How Do We Measure Stuff? In the spirit of perplexing quotes today (see below), here's Army Secretary Francis Harvey _talking about recruitment_ (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-18T204437Z_01_N18179699_RTRUKOC_0_US -IRAQ-USA-ARMY.xml&archived=False) : "Recruiting, I don't think is a measure of the strain on the Army." Hmm. Right.
January 19, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/how_do_we_measu.html) | _Comments (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/how_do_we_measu.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/how_do_we_measu.html#trackback) I'm With Max ..._Sawicky_ (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/19/105337/077) , that is: There is an important community of interest and analysis between libertarians and some on the left with respect to U.S. military intervention, or as Charles Krauthammer would put it, "imperialism." Libertarian skepticism about the ability of capital-G Government to work its will for the common good is well applied to the highly difficult project of nation-building. The Libts locate the problem in the inherent incapacity of public agencies who lack incentives to perform well, since there is no market test to drive profit-seeking -- the "invisible hand" -- in a constructive direction. This market lacks what economics textbooks call "sovereign consumers." The Left sees government failure stemming from the domination -- if not total control -- of the public sector by corporate interests or, if you like, Capital. In this case, the enterprise lacks well-intentioned managers. Either way, the outcome is the same. When the US Gov sets out to construct democracy where it did not previously exist, the outcome is often quite different. Accordingly, any proposal for military intervention should meet a very strict test of feasibility (not just morality). We always hear apologists for the war talking about their moral rightness, seldom about whether the damn thing can work. High falutin' rhetoric and purple moralism doth not a foreign policy make. Open disdain for separation of powers and the Constitution is bad. Some lefties get this. Most libertarians get this. We should, you know, agree to agree on this one, and leave the fighting for, say, Social Security. It's a shame to see anybody on either side get so caught up in tribal politics that we can't reach across the ideological divide. If Jerry Taylor and Dan Becker can _coauthor an op-ed_ (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3295) , or Ed Crane and Carl Pope can _have a sit-down_ (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/crane-pope-020730.html) , the lion can most certainly lie down with the lamb. January 19, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.just inlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/im_with_max.html) | _Comments (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/im_with_max.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/im_with_max.html#trackback) Department of Wildly Unsubstantiated Claims, Condi Rice Edition Holy cow did Condi Rice _make a remarkable claim_ (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm) at Georgetown yesterday: the greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them. The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power. Wow, really?!? The European Union is liberal and democratic. If it had, you know, an army, does the above claim mean that we'd be okay with being surpassed in terms of relative power by another state or coalition of states? Would the Secretary care to clarify? I submit to you that if an undergrad at Stanford had just hung that one out there in, say, 2000, Rice would have sheared his head off neatly at the shoulders. But now it's become an article of faith for the true believers in the administration. It's hard to overstate how radical a proposition this is. Ironically, the only hope here may be China hawks and other folks who are going to put a resource squeeze on what it would actually take to internalize the Rice Doctrine into a policy framework. Seriously, though, "the fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power"??? I wonder when she would say, precisely, it was that that change took place. And, lest you think that the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization that Chris and I write about _here_ (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5358) is nothing to worry about, here's the Secretary on that: We have an expansive vision for this new office, and let there be no doubt, we are committed to realizing it. Should a state fail in the future, we want the men and the women of this office to be able to spring into action quickly. We will look to them to partner immediately with our military, with other federal agencies and with our international allies, and eventually we envision this office assembling and deploying the kinds of civilians who are essential in post-conflict operations: police officers and judges and electricians and engineers, bankers and economists and legal experts and election monitors. Go _here_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/10/its_official_th.html) for more of my Rice-bashing. January 19, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/department_of_w.html) | _Comments (3)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/department_of_w.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/department_of_w.html#trackback) January 17, 2006 I Think the Technical Term for This Is "A Mess" Here's the CSM today on _our latest strategy in Iraq_ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060117/ts_csm/ogov_1&printer=1;_ylt=AuOdo8P3hg7Hc4MA_nhM4AKOe8UF;_ylu= X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-) : Increasingly, the US is throwing its weight in Iraq behind Sunni Arabs, about 20 percent of the country, to ensure they are part of a new coalition government. Analysts say the US is convinced reconciliation with Sunni Arabs will help stop the insurgency. There is also an American unease with the growing influence of Iran on Iraq's dominant Shiite bloc. But Shiite leaders have responded defiantly, threatening unflinching stands that could push the country closer to full-scale civil war. Trouble is, everybody here has options except for us. If the Sunnis feel they're getting a raw deal, they can sidle up to the insurgency. If the Shiites start feeling as though they aren't getting their due, they can look to their neighbors to the East. Let's not get started on the panoply of strategies readily available to the Kurds. We, on the other hand, have decided that we'd do best with no options. The first thing we're going to have to do--at some point--is figure out what political outcome(s) we're willing to accept and try to put a process in motion that would get us there. Democracy, for all its virtues, hasn't done the trick. Right now, you essentially have fractious, sectarian militias governing the better part of the country, with each party leveraging to get a better deal--out of us. It'd sure be better if we could pick a horse and ride it rather than trying to wrangle 10 or 15 at the same time. On that happy note, I just found out that I'll be playing the "pointy-head intellectual" role at a _debate tomorrow night at the America's Future Foundation_ (http://www.americasfuture.org/calendar/archives/020660.php) , opposite an OIF vet, a bureau chief for an Arab newspaper, but with Scott McConnell of The American Conservative on my side of the dais. Should be fun. Or something. January 17, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/i_think_the_tec.