I have asked the question before, and I will ask it again. What will it take for defenders of this administration to realize that something is going wrong and we will all be better off it can be fixed?

Right now the only option to fix it is Kerry. Perhaps another option will emerge, perhaps the Bush team will turn a corner and start to learn from mistakes, perhaps they will find a better way to do National Security.

Until then I will continue to believe that in 2005 we will be safer with President Kerry than President Bush.

What strikes me as peculiar is the idea that the Vice President should NOT be involved in the foreign policy process! He is, after all, the designated successor to the president, not to mention the president's chosen running mate. Why is it better for him to be kept out of the policy-making loop? If the White House staff can't deal with the Veep, then they have a problem, not the Veep. Is the implication that the President is easier to deal with? I don't see the problem here.

Rich,

I don't even know where to begin to address your statement. It's not at all clear to me that John Kerry even thinks we are at war.

I must say, it is odd for a Veep to sit in on Principals Committee meetings.

Rich,

A change of Veep would satisfy your concerns equally well, without jeopardizing the WOT.

Old Soldier,

Being privvy to is not the same as dominating. Cheney appears to cross that line everyday, to the detriment of all.

Dan and others,

I've been rooting for months now for a Bush-Guiliani or Bush-Powell ticket this fall. If Condi emerges (as looks unlikely but possible) from this whole mess strengthened, the spot might be hers. Check out Toles in the WaPo today for a semi-humorous take on the Veepstakes.

"It is not clear that John Kerry even thinks we are at war."

Well, I would want to ask who you think we are at war against and why we are at war in each case? I think that the rhetoric of "war on terror" clouds judgement of a number of distinct situations each with a different combination of solutions. The Bush Adminstration seems to want to call everything a war and then try to rise above any questioning of how they wage that "war."

And with regard to John Kerry, I would encourage everyone to actually read what he says about the war on terror. You can read his speech from just over a month ago at: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

This is the key quote: "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little."

And then the speech goes on to detail many specific policies he would pursue. Please, read that speech, and then explain why you think John Kerry does not believe we are at war. You can just follow the party line of the President's attacks, or you can look at what Kerry says and try to find a position of your own.

Kelli,

Getting rid of Cheney would superficially change the situation, but the fact that Bush has allowed the current situation to go on so long indicates that his leadership is lacking. My opinion might change if there was an acknoweldgement of a problem and how the change will fix it. But I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

And again, let's stop with the belief that changing Presidents would "jeapordize our war on terror" We are a functioning democracy that is capable of changing our government. And see my post above regarding Kerry's attitude toward the war on terror.

Rich,

I absolutely agree that we CAN change administrations in a time of (let's compromise) crisis. The question is, how does it help us? Let's all acknowledge that this admin is far from perfect, even in the pursuit of terrorists and their allies. However, consider these points:

1: The only thing I'm "learning" from the whole Clarke brouhaha is that every new admin has a lag period (up to a year, as the old one waits out the end and the new one appoints staff). Is this a luxury we can't afford right now?

2: Consider some of the proposals Bush has made for a second term: radical reshifting of troops and bases abroad comes to mind. I think this is %100 brilliant. Would Kerry follow through? I'm not sure. There would at least be delay. Food for thought.

3: How would the dumping of Bush be perceived abroad? Now, I am deliberately putting this down on the list because I do NOT think it should be (or will be) paramount on any voters' mind this fall. But if we get a response a la Spain, I think the "crisis" will worsen. This is bad. It's almost worth keeping Bush on to avoid.

The phone lines are open.

Kelli, Old Soldier, ALLCON,

On "Being there"

We deal with it all of the time here, And I imagine those of you on the civilian side (at big organizations) do as well. The problem is this:

This Boss - understandably - wants to be there, but here's the rub; Once She's there, it no longer is.

Follow me? Put simply: The boss can never be 'there', because once he's there, it's not the same place anymore.

The bad people behave, the show-boats start preening, the idiots start asking questions just to be heard, and the people that want to get things done shut down and wait for the smaller meeting.

So I don't sit in on those kinds of meetings - unless I'm having it just to have it - because I can't really go to them in the first place.

Kelli, Rich, ALLCON

Regarding 'Hand-offs'

BINGO, Kelli, this is the nut of the whole tempest. And it is what is so disgusting about our pretty, little Mr. Clarke. He's been a CivServ for how long? He knows about the lag, and decided to 'ROAD' before quitting, and now feigns mortal concern about the safety of the republic. There's got to be a special place in hell for perverts like him.

So you guys believe that if we are at "war" and we should never change a president in between? Nevermind that this war is ill-defined, and who knows when it will end? What does that mean in 2008? Does it matter that even republicans (the saner ones like Drezner, Sullivan, etc.) are now suggesting that this administration is worse for our democracy than perhaps Nixon was? One of the most incompetent administrations at constructing policy in recent memory?

Popper once said a belief is only rational, if you can give the conditions under which it is false. I don't think any of you can list the conditions under whinc you will not vote for Bush.

Even though Kerry will hvae a lisght lag, it is clear that part of the Bush lag was a misguided philosophy that believed nation-states are the main actors in terrorism (Drezner seems to believe this too) vs. loosely-knit multi-national terrorist organizations. This is why we have 150k troops in Iraq nation-building and only 11k troop in Afghanistan hunting for OBL to bring him to justice.

Anon,
First off, get a name or a better handle. I hate "anon"s--this is a friendly comment board. No one's gonna look you up and stinkbomb your house.

Second, please learn to read. Or let me sum up the conversation so far in really simple terms: Rich said we must be able to change presidents, despite a national crisis (see, I even avoided using the word "war" though I think it is quite apt). I said, Rich is right. Even in the midst of WWII FDR had to run for reelection (I think 5 people voted for his opponent, but those were extraordinary circumstances, I don't think our situation is as dire). THAT SAID, however, we must also consider the cost involved in dumping the current prez, both in terms of disrupting our current strategy AND in terms of the perception that we're "doing a Spain."

I try not to be rude, but long-term posters here know that I hate to be deliberately misread.

Tommy G,

Nice to have some informed commentary. Human nature and government bureaucracy--deadly combo.

Typo-

Should be "The Boss...", not "This Boss..." - Makes it sound like I'm taling about Condi, when instead I'm trying to deal with the whole He/She/They thing in a way that demonstrates I'm not a complete Knuckle-dragger. Damn languange conventions.

Kelli,

You can have Anon - I've got time this morning for one thread, and I'm parking it down-spin at "Finishing AAE". But I'll say this: Aren't you mystified that anyone would just chime in on a board and start attributing stuff without reading for awhile first? I know I always am. I think I must have spent about a month reading posts before it even occured to me to start in on someone.

