget all the nasty strangeness lurking in the subterranean fringe of the American electorate. Paul's candidacy brings out the loons, demonstrating the weird power of internet advocacy in a time of political dealignment and policy discontent.

**********

UPDATE: Be sure to check this Buzztracker link, which has an aggregation of some top blog posts on American Thinker's, "The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters."