|
To the list,
And now we are talking about the draft again as
well. Perhaps the draft is a good idea because it gets people's
attention when their own children are going to war and not just the children of
the poor who choose the military as a way up in society. The
poor rarely complain about foreign policy and their children don't like the
wealthy because of what they did to their parents and so they will follow orders
if anyone affluent, translate "with power", should complain about
current policy. Remember the murder of Allison Krause by
the National Guard at Kent State during Vietnam? They didn't
mind shooting into this herd of college students who had the money to go to
school when their children didn't. I remember talking to
people from Ohio later and they didn't give a care about Allison and figured
that the NY "Bit... got what she deserved."
So maybe the Democrat version of Republican
hardball in economics is to re-democratize a citizen's
army. Put those rich kids amongst the talented poor and
watch them have trouble with their own
parent's prejudices. I was a volunteer myself but I
always enjoyed the mix that the draft brought and it got people like Gore and
Bush at least peripherally involved.
How do you like Bush's military hat with the
spaghetti on the brim? You rarely see a Democrat revert to
such props. And has anyone else noticed how Laura is
always around when press conferences are given at the ranch.
Hug Hug Kiss Kiss, "See I'm not fooling around."
Bush is the epitome of the "Walking Wound".
Vul-nerability is the primary word used in acting class to define the American
character and style. I've seen the act so much in class and taught
it myself that I find it difficult to accept in the real world.
"Poor me" and the cult of the "Underdog" coming back to win the race
are other versions of the same "vul-va" or wound. I
agree with Keith's description of his body language except it seems "retentive"
to me and dangerous in a weaseling sort of manner. As
the President has "visceral" feelings about dictators so do I have the same
feeling in my viscera about him as well. Someone who has suffered
such abuse is not trustworthy to exercise restraint in passing on
that abuse when given the power. That is my opinion here is
Krugman's.
REH
Games Nations Play
By PAUL KRUGMAN What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea? That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle. Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come. But unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves what incentives we're giving them. So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office. Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before, George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if this guy were to topple I just don't buy that." Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'ιtat, c'est moi. So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do. On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military. So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick? Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons program, tried to play down the story, and its response cutting off shipments of fuel oil was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation. So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang: The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak. The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs. Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing? |