Anon? Calm down, Go to your MAC-write first and compose your thoughts - give us a name, (Hint - if you choose a fake name, you'll still be anonymous, neat, huh?) and try again.

Just another example of why Cheney is this President's biggest problem. Every major blunder has involved Dick Cheney being right in the middle of it. The President's failure to remove this sore makes me question his decision making ability.

Is the problem structural? (The Vice President, be he Bush, Mondale, Gore or Cheney,should not involve himself in security matters.) Or is it personal? (Cheney is a bull in a china shop.)

I read our host's stance as it being a structural problem. In which case, I wonder what he thinks the proper role for the VP is?

Look forward to everyone's thoughts.

[T]he difficulty is that even cabinet-level officials can be reluctant in disagreeing with him because he's the vice-president. This leads to a stunted policy debate, which ill-serves both the President and the country.

Dan; With all respect to you, I'm not convinced that a "heathy" policy debate is a positive thing to have, when actual ACTION is required. We've both seen situation where arguments erupt over the color of the chairs to have at the next meeting.

Or to put a more realistic edge on it, comsider that we did have a healthy policy debate in the Clinton administration, gave us a rather nice policy... at least on paper... one firmly grounded in law and policy... one the lawyers respect... which in turn failed because terorists, unlike lawyers, have no respect policy and policy wonks.

Kelli, did you read my post?

I addressed your point (1) directly in prior post.

As far as (2) is concerned, I'm not certain how "ingenious" reshifting troop deployment world-wide is. It just seems sort of obvious to me. This is definitely one of Rumsfeld's better ideas and he even wants to go about in a reasonable way by consulting our allies to make moves that work both ways. Given that the nature of the threat to the US has changed since the ocld war, shifting troops makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why you think Kerry would not continue this proposal. Did he say something in a speech that I missed?

I didn't address (3),but my thoughts on that are that at least in Spain, Al Queda said they would back off. More importantly though, most foreigners (the terrorists too, even if in terms of targest they dont) usually make a distinction between the American govt. and the American people. Everyone hates the govt, but people have a more favorable rating of the people. If the people kicked out the currently despised govt., it would just reaffirm faith in the American people. Yea its probably a bad idea to trust what terrorist say.

More importantly though, when Kerry said "foreign leaders" would like to see him elected ... its clear that this is true. If not foreign leaders, clearly populations in countries that are our allies. Bush has made America so horribly unpopular its unbelievable. He flushed down all the good-will America had post-9/11 in one year on a war that is now clearly unneccessary (no wmd, no al qaeda) and ridculously rushed. How is this not one of the biggest foreign policy blunder in the past decade? Moreover, going back to Spain, the spanish govt.at least claims they are going to get tougher on Al Qaeda and perhaps send more troops while backing down on Iraq. A Kerry admin that did the same woudl not be seen as weak, but perhaps sane. I'm not sure how many American people would believe that Iraq was a part of the war on terror if they knew that there are no WMD and no Al Qaeda connection. Unfortunately Cheney keeps denying reality, so it might not be after the election till a majority realizes this is the case.

Regarding anonymous posting, I would rather not have my name associated with my remarks when someone searches for it on google. Using Anon is an easy way to distinguish that its not my real name, than me just randomly picking Jake. So at least I'm being honest. Anonymous posting is such a keystone of the net (at least for the 10 years I've been using the net), that I'm not certain why anyone here is even bothering to criticize it, other than its an ad hom.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the jargon here, I assume that "NSC principals" refers to the full members of the NSC. If that is the case then Cheney is well within his rights (and duties) to attend. The statutory full members of the NSC are the President, the VP, the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense plus the NS Advisor, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of the CIA as permanent 'advisors' to the NSC.

Accusing Cheney of being a bad policy maker is one thing (arguably true), on the other hand, accusing him of exceeding his authority by attending NSC meeting is odd to say the least.

Folks -- Let's leave, for the moment, the question of whether the VP should be involved, or even significantly involved, in foreign policy (although, you may recall, one of the ways Bush argued his relative lack of foreign policy experience was compensated was by the strength of his team, including Cheney.)

And let's put aside, for the moment, the fact that Clarke has made it completely clear he's a whore who will say anything in order to satisfy whomever he thinks can help him get what he wants (which explains why he seems to have fit into the Clinton administration, come to think of it.)

So, neglecting first the questionable assumption underlying the whole question, and ignoring the lack of credibility of the source, could someone tell me what the foreign policy failures were?

Failing to get Russia, France, and Germany to agree to a resolution after 1441, when it's clear the Saddam regime was bribing their asses off?

Being so obsessed with Iraq that, after 9/11, the US immediately acted against, uh, Afghanistan and the Taliban? The very people who Clarke said we should act against?

The fact that Bush apparently told Clarke to check out the possibility Iraq was involved, but dropped Iraq as a direct agent within a couple of days? On, it appears, Clarke's recommendation?

Failing to somehow divine that the very same intelligence that Clinton, the UN, and pretty much every country in Europe agreed on was not complete? Did Cheney prevent Bush from exercising the omniscience that is the Divine Right of Presidents who are being second-guessed during a campaign year?

The failure of the Bush administration to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem, just like every president since Truman? The fact that the US has kept Israel from killing Arafat, a slimeball who practically defines "needs killin'"?

Or is it that the Bush administration failed to go to war with Afghanistan during the first six months of his term, while he was still coping with hoardes of political opponents parroting "selected, not elected"? Can you all really say, with a straight face, that anyone would have accepted the pre-emptive invasion of a central Asian country before 9/11?

If you can master the self-delusion necessary to believe that, do you really further believe that hitting Afghanistan in 2001 would have stopped a strike plan that had been in preparation in the US since 1999?

Might it be the amazing successes in Iraq? Might it be that you're not realizing that Iraq is in historical terms an amazing success? (Yes, we can fantasize about how it could have been even better, but get serious: we've got a country that has been raped and ravaged by kleptocratic fascists for more than 30 years.)

Or the complete turnaround of Libya? The multilateral pressure on North Korea? The diplomatic attempts by Syria to make up with the US? The Iranians suddenly greater openness about their nuclear program? The revelation of the AQ Khan crime syndicate? The turnaround on supporting al Qaeda by Pakistan? The cooling of tensions between Pakistan and India?

In other words, are you people nuts or what?

Hey Anon (if that's really your name) --

I'll give you the conditions where I'll vote for Kerry:

* If he demonstrates that his (understandable) antipathy to American exceptionalism will not cause him to fail to persue the War on Terror by all means necessary.

