Tag: war

The end of entitlements and the occupations

After looking at the books, do you still think democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a priority?

50% of the federal budget right now goes to entitlements.

This last month we posted a record $220.9 billion budget deficit. We took in $107 billion but spent $328 billion.

Isn’t that special. We only funded 32% of expenditures?

Remember – entitlements were half of that $328 billion.

So let’s see if we can do the math here.

Entitlements were about $164 billion last month in spending. The rest was, of course, the rest.

But we only took in $107 billion.

So even if we eliminated all entitlement spending we still did not have enough money to cover the rest.

The insane thing is that the only pressure from the American people to date is to fight entitlement reduction even though eliminating all entitlements isn’t enough to stem the financial bleeding. One certainly can’t say they aren’t going to get what they deserve. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that even the Tea Partiers don’t want to cut back on military spending.

Mailvox: broken windows and the stimulus of WWII

CH asks about a common economic misconception:

I follow your columns so I thought you’d be able to answer this question for me, if you would. As you have stated, the Democrats are Keynesians and believe they can spend their way out of recession. Benanke cites the Great Depression as evidence of this. I know that FDR’s policies of spending didn’t lift us out of the Great Depression (they made it worse), but it is often noted that WWII did lift us out of said Depression. How can this be? How did that work? It seems to me that the militarization of our industries were funded by the Government. This put people to work and sent many to war equipped with the products of our industries and therefore operated as a large Government “stimulus”. I am trying to see Bernanke’s logic, if I am correct, that the spending the Government did to fund the war was what it took to get the economy going. This in effect is what the Dems are trying to reproduce by simply dumping money in the economy, putting people to work and creating a false demand, to bring us out of this recession. The war was true demand, sure, but wasn’t the war really a big fat stimulus? Government gave money to industries who put people to work, who paid taxes and spent money, allowing industry to produce more product, etc. I’m very confused how all this worked. Please set me straight!

First, let me note that it’s not only the Democrats who are Neo-Keynesians. Most Republican politicians are too; the monetarism of the Chicago School is little more than a Keynesian heresy that focuses on monetary policy and leaves fiscal policy out of the equation. Now, it is true that WWII helped lift the USA out of the Great Depression, but not for the reasons that the economically illiterate, historically clueless, and logically challenged usually cite. The stimulus involved in producing hundreds of thousands of ships, tanks, and airplanes and employing millions of men did not bring about the post-war economic recovery, it was the effective use of those men and materials in destroying the industrial infrastructure of Italy, Germany and Japan that did. While economists such as Henry Hazlitt and Thomas Sowell rightly cite Frederic Bastiat’s Broken Window fallacy and point out that there is nothing productive or wealth-generating about turning steel into a rusting hulk on the bottom of the ocean, they forget that destroying an economic competitor’s industrial infrastructure at no cost to your own, then providing consumer goods and the means of rebuilding that infrastructure is very productive and wealth-generating indeed.

Let us call it Vox’s Addendum to Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy. Or, if you prefer, the Broken Window Martial Motive. Bastiat’s parable goes thusly:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—”It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

If, however, the shopkeeper happens to live in the next town over, his window is broken, and the house belonging to his neighbor the second glazier is burned down with the second glazier inside it due to the vagaries of violent inter-village relations, the six francs the shopkeeper will spend on repairing his broken window will be six francs that did not previously circulate within the first town’s economy, and which the shopkeeper, living in the second town, was never going to spend on shoes or books produced in the first town. Therefore, it is a good thing to break windows, so long as the windows are broken in the neighboring town at a cost that is exceeded by the benefit to be gained from fixing them.

“In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented, [unless the accident happens to take place in the neighboring town. – VD]”

This means that while most wars are economically destructive, wars that offer the likely prospect of destroying the industrial base of one or more advanced economies without putting the nation’s own industrial base at risk are economically beneficial. By way of statistical evidence in support of this conclusion, note how the annual rate of commercial bank loan growth was much higher immediately after WWII – 25% in 1947 and 21.5% in 1950 – than it ever has been since.

I kind of want one

So, Markku, would you mind popping over and grabbing a pair?

