Addicted to War

Ross's explanation of why the GOP is addicted to war:

As in the Cold War, foreign-policy hawkishness has become the glue holding the fragile GOP coalition together, even as Iraq has made foreign policy a general-election liability for the Right, instead of the asset it was in the Reagan years. Which is one way to explain the weird aftermath of the '06 debacle, in which social conservatives and fiscal conservatives each blamed one another for the defeat, when it was perfectly clear that the Iraq War had more to do the party's degringolade than the corruption of the small-government movement or the excesses of the religious right.

Maybe. But I'll say this. I get the sense that Republicans think that while Iraq may now be a bad issue for their party, that things like unconstitutional surveillance, arbitrary and indefinite detention, and routine torture are big-time winning issues for the GOP. So they like the hawkish posture, even if Iraq's been a problem. That's how it seems to me.

Beyond that, I can also say for a fact that that's how it seems to an awful lot of Democrats. Talk to people on the Hill or people involved in messaging, and there's just no confidence that they could win a big high-profile standoff with Bush on pretty much any issue related to terrorism. There's a critical margin of members who just won't back any position that can't also attract substantial Republican backing to provide "cover."

Comments

Well, then, the Democrats don't deserve even a single American's vote. It would be more efficient to vote for a Republican than for someone who ostensibly professes to be against the GOP but supports the Republicans' policies on torture, surveillance and arbitrary and indefinite detention.

Democrats have forfeited their right to exist as a political party if they are in fact afraid of the consequences of supporting traditional progressive policies on human and civil rights.

Screw these Democrats.

Posted by gregor | October 23, 2007 3:52 PM

"degringolade"?

I smell Reader's Digest and swell word power.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 23, 2007 4:00 PM

Talk to people on the Hill or people involved in messaging, and there's just no confidence that they could win a big high-profile standoff with Bush on pretty much any issue related to terrorism.

Yes. Having said confidence would require courage and skill - leadership, IOW. It's been the same story for quite a while: dems don't win politically because they actually don't deserve to win. Crazy as it seems for people to vote for walking disasters like Bush, there is a certain macro-rationality to it. Dems never win; Repubs just lose occasionally. The only way to beat Bush on 'security' is to take him on directly and in clear, simple language. To date, only Edwards has really done that ('WOT is a bumper sticker'; 'Bush has made us less safe' etc.) - so of course, we can't nominate him....

Posted by jonnybutter | October 23, 2007 4:14 PM

There's a critical margin of members who just won't back any position that can't also attract substantial Republican backing to provide "cover."
Ah yes, we call them... well I'd call them sissys but I'd hate to insult any of the fags I know who are tougher than these guys. I'd call them pussys but they don't have the ovaries to match the women I know. Wimps? Doesn't seem strong enough.

Hmm, to the insult thesaurus batman!

Posted by IMU | October 23, 2007 4:35 PM

Ah ha! Yellow bellied milksops!

A bit antiquated, but I think the combination is actually pretty effective.

Posted by IMU | October 23, 2007 4:38 PM

Scott Ritter, the former nuclear weapons inspector, who was right on the issue of WMD's in Iraq, and very much against the war, argues that many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it. They are not anti war, or against the military industrial complex, just anti losing wars. Fearing that terrorists would strike America with a loss of many lives, they would waive citizens's rights under the constitution and increase Presidential power to combat terroism. And this is even without a terrorist incident here for six years. If there were another terrorist incident here, forget it. In sum, I believe the Republicans, abhorrent as there positions are, may be on the winning side on some of these issues based on people's fears.

Posted by jim | October 23, 2007 4:40 PM

Re jim

That the same Scott Ritter the pedophile?

Posted by SLC | October 23, 2007 5:20 PM

It's important to attack the argument and not the man, SLC. See Ad hominem if you are unclear on the concept.