* That he will recognize that international organizations have their place, but the lack of transparency and accountability of these organizations can limit their effectiveness, and lead to some pretty amazing corruption. (Cf, Oil for Food Program)

* That he demonstrates that his nostrums for the budget will actually close the deficit, as opposed to replace excessive tax cuts with excessive spending.

Kerry's demonstration project is a difficult one -- because, as we've seen, he will make sure he votes for a program, before he votes against it.

Tommy G, regarding your Boss analogy, I think your dead on the money, but I think there is more to add. Rumsfeld and Cheney are good long-time friends and both have close ideological views. Given Cheney is the boss, the Rumsfeld-Cheney view dominate NSC meetings at the detriment of opinions from State and others. This is why Powell has been ineffective, and to some extent why Condi hasn't been able to form consensus. It seems to me that Cheney already goes to these meetings with his mind made up and supports whoever agrees with him. This shouldn't sound as outrageous as it may seem at first because we know Cheney is stubborn and a bit divorced from reality (c.f. Iraq/Al Qaeda connection).

Tommy G, regarding your Boss analogy, I think your dead on the money, but I think there is more to add. Rumsfeld and Cheney are good long-time friends and both have close ideological views. Given Cheney is the boss, the Rumsfeld-Cheney view dominate NSC meetings at the detriment of opinions from State and others. This is why Powell has been ineffective, and to some extent why Condi hasn't been able to form consensus. It seems to me that Cheney already goes to these meetings with his mind made up and supports whoever agrees with him. This shouldn't sound as outrageous as it may seem at first because we know Cheney is stubborn and a bit divorced from reality (c.f. Iraq/Al Qaeda connection).

Anon you are and anon you shall remain.

As for having "addressed" my earlier point 1: you did, and someone you managed to get it wrong. Who has time to reason with a post?

As for point 2, the "self-evident" need for the US to restructure power overseas, this smacks of someone telling Newton that gravity was "self-evident"--once he had pointed it out.

Your real problem "anon" is that you mistake words for actions. Rumsfeld says he will shift forces, the world knows that he WILL follow through. Zapatero says he will fight al Qaeda harder in Spain, who exactly believes him? Who, for that matter, believes the shadowy "spokesmen" for AQ when they say they will now leave Spain alone? Apparently you do. You are probably alone on this board in so doing.

As Bithead points out, Clinton, Clarke, et al. said many good and proper things about taking on terrorism, but their actions (lobbing a few missiles here and there) undercut their rhetoric and emboldened our enemies. Or don't you believe we even have any enemies (besides Cheney, that is)?

And yet, many of us often vote AGAINST a candidate. I confess I find myself there again.

I disagree with much of what I hear from Kerry - job protectionism, increased spending, etc. - but at least I see where to disagree. He's the devil I know.

The Bush camp is a different breed of Republican. With "Bring 'em on" challenges to terrorists (easily the stupidest foreign policy sound bite ever), lack of fiscal responsibility that offers a poor alternative to DFL tax & spend, and an air of secrecy that suffocates honest debate and lends itself to open suspicion, I assert that Bush is the devil I don't know.

For the "vote against" gang - that's the distinction most often used.

wishIwuz2,

I don't get it--how can someone with a political record that's all over the map and only the barest outline of platform (and most of THAT empty verbiage) be "the devil we know" while the guy who's been in for 3 years is the scary unknown? You may not LIKE the guy at 1600 (heck, I don't care for him much either) but he's probably done most of the damage he's likely to do already.

As for Kerry, the jury is way out that he's worth the risk. I'm waiting for his Veep nod to give me some indication what sort of leader he'd make. A gutless, safe and/or pc pick spells the end of my deliberations; on the other hand, something "outside the box" in a good, daring way, definitely gets my attention.

I will vote for Bush:

1. If there is an increase of 2.6 million jobs in 2004 as his Economic Report promised. (I won't even hold him to the average having to be up that much.)

2. If he can come up with one iota of evidence that supports the war in Iraq.
a. something more than "WMD related programs"
b. any Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism against the US.
c. an imminent threat by Iraq against the US.

3. If he submits a detailed accounting of the cost of the ongoing war in Iraq including the supplemental appropriation that he wants to delay until after the election.

4. If he convinces me that he really intends to address the petty corruption in his adminisitration including
a. the outing of Plame.
b. the fake Medicare numbers.

5. If he acknowledges the impossibility of the math that suggests that there will be a permanent, structural deficit if the tax cuts are made permanent.

*I don't get it--how can someone with a political record that's all over the map and only the barest outline of platform (and most of THAT empty verbiage) be "the devil we know" while the guy who's been in for 3 years is the scary unknown?*

Kelli - you may see plenty of conflict in Kerry's positions, but much of it is essentially DFL - especially in domestic and social arenas. His current "empty" outline seems mostly predictable.

Above all else, it's the Bush Admin's uber-secrecy that makes them the unknown to me.

Additionally, I am in the "follow-the-money" camp. Bush's $170+ mil. obligations suggest to me he has plenty of damage yet to do.

(BTW - the Bush 2000 campaign offered nearly the same "bare outline w/empty verbiage" -other than tax cuts. He even refused to propose a defense budget. Didn't hurt him a bit.)

Kelli,

In response to my post you raised some very real counter-arguments. I thank you for that. I choose to disagree.

I think that the problems of transition are felt most on issues that are a lower priority. It is clear now that terrorism and the situation in Iraq are the highest priorities. Other things will have a more difficult transition. If you look at the early Bush presidency they hit the ground running on some issues, for Kerry the "war on terror" will have to be one of those priority issues.

I also think that any temporary loss of traction will be offset by a better policy in the future. I find Kerry's listing of priorities to be very compelling and I think that we are at a point in this battle where we need to change some approaches. The Bush administration seems reluctant to do so because it will be seen as admitting mistakes...something they loathe to do.

Then there is the point of how getting rid of Bush will be seen by others. First, is that in most of the world, particularly our allies, but even by the citizens of nations like China, it will restore respect for Americans. In my international experience, and the experience of all people I speak with who are or travelled overseas there is a sense of bewilderment about why we allow ourselves to be governed by Bush. They fundamentally don't understand how anyone could vote for Bush.