“There are tanks all over the forest, abandoned,” an unnamed reporter on the video says. “If you need one, come and get it.” Locals in a nearby village said the tanks had been sitting there for almost four months covered in snow. The armoured vehicles were identified as a mixture of T-80 and T-72 battle tanks, the workhorses of the Russian army.

It’s a tough choice. But I’d have to go for the T-80 due to its superior mobility. It doesn’t get great gas mileage, but then, do you really care what gasoline costs when you’ve got a 125mm main armament in lieu of a credit card?

Consequential consequences

Fred Reed muses upon a familiar pattern:

Recently I saw an interview with General McChrystal, head butcher of the the Pentagon’s Democracy Implantation Force in Afghanistan. The General was explaining our ongoing victory. Yes, victory. We were making progress. It was only a matter of time. He could see the light at the end of the tunnel. He didn’t explain what were doing in a tunnel in the first place….

What McMoreland doesn’t get is that people just don’t like being invaded. Yes, yes, it’s for their own good. We, of course, will determine what constitutes their own good. Such is the ingratitude of these people, and their lack of respect for borders, that we find ourselves forced to expand the war into Cambod—Pakistan, I meant. Pakistan. And so the Predators fly, Predating, killing the wrong people because that’s what there are more of. That doing this might produce animosity is irrelevant to soldiers. The Mision is sacred. Our intentions are good.

The consequences of not understanding what you are doing can be consequential.

It is truly remarkable how most self-styled conservatives resolutely refuse to recall the lessons of military history. The failing occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq will hardly mark the first time that a once-wealthy, but still-powerful society in decline has bankrupted itself while haplessly engaging in pointless military overstretch.

I find myself wondering how many pro-occupation “conservatives” have lost their jobs yet? And I wonder how many of them will still believe in the absolute priority of occupying third-world countries on the other side of the planet once they find themselves out on the street and collecting unemployment?

Victory in Afghanistan

As every armchair military historian knew from the start, it’s not going to happen. But this is a morbidly amusing commentary on eight years of occupation:

America’s deputy chief of military intelligence in Afghanistan has issued a damning indictment of the work of US spy agencies, calling them clueless and out of touch with the Afghan people. Major General Michael Flynn described US spies as “ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced… and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers”….

It quotes one operations officer saying that the US was unable to make informed decisions about what to do in Afghanistan because of a lack of much-needed intelligence about the country.

Bad strategy always leads to confusion, bad tactics, and demoralized troops. And the U.S. strategy has been completely hapless in Afghanistan and Iraq… don’t think for a second that the situation in Iraq is settled. It’s no wonder the global jihadists are feeling increasingly confident and stepping up their activities in the Dar al-Harb. Even the most rabid Republican neocon nattering on about the imminent danger to national security that can only be prevented by an immediate invasion of Iran/Pakistan/Yemen/Dubai should now understand that military occupations are not an effective means of convincing the world of the danger of offending a superpower. Shock and awe has been replaced by contempt.

The obvious solution

Disarm the military:

As a number of others have already pointed out, the mainstream media are doing their best to turn a mass murder committed by someone who worshipped at the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers, made repeated attempts to contact al-Qaeda-supportive clergy, and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the start of the attack into something other than an Islamic terrorist attack. If this wasn’t such a dreadfully serious matter, it would almost be funny watching Democrats insist that there’s no elephant in the bathtub. Perhaps the most bizarre of these claims is that of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who insists that the core problem behind Fort Hood is that “America loves guns.”

Clearly the solution is not to remove all Muslim jihadists from the U.S. military, but to take away all of the military’s guns. I am told that historically, soldiers are known to have been particularly prone to shooting people with them, so the time is long past to disarm the soldiery. While some might think this would make the military’s task in Afghanistan and Iraq more dangerous, that’s obviously not the case. Since the battle for hearts and minds concerns niceness and school-building, not breaking things and killing people, it is self-evident that an armed military is actually inhibiting the pursuit of victory in those countries.

After all, people are people everywhere you go, and if the military doesn’t require armaments in the USA, why should they require them anywhere else?

