Prisoners of War

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has sparked a great reckoning. Barack Obama now argues that it represents a "failed philosophy," "the idea that if we give more and more to those with the most, prosperity will trickle down to everyone else." His broadscale indictment of the "era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington" plasters John McCain, a self described "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution, to his record, and exposes his recent cross dressing as a populist tribune.

Yet, the Iraq War, surely the worst foreign policy debacle at least since Vietnam, has had little effect in challenging the "failed philosophy" that an imperial America is the "indispensable nation" needed to police the globe. Even as Congress balked at the $700 billion bail out of Wall Street and Republicans filibustered against even a token $50 billion stimulus plan for Main Street, next year's $700 billion military budget was passed without a murmur.

Today in the New York Times, the Institute for America's Future which I co-direct published an "op ad" entitled Prisoners of War. It makes the simple point that we will be unable to put our nation back on track at home if we remain prisoners of war abroad.

For the ad and back materials, go here.

We are spending about $12 billion a month on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter will end costing $3 trillion. More troops are being dispatched to the former. We maintain an empire of over 700 bases across the world. Our navy polices the seven seas. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined -- and that is apparently not enough. Both major party political candidates are committed to increasing the size of the military and the amount we will spend on it.

Yet the military has no answer to the major challenges we face to our security -- a globalized economy of increasing instability, the rise of India and China, increasing global indebtedness that can't be sustained, a growing dependence on foreign oil, catastrophic climate change and the accompanying resource struggles.

Even, as a study from the Rand Corporation, the Pentagon's own think thank notes, the declaration of a Global War on Terror has detracted from a sensible strategy to deal with al Qaeda and its allies. We've turned fanatics into warriors, inflating their importance and adding to their attraction. We've squandered lives and money in Iraq, alienating our allies, exhausting our military, and emboldening our adversaries. We've slighted the global intelligence sharing, financial pressure, and aggressive policing which are the core of a realistic strategy, and weakened the necessary public campaign to appeal to moderate Islam and isolate the suicidal zealots. When you carry only a hammer, as any carpenter would tell you, more and more things start looking like nails.

Just as the financial crisis calls into question the market fundamentalism of the last years, one would think the Iraq debacle would trigger a debate about our imperial policies and our distorted priorities. Sadly, the absence of a serious peace movement has left the cloistered world of our national security managers undisturbed. As we head into what surely will be an election that brings a sea change to our politics, we remain prisoners of war.

Comments

[deliriousgod]

america's enemies in the mid-east never seem to suggest that americans should leave. I think they like it just fine that you are there bankrupting yourselves at their convenience so they don't have to pay for airline tickets to get at you. I think they cheer every time the world is treated to a Republican alienating world opinion by talking about american 'exceptionalism'. We have always let that arrogance slide in the past, but after the last eight years of truly special status and conduct, the grating effect of Americans agreeing that they are the best is just too much to stomach. It becomes increasingly difficult to carry water for a drunken uncle who has made an idiot of himself and is dancing around wearing a lampshade. The idea that anyone could galvanise American popular opinion around themselves by invoking innate American moral and ethical superiority is a piece of insolence no friend of America can defend.

[dadw5boys]

RULE 1: THE LOWER THE SUPPLY THE HIGHER THE PRICE .

RULE 2: THE LOWER THE SUPPLY THE HIGHER THR PRICE.

THE IRAQ WAR TURNED OFF THE OIL FROM IRAQ.

[RumiSouth]

I have been wishing for some video of the various Republicans who decried Clinton's Bosnia missions with the phrase, "We can't be the global policeman!"

I would like to contrast the clips with video cuts from Iraq: US soldiers busting down doors, arresting Iraqis, etc., to the tune of Inner Circle's "Bad Boys." theme from the TV show "COPS."

[BlueGreen55]

The Iraq war was never about terrorism at all. It is about "our national interests" in the region. OIL for short. This is the reason we spend $700+ billion a year on Defense. How much of that goes to keep 25% of the world's oil flowing to us? If it's only 10% that is $70 billion a year for say...alte­rnative energy research or other things. This is why who is President matters so much. Matt Simmons, Joe Romm, and T. Boone Pickens all know (and say) we can't drill our way out of this problem and into energy independence and that the U.S. needs to do something different.

