politics1

Will Bush Nuke Iran?

2006-03-16T22:42:00.000-08:00

Bush is apparently preparing to destroy nuclear targets in Iran with airstrikes, including using nuclear bombs. Invading Iran is impossible because the U.S. army and marines are tied up in Iraq fighting an insurgency among five million Sunnis. Iran has a population of about 67 million. Since an invasion won't work, the idea, it seems, is to destroy potential nuclear sites from the air. The U.S. can probably do this. The Israeli's did it to Iraq some time ago, and the U.S. has unrivaled air and sea power.

However, one of the key facilities is 75 ft. underground, too deep for conventional weapons, so the plan is to nuke Iran. The Bush administration denies this, but they denied planning for the invasion of Iraq when such planning was in full swing. It's hard to believe them now. Furthermore, nuking Iran is exactly the sort of disastrous mistake the Bush administration is fond of -- taking a bad situation and making it much worse by expanding the war. To try to stop this idiocy, send email to comments@whitehouse.gov.

There are some serious consequences to a nuclear stike on Iran. First, we will be at war with Iran and the nuclear gloves will be off. Iran has plenty of materials for dirty bombs and excellent contacts in the suicide terrorist business. We should expect to lose at least a couple of cities. The price of oil will go through the roof, of course. Finally, Iran is allied with the largest political parties in Iraq and can make southern Iraq very hot, too hot to get supplies through. Our army in Iraq may have to withdraw through Turkey. Second, the world will be aghast that we nuked a country that never attacked us. Expect a world wide boycott of US good leading to serious economic problems. It's even possible that foreign banks will stop funding our deficit, which will rapidly bankrupt the federal government.

Before launching any attack, much less a nuclear one, it might be a good idea to look at a map. Iran is perfectly positioned to make Iraq and Afganistan much, much more difficult for the U.S. and perhaps even cut off oil from the Mid-East.

Most of America's ground forces are tied up in Iraq fighting an insurgency in the Sunni Triangle. The Sunni Triangle has a population of perhaps five million. Further to the south, about 15 million Shia muslims have been fairly quiet. Iran is the center of the Shia branch of Islam and borders the Shia portion of Iraq. Furthermore, the most influential Shia muslim is the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. Sistani was born in Iran and many candidates in the slate he supports have close ties to Iran. Furthermore, religious Shia's have won the last two Iraqi elections and control the government.

If the U.S. attacks Iran, it is extremely likely that the Shia of Iraq will rise up against the occupation. Iran will almost certainly support them over the long and porous border between the two countries. We are having a lot of trouble with five million Sunnis with no overt state support, how are we going to fare when 15 million Shias join them with heavy Iranian backing?

The Republicans seem to think that if they bomb Iran, the Iranian people will rise up against their oppressive religious leaders. I suppose it's possible, but in all of history no people have ever been bombed into regime change. It has always required ground forces. Furthermore, the immediate reaction of most peoples when bombed is to rally around thier leaders, even unpopular incompetant ones. Note that in Iraq the Republicans believed that they would face little opposition, and at first that seemed to be true. Saddam's army simply evaporated. Today, however, we face a determined, capable, and effective insurgency and our control of the Sunni Triangle doesn't exist.

Then there's Afganistan. Iran helped the U.S. take over Afganistan. Iran had no love for the Taliban and was in a position to help because Iran and Afganistan have a long, poorly controlled common border. This same border is perfect for supplying an insurgency. To date, it does not appear that Iran has helped the Afan insurgents much in spite of friction with the U.S. If we attack Iran, that will certainly change. We should assume that Afganistan will become much more difficult to control requiring far more U.S. troops.

Most of the oil from the Mid-East passes through the Persian Gulf. Persia is basically another word for Iran. Iran borders the Persian Gulf for hundreds of miles. Tankers taking oil from the gulf must pass through the Strait of Hormuz at the end of the Persian Gulf. About 90% of Persian Gulf oil takes this route. The Straight of Hormuz is quite narrow. Iranians are quite clever. There's a good chance they'll find a way to close the strait if they find themselves at war with the U.S.

The Republicans are thinking about going to war with Iran even though America is already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Great generals divide their enemies and destroy them one piece at a time. Hilter lost the Second World War by taking on Russia before finishing Britian off. Even if you think the war on al Qaeda can be won by invading various countries, the Republicans were stupid to attack Iraq before finishing the job in Afganistan. Attacking Iran before winning in Iraq and Afganistan is even stupider.

For better government ...

2006-01-28T12:10:00.000-08:00

put (almost) everything on the Web, freely available to everyone, searchable by the Googles, Yahoos, and Microsofts of the world. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the light of day makes corruption, lies, and incompetence harder to maintain.

When you work, your boss has the right to monitor your email, your hard disk, your communications with others, your web browsing, etc. The government works for us, and we have the same rights any boss has. We need to waive those rights in some obvious cases, CIA agent names, military plans and personnel records come to mind, but everything else we need to see, and the only way to deliver the vast governent information troves to 300 million people is the Web.

At a minimum, the following should go on the Web immediately (with exceptions for national security):

- Every document subject the Freedom of Information Act.

- Every bill before Congress, every draft of every bill, every document produced by the Congressional staff.

- Video, transcripts, and audio of every committe meeting and session of Congress, and the same for all executive meetings

- Every lobbyist name, everything they give to lawmakers (or the administration), and the time and place of every meeting. Video and audio of meetings would be nice.

There is no need to organize the data. The search engines of the world will do that for us. Still, even just dumping the data on the Web will cost something. We'll make it all back the first time a lobbyist decides not to bribe a Senator with a a $100K campaign contribution in exchange for a billion dollar tax break.

There's no need to limit this to the U.S. federal government. Why not your city? The states? These are easier because there are no national security concerns, so just put everything (except personnel records) on the Web. But why stop at our borders? How about the U.N? The E.U.? Other countries? If Web publication of all government doings became the norm, we'd have a much, much better world.

If you have the time, run for mayor or head of the local school board. If you win, implement immediate Web publication of everything. Once it get's started, the idea will spread. The world will be a much better place for it.

George Bush said ...

2006-01-23T19:06:00.000-08:00

George Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). There were no WMD in Iraq.

George Bush said Saddam Hussain was working with Osama bin Laden. That was false.

George Bush said Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Africa. Not only was that false, the CIA knew it was false well before George made the claim.

George Bush said he'd get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Four years later, Osama is still at large.

George Bush said "who knew the levees [in New Orleans] would break?" It turns out just about everyone thought the levees would probably break. Furthermore, Bush was caught on video being told that the levees would break.

I don't know if Bush is lying or has his facts wrong. In any case, I think that the Presidency is a no-excuses job. I want the truth, not lame BS like "How could I know?" or "Everyone else thought so too."

George Bush has been dead wrong about so many important things. Why does anyone believe him about anything?