However, I think you are thinking how this will be perceived by our enemies. The perception that Bin Laden wants Bush to lose is simply coming from our own perspectives on what he wants and who will do what. If the perception is that Bush is tougher on terrorism then it follows that Bin Laden would rather Kerry win because he will not be as tough which will benefit Bin Laden. I am questioning the assumptions in that logic. I think that Kerry will be tougher on Al Qaeda, I think that Al Qaeda will face a more formidable enemy in the form of a Kerry led government. It will deprive them of possibilities to divide the alliance of civilizations. It does not matter to me if Al Qaeda realizes this or not, I beleive that ultimately a Kerry election will be a bad thing for Al Qaeda, thus a good thing for the US.

As for Kerry, the jury is way out that he's worth the risk. I'm waiting for his Veep nod to give me some indication what sort of leader he'd make. A gutless, safe and/or pc pick spells the end of my deliberations; on the other hand, something "outside the box" in a good, daring way, definitely gets my attention

At the moment the inside money seems to be Clinton or Gephardt. either of which would create more of a Bush landslide.

“Dan; With all respect to you, I'm not convinced that a "heathy" policy debate is a positive thing to have, when actual ACTION is required. We've both seen situation where arguments erupt over the color of the chairs to have at the next meeting.”

Hmmmm. In short:

FIRE!, READY!, AIM!

Charlie (Colorado)

Your list of foreign policy “failures” reminds me of the strawmen at a firing range. I was never beating my wife, so I didn’t “stop”.

Dan, and USNWR, are wrong about the NSC's problem being a management or process issue.

NSC and the office of the National Security Advisor are tools that can be used effectively in several ways. Past Security Advisors have advanced American foreign policy by serving as a buffer between strong-willed Cabinet secretaries (Powell in Reagan's White House), ensuring that the President is briefed as a matter of routine on all his subordinates' views (Scowcroft under Ford and Bush), or being the instrument by which the President bypassed Cabinet secretaries whose ability and views he did not trust (Kissinger under Nixon) or who he thought better employed on a limited range of issues (Berger under Clinton). Security Advisors have also worked less successfully, by working to undermine Cabinet secretaries (Brezinski under Carter) or by seeking an operational role in specific undertakings with only the passive support of the President (McFarlane and Poindexter under Reagan).

It isn't management of the process that distinguishes successful use of the NSA Office effective use of NSC meetings. Mostly, it's the President. Condi Rice has appeared ineffectual at policy coordination and its public defense because in this administration her primary role is to see that a President with very limited knowledge of foreign affairs is kept in the game, by factual briefings and apparently by the provision of emotional support as well. This role would leave little time even for an abler person to limit the intrusions into foreign policy of a Vice President who was put on the ticket in the first place to provide Bush with some of the same services Rice does, and who has in addition a powerful ally in the Pentagon.

I am not an admirer of Ms. Rice, who I think would be out of her depth as National Security Advisor even under a more engaged President. Fundamentally, though, she isn't the problem, and neither is Cheney, who could not have seized the role he plays now unless President Bush were determined to give it to him. The problem is a President determined that tough foreign policy decisions should be made but without the knowledge or determination to make most of them himself.

Rich, I have read Kerry's speech. I have also read his record as a senator. You lose. Again.

I'm sure with Kerry we will see more EU-style terrorism converences with our "allies" in France, more "dialogue" with the Mullahs in Iran, more "diplomacy" with Arafat. We can forget any more people being liberated from Islamo-fascist or Arab fascist regimes. We can forget about any more Ghadaffi-style turn-arounds. We can rest assured that the neither Mullahs nor Kim in North Korea will have to worry about any military threat to their nuclear dreams.

Get real.

Hmmmm. In short:

FIRE!, READY!, AIM!

Well, you've just hit on the advantage of having a leader in place as oposed to say, a Bill Clinton.

I'm not in favor of a Kerry presidency, but I do have a couple questions about your comments, Matthew.

First, what "military threat" does North Korea have to worry about under the Bush administration? Our approach has been spectacularly low key. We've avoided beating the drums of war for the sake of a long, sporadic negotiation process, and we appear to be in no hurry with the negotiations.

Meanwhile, most analysts think the Koreans are building a nuclear arsenal. Are we negotiating for something that will be a fait accompli by the time the negotiations are done?

Second, what military threat do the Mullah's in Iran fear? We're overstretched in Iraq, and bringing troops home, to the extent we can. It's unclear whether Iraq will stabilize, or develop a legitimate government. How long will that remain unclear? Most likely, years. Is there much chance we will invade Iran before achieving stability in Iraq?

And that begs a larger question. Is the policy of pre-emption really still operative? Where in the world is there still a reasonable chance we will use force against a state?

A fundamental problem with pre-emption is that you have to engage in nation-building in the states you overthrow. Nation-building is a slow, ugly process, and you can't do it in several places at once -- not without a bigger army and/or more international assistance.

With respect, William - you can if you can turn things around as quickly as we have.

And, more importantly, there is nothing in the National Security Stategy that requires Pre-emption to be followed by nation-building.

I wonder why Bush is in the White House at all and why after his failure there, he still enjoys about 50% approval rating and then I see people like Art Wellesley argue that pre-emption does not require nation-building. What an idiot. I'll point out the obvious. If you invade a country, then international law requires that you are responsible for the aftermath. If you remove authority in the country, then unless you want to create an anarchy where terrorism and other crimes thrive, then you must substitute for the government you left behind. If you install an authoritarian regime or a failued democracy in place of the one you deposed, then enemies of the new government become your enemies. There's a whole host of other analysis that argues against Art's stupidity, but why bother.

WishIwuz,

Your point about the hyper-secrecy of the Bush WH is well taken. We don't know WHY they behave as they do half the time--yet we have seen enough of their behavior to discern a pattern and (halfway) predict the future. That IS the devil we know. Kerry could be a "predictable" Dem Pres. a la Bill Clinton (not terrible) OR a la Jimmy Carter (grab the kids and head for the fallout shelter). I'm not impressed, but I'm doing my best to keep an open mind.

Rich,

Your passionate words impelled me to Kerry's website where I read his "plan of action" for foreign policy and the war on terror. Like Bithead, I was underwhelmed. If I believed that the situation today--in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Europe and here at home--were half as bad as he paints it, I might be inclined to credit his "solutions". As it is, he scores no points at all because I don't recognize the world he describes as the one I live in and read extensively about every day.

Example, he's going to beef up the military. Not with "fancy expensive" weapons systems (we all know he never voted for THOSE) but by investing in people. Who here read the Wall Street Journal's priceless portrayal of the Belgian Army last year? Up with people! Personnel without advanced training (which we have) and advanced weapons systems (ditto) is just a make work scheme. Moreover, Bush has already given the armed forces treasury-busting pay increases. Kerry's plan to add 40,000 new recruits would dilute a highly motivated, highly compensated military structure to no discernible end, except insofar as it would look more like what he knew in 'nam.