Until we get this as a country we will be doomed to fight foreign oil wars over and over as the supply gets tighter and world demand inexorably increases.

At least Obama has stated his desire for $10 billion a year to go toward alternative energy starting now and generally understands this as a national security issue that requires thinking outside of the old, cold war, "ask for it but take it if you have to" box.

The only thing McCain says is "Drill, drill, drill" without thought to the current lack of available equipment, the lack of knowledge of exactly where to drill, lip service only to alternatives, and an attitude that drips "it's our oil, not yours, and we will take it you don't sell it to us cheap".

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Former Australian Prime Minister and treasurer addressing Australia and Asi via National Broadcaster ABC Lateline
LEIGH SALES: How does what we're seeing today compare to what you experienced as treasurer in 1987 and then as prime minister in the early 1990?

PAUL KEATING: This is a much different event. Then we had two common things; an exuberance of bank lending, which was about to blow inflation rate out of the water again. So that was common, except inflation is not really a risk this time. What we're seeing at the moment is a disintegration of the international financial system. That's not what we had in 1990. We had a world recession in 1990. It was a business recession. That means business investment fell. A normal cyclical business recession. What we have here is the advanced disintegration of the international financial

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Former Prime Minister of Australia and Treasurer paul Keating talking to Australia and Asia [leftwing] on national ABC Lateline
--LEIGH SALES: Are you in favour of this US bailout plan?

PAUL KEATING: Yes. But the problem is, , the debt out there , the gap between American housing debt and American housing values is probably $5 trillion or $6 trillion. So three-quarters of $1 trillion is not do the job. What we're in here is a long , long change. Essentially, governments are being asked to recapitalise the banking industry.we can . requires thought and brain power courage.
---and Australia will be affected by Wall St despite what newLabor PM Mr Rudd says
Australia is in a good position but we don't have enough savings. The last Coalition Government refused to increase superannuation from 9 to 15 per cent. Had they done so, our banks would not be out there in these polluted markets bidding for as much savings as they have to to fund the current account deficit, right? A current account deficit exists because the call on it by investment on our savings is higher than the level of our savings. So what do you do? You either cut investment or lift savings.

Howard and Costello refused to lift savings. So the banks are still out there knocking on the door in New York, and they'll do it this well, they've got to find $1 billion a week fundamentally, in these markets. A billion a week.

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Australia national Broadcaster to Australia and Asi --. Former Pm and Treasurer-left wing --talking on USA problem [This is second part post ed huff]-cont----
And we saw the risk premium come right down. So what we used to call junk bonds, used to have an enormous premium over gilt treasury bonds. We saw that premium come down. When you see that risk premium come down to virtually nothing, you know we're in trouble, you know. And this is what happened in the United States. You know, Greenspan had rates at 1 and 2 per cent, less than the inflation rate. So the big investment banks geared themselves up and all the housing lenders went out and lent this money. People then got out of their fixed-rate mortgages and refinanced at much lower rates and spent the money.

The biggest problem we're facing the world today is that in the United States asset values are way too high and leverage debt is way too high. And as people are walking away from the assets, the losses are impacting on the balance sheets of Banks and the banks have to be recapitalised. So what we're facing in the world is not a liquidity crisis

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Its a solvency crisis-- banks esp USA banks wont lend to each other---says keating former PM and Treasurerof Australia addressing Australia and Asia

[Mason]

The proposed bailout is a financially irresponsible farce because our government is broke. Borrowing money from foreign nations, assuming they are willing to lend it, or printing new money to restore liquidity in our financial markets does not fix the problems that got us into this mess. These "solutions" may postpone the crisis for a few weeks while adding to our national debt, devaluing the dollar, and creating inflation. This is not a solution; it's a recipe for financial collapse.

We cannot survive this economic crisis unless we end the wars in the middle east, bring our troops home, and fix the systemic problems in our economy by restoring regulatory oversight of our financial markets and respect for the rule of law. In the meantime, financial assistance should be provided to the victims of the subprime ponzi scheme -- the homeowners.

