Dr. Frank's What's-it

It's more complex than a simple "security vs. deficits" dichotomy. Inadequate national security can wreck an economy in short order (see effects of terrorism on the Israeli economy) -- and keep it down.

Deficits are a longer term problem, with a longer fix period, but ultimately fixable. Andrew's deficit paranoia is an ingrained pre-9/11 habit. Post 9/11 one definitely worries about immediate economic effects of national insecurity.

JB, I certainly agree with you about the economic risks of "national insecurity." Yet it seems to me that this line of thinking would be a better argument pro-Frum/contra-Sullivan if the spending increases were directly connected with national defense, rather than merely extravagant bribes to strategically-selected interest groups.

Given the likelihood of one's pro-Bush leanings resting heavily on the issue of national security, could it be said that someone else's 'Bush Out At All Costs' position rests (even partially) upon the belief that there simply is no terrorist threat, or at very least, that BushCo has greatly exaggerated said threat in order to gain [oil/revenge/cookies/a later bedtime]?

Did I just state something obscenely obvious? I very well might've, and honestly don't know. If so, I'll just say that I'd be mighty interested in seeing the causes of such radical differences in outlook explored in crazy detail, because that really is something else.

(I mean the Eddie Cochran kind of "Somethin' Else," as in, "Wow!")

We all agree that the "war on terror" is a must, but the half-hearted attempt we've made at it has made our military look weak to the rest of the world. There is no doubt that North Korean and China have gathered intelligence missions from our combat efforts in both Iraq and Somalia and have drawn conclusions that the US can most likely be defeated by overwhelming our troops in sheer numbers and by using guerilla warfare. What we need is somebody who would agree to put an end to this and any other future conflicts quickly and with devastation. We were hoping this would be done in "shock and awe" but we were all in shock and awe over how little "fireworks" there were. We need to reverse this weak image we've shown over our past few conflicts.

Another are of concern other than "the economy" is the protection of our citizens' job security. Amnesty for illegal immigrants will only hurt us, we need stricter immigration laws, not rewards for those who have eluded the extremely lax INS.

It almost looks as if Bush is trying to reinstate Reaganomics in an era with no cold-war, thus inventing the "war on terrorism". Except this time there is real combat with the Arab nations unlike with the Soviet Union. Therefore trying to pump UP the economy by pumping money INTO defense will not work in this scenario and all we are going to be left with is a tremendous deficit (which will never be paid anyway) but because of this we are losing purchasing power to the Yen and the Euro. It may only be a matter of time until the dollar is worthless. I in fact would not be surprised to see Canada adopt the Euro withing the next couple of years in order to help it's floudering economy.

In conclusion (sorry for being long-winded), we need a swift and commanding victory that'll strike fear into the enemies of the United States (thus discouraging impending attacks), followed by a sharp reduction in spending and an increase in job-creation (outside of the service industry to which nobody can earn a ral living). Then a crackdown in illegal immigration which will force the minimum-wage service industry to increase their wages or go unstaffed and thus losing the "service" in the service industry.

Anyway, those are my ideas

from contra sulli-wha???

geoff-

To take a stab at your quandary...I think you are right that the official "Remove Bush At Any Cost" movement rejects, or at least plays dumb to, the terrorism issue, tout court...at least that's the impression I get when I talk to people I think of as affiliated with that movement. On the other hand, I think there are plenty of people who think that there is a real full-fledged "war on terror" to be won, but think Bush is screwing around as much as winning it, and is doing other things goofy besides. For my own part, I can say that I think terrorism is a serious issue, but I guess I suspect it's more a cluster of little things that require lots of little solutions and less one homogeneous thing that we can just sort of go out and conquer, so I guess I do think that the "war on terror" framing is misleading...I'm not sure how that positions me relative to the other two groups, so make of it what you will.

I guess, also, I don't accept the presumption in questions like Sullivan's...

"Can we trust a Democratic president to defend the country adequately enough?"

That is, the presumption that "strong on defense" (a phrase that gets bandied about a lot in these discussions) is a desideratum that the Bush administration has already satisfied, and therefore sort of defines a threshhold for challengers. I'd only accept that premise on "Bush vs. Sharpton or Kuccinich." I just don't believe in it, though I'm sure it'll be a huge presenting issue when the race gets going.