I DO accept your point that Kerry would have to fight the war on terror more vigorously than his Dem. predecessors. What I'm not so sure of is that his approach would be as effective as Bush's. Here we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

Zathras,

Wow. Who can argue with you?

William Swann,

Is the policy of preemption still operative? Yes. Who might we take down next? (drumroll please) How bout Syria? Maybe we can't send in the Marines everywhere. But that's why we invented B-52s, hellfire missiles, and all the other goodies in our grab bag. And, one more thing, the world isn't like JCPenney--just because you break it, don't mean you gotta buy it.

I DO accept your point that Kerry would have to fight the war on terror more vigorously than his Dem. predecessors. What I'm not so sure of is that his approach would be as effective as Bush's

I think based on his record, we can assume it would not be, even exclusive of any specific comments by Kerry to judge the matter by.

Thing is, we do have those comments. He's told us point blank what he wants to do; he wants the whole thing under the UN. We know about where that would lead us, don't we? The UN... (Snicker) which has proven itself corrupt enough to have been part of the problem, not the solution, during the run-up to our engagement in Iraq, to the tune of 40 BILLION dollars.

Ah, Kelli - you beat me to it.

Elliot,
For your benefit, she lists just some of the other things - aside from civil servants - that one can send into another country without having to rebuild the whole thing. And she did it without resorting to name calling.

Does that, the complete refutation of your point, mean that now you're the Idiot - I'm not clear on how this works?

Art,

Why bother? Kelli is wrong about the break it, buy it thing. It is the obligation of the attacking country under international law to impose law and order in places where they remove it. Preemption means regime change. Also, the doctrine of preemption doesn't work with just an aerial attack; that's more appropriate for containment. That was the policy that Clinton used on Iraq that Bush felt wasn't good enough. Complete refutation of my point? Unfortunately, fools like you vote.

My hyperbole warning light just came on.

"This is the most dysfunctional NSC that ever existed," says a senior U.S. official."

I seem to remember a former Republican President who was also regarded as a dim bulb. The one who did something which Must Never Be Discussed - the [shudder] involuntary regime-change horrible thing.

The President whose administration's internal fights were legendary, all of which he blithely ignored based on his irrelevant Hollywood experience dealing with truly difficult creative personalities, on the grounds that Who Cares How It Got Done As Long As People Buy Tickets.

Who thought his only jobs were to set policy and sell it, and let his subordinates do whatever they wanted.

Only he had a secret evil genius who handled the details, a sort of Chief Executive Officer for National Security in charge of executing his boss's policies. Someone named Vice-President George Bush.

Never let the facts get in the way of ideology. As an example, check out Rise of the Vulcans for references to the roles of the principles concerning the [shudder] never-to-be-mentioned involuntary regime change horrible thing. Sure the horrible thing happened. But you'll never know if any of the Vulcans had anything to do with it.

So the involvement of Vice-President Cheney in NSC matters is not at all related to the involvement of Vice-President George Bush in NSC matters. Because the latter never happened.

Neither did 9/11. Got it?

Really. Elliot?

That's not what the *actual* document says...

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:

build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html

Are you really this simple?

Simple? You're the one who quotes White House propaganda at me when its their credibility I question. Give me a real example, not words.

Your list of foreign policy “failures” reminds me of the strawmen at a firing range. I was never beating my wife, so I didn’t “stop”.

Fine, so make up your own list. Tell me where the supposed failures are.

All I ever seem to see is people who are saying "if ony the administration would have done it my way it would hav been better." Beyond the big issue of "how do you know", if you're going to argue for foreign policy "disarray" that is causing big problems, I'd like to know what problems you're talking about.

Charlie,

There really is "foreign policy disarray" in the Bush administration, but that is because it started 215 years ago and never stopped. It's really a question of degree.

Probably the Bush 41 administration had the least public "foreign policy disarray" in recent memory.

The issues and challenges involved are pertinent too. The degree of difficulty highlights disagreements. The Bush 43 administration is clearly as innovative as the Truman administration, though less is at stake.

Hello Kelli,

First of all, Kelli, nice to see you around.

I think riding in and blowing up things and then leaving without paying the bar tab would be viewed as wars of aggression and destabilize the world environment. The states that we blew up - NK, Iran, Syria, etc. - would become true terrorist havens without establishing new governments there. History strongly indicates that failed states and anarachic zones breed terrorism.

Unless of course you advocate withdrawing from Iraq, now, just picking up and leaving town?

Blowing up civilian populations is usually a cost-inefficient way of getting baddies, and should be restricted to a option of reluctant resort.

Besides, if we went around blowing up countries that harbored terrorism we'd have to blow up Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and ourselves - since there are undoubtedly terrorists among us. And while we were blowing up countries to get at handful of terrorists, we'd be inciting their entire populations against us.

America can hardly fight a war with the entire world, which is what it would amount to.

Dan Drezner,

IMO academics create major credibility problems when they ignore the Reagan/Bush 41 administrations' murder of the Soviet Union. I realize that they have ideological and collegial problems here, but anything they write on national security matters and personnel in the period 1981-90 which ignores this glaring fact impeaches the accuracy of what they do write even when they otherwise lean over backwards to be fair as James Mann did.

The destruction of the Soviet Union is the most important event in American foreign policy since 1945, especially as it was planned and conducted by two successive administrations.

Academic failure to even acknowlege this is as damming as it gets.

Dear all,

The problem is not that Cheney is involved. It's that he's bad at his job. He's gone downhill, as sometimes people who get old and have heart attacks, are prone to do. He's disconnected, tone deaf, out of touch, and a bad influence.

Second of all, as Zathras points out he can only go too far however because the President has created a power vacuum that Cheney is filling. Condi's job is not supposed to be babysitting the Prez. However, that's what it's become. She is NOT acting like Scowcroft. Scrowcroft spent most of his time on policy or bueracracy, not babysitting.

For all those who advocate a second Bush term, let me ask you - how is it going to get any better than it is now? Kelli, you daydream about a Condi or Powell on the ticket. Well both are expected to leave, and the POTUS has said Cheney is staying. Have you factored that into your support?

In the absence of Presidential leadership, whoever he empowers or allows to speak in his place will set policy. Right now that's Cheney. I don't think anyone can disagree with me factually there.

Under what conditions would I vote for Bush? If he would ... Let Condi retire. Let Dick step down on medical grounds or stuff a rag in his mouth and tell him to play more golf. Get a moderate in to replace Powell. Then hire someone who knows fod God's sake what they're doing as NSA and throw all his support behind that person. Then I would vote for the man.