The End of War?

2006-01-01T11:02:00.000-08:00

I think that this may be the last century blighted by war. Consider that 100 years ago the great powers were willing, even eager, to fight each other. Today, none of the great powers have any desire to go to war with another.

Almost all recent international wars were created by powerful countries (usually the U.S. [reference]) invading smaller ones. Furthermore, with the exception of some U.S. invasions, all cross-border aggression in recent decades have failed. Failure doesn't tend to repeat, so most of the problem invovles restraining the U.S. This the American people have the power to do and, in spite of recent setbacks, I have great faith in America. As Churchill is once reported to have said "America always does the right thing, having first exhausted the alternatives."

This leaves civil wars, who's erradication may consume most of the century. Fortunately, the rapid expansion of world-wide prosperity and the increasing ubiquity of very powerful information technology is making oppression and corruption more and more difficult to execute. Combine this with a general acceptance of democracy as the preferred form of government since the defeat of the Communism in the Cold War, and we should see substantially reduced oppression and better government leading to fewer civil wars.

Background information:

* The great powers of a hundred years ago, England, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Turkey and Italy, went into World War I willingly and with great enthusiasm.

* Today's great powers include the U.S., England, France, Russia, China, and Japan.

* Recent invasions include Grenada, Panama, Haiti (twice), Iraq (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iran, Kuwait, Chad, Falklands, and Tibet.

* Recent invasion failures include the Soviets in Afghanistan, Libya in Chad, Iraq in Iran, Iraq in Kuwait, and Argentina in the Falklands.

Iraq: win or leave

2005-12-09T21:38:00.000-08:00

First, a couple of indisputable facts that every discussion of the Iraq war must be based on. 1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 2. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD - biological, chemical, or nuclear), 3. U.S. occupation of Iraq infuriates many ordinary Arabs, 4. Infuriated Arabs have a tendency to become al Qaeda terrorists. Now for the meat of this article.

By now it's pretty clear that Bush and the Republicans have got us into a real mess in Iraq. There appear to be no good outcomes. Even if the insurgency was defeated, a very unlikely prospect, the elected government is aligning itself with Iran -- our most bitter enemy in the region.

There are three options:

1. Continue with the current policy leading to one of several bad outcomes.

2. Get out and accept the consequencies of our mistakes.

3. Do what it takes for military victory and a complete rebuilding of Iraq. This will probably require a couple of million U.S. soldiers and trillions of tax dollars. That means the draft, very large tax increases, and very large spending cuts.

Let's take a look at the options.

Continue with the current policy: ~150,000 troops, ~$2 billion a year, "stay the couse". Possible outcomes include:

1. Unlikely: military defeat. The insurgency appears to be getting stronger and it is becoming increasingly diffiult to supply U.S. troops. For example, essentially all supply trucks in the Sunni Triangle must now be armored. If the insurgency can shut down resupply, the U.S. will have no choice but to withdraw or die of thirst.

2. Most likely: more of the same. The US army has admitted that they cannot win militarily. The Republicans have repeatedly claimed that political progress in the future will improve things, but Saddam's capture, transfer of 'sovereignty,' and elections have failed to weaken the insurgency at all. The insurgents can't beat the U.S. in battle, so you get a stalemate. Lot's of folks get killed, things get blown up, America hangs on to military bases in Iraq, and the quagmire deepens. The longer the quagmire continues, the more terrorists al Qaeda can recruit. It's very likely that recruitment vastly exceeds the number of terrorist killed, meaning we're very likely losing the war with al Qaeda.

3. Least likely: military victory. The insurgents are defeated and the democratically elected, Shia dominated government gains control of the country. The Shia leadership, however, are very closely tied to Iran. They share religious beliefs and many spent the Saddam years there. Iran is a bitter enemy of the U.S. Worse, they have good reason to hate us. The Eisenhower administration overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953, America supported the subsequent dictatorship of the Shah, Reagan supported Saddam in his war of agression against Iran in the 1980's, and a U.S. naval ship shot down a civilian 747 taking off from Tehran's airport killing almost 300 innocent people. Newsflash: an alliance between Iraq and Iran is not in the U.S.'s interests.

There is one ray of hope. Wes Clark wrote an excellent article suggesting a way forward [see article]. He suggests applying the lessons learned in previous conflicts, recruiting 10,000 Arab-Americans with language skills so the troops can talk to the Iraqi people, a realistic diplomatic course shorn of grandious aims to transform the region, longer tours for civilian reconstruction personel, and other approaches.

This might conceivably work if implemented very soon and applied for a long time, but the Bush administration will run the show for the next three years and has shown unbelievable incompetence so far. Without regime change in the U.S. (not recommended) there is little hope of such a sensible approach. It probably won't work anyway because the Iraqis must be awful sick of Americans who can't speak the language, don't understand the culture, who shoot the wrong Iraqis, blow up the wrong homes, arrest the wrong people, occasionally torture Iraqis, and generally make a mess of things.

Leave: A new government is supposed to be elected in December. Give them a year to get their act together before leaving, but start a minimal withdraw now. This hands victory to the insurgents; and al Qaeda is sure to claim responsibility. However, the insurgency is almost certainly driven by the presence of a foreign, infidel, occupying army (the U.S.). After all, if an Iraqi army were occupying America I would either be killing Iraqi soldiers or feeling like a coward. I imagine Iraqis feel pretty much the same about U.S. soldiers. If the insurgents are convinced the U.S. will leave soon, most will probably decide risking their lives for something that will happen anyway is a little silly. Once Iraqis are convinced the U.S. is leaving the insurgency will probably fade fairly quickly.

The Shias that dominate the elected government control powerful militias and will have U.S. and Iranian support. The government might very well survive, leaving a more-or-less democratic, Saddam-free Iraq, albeit allied with Iran. Alternatively, the country could collapse into civil war, possibly leading to a general Sunni vs. Shia war in the Gulf.

Do what it takes for military victory: millions of U.S. soldiers, trillions in aid, the draft, lots of taxes, much less other spending. To win the war outright requires, at a minimum, sealing the borders and disarming the country (except government forces). Without sealing the borders foreign fighters will continue to pour in. Iraq has very long, open borders. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a million U.S. troops to close them. That leaves the second military problem: the country is armed to the teeth. Remove the arms and you cripple the insurgency. Just after the invasion Ak47s (a Russian designed assult rifle) could be bought in any bazar for about $25. As a result, essentially every Iraqis household has one (the NRAs dream :-). Assuming a household size of 5, and a population of 25 million, that suggests at least 5 million assult rifles are out there, not counting militia ams. To find and destroy these, along with other weapons, could easily require another million U.S. soldiers, probably more.

If you think this estimate is inflated, consider that George Bush Sr. had an army of 575,000 in Iraq and didn't think it was enough to conquer the country. Depose the government, yes, but as we've seen, deposing a weak government is much easier than controlling a country.