The other thing is that I think there's a kind of chicken and egg business going on with the "Remove Bush At Any Cost" movement. That is, I don't know, and I suspect they don't either, whether they despise Bush because they think he cooked up the terrorism problem, or whether they think he cooked up the terrorism problem because they despise him...anyway, my $.02...

JB--

Israel actually proves that becoming a militaristic, non-democratic occupying power ruins a society, despite the largesse of its pals in Washington. If you want to know what the US will be like after a few more decades of the PATRIOT act, spending 50% or more of our income tax money on the military, and occupying other nations, take a look at Israel.

This "strong Republican/weak Democrat" schematic is a leftover of the Cold War, and in my opinion makes no sense. Frank hits the nail on the head: How does the $401 billion Pentagon budget keep us safer? By building Star Wars even if it doesn't work? By producing a new nuclear attack submarine? By making F-22 fighters designed to repell the Soviet invasion of Western Europe? Bush's governing "philosphy" boils down to 2 things: 1) Get reelected 2) Give as much money and support to my wealthy, corporate friends as possible. "Fiscal discipline" and "defending the country" are purely incidental and have been gladly sacrificed if they conflict with the two real goals.

I don't see how we can make ourselves safer by spending more on the military, which already consumes half of our Federal discretionary budget and represents something like half of all worldwide military expenditures. We will make ourselves safer by the much, much harder work of actively pursuring peace and justice on the international scene, which is different from pursuing unchallenged control and telling people "We're the US, when we run things it'll all be okay." In fact, Kucinich is the only candidate (to the extent that he can be called that) whose proposals reflect any real thinking on these issues, any genuine vision of making the world safer that doesn't rely on placing US soldiers in every corner of the world to kill the terrorists, however the hell we decide who they are.

The "swift and commanding" victory that Channon wants, what exactly is that? How will we know when "V-T" (Victory over Terrorism) Day has arrived? When we've occupied all the "Axis of evil" nations? We're not exactly building peace and harmony in the two we've got so far. When we've killed/converted all the Muslims? What's the "endgame" here, and how do we pay for it? Again, look at all Israel has done, and how they keep getting less and less secure the harder they fight. Sharon was elected because his "get tough" policies would "show the Palestinians we mean business" and deter attacks. It hasn't worked, but since the attacks continue people are afraid and angry and so...they support the Sharon crackdown anyway. I think this is the reductio ad absurdum of the Bush strategy.

Sorry to get all ranty on everyone. I'll go crawl back under my bridge now.

Nick,
I wasn't referring to "the war on terrorism" as a whole, I was referring to the next conflict, whatever that may be (ie: Syria, Pakistan, Korea etc..) It's too late for Iraw, we've looked weak in the last few conflicts we've been involved in (Afghanistan, Somolia, Bosnia, Iraq). We need to make a statement so that the next time a nation wants to thumb their nose at the UN or the US, if we threaten military action after failed diplomacy then the opposing nation(s) will have in the back of their head "Oh, shit, let's not piss these guys off, remember what happened to (fill in the blank)". I'm not saying let's go Hiroshima on somebody, but right now we look like a bunch of paper-tigers.

Channon,

I have a couple of problems with this analysis. (1) The "statement" you're referring to involves killing, injuring, and displacing thousands of completely innocent people. We're not going to get very far with our "Westerners-respect-human-life-but-radical-Muslims-terrorists-don't" line if we treat warmaking as a "statement" and not mass violence and death. In fact, treating violence as a "statement" rather than murder seems to me one of the essences of terrorism itself. (2) I don't think there's a whole lot of empirical proof that conquering other countries, bombing them, retaliating for acts of terrorism etc. has had much practical deterrent effect. There's at least as much evidence for the proposition that it only strengthens resistance against us -- again, look at what's been going on between Israel and Palestine, or what's happened in Iraq since we deposed and then captured Saddam.

You want to speak of innocent civilians and murder? Talk to the family of the people on the 3 jetliners, 2 towers and Pentagon bulding. Those people weren't innocent? An eye-for-an-eye? Hell no, if you take an eye, then I'll cut off the whole damn head!!

Silly Channon. Americans (and the immigrants who live here) aren't innocent: every time we so much as buy a potato at the grocery store we are participating in the Great Evil Capitalist Hegemon That Is Rolling Over the Prone Bodies of Innocent Childlike Foreigners. Now don't forget: it's flagellate first, _then_ put on the hairshirt.