Posted by stm177 | October 23, 2007 5:40 PM

I love explanations in which we pretend that 2 trillion dollars worth of defense spending over the last two years was judged strictly on the basis of its utility to the nation, and that the flood of money in the D.C. area since 9/11 floating every crackpot thinktank and defense industry consultant has nothing, nothing whatever to do with the suggestion that we should become ... more aggressive.

If a man's living depends on not understanding a point, he won't understand the point. And so it is with the serious pundits, who are paid not to understand the connection between money and aggression, and do a mighty fine job of it. It is all about geostrategy for these guys.

Posted by roger | October 23, 2007 5:48 PM

I get the sense that Republicans think that while Iraq may now be a bad issue for their party, that things like unconstitutional surveillance, arbitrary and indefinite detention, and routine torture are big-time winning issues for the GOP.

The reason the Republicans think that is because... it's generally true.

As my evidence professor said a few weeks ago when I made the case for a rule that would protect criminal defendants:

Prof: "It's a noble sentiment, but I think you'll find the Congressional caucus for criminal rights to be pretty small."

Me: "A better description might be a caucus for civil liberties."

Prof: "That's even smaller."

As Omar from The Wire might say, "Indeed."

Posted by Joe Strummer | October 23, 2007 5:50 PM

The technical term for the Democrats who hold that position is "collaborators." If the American people suck so bad they love tyranny and torture, to hell with them. Is a good parking spot that important to these frauds?

Posted by JMG | October 23, 2007 5:55 PM

"There's a critical margin of members who just won't back any position that can't also attract substantial Republican backing to provide 'cover.'"

I would've thought that the first question that goes along with voting for party leadership in Congress would be, "Are you going to listen to the leaders of your own party, or the leaders of your opponents?"

And that's where I'd be completely wrong.

At least about Democrats; *Republicans* may be corrupt, malevolent, bloodthirsty, paranoid, and prone alternately to hysterics and lying when mere slander proves ineffective, but at least *they* aren't suicidally stupid when it comes to their self-interest and power.

Posted by Chris | October 23, 2007 6:07 PM

"Beyond that, I can also say for a fact that that's how it seems to an awful lot of Democrats. Talk to people on the Hill or people involved in messaging, and there's just no confidence that they could win a big high-profile standoff with Bush on pretty much any issue related to terrorism."

You ought to check out John Edwards' rhetoric on terrorism and Bush...

Posted by Petey | October 23, 2007 7:07 PM

roger,

I love explanations in which we pretend that 2 trillion dollars worth of defense spending over the last two years ...

I love explanations involving absurd numbers that have no relation to reality.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 7:22 PM

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

We need to change tense and mode there: if we HAD WON it. In other words, if the Iraq War had been a short-lived victory parade like the Gulf War, ending in an undisputed win, and was then promptly over and done with. Then, yes, I would agree: a lot of people would be saying "It was a good idea". But that would also not be the same war in the same country we are fighting at all: it would in fact be some radically different history, since there's no way in this reality the Iraq War could have ended that way. So I'm not sure there's any point to be made here.

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

When it comes to surveillance you're probably right. But not on torture, Even rightwingers carefully argue that, well, it isn't really torture. I don't think you'll find very many people openly supportive of torture. Most people are quite disgusted if not wholly outraged by it. Another caveat too: many people might support a truly competent president wielding Bush's usurped powers, but having seen the little doofus the Rovian curtain, I don't think a majority of people support George Bush wielding those powers now.

Posted by JonF | October 23, 2007 7:42 PM

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

We need to change tense and mode there: if we HAD WON it. In other words, if the Iraq War had been a short-lived victory parade like the Gulf War, ending in an undisputed win, and was then promptly over and done with. Then, yes, I would agree: a lot of people would be saying "It was a good idea". But that would also not be the same war in the same country we are fighting at all: it would in fact be some radically different history, since there's no way in this reality the Iraq War could have ended that way. So I'm not sure there's any point to be made here.