There is no way to attract two million additional soldiers into the volunteer army, so we need the draft. The present U.S. army of ~150,000 costs about $2 billion a week to support. An army over ten times the current size will probably cost at least $20 billion a week, or about $1 trillion a year. This doesn't count develoment aid. This sum cannot be borrowed on the international markets without sending interest rates through the roof. A spending reduction of that size would cut the non-military U.S. government in half, requiring very large cuts in Social Securty and near elimination of non-essential spending. A trillion dollars in taxes requires over $3,000 for every man, woman and child in America -- or $12,000 additional taxes for a family of four. However, a lot of people simply don't have that much money, so the middle class could expect a tax increase of a few tens of thousands of dollars per family.

So here's the choices: quagmire, leave, or real sacrifice by everybody, not just the soldiers (for example, Bush's daughters might get drafted and sent to Iraq). The conservative Republicans that control the U.S. government aren't very big on sacrifice. For example, they've cut their own taxes, their children haven't signing up to fight in Iraq, and hardly any of them even fought in Vietnam.

As we found in Vietnam, the only thing worse than fighting a war is losing a war. However, there is no way the U.S. is going to institute the draft, increase taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, and cut spending by more hundreds of billions. Any political party doing that will lose every election for the next twenty years. It looks like quagmire or leave. Every day of quagmire sends recruits flocking to al Qaeda. It's time to leave.

Your rights go poof

2005-09-10T10:01:00.000-07:00

Newsflash -- on Tuesday, 22 November 2005, Jose Padilla was finally changed with a crime after being held for three years as an 'enemy combatant.' He was labeled an 'enemy combatant' on President George Bush's say so. "Your rights go poof" was written before the indictment. Finally charging Padilla with a crime, rather than holding him illegally, was a victory for free people everywhere.

Original post:

According to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the President can arrest you and imprison you forever without:

- charging you with a crime
- allowing you access to a lawyer
- allowing you access to your family
- bothering with a trial

Furthermore, you are presumed guilty and the evidence against you can be kept secret. This was decided in a case against Jose Padilla.

If this is upheld in the Supreme Court, our rights as a free people are gone. Jose Padilla may be guilty, I don't know. But I do know that you and I only enjoy the constitutional rights Jose Padilla has. The President stripped his rights away simply by declaring him an 'enemy combatant.' There is nothing to prevent the President from doing the same to you, or I, or his political opponents. You may (or may not) trust the current President, but what about the next one?

Background: Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago three years ago and accused of associating with al Qaeda and planning acts of terrorism. President Bush declared him to be an 'enemy combatant.' He has been in jail ever since. He has never seen a lawyer or anyone else (other than his jailers). He has never been charged with a crime. He has never seen the evidence against him.

Most recently, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government's imprisonment of Jose Padilla was legal. The most frightening thing about this ruling is that the court assumed that the government's charges were true [reference]. In other words, that Padilla was assumed to be guilty, not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

All this is in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the United States of America. The charges against Padilla have never been proven in court. They may be true, who knows? That's the point. Mistakes have been made before. A Seattle lawyer was accused of planting the bombs in Spain. The FBI had fingerprints. It turned out the FBI had poor quality fingerprints and got the wrong guy. He was a lawyer and successfully fought false imprisonment. Will you be as lucky? If the government doesn't need to obey the Bill of Rights with regard to Padilla, it can do the same to you.

All this is justified by the 'war on terror.' However, the war on terror has never been declared by Congress, and, according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Legally, we aren't at war. Also remember that the 'war on terror' will continue for at least decades, and probably centuries. Whatever rights we give up to the 'war on terror' might as well be gone for good.

The bottom line is that a government unconstrained by the Bill of Rights is a lot more dangerous than al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The government has a lot more power and plenty of incentive to use it against U.S. citizens. If this ruling stands, expect to see political opponents of whomever is in power in jail. That could easily be you.

What the government could do, legally:

If there's not enough evidence to convict Padilla, why not just follow him? Or find some other crime he committed (he's a former gang member) and convict him of that? Even if he evades observation for awhile, he's so well known that no other terrorists will work with him for fear of being caught. The government has plenty of power to deal with Padilla without throwing your rights in the toilet.

What to do:

- Tell your elected representatives that this is unAmerican. It is.

- Give money to the ACLU. They are defending your rights in court by representing Padilla, even though they have never met him. If you think the ACLU is a bunch of lefties, remember that they are also defending Rush Limbaugh (an extreme right-wing talk show host).

Iraq and World War II

2005-08-30T18:43:00.000-07:00

Recently, President Bush has been comparing the Iraq war to World War II. They are actually quite different. Consider:

1. Japan really did attack the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not attack the U.S. and had nothing to do with 9/11.

2. Japan and Germany really were aggressors. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons) or much of a relationship with al Qaeda. We went to war against Germany and Japan based on the truth, we went to war in Iraq based on a lie.

3. Congress declared war on Germany and Japan. Congress never declared war on Iraq. World War II was fought in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, the Iraq war is not.

4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) mobilized the whole nation to fight fascism and won. Bush cut taxes, told us to 'go shopping' and seems to be losing.

5. Germany and Japan were the greatest military powers of their day, Iraq was a military non-entity. Nonetheless, liberal Democrat FDR won World War II and conservative Republican Bush appears to be losing in Iraq.

Related posts:
Why is al Qaeda alive and well?
Is America the world's bully?
War with Iran

Is Intelligent Design science?

2005-08-13T21:54:00.000-07:00

Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes. However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete. It is important to note that ID does not specifically support the biblical version of creation either.

Intelligent Design proponents claim that there are four classes of evidence for ID:

1. Today's science can't explain everything.

2. Some living things are too complex to evolve.

3. Designed artifacts have specific properties that can be detected and some living things have these properties.

4. Some living things are irreducibly complex, meaning there is no gradual way to develop them in small steps (reference).

All of these arguments are incredibly weak. Taken one at a time:

1. Today's science can't explain everything. True, but science can explain at lot more today than yesterday, and will be able to explain even more tomorrow. Imagine a million years of progress at today's pace. This "can't explain" argument is very, very weak.

2. Some living things are too complex to have evolved. Really? I get paid to use artificial evolution, programmed into computers, to solve aerospace problems. This is a part of computer science called evolvable systems. This field is a well known problem related to complexity. As our artificial systems evolve they tend to become excessively complex. People write learned papers about how to avoid this excessive complexity. Evolution has no problem creating complex things.

3. Designed things have certain properties that can be detected. Again, evolvable systems says this is untrue. John Koza, a well-known figure in the field, has used genetic programing (one evolvable systems technique) to produce circuits that violate patents. In other words, genetic programs have produced exactly the same design as human designers. Thus, in at least some cases evolution can produce results that are indistinguishable from designed artifacts.