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/i_think_the_tec.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/i_think_the_tec.html#trackback) January 14, 2006 Are We Going to War with China? My boss, Ted Galen Carpenter's new book is now out, and Ted worries that unless something changes, we're in for trouble: (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403968411/qid=1137268133/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9259189-3803038?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) One issue could lead to a disastrous war between the United States and China: Taiwan. A growing number of Taiwanese want independence for their island and regard mainland China as an alien nation. Mainland Chinese consider Taiwan a province that was stolen from China more than a century ago, and their patience about getting it back is wearing thin. Washington officially endorses a "one China" policy but also sells arms to Taiwan and maintains an implicit pledge to defend it from attack. That vague, muddled policy invites miscalculation by Taiwan or China or both. The three parties are on a collision course, and unless something dramatic changes, an armed conflict is virtually inevitable within a decade. Although there is still time to avert a calamity, time is running out. In this book, Carpenter tells the reader what the U.S. must do quickly to avoid being dragged into war. We're having a _book forum at Cato on the 25th_ (http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=2586) , with comments from Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, and Richard Bush of Brookings commenting. I did some research for the book, which of course means that it's that much cooler. You should _come to the book forum_ (http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=2586) . January 14, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/are_we_going_to.html) | _Comments (2)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/are_we_going_to.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/are_we_going_to.html#trackback) A Monster Under Every Bed Here's _Noam Scheiber_ (http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=5802) on why, facts be damned, it was important to start a war with Iraq: If a mad man threatens to kill your family, and the very best information you have suggests he has the means to do it, then I think you're justified in attacking him preemptively, even if it later turns out he didn't have the means. The problem with the war is that the best information we had apparently didn't suggest Saddam had an advanced WMD program, and the administration simply ignored it. The analogy might be better if you had a mouthy eleven year old kid in the neighborhood who was always running his mouth about how he didn't like you (presuming in this case the "you" is a grown man with a spine), and how he was going to kick your ass. Why America deigns to shudder at every two-bit, pissant dictator from Venezuela to Syria is beyond me. (_Here_ (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/gaffney200601120826.asp) , for example, national security guru Frank Gaffney free associates on Chavez only to darkly conclude that "America must urgently address itself to the deteriorating situation in Latin America, develop the means to counter Chavismo and help the Venezuelan people liberate themselves and their region from the scourge Chavez’s aggressive despotism represents.") We've got a lot of genuine problems. Some are immediately pressing, some are keep-an-eye-ons, and some we have a chance to shape so they don't get out of control. But by reducing every challenge in foreign policy to something to wet ourselves over, sometimes you get wars like Iraq. Which is, you know, bad. January 14, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/a_monster_under.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/a_monster_under.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/a_monster_under.html#trackback) January 11, 2006 The Case Against a Standing Nation-Building Office Chris Preble's and my _paper_ (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5358) arguing against the State Department's new nation-building office is now available. It argues essentially that the office's creation (called the "_Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization_ (http://www.state.gov/s/crs/) ") is a bad idea. For one, the office is currently focusing its planning on strategically irrelevant countries like Haiti and Sierra Leone. For another, it's likely to give additional institutional support for unnecessary nation-building projects. In addition, we challenge the premise that failed states are meaningful threats to U.S. national security, and we take a look at what it would take if the United States were to seriously embrace a policy that aimed to "fix" failed states. (The answer is, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that the American public is unlikely to support.) The paper takes up the arguments of Anthony Lake, Stephen Krasner, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Robert Kaplan, Francis Fukuyama, and a host of other bigshots, so if you're interested in any of those folks, _give the paper a read_ (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5358) . I'd appreciate your thoughts. January 11, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_case_agains.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_case_agains.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_case_agains.html#trackback) January 05, 2006 The National Interest and the Upcoming Book Forum I see that the new issue of The National Interest is online, with _this article_ (http://nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=46FB6DB413 A94CA3BA62C68AC0D46181) by Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder which sketches out a simpler version of what they argue in their book, which, in case I haven't mentioned it before, we're having a forum for next Thursday. (_Register_ (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2558) already!) TNI also features _a workup_ (http://nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69 D33EF&tier=4&id=0BE693A9C9454A399042A6383A50C4A3) on David Hendrickson and Robert Tucker's article on "the freedom crusade," featuring a particularly forceful piece by Robert W. Merry, president and publisher of Congressional Quarterly, who will be commenting on Mansfield and Snyder's book at our event. January 05, 2006 | _Permalink_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_national_in.html) | _Comments (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_national_in.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/01/the_national_in.html#trackback) January 04, 2006 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