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

When it comes to surveillance you're probably right. But not on torture, Even rightwingers carefully argue that, well, it isn't really torture. I don't think you'll find very many people openly supportive of torture. Most people are quite disgusted if not wholly outraged by it. Another caveat too: many people might support a truly competent president wielding Bush's usurped powers, but having seen the little doofus the Rovian curtain, I don't think a majority of people support George Bush wielding those powers now.

Posted by JonF | October 23, 2007 7:42 PM

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

We need to change tense and mode there: if we HAD WON it. In other words, if the Iraq War had been a short-lived victory parade like the Gulf War, ending in an undisputed win, and was then promptly over and done with. Then, yes, I would agree: a lot of people would be saying "It was a good idea". But that would also not be the same war in the same country we are fighting at all: it would in fact be some radically different history, since there's no way in this reality the Iraq War could have ended that way. So I'm not sure there's any point to be made here.

Re: many of the same Americans who are now against the war would be for it if we were winning it.

When it comes to surveillance you're probably right. But not on torture, Even rightwingers carefully argue that, well, it isn't really torture. I don't think you'll find very many people openly supportive of torture. Most people are quite disgusted if not wholly outraged by it. Another caveat too: many people might support a truly competent president wielding Bush's usurped powers, but having seen the little doofus the Rovian curtain, I don't think a majority of people support George Bush wielding those powers now.

Posted by JonF | October 23, 2007 7:42 PM

I don't think you'll find very many people openly supportive of torture.

Survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Oct. 12-24, 2005; nationwide survey conducted among 2,006 adults

Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?

Often justified: 15%
Sometimes justified: 31%
Rarely justified: 17%
Never justified: 32%
Don't know/refused: 5%

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 7:51 PM

You're absolutely right-- though Hillary's instinct to triangulate is a huge part of the problem. She's DEFINING the political center halfway between what we want and what the Republicans want no matter how unhinged they become.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | October 23, 2007 8:50 PM

It's clear to me that both Republicans and Democrats are addicted to war since they are both addicted to Israel-Lobby-generated campaign funding. Currently the Israel Lobby is pushing us into war with Iran which will be the final nail in the US coffin.

Posted by J. E. Dundee | October 23, 2007 8:52 PM

If, as many here fear, the Republicans and many Democrats think the voters support torture, curtaining civil liberties etc, then the problem is not the politicians, it's the the American people. All of these politicians are trying to pander to the public as they see it.

We need to realize that the sickness so many of us see in the Bush administration accurately reflects our society and that's why the Democrats aren't standing up to them. I don't blame the Democrats for this political reality. The enemy, as Pogo said, is us. The American public is apathetic in the face of all the depredations of the Bush administration. We get what we deserve. Corollary: we aren't fit to lead the word and should stay home, period.

Posted by Autumnriver | October 23, 2007 9:05 PM

And this is even without a terrorist incident here for six years

We had the anthrax attacks, which President Bush described as "a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country," in September and October 2001.

Posted by kirkaracha | October 23, 2007 9:16 PM

Well, Mixner, add it up.

This year, Bush proposed $484.1 billion dollars for the Defense department. That doesn't include about 200 billion dollars for Iraq. Nor does it include defense related items that are simply slotted to other departments, but that really flow to defense, notably in energy, which handles nuclear weapons, and Homeland security, nor does it include Veterans affairs. That adds another 100 billion to the package. I'm getting @800 billion dollars there. Now, much of that money is borrowed, since Bush is refusing to raise taxes on the supplementals. So we get over a trillion when we add that on. But don't add on the interest, and we get around 800 billion. But that itself doesn't include additional requests that Congress will pass during the year for other defense related items, as for instance raising money for veteran's health care benefits. D.C. does its best to make it hard to chase down how much, really, is spent on defense items. Officially, in 2006, the Defense department spent 571 billion. However, it is hard to know if this figure includes the separate Military Construction Appropriations bill, which is not including in the figures for the President's Defense budget, or the money for Iraq and Afghanistan, which comes to more than 100 billion dollars for 2006.