4. Irreducible complexity. This is ID's best argument. It states that some things are complex in such a way that they could not be produced one little bit at a time by evolution or anything else. Even proponents of ID will admit that one can never prove that there is no evolutionary path to, say, the human eyeball. In fact, irreducible complexity actually reduces to the first argument: today's science can't explain the evolutionary path to some biological systems. However, tomorrow someone may well come up with a perfectly reasonable evolutionary path. It is up to the ID community to come up with at least one case of irreducible complexity, and this case must stand up to critique and close scrutiny. They haven't done that. Even if a case survives years of such scrutiny, it may simply be that no one has yet been clever enough to see an evolutionary path. Irreducible complexity is a very weak argument.

There is nothing wrong with a weak hypothesis. A hypothesis is, by definition, something that has not yet been proven. At any given time, there are tens of thousands of hypotheses, most of which are much stronger than ID, but not all. A few may find their way into classrooms as examples of how science works, but the proper activity for the proponents of any hypothesis is to gather evidence, make predictions, and publish the results. Sometimes a weak hypothesis gets stronger with new evidence and may even become a scientific theory.

Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory. In science, a theory is a concept that has a great deal of evidence, has made successful predictions, and has stood the test of time. Evolution is an immensly successful theory, with mountains of evidence and many successful predictions to its credit.

So why are ID proponents pushing such a weak hypothesis into public schools as an alternative to well established evolutionary theory through the political process, rather than patiently gathering evidence, making predictions, and seeing if the predictions are born out?

Because the proponents of Intelligent Design want their God in science class, and that violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is heartening that the religious zealots who are trying to cram this stuff into public schools have so little credibility that they have to dress their God up in the trappings of science. Not long ago they didn't even pretend to consider the scientific method as the path to truth.

Why is al Qaeda alive and well?

2005-07-03T22:37:00.000-07:00

On September 11, 2001 I watched the twin towers of the Wold Trade Center collapse on TV, killing thousands of Americans. My first thought was, "God help the people who did this," because I knew that we would track whoever did this down and destroy them.

Boy was I wrong.

Three and a half years later, al Qaeda, the organization that attacked us, is doing fine. Their leadership is intact, they frequently attack U.S. troops, they launch periodic successful attacks against civilians, they have plenty of recruits and their leader, Osama bin Laden, is a hero in the Islamic world.

We have everything we need to demolish al Qaeda. There are nearly 300 million Americans. We control most of North America. We have allies all over the world. We have the finest military ever seen. Following 9/11 we had unprecedented international support. Why hasn't al Qaeda been destroyed? Because the conservative Republican power elite that controls the U.S. government failed to mobilize America and failed to focus our firepower on those who attacked us. It turns out that liberal Democrats are much better at this sort of thing.

In December of 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, destroying much of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Liberal Democrats controlled the Presidency and Congress. By the summer of 1945, Japan and her ally Germany lay utterly defeated; their armies and fleets smashed, their cities reduced to rubble, and millions of U.S. soldiers occupied their land. All without an insurgency in sight. Furthermore, the U.S. gained the gratitude of the world, and, after wisely rebuilding Germany and Japan, even the respect and admiration of their defeated enemies.

In September of 2001 al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington D.C., destroying the World Trade Center and seriously damaging the Pentagon. Conservative Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress. In the summer of 2005, al Qaeda and their Taliban allies are alive and well. They have been pushed out of most of Afghanistan and lost much of their middle management and a lot of foot soldiers, but their leadership is intact, they can easily replace their losses, their videos and webcasts find a large, appreciative audience throughout the Islamic world, and they launch frequent, successful attacks against U.S. forces and allies. The U.S. is reviled world wide, accused of gross human rights abuses, regarded as a bully, and has completely lost the high moral ground. In one opinion poll China, a brutal dictotorship, had a more favorable rating than the U.S.

How is it that in the same length of time, a bunch of liberal Democats could be so successful at war and conservative Republicans perform so poorly?

Perhaps al Qaeda is a tougher enemy than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Hardly. Germany conquered most of Europe and Japan took most of Asia. In late 1941 they were the preeminent military powers on this planet. By contrast, the Arab world hasn't conquered anything in centuries. They haven't even been able to destroy Israel, a mere 300 miles long and 70 miles wide with only a few million people. Furthermore, al Qaeda is only a tiny fraction of the Islamic World, never numbering more than a few tens of thousands. Comparing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to al Qaeda is like comparing a fully equipped battalion of U.S. Marines to a pissed-off little old lady with a cane.

The Republican power-elite like to say al Qaeda is just too hard to find, too elusive, and that's why they are alive and well three years after 9/11. Baloney. I imagine the dog ate their homework too. Al Qaeda is alive and well because the current administration spends ten times more resources on Iraq than on chasing al Qaeda, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The reason liberal Democrats won the Second World War and conservative Republican failed to do the same against a much weaker enemy is that Franklin Delanore Roosevelt (FDR) mobilized the whole nation and focused all our energies on victory. In response to 9/11, George Bush told us to 'go shopping' and lost focus on al Qaeda within a couple of months.

FDR, an extremely liberal Democrat, called on the whole nation to sacrafice to win the war. A day after Pearl Harbor the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany and Japan and a commission was formed to investigate Pearl Harbor. Thirteen million men went into the military. Millions of women replaced them in the wartime factories, every family raised a victory garden, the rich paid more taxes, oil and metal were rationed. It was a huge national effort and we won.

What did conservative Republican Bush call on the nation to do in 2001? He told us to take vacations and then doled out tax cuts. The Republican controlled congress never declared war on anything. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to avoid a 9/11 commission, although they eventually lost. Worse, Bush declared war not on al Qaeda, but on terrorism. Al Qaeda can be destroyed. It's members can be killed, its bank accounts seized, its camps destroyed, its allies driven from power. You can't kill terrorism, you can't blow it up. It's a noun.

Earlier wars on nouns, the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, have been dismal failures. After decades, there's still plenty of poverty and lots of drug use. Neither of these 'wars' will ever end and the war on terror will go on forever as well. How do you make war on the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh (two home-grown American terrorists)? You don't. You arrest them, try them and punish them (which the Clinton adminstration did). The Republicans haven't convicted anyone of anything related to 9/11.

The U.S. did one thing right. We took the magnificant army bequeathed to the nation by Clinton and the Reagan/Bush administrations and seriously damaged the Taliban regime, al Qaeda's primary ally, in Afghanistan. But before the dust settled the best troops, the most troops, the most money, and the most attention immediately shifted to Iraq. Only one problem, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

So instead of ruthlessly persuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and finishing them off, instead of pouring tens of billions of dollars into Afghanistan to turn it into a stable, democratic country with the rule of law, instead of building on the tremendous international support for our Afghan invasion, the Republican power elite invaded Iraq. The result: today Afghanistan is a mess, the Taliban are resurgent, and U.S. troops there have lost much of their initial popularity. Afghanistan today shows signs of becoming another disaster like Iraq.