On the radio

Here’s a link to yesterday’s interview on Morning Magazine. It was a relatively slow day… only four interviews. This one, however, was not about the book, but the wars and Veteran’s Day.

The Obama administration’s dithering over whether or not to accede to the theater commander’s request for more troops is a good example of the sort of thing Michael McSorley and I were discussing. If you can’t make up your mind about such a relatively minor decision, then you clearly have no idea what you’re doing in the strategic sense. If Obama doesn’t have enough confidence in General McChrystal to grant his request without hesitation, he should either replace McChrystal or end the occupation and bring the troops home.

Personally, I suspect the troop request was a political CYA on McChrystal’s part. He knows he can’t win there because the US lacks sufficient loyalty from the famously fractious locals and he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, so the request for 40,000 troops is essentially McChrystal washing his hands of responsibility while hoping Obama has the balls to withdraw U.S. forces. I think he’s miscalculated and that Obama will ultimately send the requested troops because, like most individuals with weak characters, Obama is terrified of being correctly perceived as weak. If the general is fortunate, Obama will send fewer troops and give him the ability to claim that he wasn’t given the necessary forces required to do the job.

Of course, none of this ritual dance between commander and commander-in-chief has anything to do with either the U.S. national interest or the interests of the individual American soldier.

Is the Rumsfeldian Rubik solved?

Perhaps the Fort Hood murders are unrelated to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism and it’s just another disgruntled postal worker or three run amok, but it would appear that after only eight years, the terrorists have finally figured out the flaw in the clever Rumsfeldian strategy of fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them there.

A mass shooting at Ft. Hood military post in Texas has left at least 7 dead and 20 wounded [MSNBC is reporting 12 and 31 now -VD] and one suspected gunman is on the loose, officials told Fox News. A massive manhunt was under way for the suspect at large, Fox News confirmed. One person was in custody. The New York Post said that there were two shooters at the Army post massacre; other reports said there were three.

I wouldn’t bet on the postal workers, though.

UPDATE – the attempted PC spin never fails to amuse: “The official said the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.”

Or, it could have been an attack by aliens who have secretly infiltrated the U.S. military disguised as humans as part of their master plan to steal Earth’s water. Or perhaps highly evolved land sharks. But surely not Islamic terrorism, since we’re, you know, fighting them over there.

UPDATE II – I’m sure we are all shocked: “The suspected gunman was identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.” More of the joys of multiculturalism.

It’s over, go home

If your troops are being murdered by your allies, that’s a good sign that you should give up the hearts and minds strategy:

Five soldiers have been shot dead by a “rogue” Afghan policeman in an attack at a police checkpoint. Three Grenadier Guards and two Royal Military Police were attacked as they rested inside a compound. The soldiers, who had removed their body armour and helmets, were shot by an Afghan national policeman who then fled. It is not known whether he was a member of the Taliban or being coerced by the insurgents.

The Afghan and Iraqi occupations are of zero national interest to the United States. They are of even less interest to Great Britain. And one wonders how long it will be before similar attacks happen to British troops and policemen in the UK itself. If you haven’t managed to win over a populace after eight years of occupation, give up and go home. It’s not going to happen.

Late, but better than never

It’s was obvious that the strategists had no idea what to do about 10 minutes after they successfully kicked out the Taliban with the help of the Northern Alliance. In fairness, this was mostly because there was nothing of material benefit to the USA to be gained there. The invasion and campaign were brilliant, but the occupation was awesomely stupid. I thought the decision to allow the DEA to co-opt foreign policy was the particular highlight.

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department’s head of personnel. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”

[M]any Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there — a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

While I applaud Captain Hoh’s integrity as well as his belated recognition of the futility of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, he really should have recognized this several years ago. It is not a surprise that an occupied nation would fight the occupying forces and there is no rational national interest in the USA continuing to keep its military forces stationed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All they can reasonably expect to do is to further destabilize the region while providing a sitting target for the various sides jousting for advantage there.

As the Romans knew, if you’re not going to settle colonists in a conquered territory, you’re not going to stay. And if you’re not going to stay, there is absolutely no reason to occupy territory once the initial objectives have been realized.