Winslow Wilson, the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, comes up with a total of 878 billion for this year, and estimated last years at around 650 billion.

Posted by roger | October 23, 2007 9:18 PM

roger,

Even your silly "estimates" above don't come close to $2 trillion, and (of course) you provide no citations to any actual data.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 9:37 PM

$2 Trillion or not, the costs are still staggering.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 23, 2007 10:01 PM

$2 Trillion or not, the costs are still staggering.

The reported figure is less than 1% of U.S. GDP over the same period.

I think we can afford it.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 10:25 PM

Mixner, what is wrong with you? Can you, uh, read? Actually, I do cite Winslow Wilson as my source for 2007, and he is also cited for his estimate for 2006. However, if you google around for 2006, you'll find good reason to think he is underestimating. So I should have said between 1 and a half trillion and 2 trillion. You would have still popped off, because, well, you are the incorrigibly ignorant type.

As for the putrid idea that we have to tie our military spending to percentage of GDP - please, give me a break. What a whiny, self serving excuse for an inexcusable waste of resources. I'm sure trichonosis worms could point out, if they had your Mixner brain, that they compose less than .01 percent of body weight of the human being. I love tired right wing psychos, who think SCHIP being raised by 10 billion is a bankrupcy type of issue, and think a 800+ billion in military expenditure is nothing; But, of course, most of those tired right wing psychos, if you trace their incomes, are engineers, or consultants, or investors, or in some way sucking from that trillion and a half pipe. They are bribed, smug, collaborationists in any war crime the U.S. is planning. While some would say that it is sheer sadism and racism that keeps the right on edge to bomb brown-skinned people, I'm largely against that interpretation. Sure, a lot of it is latent sadism, but mostly it is blind self interest.

Meanwhile, according to the center for Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the U.S. now accounts for 48 percent of all Defense spending world wide. And they aren't working with crude figures that don't include the Energy Department, Homeland security, etc.

That's way too much. We need to radically military programs back - junk, for instance, the useless anti-missile defense program, most new jet programs, etc. - and try to get down to spending about 25 percent of the world defense mix. From that plateau, we can then go lower until we have a rational defense program. That would be one in which we don't have expenditures for going into the Middle East indefinitely because we aren't going into the Middle East indefinitely. It would turn us into a normal nation again.

It will be hard to do. The bribed warmongers will squeal like stuck pigs. And of course, the heart of the heart of the bribery is D.C.

Posted by roger | October 23, 2007 11:18 PM

roger,

I asked for citations. Not some guy's name. Citations. To actual data. Not made-up numbers. It's not my job to trawl the internet for links supporting your claims. That's your job. Do you have any citations or don't you?

The rest of the your post is mostly irrelevant digressions, adorned with the usual insults that I'm sure do wonders for your self-esteem but that do nothing for your argument.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 11:26 PM

"The reported figure is less than 1% of U.S. GDP over the same period."

It's also equal to 4-5% of all federal outlays and over 10% of all discretionary spending.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be not whether we can afford it, but whether we'd get more bang for our buck by setting a trillion or so dollar bills on fire and taking pretty pictures of the flames.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 23, 2007 11:42 PM

Sorry, 4-5% still isn't much. The point is that we can easily afford it, notwithstanding the desperate attempts of people like you to suggest otherwise.

I wonder how much Americans have spent since 2001 on cosmetics, or dog food.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 11:53 PM

The article on the 2007 budget can be found here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler03072007.html

The article on the 2006 budget can be found here: http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler01062006.html

Notice that the 2006 budget analysis is from January. That is why I think it significantly underestimates the expenditure. Although I can’t find it at the moment, Murtha, in 2006, gave a much higher figure for the total defense expenditure in some interview with the Washington Post.
Now, if you are too lazy to look at those articles, I can’t help you.