Having failed to truly mobilize America to the task at hand, the Republicans compounded their error by forgetting who attacked us and who didn't. America attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. While the liberation of Iraq was popular with Iraqis since we got rid of Saddam Hussein, the subsequent occupation has been a disaster. The bulk of the U.S. Army and Marines are tied up in a viscious insurgency that shows no sign of ending and we have lost the gratitude of ordinary Iraqis as their relatives are killed and their homes destroyed by U.S. firepower. It doesn't help that thousands of Iraqis are imprisoned by mistake, isolated from their families, and occassionally tortured. Gratitude turned into hatred everywhere except Kurdistan, which, not coincidentally, was never occupied by U.S. troops.

Not only is Iraq a massive distraction from destroying those who attacked us, the Iraq war is an ideal training ground for al Qaeda and generates plenty of recruits. Before the current Iraq war, the U.S. military seemed invincible. Now al Qaeda knows how to fight us. The Iraq insurgency, which includes al Qaeda troops, has successfully fought America to a standstill. The insurgency controls large pieces of territory and even parts of the capital Baghdad. They have the initiative, attacking when and where they choose. No place is safe from them. The war is going very badly for us.

Even worse is the gift the Iraq war gives to al Qaeda recruiters. Reports suggest that they actually turn suicide bomber recruits away because they have too many to use. It's a safe bet that the next al Qaeda attack on the U.S. will be carried out by Iraq veterans.

What to do?

First, declare war on al Qaeda. Better late than never. Then do whatever it takes to destroy Osama and his allies.

Second, like we did in Germany and Japan, spend whatever it takes to turn Afghanistan into a wealthy, stable democracy. This will be very expensive and worth every penny.

Third, in the next couple of U.S. elections take control away from the conservative Republicans that so monumentally screwed up the war. Failure should have consequences.

Fourth, declare clearly that the U.S. will not stay in Iraq. Then get out as soon as there is any chance of the elected government surviving.

Fifth, remove our troops from the Mid-East and put the money saved into replacing oil with energy sources we control.

Finally, the next time someone attacks us, never turn aside until they are demolished.

Bush attacks democracy in the Americas

2005-06-06T19:08:00.000-07:00

Bush is making a big deal about his support for democracy in the Americas. Democracy in the Americas prospered greatly during the Clinton administration, but Bush has actively undermined it. Specifically, he helped depose the democratically elected President of Haiti and tried, unsuccessfully, to do the same in Venezuela.

The democractically elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was deposed during Bush, Sr.'s administration. Aristide was restored to power by U.S. forces under President Clinton's command in October 1994. Aristide disbanded the Haitian military, but former soldiers staged a rebellion in early 2004. As rebels closed in on the capitol, a U.S. Marine unit surrounded Aristide. Were they there to protect this democratically elected leader? Not exactly. They told him that he must leave to avoid bloodshed, which he did. Did we take him to the U.S. to help him return to the office he was elected to? No. We flew him to Africa. Aristide told CNN that "... he was forced to leave Haiti in a 'coup d'etat' by the United States" (reference). Haiti today is a mess.

On 12 April 2002 the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was overthrown by their military (reference). Did the U.S. condemn to coup? No. Bush immediately recognized the coup leaders as the legitimate government. The decision to recognize was made so quickly it's hard to believe the U.S. didn't have prior knowledge of the coup. In any case, imagine our embarassment when a few days later democracy triumphed and Chavez returned to power.

I don't like Chavez much, and I don't know a whole lot about Aristide. However, it seems to me that democracy means that the people of Haiti and Venezuela should choose their leaders, not the U.S. The U.S. admits overthowing the democratically elected leaders of Iran during another Republican administration, Eisenhower's. Iran today is one of America's most bitter enemies (1). Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself.

Bush's actions completely contradict his talk of support for democracy in the Americas. I was taught that the measure of man is his actions, not his words.

(1) In addition to Eisenhower overthowing Iranian democracy, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s with weapons and satellite photos. Donald Rumsfeld helped arrange this. The Iraq-Iran war killed about one million people. During that war, the U.S. navy shot down an Iranian 747 with almost 300 civilians on board, killing all of them. Remember that when Iranian demonstrators chant "Death to America," which they do every week after Friday prayers. Iran did hold our embassy people hostage, but that act doesn't really seem to be in the same league with what we've done to them.

They don't hate our freedom, they hate that we kill them, blow up their stuff, and overthow their governments. America is a great country with a lot to offer the world. When we stop pushing people around and stick to defending ourselves and our allies, we'll really be what we like to think we are -- the greatest nation of all time.

Is America the world's bully?

2005-05-01T15:58:00.000-07:00

Many people regard America as a bully. When al Qaeda crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., many felt that "Hey, turn about is fair play. America is always bombing and invading other countries, it's about time someone gave the U.S. a taste of their own medicine." American media briefly showed Palestinians dancing the street, but quickly avoided any further reporting of similar sentiments.

The problem with viewing America as an international bully is that there's some truth to it. Worse, the Republicans are doing everything they can to reinforce the notion of 'America the Bully' and this has serious negative consequences for us.

Remember the school bully? Would you help him if you had the chance? The same thing is happening to us. We are immensly powerful, but not omniscient. We can push the world around, but where ever we are weak, or not paying attention, nothing goes our way because no one likes a bully or gives them a break.

So why would anyone think the U.S. is an international bully? A bully is someone who attacks the weak, avoids fights with strong, and ignores the rules when it suites him. How do we stack up?

Attacking the weak

America invades other countries far more than any country since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. Since 1945, the Soviets invaded Hungary, Checkoslovakia, and Afganistan; North Korea invaded South Korea; North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; Libya invaded Sudan; Argentina invaded the Falklands; Israel invaded Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; and Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran. In the same period, the U.S. invaded Afganistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea. Some would say we have also invaded Cuba, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and a few additional Latin American countries; although others might view these military interventions as something other than an invasion.

Second, the U.S. bombs other countries a lot, something others don't do much at all. In recent decades the U.S. has bombed Afganistan, Sudan, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Lebanon (actually, naval shelling), and North Vietnam. I may have missed a few.

Third, the U.S. is accused of overthowing, or attempting to overthrow, dozens of governments around the world. Republicans like to say we have a policy of 'regime change.' Most of the regimes to be changed are dictatorships, but many believe the U.S. was involved with coups against democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Venezuela, Haiti and Chile.

Thus, the U.S. certainly attacks smaller, weaker countries frequently. Far more frequently than any other nation.

