Hi, Karen and Keith, and everyone,
I suggested some time ago that the issue may not be when the soonest we can leave is, but whether we will be allowed to leave. While the vast majority of Iraqis want us out, those who are fighting the US (and UK, etc) presence there can roughly be seen as falling into two categories: those who are trying to expel us as quickly as possible, and those who want to keep us bogged down there, reasoning that the longer they can keep us there, the longer and deeper will be the erosion of US credibility and standing in the area. Of these, there is a smaller group that quite cynically feels that they are in a battle with the US globally, and that Iraq makes a perfect battleground for them, as we keep re-supplying them with targets. At some point, maybe, the Americans will wake up and realize it is a losing battle - a lost one, really - and then we will also realize that unless we handle things very intelligently that our withdrawal may become a rout. As we beat up on Bush, let us, to our embarrassment, recognize that we have all had friends who asserted to us, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, that we 'couldn't' simply leave Iraq, having invaded the place. Of course, they were flat out wrong and we knew it, and their inability to put forward a credible scenario for our remaining was the sure tip-off that it was an unsupported emotion that they were expressing, the fact is that that sentiment emboldened the neocons and Bush appointees to rest comfortably on the same argument (of which the phrase 'cut-and-run' was a tool). So when we bash Bush, who surely deserves it, let us remember that he had a lot of help in pursuing his folly, sadly. I hope for the day when those who did not have the insight or courage to say, "enough - out now" apologize for the deaths and destruction and loss of resources that that mistake cost us and the people of Iraq. I do not believe that it is simply good enough to say, as more and more of the Bush supporters are now, 'The past is the past. What we have to do now is figure what we are going to do in the future.' Yes, that we do have to figure out - though the neocons and groups like the Iraq Study Group will be of no substantive help in doing so - AND we do have to learn from the many Bush mistakes - AND we do owe the dead, the mutilated, and the impoverished a deep and substantive apology. In my opinion, a good way to begin the apology is by recognizing the impenetrable hubris, callousness, and ignorance that animated those who urged the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Lawry _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 4:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Losing the war of words, too Thanks for the information on what your media is reporting, Keith, and your keen observations. I'll keep my eyes open to see if our mainstream media show those convoy images or not. As for the Gates hearing today, his candor is portrayed as both stark and refreshingly honest. One blogger I read listed the times that the White House as declared that we are winning in Iraq in recent months, opposed to Gates' "grown up" concession. What Gates has to do is establish credibility as a tabula rasa and hope the alternate media and activists don't succeed in showcasing his less than savory past or his business ties since leaving public service. Even Sen. Kerry said in a forceful interview on Meet the Press Sunday, designed to improve his image after failing as a joke teller, that he will vote for Gates this time despite opposing him in the past, because the dire situation calls for a new replacement, quickly. Unfortunately, I fear Iraq is going to get much, much worse very quickly before things get at all better. It's a rude awakening for many that we find ourselves in another Vietnam, and that they believed the singsong. But at least there is some balance returning to the public voice. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the Univ. of Maryland conducted a survey in late October finding that respondents overwhelming advocated a "good neighbor" policy that would reflect the good neighbor principles of mutual respect and cooperation: * 79% of the respondents believed that "the United States should think in terms of being a good neighbor with other countries because cooperative relationships are ultimately in the best interests of the United States." That same broad majority said that the "United States should coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole." * 65% agreed with the statement: "When the U.S. government justifies its foreign policies to the American people, it plays on people's fears too much." <http://ggn.irc-online.org/neighbor/3654> http://ggn.irc-online.org/neighbor/3654 There is plenty to worry about as we wade through what could be a very glum holiday season, and I am not referring to retail sales. In addition to the esteemed JKG, below, Paul Krugman adds his voice to the "R" worries, available without the NYT 'select' subscription here: Is GDP growth below stalling speed? <http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/12/is_gdp_growth_b.ht ml> http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/12/is_gdp_growth_b.htm l The Dollar Melts as Iraq Burn by James K. Galbraith, Guardian UK, Dec. 04, 2006 The melting away of the dollar is like global warming: you can't say that any one heat wave proves the trend, and there might be a cold snap next week. Still, over time, evidence builds up. And so, as the greenback approaches two to the pound, old-timers will remember the fall of sterling, under similar conditions of deficits and imperial retreat, a generation back. We have to ask: is the American financial empire on the brink? Let's take stock. It's clear that Ben Bernanke got buffaloed, early on, by the tripe about his need to "establish credibility with the markets." There never was an inflation threat, apart from an oil-price bubble that popped last summer. Long-term interest rates would have reflected the threat if it existed, but they never did. So the Fed overshot, and raised rates too much. Now long rates are falling; Bernanke faces an inverting yield curve and even <http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=hotStocksNews&stor yID=2006-12-01T182400Z_01_NYA000057_RTRUKOC_0_US-MARKETS-FOREX.xml&WTmodLoc= Home-C3-Investing1-hotStocksNews-6> bank economists are starting to call his next move. That will be to start cutting rates, after a decent interval, sometime next year. Once again, all you monetary policy buffs, in unison please: The grand old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men. He marched them up to the top of the hill. And marched them down again. This is not good news for the dollar. The US economy is going soft faster than the inflation hawks and growth optimists thought. Housing has been in free-fall for months. With the new Congress anxious to display "fiscal responsibility" - cue <http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15> Robert Rubin who has moved in very fast on Nancy Pelosi - there won't be any help next year from them. If business investment falls off, recession could hit in 2007 or 2008. With that fear in mind, gloomy profit expectations are setting in, and that's not good for the dollar. The US trade deficit is near all-time records. By itself, this proves nothing: the US supplies reserves to the world system, and it can run any deficit that the world is prepared to finance. But, sooner or later the world may start to get other ideas. So here's the big question: is the age of the dollar economy lurching toward an end? Are China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other big holders of T-bonds about to start a rush, or even a stately promenade, toward the exits? Let's hope not, because the world is unprepared to replace the dollar with anything else. The euro is not suited for the job, and a joint dollar-euro system would need better central bankers than either America or Europe has got. An end to the dollar system would therefore be chaotic, inflationary, and very tough on world trade. The best argument for the dollar has always been: it's not in anyone's interest to bring it down. Could it happen, though? Yes, it could. And it could be connected to that other unfolding disaster. As the "Pax Americana" goes to hell in Iraq - producing a nervous breakdown among the pro-war elites - let's remember that security and finance are linked. Typically, the country that provides global economic security enjoys the use of its financial assets in world trade. And when the security situation changes, that privilege can be revoked. The consequences are unpleasant. Ask the British: after the sterling area folded, it took a generation for the UK to come all the way back. That is partly why <http://www.epsusa.org> Economists for Peace and Security - a group I chair - opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. As far back as 2002, <http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=6 619> we understood - as the economically illiterate <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-ferguson20nov20,0,5449044. column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday> neo-imperialists did not - that a world system very favourable to America was on the line. And it was not, as they seemed to think, just a matter of military might. We knew that if the war undermined confidence in the power, good faith and common sense of the United States, that could lead toward disastrous changes on the financial front. Four years in and with no end in sight, that risk may finally be catching up to the almighty dollar. <http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/1204-33.htm> http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/1204-33.htm
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