There are a great number of candidates - Pollack, Boot, etc. Then if he's really smart, he can hire the oldman to fix Iraq for him.

The last would be a smart move, but not necessary to procure my vote. We *are* in Iraq, and if it fails - and it's closer to it than any Admin apologist dreams of - or we run (and Kerry is more of a waffler than I like) then we are S-C-R-E-W-E-D.

You think that people taunt America about Vietnam? It'll be a thousand times worse. Nobody could have "won" in Vietnam the way the game was being played. But if we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, it'll be open season on Americans and America.

I hold the President personally responsible for the failure of the NSC. If he doesn't want to run it and chop down trees instead, then he ought to hire and support someone who will for him. And since right now that person he's "sticking with" happens to be Cheney, then I will vote NO regarding for more years of Cheney in charge.

Oldman,

You, Drezner and academics in general have an abstract romantic view of how real politics works. Academics throw in an exaggerated opinion of process.

If reality does not comply with your fantasies, it is reality which is wrong.

Lee Harris has a whole chapter on this in his recent Civilization and its Enemies.

Just a general comment, first. The discussion you find here tends to be quite a bit more informed and substantive than what you find on other blogs. I don't understand why it's helpful for any of us to call others "fools" or "idiots" or any of that stuff. If you think someone is foolish, you can show what's wrong with their arguments. The ad hominem approach is, by comparison, lazy, if emotionally satisfying.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Is the policy of preemption still operative? Yes. Who might we take down next? (drumroll please) How bout Syria? Maybe we can't send in the Marines everywhere. But that's why we invented B-52s, hellfire missiles, and all the other goodies in our grab bag. And, one more thing, the world isn't like JCPenney--just because you break it, don't mean you gotta buy it.

Your first point is arguable, so long as your second point holds true. Maybe we do have the military capacity to take down Syria while also meeting our obligations in Iraq. It's a stretch -- but a possibility.

I haven't quite gotten my brain around your second point though. You envision us overthrowing the government in Syria, but not occupying the country and helping build a new government.

Others have pointed out what a risky proposition that is. Who's to say the replacement government will be better? What if you end up with a weak state, a la Afghanistan or Yemen?

Chaos favors bin Laden. Especially chaos in the Middle East.

Seems to me that option is really beyond the pale in terms of real options conservatives or liberals will consider. If you want to see the wheels fall completely off the wagon in terms of America's position in the world, just go around removing governments while not participating in the aftermath. Nobody on either side of the ideological aisle is going to pick that option.

“You, Drezner and academics in general have an abstract romantic view of how real politics works. Academics throw in an exaggerated opinion of process.”

Tom
It seems to me that you must believe that all politics is power – and nothing more. Thomas Hobbes rules – and will always rule – because humankind isn’t capable of anything more. If there had been two Tom Holzinger’s in the White House and the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have a feeling I would have been radioactive ash instead of a kid on the playground. Castro told Macnamara that he would have pulled the temple down on all of us. That doesn’t cause you any second thoughts?

TexasToast,

Nope, I cite that Democratic paragon, President William J. Clinton, who learned early that the way to get things done was to bypass the obstructionism of State and Defense by ignoring the NSC process.

Clinton saved the Bosnians and Kosovars from genocide by doing that.

Real life is messy, inconvenient and death on theories.

BTW, no way could the Clinton of 1992 or 1996, or the Al Gore of 2000, get the 2004 Democratic nomination. Democrats today are too far gone in lefty theories and hate.

CAUTION OT CAUTION OT

Really?

Having lived my whole life on the Bush home planet, I haven’t noticed that democrats have gone anywhere except completely out of power. I don’t hate, and none of my friends hate, and my political theory has not undergone any radical shift since 1992. What has happened is that the political elite has gone Republican en masse. They are the same people – with a different party label. The Republicans hold every statewide office in Texas, just as Democrats do in California except for the Terminator, so I suspect both of our views are colored by that reality. The “loyalty” demanded by this administration is old hat here in Texas. I can’t afford to hate – I couldn’t survive.

The Bush team took that attitude and surety of power that they have in Texas and applied it to a 50/50 country. Then they took that swagger and applied it internationally. They KNOW they are right – and everyone else had better get out of the way. No wonder democrats in other places are angry. No wonder foreign populations don’t support us. They just haven’t had their heads beat in enough times.

Texas Toast and I both live in Houston, Texas. We are also very fortunate to have the Democrat Bill White as our mayor. He is doing a fantastic job. Republicans dominate the state’s politics because most Democrats are silly people. They advocate polices which would severely damage our economy. The Democrat Party simply needs more Bill Whites if it truly wants to become once again a viable entity. The majority of us don't want Texas to endure the financial grief the Democrats have inflicted upon California.

Folks,

Please note that TexasToast has lost it. He went from my comments about how Presidents really use the NSC process, and how inconvenient that is for academics who so prize process, to an ad hominem attack on me as a power-loving warmonger.

That means he's hurtin' and got nuthin' to throw back except personal by-products.

Then, when I cited Clinton's successful, morally courageous and good (morally good, as in "furtherance of the highest traditions of Presidential office") by-passing of the NSC process as further evidence of how real politics whomps romantic theories, TexasToast responded with the above post. What has that got to do with the National Security Council?

I repeat, he's lost it.

Getting back to the point, I again recommend Amy Zygart's Flawed By Design for insight into the whole national security process and its limitations.

Presidents consistently by-pass this process when they want to get things done, as opposed to avoiding problems. The NSC process is designed to head off problems, while the various bureaucratic interests involved work to keep Presidents from accomplishing things. Only often they want to accomplish things and sometimes, as now, they have to.

Process is not an end in itself, which academics and many others forget.

The Reagan administration bypassed the process with wildly successful results concerning the Soviet Union, but also almost disastrous ones in the form of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Bush 41 barely escaped the latter and seems to have rigorously enforced the NSC process in his administration while still getting things done during Gulf War II. I attribute the latter to Bush 41's long experience with, and mastery of, the NSC process, notably from his eight years as Vice-President when President Reagan delegated so much national security authority to him.

But Bush 41 was an exception in terms of Presidential experience with the NSC process. Most Presidents come into office with no national security background whatever (i.e., former state governors), or only limited contact with it from congressional office.

So most Presidents plain lack the skills to use the NSC process to accomplish significant things. Bush 43 is one of those. So was Clinton. And they end up using various ad hoc ways of bypassing it as described by Amy Zygart.