Avoid fighting the strong

Since 1945 the U.S. has avoided attacking any really strong countries. America took extrordinary care in Korea and Vietnam to avoid getting into a fight with Russia. We did end out at war with the Chinese in Korea, but that was due to miscalculation rather than choice. Today, the U.S. even avoids invading second tier but relatively powerful countries like Iran and North Korea. Both are in Bush's 'axis of evil' and both have nuclear weapon programs. Iraq, which we did invade, is much weaker and was well known to have minimal nuclear capacity. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. will attack the weak, but is scared of the strong.

Ignoring the rules

Particularly since Republcans gained control of the federal government, the U.S. has avoided international treaties. America dropped the Kyoto treaty, cancelled the ABM treaty, refused to join the International Court of Justice, won't join protocols on land mines and biological weapons, etc. etc. etc. Most important, however, is that most of world regards the invasion of Iraq as illegal under international law.

Global Military Empire

The U.S. also looks like a bully because we have built a global military empire. We have troops all over the world. We spend more than $500 billion a year on our military. China, the country with the next largest military budget, spends only $50 billion a year -- 10 times less.

Why does the U.S. need such an enormous military? The only possible explanation is that America wants to run the world. America will decide who lives and who dies, who rules and who is ruled, which regimes shall stand and which shall be 'changed.' Not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't too happy about this.

I supported, and still support, many of the U.S. actions mentioned above. However, the cumulative effect makes it very easy to argue that the U.S. is an international bully who cares only about its 'national interest' and couldn't care less who gets hurt in the process. We are viewed as arrogant, selfish bullies and people treat us accordingly.

So what? Do we really care? After all, we are the biggest, the strongest, and the most powerful nation in the world. If people think we are a bully, let them. The problem with this view is that our image as a bully weakens us. It provides justification for those, such as al Qaeda, who would kill us. This justification translates into support for our enemies, and a reluctance of our friends to help us. In a thousand small ways, we are weakened.

It is said that "everyone you trash on the way up will be waiting for you on the way down." One day we will falter. Perhaps the $7 trillion federal debt, growing at a half trillion a year, will drive us into bankrupcy. Perhaps the insurgents will drive us out of the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. Perhaps the volcano in Yellowstone will blow and cover half the U.S. in volcanic dust. Who knows when or why, but nothing last forever. When we falter, we will no longer be able to afford a half trillion dollar per year military and our financial strength will be demolished. If we are still viewed as a bully, things will not go well.

What's to do?

1. Do not appoint a bully (John Bolton) as ambassador to the U.N. That's just stupid.

2. Stop invading, bombing and 'regime changing' small countries that have not attacked us or invaded their neighbors.

3. Join the international community as one member of the family of nations, rather than as the biggest bully.

4. Dismantle our global military empire, withdrawing our troops from other countries and giving up the notion that we should exert military control of the entire world.

5. With some of the money saved on the military, put our expansionist energy into large scale colonization of space. Compared to controlling the Earth, space offers hundreds of times more real estate, thousands of times more materials, and millions of times more energy. Vigorous colonization of space promises far more power than military domination of Earth. Space colonization also does not invovling killing or oppressing people, or deciding what regime they shall have. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement for details.

It won't be easy and it will take a long time. The alternative is greater and greater military expenditure trying to run everything. This will eventually fail and we will suffer the same fate as past international bullies. Christ once said something like "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword." I'm not a Christian, but you gotta respect a guy with that kind of insight. Perhaps we should listen.

How to Actually Win the War on Drugs

2005-04-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

The U.S. has been fighting the 'War on Drugs' for decades. Yet, today you can get good quality illegal drugs in any city and most towns, any time, at a reasonable price. The recreational illegal drug trade is profitable and healthy. The war on drugs is a miserable failure. Why? Drugs are profitable.

I know how to win this war by destroying the profitability of dangerous recreational drugs such as heroin, crack, cocaine, amphetamines, downers, marijuana, etc. (Yes, marijuana is dangerous, anything you smoke will damage your lungs). There is a catch though: a lot of underserving people will make a lot of money. If you think destroying the drug trade is worth some people getting rich, read on.

First, let's review the present approaches. 1) legalization -- used for alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine and 2) criminalization -- used on just about everything else. First, let's look at legalization.

Cigaretts and alcohol are profitable, legal, are consumed in large quantities, kill millions of people and sicken millions more. Alchohol causes a wide variety of diseases as well as a large fraction of all traffic accidents, and generates violent behavior among users. However, in moderate quantities, say one drink a day, alcohol can actually lengthen life. Cigarettes are more straight forward. They kill and sicken millions with no health benefit. Caffeine can cause problems in large quantities, but is fairly benign. The take home message, though, is that legalization leads to very large scale use of recreational drugs. Not exacly what we want for heroin.

Now consider criminalization. Illegal drugs are consumed in far smaller quantities than legal ones. However, they cause a lot of death and sickness not only due to their nature, but also because there is no quality control. For example, most cocaine sold on the street contains a lot of white powder that isn't cocain at all. Second, since the illegal drug trade is conducted outside the law, there's a lot of violence. After all, you can't turn to the courts or police when someone cheats you. Finally, the illegal drug trade profits fund violent groups in supplier countries such as Mexico and Columbia; in some cases threatening the stability of local governments. There is even evidence that al Qaeda now supports itself, in part, with drug money from the Afgan poppy trade.

Advocates of criminalization will point to all sorts of statistics on use rates, number of busts, quantities of imported drugs and so forth to claim we are winning the war. However, they've been doing that for decades, and most of these data are really estimates, not hard data. Because the trade is illegal, the only real data you can get are availability, price and quality, which can be determined by buying the product. In general, drugs are available everywhere, prices have come down and quality is up, suggesting that plenty of drugs are making it into the U.S. and they continue to be quite profitable. Criminalization, begun in the early decades of the last century, is an abject failure with very serious negative side effects.

If legalization and criminalization don't work, what can we do?

Follow the tobacco.

In the 1990's tobacco was hit by a series of lawsuits that nearly destroyed the entire business. Faced with actually paying for the death and suffering the product creates, the industry couldn't possibly be profitable. However, tobacco has friends in Congress and state legislatures. They were able to cut deals that reduced, but did not eliminate, profits. The industry survived.

Heroin and crack don't have many friends in Congress.

To destroy the illegal recreational drug trade, legalize the product and rewrite liability law. Make law suits against producers, distributers, and retailers of these drugs very easy to win. The illegal drug trade is dependent on repeat customers. For the most part, users know their pushers. If users can make money suing their pushers, they will. The industry won't possibly be able to maintain profitability and will die.

Sure, people will grow marijuana for personal use. A small trickle of drugs may be available on the street for one-time transactions, but the heart will be torn out of the drug trade. Availability will plumet and far fewer people will become users. The Columbian cartels will fall and al Qaeda will need to find another source of cash.