As for liking to insult you – well, it is like darts. There is something irresistible about war mongers – they paint such targets on themselves. The Dutch, supposedly, got themselves into a killing frenzy on Mauritius when they encountered the dodo. They moved so lumberingly, they were so incautious, so unstrategic, so dumbly vulnerable. The difference is that war mongers like to utter bloodcurdling calls for more war, but when you get down to it, they are generally peaceful householders sucking contentedly off the federal tit. Stirring them up does them good.

Oh, and your remark about dog food is the best! I don't think even the slow moving dodo would have thought of anything quite that dumb. This is why cutting down military expenditures is really doable - when you shine the light on the mongers, they come up with insane comparisons like that.

Please keep commenting. Next you'll say that the 675,000 + Iraqis killed don't even make up the amount of a midsized city in India. Screwball comparisons like that are the bread and butter of war mongering hot air.

Posted by roger | October 24, 2007 12:20 AM

roger,

The article on the 2007 budget can be found here:

That article is about the proposed 2008 budget, not the 2007 budget. And it's an opinion piece from a left-wing political magazine, not a reliable source of data. Don't you have a link to the OMB, or some other government agency that maintains budget information?

I don't see any budget figures at all in your second link, which is also to the same political website, not to a source of data.

Next you'll say that the 675,000 + Iraqis killed

What 675,000 Iraqis killed?

I love the way you just uncritically repeat highly disputed empirical assertions as if they are established fact. You need to step out of your comfort zone once in a while, and go to sources other than far-left partisan websites for information and analysis. Then you might not have such a grossly distorted view of reality....

Posted by Mixner | October 24, 2007 1:01 AM

Mixner, I highly recomend a pretty basic prob and stats course.

Unless you are really, really, smart and know something the rest of us don't and you want to tell us how the Neilson ratings or damn near every other stat on the planet doesn't work.

If you don't know what you are talking about, my suggestion would be to to backtrack really quickly. Otherwise gird yourself for the war against math.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 24, 2007 1:22 AM

Mixner, I know, you don't have that many fingers, so this is hard. But if you look at the articles, you can see what the figures are and maybe you can get some body to help you. Do you know somebody maybe with a calculator? Sure you do. And then, look carefully at the article. For instance, you will notice the date on the 2007 link was about the budget for the 2007-2008 period. The 2006 article includes figures that, uh, come from the relevant government published figures. My, they are so high that nobody could count that high! I wonder if they are higher than the number of dog food cans in a grocery store. I bet they are!

Now, if you have any reason to think the guy is wrong, spill. Has he double counted something? That might be an objection. Ooo,it can make your brain hurt, all this math. Math is hard.

It isn't an objection that he was published in Cockburn's magazine. He's published in the Washington Post He's published a book with that well known lefty press, the Naval Institute Press.

As for your inability to accept that the best survey of Iraqi casualties is by the Lancet, gives us 675,000 +, that's your problem. And now I know, from your inability to understand simple articles about the military budget, where that problem comes from.

Posted by roger | October 24, 2007 2:21 AM

Talk to people on the Hill or people involved in messaging, and there's just no confidence that they could win a big high-profile standoff with Bush on pretty much any issue related to terrorism.

You know excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one. I'm just going to proceed from now on with the presumtion that the dem caucus just doesn't give a damn about consitutional liberties or a ending a botched war.

So help me god, I'll WRITE Nader in on my ballot in 2008 if this crap keeps up.

Posted by Fledermaus | October 24, 2007 4:53 PM

"...Talk to people one the Hill or people involved in messaging..." - and where do THESE people get their information?
Polls have shown that when the Democrats in Congress stand up to Bush, their approval ratings go up. What more do they want? Guarantees? These people swore to uphold the Constitution to the best of their abilities; unless they start showing some spines their "abilities" are going to be put to the test just trying to get re-elected.

Posted by Doug | October 24, 2007 5:46 PM