Bush 43 is clearly using Vice-President Cheney in this regard, but not to the extent that his father was used by Reagan.

So the sky is not falling. What Bush 43 is doing is the norm, not what the above article or Drezner claim.

Gotta win, don’t ya Tom? I wasn’t aware we were having a fight.

I am amazed that you saw my question as an attack. It was a genuine question. I have been reading your posts on various topics with interest. This particular question was generated by you current line of posts reminding me of a dispute you had with Oldman regarding our ability to survive and crush the Arab culture. If I recall, you used much more colorful words to describe them. I actually believe you are correct and that we can kill every Arab and every Muslim on the planet. I don’t agree however that such would solve the problem of terrorism or advance our national interest.

Your disdain regarding the romantic view of Oldman and Drezner piqued my curiosity about what view you do espouse? You seem to take a Hobbsian view from what I have read in the past, but I am quite willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Process is never an end, but it is a method to prevent the “Shoot First, ask questions later” mentality espoused by some on this board. Having worked with many types of legal arrangements, I can vouch for Tom’s assertion that process can get in the way – by design or not. Witness the UN Security Council or the Polish Liberum Veto as examples of failed process designs. With the Veto power by one member state, the process can be defeat the will of the overwhelming majority. On the other hand, due process, does protect individual liberty from the will of the majority.

That is probably why we have only one President by constitutional design – and he is a co-equal branch of the government. Execution of policy is a hierarchical process, while development of policy is often collaborative. The President has supremacy in the execution side of the equation and the Congress is supposed to have supremacy in the development side.

Over time, the Presidency has gained greater and greater power over the development of policy. In times of emergency, the need to “get things done” had overridden other concerns and Executive power has grown. Sometimes, “getting things done” is a good thing. Sometimes, its not.

The NSC strikes me as an example of an institution created by the President to “Get things done” in the area of national security. The fact that it has developed its own institutional inertia should not come as a surprise. That seems to be the nature of the beast.

So I suspect that Tom is correct when he asserts that President Bush is using Cheany to go around the NSC process. That puts him in control in order to “get things done”. The problem I have is that I don’t happen to agree with the way he is doing them.

Tom,

You seem to have totally not read my post at all. The entire length of the post was about the personal accountability of the person's involved, and to replace them rather than trying to abstractly reassign who should be doing who's job.

All we know is that they're doing the job badly. Replace them, and let them work out the details themselves.

It's not whether Cheney has "too much" power - what amount is the right amount??? - but that he uses it poorly.

I'm not sure how you get from an argument concerning replacing dysfunctional principals on the NSC to me advocating "process". Firing the people responsible and hiring someone else is about as "real world" and straightforward as you can get.

Olman,

You're wrong on Kelli - because there is no casuality in your conclusion.

How is it that 'advocating withdrawing from Iraq, now, just picking up and leaving town?' follows from:

"Is the policy of preemption still operative? Yes. Who might we take down next? How bout Syria? Maybe we can't send in the Marines everywhere. But that's why we invented B-52s, hellfire missiles, and all the other goodies in our grab bag. And, one more thing, the world isn't like JCPenney--just because you break it, don't mean you gotta buy it."

If it turns out that Syria is backrolling and populating the war against the Republic of Iraq, We sure will be riding in and blowing things up.

Viola. The Beauty of Preemption.

"Besides, if we went around blowing up countries that harbored terrorism we'd have to blow up Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,..."

See, you get it.

"...and ourselves - since there are undoubtedly terrorists among us."

Oops, I spoke to soon. Sorry you think that way.

Yikes. And here is the perverted world-view of Mr. Clarke, in all it's glory:

"And while we were blowing up countries to get at handful of terrorists, we'd be inciting their entire populations against us."

Oh, well, - you're still good at economics.

I hate when real life demands interrupt a promising online debate!

In the spirit of polite realpolitic that this blog is so good at fostering--notwithstanding Mr. Swann's rejoinder--here are a few late-breaking thoughts.

Oldman, you know perfectly well that I am NOT advocating pell mell invasions and out of the blue airstrikes. I was brought up better than that, thank you. What I AM saying is that a frank discussion of the limitations of our superpowerdom must address the utterly bogus claims that our military is stretched way too thin already, and God forbid we should have to intervene anywhere else.

Americans, in general, are far too impressed by raw numbers--80% of the world hates us (boo hoo!), China has 1.2 billion people (so?), we only have a couple hundred thousand soldiers vs. N. Korea's 3 million ("you'll work hard with a gun at your back for a bowl of rice a day"), blah, blah, blah. All meaningless.

If push came to shove (and here's hoping it doesn't come to that) we will be able to meet any challenge. And we won't have to do it alone--at least not in Asia, where S. Korea and Japan recognize the dangers they face, even if our Euro-allies don't (with honorable exceptions!).

And as for Tom Holsinger's thesis that academics don't "get" policy, I've gotta say he's mostly right. My experience at a DC thinktank whose stated goal was to bring together these two worlds revealed just how deep the gulf was. Let's just put it this way, even when an academic thinks s/he's gone WAAY out of their way to make their work "accessible" to policy people (i.e. "dumbed it down", complete with lots of bullet-points) the policy people STILL are likely to say "there's nothing here I can USE." Consequently, it's nearly impossible for an academic from outside the beltway to get a hearing inside (which most of them claim not to want anyway!). Real power just doesn't work that way.

To William Swann:

Here are some ideas that strike me as not being worth debating. If you want to debate them with people then that's fine.

1. The Earth is flat.
2. Creationism is science.
3. Preemptive war can be conducted without the risk of blowback.
4. Any of the prospective justifications for invading Iraq have turned out to be correct.
5. Clarke is lying. (You can argue that he's not seeing "the big picture", but nothing has indicated he is less than truthful.)
6. The Bush tax cut was targetted to help the economy recover.
7. This administration has not damaged the US's reputation internationally.

I see people put forth some of these ideas on this board constantly. I can ignore them or engage them.

"Americans, in general, are far too impressed by raw numbers"

God, isn't that the truth. And they always end their argument, at the number - as if there's not suppossed to be any follow-up, any rejoinder.

And you just posted the best one, Kelli, the one we all learned at the school-yard, but that some have forgotten: "So What?"

Hey Elliot,

Please choose ignore.

Thanks.

Tommy G.,

Most of the time I do choose ignore, but Art's BS was just too much.

Kelli,

Is it the policy people or the academics who don't move beyond the raw numbers? As an example, we heard about Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of chemical and biological weapons and the nubmers seemed huge, but we didn't hear much about the "so what" such as the probability that those stocks were useless if they still existed and the difficulty in delivery.