So there you have it. If you are willing to let some drug users and their lawyers make a lot of money we can end the trade in heroin, crack, cocaine, marihuana, hash, ecstasy, uppers, downers, etc. forever.

Seems like a good trade-off to me.

Nuclear Power Plants Make Lovely Targets

2005-03-19T13:12:00.000-08:00

In early 2005 Wired Magazine published an article supporting more nuclear power plants in the U.S. In response, I wrote a letter to the editor, which they published. It even made the 'headline' of the Rants + Raves section, which read "The biggest problem: nuclear plants make lovely targets." Here's the text of the letter as published by Wired:

"Nuclear Now!" included the usual hand waves to gloss of critical problems like wate disposal and major accidents. However, it ignored the biggest problem: Nuclear plants make lovely targets. Nineteen guys with Kalishnikovs could easily take over an nuke plant. Nineteen guys with box cutters might even have a chance at flying airliners into a couple. In either case, a sizable portion of the US becomes uninhabitable for decades.

Some time ago an idiot fired an antitank missile at a French nuclear reactor. Fortunately, the guy didn't do his homework and it did little damage. Unfortunately, al Qaeda does its homework.

Note: Wired left out some detail (they edit for brevity).

Once a nuclear power plant is in the control of terrorist, it can easily be turned into a very effective dirty bomb, so long as the terrorists are on a suicide mission. There seems to be no shortage of suicide bombers in the Mid-East these days.

Flying an airliner into the containment vessel might cause serious problems. Flying an airliner into the pool used to store old fuel rods would be a disaster of major proportions. Osama bin Laden is an engineer. He knows this.

The antitank missile did little damage because it was designed to penetrate metal armour. The nuke containment building was made of concrete.

Kyoto and Global Warming

2005-02-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

A few days ago the Kyoto climate change treaty came into effect. This treaty is an agreement between most countries on Earth meant to limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that mankind adds to the atmosphere. Although the US signed the Kyoto treaty, a Republican dominated Congress later repudiated it and the the current Republican president has denounced it. Although there has been talk, no alternative US policy to limit CO2 emisions has been put in place.

Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be contributing to an increase in global temperature. There is a political controversy over whether the temperature increase is real and whether or not people are causing it, but most scientists familiar with the data agree the problem is real and at least partly man-made. Regardless of the details of this debate, some things are crystal clear:

1. The atmosphere is vital to our minute-to-minute survival.

2. We don't understand the atmosphere well enough to predict the consequences of adding stuff to it.

3. There is substantial evidence that we are adding enough stuff to measurably affect the atmosphere.

4. It's a bad idea to screw around with vital life support systems you don't understand.

Kyoto has, I'm sure, like any treaty, many problems. It has one shinning virtue -- a large fraction of the countries on Earth agreed to dump less stuff into the atmosphere.

I suspect Republicans oppose the treaty because big oil is a major supporter, and Kyoto would probably limit big oil's profits somewhat. This would reduce Republican power. There are many other examples of Republican actions and proposals which are arguably driven by oil (think Iraq, for example). They have plenty of smart guys who can come up with rational arguments, but I suspect the real reason for these actions boils down to power (similar arguments can be made about other political groups, of course).

My Social Security Solution

2005-02-06T20:17:00.000-08:00

Today, social security has $1.5 trillion in the bank and takes in more money than it spends. It is in great financial shape, much better than the US government which is $7.5 trillion in debt and spends $400 billion more each year than it earns. Nonetheless, by about 2040 or 2050 social security is expected to have some financial problems. Fortunately, there is a very easy fix that lowers the social security tax for almost everyone.

Today, everyone pays 6.2% of their salary up to $90,000 per year and their employer matches that. The $90,000 limit is called the 'cap.' The vast majority of Americans make less than the cap so, including the employer contribution, almost everyone pays 12.4% of their salary in social security taxes. People who make exactly $90,000 per year pay the most, $11,160. Bill Gates also pays $11,160 -- although he probably doesn't notice.

The simplest way to eliminate the long term social security problem is to eliminate the 'cap.'¹ Have everyone pay the same flat rate no matter how much they make. If the rate is kept the same, this would bring in too much money, more than social security needs. This means we could cut the social security tax rate. Although the very wealthy would pay more, the vast majority would see their taxes cut, potentially by quite a bit.

The tax rate will need to go down, but its hard to say by how much, and it may need to change from year to year. This can be done very simply. Every year, look at the previous year. If too much tax was collected, reduce the rate. If too little tax was collected, increase it. Use the $1.5 trillion social security has in the bank to take care of any temporary shortfall.

My plan lowers taxes for almost everyone, keep benefits unchanged, and makes social security financially secure forever with no borrowing and no hidden future taxes. The Republican plan reduces benefits for everyone under 55, requires borrowing trillions of dollars that will require even more trillions in future taxes to pay off, and doesn't actually fix the long term financial problem. The Republican plan does allow some social security taxes to go into private accounts that can be invested in limited ways, but my plan lowers the tax rate and puts money in your pocket.

Which do you think is better?

1. This is not an original idea. I'm sure many have thought of it, but it was brought to my attention by Todd Wipke. This does not mean that Todd necessarily agrees with any part of this post.

Bush Social Security Plan Translations

2005-02-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

No one over 55 will have their benefits cut = everyone under 55 will have their benefits cut.

No mention of how to pay for private accounts = $2 trillion of debt = $3-4 trillion in future taxes.

Private accounts = if the stock market goes up, you might be able to cover the benefits you lost and your share of the $3-4 trillion in future taxes. If the market doesn't go up, good luck.

The ownership society = when Bill Clinton was president home ownership and stock ownership increased enormously. Bush wants the credit. After all, he thought up a great slogan.

Plan in a nutshell: social security faces a shortfall in 2042. There will be no increase in taxes so benefits will be cut. Additional money will be withdrawn from the system to pay for private accounts, which promotes ownership, increases returns and increases risk. Even though benefits will be cut, we will still borrow trillions to fund the accounts and pay even more trillions in taxes to pay off the debt after Bush has left office.

What a deal.

Deficits = Future Taxes

2005-01-20T20:56:00.000-08:00

The last three Republican presidents have borrowed enormous amounts of money. Last year alone Bush borrowed $400 billion, about 16% of total spending. We presently owe about $7 trillion. All of this debt is due to World War II, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.. All the other presidents combined had a trivial effect.

When President Reagan took office in 1981 we were borrowing about $25 billion per year. Reagan doubled that every year until it hit $200 billion. The deficit stayed there, give or take a bit, through Bush, Sr.'s term and the beginning of the Clinton years. In the late 90s Clinton actually ran a surplus and paid down the debt a bit (he was a Democrat, after all). However, when Bush Jr. took office our financial position immediately began to go south to the point that we are now borrowing $400 a year. Of course, Congress passed all the spending increases and tax cuts, but they largely followed presidential policy.

Why would presidents like deficits? Power. Tax cuts make you popular so you get elected, but less money means less power. By simply borrowing trillions of dollars to cover the tax cuts and then some, Reagan and Bush Jr./Sr. gained a great deal of power.

Periodically someone asks, what's wrong with deficits? I've heard lots of complex, unimpressive answers to this question. The right answer is astoundingly simple: you have to pay it back with interest. Every dollar we borrow means two dollars of future taxes (give or take a bit depending on the interest rate and term). These future taxes will buy nothing. Not aircraft carriers, not health care, nothing. Since we will need to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes that buy nothing, today's deficits will seriously weaken us.

Of course, when the bills become due, we could always borrow more money. Unfortunately, that would turn $7 trillion of debt into $10-14 trillion. We can do this for awhile, but not forever. If we continue on our present course, by 2040 all of the federal government's income will go to interest payments. There won't be any income available for defense, research, education, medical, or anything else. Consider that the Republicans are making a big deal because by 2040 social security may need to reduce benefits. This is pretty minor compared to the federal government going belly up.

How did we get into this mess? Cutting taxes without cutting spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr have successfully pushed large tax cuts through Congree, and both have increased spending. If you make less money and spend more, you have to borrow. When the debt become due taxes will be needed to pay it.

This means that the tax cuts are an illusion. Taxes are cut today, but must be increased tomorrow to pay for it. The future taxes are larger than today's tax cuts because of the interest on the debt. Here's the genius of it: because the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were for everybody, but mostly for the wealthy, more of the future taxes will be paid by the middle class and poor. This leaves more money for the wealthy, also known as the Republican base. More money means more power.

The tax cuts and resulting debt are the key to Republican power. Tax cuts are popular, who doesn't want their taxes reduced? If it meant spending cuts the public would howl, but spending has increased! People are so confused by the BS that they don't see the obvious: massive future taxes will be needed to pay for the Reagan/Bush borrowing binge.

The Republicans like to blame the recession, the war on terror, the cold war, and so forth for the deficits. These are just excuses. Other presidents have faced bigger recessions and bigger wars without resorting to multi-trillion dollar borrowing. The deficts are the result of deliberate Republican policy to increase their power. It is successful in that it has lead to Republican control of the federal government. It will, inevitably, also lead to $7+ trillion in future taxes. Get ready to pay or go bankrupt.

A few months ago Osama bin Laden said he plans to bankrupt America. He plans to draw the US into military conflicts all over the muslim world. Without increased taxes, each conflict will add hundreds of billions of debt. The way you go bankrupt is to borrow a lot of money. I'm afraid Osama wining this particular battle.

War with Iran

2005-01-17T09:36:00.000-08:00

The Republicans are apparently preparing to destroy military targets in Iran with airstrikes. We seem to have sent commandos into the country to find targets. Invading Iran is impossible because our army and marines are tied up in Iraq fighting an insurgency among five million Sunnis. Iran has a population of about 67 million. Since an invasion won't work, the idea, it seems, is to destroy potential nuclear sites from the air. The U.S. can probably do this. The Israeli's did it to Iraq some time ago, and the U.S. has unrivaled air and sea power.

Before we attack, however, it might be a good idea to look at a map. Iran is perfectly positioned to make Iraq and Afganistan much, much more difficult for the U.S. and perhaps even cut off oil from the Mid-East.

Most of America's ground forces are tied up in Iraq fighting an insurgency in the Sunni Triangle. The Sunni Triangle has a population of perhaps five million. Further to the south, about 15 million Shia muslims have been fairly quiet. Iran is the center of the Shia branch of Islam and borders the Shia portion of Iraq. Furthermore, the most influential Shia muslim is the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. The party he backs will probably win the upcoming election, explaining why the Shias have been so quiet. Sistani was born in Iran and many candidates in the slate he supports have close ties to Iran.

If the U.S. attacks Iran, it is extremely likely that the Shia of Iraq will rise up against us. Iran will almost certainly support them over the long and porous border between the two countries. We are having a lot of trouble with five million Sunnis with no overt state support, how are we going to fare when 15 million Shias join them with heavy Iranian backing? We will probably lose militarily.

The Republicans seem to think that if we bomb Iran, the Iranian people will rise up against their oppressive religious leaders. I suppose it's possible, but in all of history no people have ever been bombed into regime change. It has always required ground forces. Furthermore, the immediate reaction of most peoples when bombed is to rally around thier leaders, even unpopular incompetant ones. Note that in Iraq the Republicans believed that they would face little opposition, and at first that seemed to be true. Saddam's army simply evaporated. Today, however, we face a determined, capable, and effective insurgency and our control of the Sunni Triangle is tenuous at best.

Then there's Afganistan. Iran helped the U.S. take over Afganistan. Iran had no love for the Taliban and was in a position to help because Iran and Afganistan have a long, poorly controlled common border. This same border is perfect for supplying an insurgency. To date, it does not appear that Iran has helped the Afan insurgents much in spite of friction with the U.S. If we attack Iran, that will certainly change. We should assume that Afganistan will become much more difficult to control requiring far more U.S. troops.

Most of the oil from the Mid-East passes through the Persian Gulf. Persia is basically another word for Iran. Iran borders the Persian Gulf for hundreds of miles. Tankers taking oil from the gulf must pass through the Strait of Hormuz at the end of the Persian Gulf. About 90% of Persian Gulf oil takes this route. The Straight of Hormuz is quite narrow. Iranians are quite clever. There's a good chance they'll find a way to close the straight if they find themselves at war with the U.S. Technically, of course, we're at war with Iran now since sending commandos into the country is an act of war. Whether it becomes an active, hot war depends on the Republicans who control Washington.

The Republicans are thinking about going to war with Iran. They have apparently already committed acts of war. We are still fighting in both Iraq and Afganistan. Great generals divide their enemies and destroy them one piece of at a time. Hilter lost the Second World War by taking on Russia before finishing Britian off. We were stupid to attack Iraq before finishing the job in Afganistan. Attacking Iran before winning in Iraq and Afganistan is monumentally stupid.

Social Security and Massive Future Taxes

2005-01-11T20:49:00.000-08:00

The Republicans want to borrow one to two trillion dollars to fund private social security accounts. This will require one and a half to four trillion dollars of future taxes to pay the principle and interest. The Republicans say these private accounts will benefit younger workers, and they might if the stock market goes up. But younger workers will also have to pay the trillions of dollars in future taxes created by the debt. When you factor this in, even younger workers will be taken to the cleaners.

Today, social security has $1.5 trillion in the bank and takes in more than it spends. The federal government owes $7 trillion in future taxes and is borrowing about $400 billion every year -- generating another $6-800 billion in future taxes yearly. Social security isn't in financial crisis, but the federal government is.