There are many other examples. Do the policy people resort to the use of raw numbers to make their case to the public only or is that how they do their own internal analysis? What about the academics?

The "raw numbers" comment pertains less to the policy wonk/academic communities, more to the general public, led (more often, mislead) by self-serving politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.

As for the WMD question in Iraq, you are making my point for me (thank you very much!), because while the politicians went on ad nauseum about so many tons of anthrax, so many barrels of VX, etc., the point that just in time delivery made all stockpiling unnecessary somehow got lost on the American people. A shame really.

How did this happen? Because the general public is poorly served not only by its political leaders, but also by its raw numbers-obsessed journalist class. Tsk tsk.

No, Elliot, I mean ignore responding altogether. You're name-calling and hyperbole can best be applied elsewhere. Perhaps buzzflash? I'm sure they could use the traffic.

Cheers

Tom

Here's a quote from a previous comment thread.

"The simple truth of this matter is that Mr. Clarke is a pervert - as he amply demonstrated on MTP this past weekend."

Tommy G. is all in favor of genteel discourse absent ad hominem arguments. Here's an insult directed squarely at him: hypocrite.

Quote? Heck. Here's the whole post, Context and all (with Apologies to TexasToast)

"The simple truth of this matter is that Mr. Clarke is a pervert - as he amply demonstrated on MTP this past weekend.

He made it clear that he believes that our retaliation against global Islamic fascism only made matters worse. Now, he meant Iraq, but wouldn't what he believes be equally true had we only engaged Afghanistan? Of course it would. But, as I say, he is a pervert. Because the (il)logical pathway of his though process holds that being destroyed was all part of the Taliban's game-plan, And that we 'played right into their hands'.

I believe that's how he put it to Mr. Russert.

Yeah, That's right , Dick, I went a little something like this:

Abdul: The American's are coming.
Malik: Perfect, First they'll bomb us into oblivion, then they'll liberate the country, installing a constitutional republic.
Abdul: The Fools!
Malik: Bwah-hah-ha

That's right, "Elliot", your boy believes that our response (finally) to their attacks only served to make matters worse.

Posted by Tommy G at March 30, 2004 09:39 AM

...By the way - who are you talking to? It's like you're making a speech or something. It's just a blog. Very strange...

Dear Kelli,

Thank you for your clarification. As a matter of fact, once you put it that way I agree entirely with the substance of your post. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't gone over the deep end. There's a difference between proactive use of military power - which we could safely do a great deal more of - and madness.

The problem in my opinion is that neither Bush or Kerry seem to understand the difference or how to proceed in the use of military power constructively. Who complains about our invasion of Panama after all? Not too many. And we didn't end up staying, did we? There's a way to do it right, and there's a way to mess it all up.

In fact, I would argue that the journalists are missing a huge story and are being fed misinformation. According to the basic troop numbers I've seen, there is no reason for a strain in Iraq (except in certain speciality areas like MP's, linguists, etc.) in terms of raw numbers. Nor should there be a supply shortage, especially since procurement has had a year to handle these issues.

Indeed the logistical numbers any person can do on the back of the envelope indicate that the only reason why we would have a troop or supply logistics problem in Iraq, is that we were having a military buildup elsewhere.

Where that elsewhere is of course, is the real interesting question. What classified set of activities could be taking so much of the slack out of the armed forces?

Curious, don't you think?

Dear Tom Foster,

It may interest you to know that information collection and analysis pertaining to security issues and policy has been my long term interest and endevour and that economics is just something I've picked up in the last few years in my free time because it's so much easier than what I did for the past decade plus.

So you may or may not agree with the oldman on what should happen, but if you're smart you'll listen to him about what is actually going on.

Because he's way better at this stuff than he is at economics, which is afterall just a hobby.

Oldman,

It does interest me to know that, especially since you’re spinning ‘black helicopter’ stories in your post to Kelli.

Look, I’m going to get a little nasty with you, because this stuff is important. So I want to tell you up front in this post, what I’ve said before to you, so some nasty little nobody doesn’t come in here and distract us with their ridiculous “AH” nonsense: You’re extremely well versed, consistent, and a SME on economic issues here, on the board, and your own “Oldman1787Blog” – especially jobs. And I appreciate that you have an ‘interest’ in military matters. However, as you have no doubt divined during your year here, I’m working right now in the Big House, and have been for quite some time. And I’m telling you that you are not only wrong, but completely irresponsible, to be spinning such conspiracy fantasies. You must know better.

Let’s take a navy example - it's going type a lot faster than an Army or Air Force one: We have 12 CVBG, centered – mainly - around CVNs. Yet typically only three are even mentioned as being in theater at any given time. Wither the other 9? Surely being secreted away for some invasion, right?

Well, no. 3 on station means 3 that are working up to rotate in (6, for those of you playing at home). Still 6 missing Carriers – You caught us!

Well, no. There’s that Corollary thing. 3 working up means 3 that have recently come off station. (Now at 9) Because the ‘Nukes’ are good to go, but the crews aren’t – and we don’t hot-rack CVNs (Although we are trying it with the DDs – but I digress). One’s in SLEP for about 2 years - getting updates, new U-Rods, (10), One’s getting ready to retire at 50+ years (11) and one’s in the other Ocean, while the finish working up the Reagan (12) and building the Bush (13), so that we can pay-off the retiree (Back to 12).

Viola.
And you, my friend, need different envelopes.

Does anyone here really need me to walk you through our 10 Division Army?

Oldman?

"Your stunned silence is very reassuring."
-Roz

Well, she said it better than I could, and she's CGI.

Outsourcing indeed.

There's another point to be made here about the effectiveness of the NSC though the period in question.... and this is a point I raise in my weekly long-form commentary this week. Despite Clarke's wailing about AQ taking a back seat at the NSC, the fact is that Mr. Bush's first major national security policy directive was in the words of Condi Rice: "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda."

The fact is that the "get AQ" directive was issued a week before the attacks, on September 4, 2001. Now, Doctor Rice didn't say as much, but the order took nigh on eight months to process. This was not due to a lack in the Bush administration. This is however directly connection to the Democrats who held up confirmations of key members of the new administration until less than two months before the 9/11 attacks.

Which in turn, explains why so many of the security positions at the highest levels, were still staffed by Clinton Mis-administration appointees.... such as Richard Clarke. As a result of this Democrat stonewalling, for example, Mr. Bush's appointee for the top NSC special assistant for intelligence programs, Mary Sturtevant, had only been on the job for several weeks on 9/11. Do you suppose this would have any effect on how responsive the White House was to various threats?