[fiorastar]

The "absence of a serious peace movement"? I have personally been involved with marches and vigils, writing members of Congress, participating in petitions, and sending donations to peace promoting organizations both locally and nationally. The community college where I work has begun a Peace Institute, where we held a well-attended conference that will be repeated each year, bringing in Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, and a host of speakers and workshops on everything from how to do direct civil disobedience to how to create non-violent communication in conflict resolution. Prior to the Iraq War's beginning, and at several "milestones" since, there have been international protests with millions of participants, including thousands in every US city. Dennis Kucinich has been leading a well-backed attempt to create a US Department of Peace in the Executive Branch, with a Cabinet member dedicated to promoting peaceful solutions to world problems such as healthcare, food production, social justice and other basics of healthy civilization that can prevent the strife which leads to the fear and warlike attitudes we have been destroying ourselves and others with.

No Peace Movement? How about a Full On Peace Movement that is being attacked on all fronts by a barely concealed fascism by the name of Project for a New American Century, and going back to Prescott Bush's ties with Nazi Germany.

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

PAUL KEATING, FORMER PRIME MINISTER:and Treasurer Australia: Good, Leigh.

LEIGH SALES: How does what we're seeing today compare to what you experienced as treasurer in 1987 and then as prime minister in the early 1990?

PAUL KEATING: This is a much different event. Then we had two common things; an exuberance of bank lending, which was about to blow inflation rate out of the water again. So that was common, except inflation is not really a risk this time. What we're seeing at the moment is a disintegration of the international financial system. That's not what we had in 1990. We had a world recession in 1990. It was a business recession. That means business investment fell. A normal cyclical business recession. What we have here is the advanced disintegration of the international financial system
PAUL KEATING: The Treasurer is right about this and the Prime Minister. Look, Malcolm Turnbull, frankly, should know better than this sort of populism. The London interbank rate today is 250 basis points, at Libor, 250; it's normally 25 or 30. Or 40. It's 250.

Banks won't lend to one another. In other words, normally you see the Libor rate is the rate just above the cash rate of the Central Bank and it's the bank, one bank lend to another to fund its affairs each day. Now bank A won't lend to bank B unless it pays a margin of 2.5 per cent, 250 basis points.

[Thistleseed]

Amen, Robert. You bring up an excellent point about the peace movement. If it had not been for such a movement during the 60's there would not have been such a rapid disolving of US support in the Vietnam war (a belief Senator McCain seems to espouse in his rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq). Unfortunately, it seems like the citizens of this country are not informed enough to know just how much control the military industrial complex has over their government. We spend more money on our military than the entire world COMBINED. Yet most Americans think this is patriotic, that it is right to have such a super-advanced military even though we cannot fight counter-insurgency using tactics we learned during the last failed occupation. I wish more citizens would be informed, read a contrary point of view that doesn't necessarily mesh with the American military being the "envy of the world" or whatever. What I wish is that our humanitarian aid would be the envy of the world (not that it's lacking, but this year the Red Cross can't even keep up!) and would be the centerpiece of our military involvements abroad. I am reminded of the recent engagement of our military forces in Burma, or in Latin American following the recent hurricanes. There is too much money spent on death and destruction in this country. Just imagine if we turned our priorities around just a little!

[timezone]

While many of my generation were against the Viet Nam war (although most I knew supported the men who were there, as most were of our generation), the war in Iraq has not seemed to spark the same emotionality and indignation. Could part of this be the difference of the draft vs. no draft? That those of us who so vigorously fought to bring our boys home, also were fighting to keep those not yet drafted from having to go? I think Iraq seems more like a choice to many Americans, even though many of the men and women serving don't really feel like they have that much choice, that there aren't other avenues open to them economically. Many of the rich and upper middle class don't see it as personally because it doesn't affect someone in their family. To be against a war morally or economically in theory, doesn't seem to become that emotional until it literally touches your home.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

YES

[Agent420]

I can tell you why that is so.

1. During the Vietnam war, the press was not owned by just a couple of big companies.

2. The press was along with the war sending back pictures and videos of the war and the people killed and wounded.

3. Today you can go to jail for taking a picture of a coffin containing the remains of a victim of Washington's Imperial politics.

4. Today's media is owned by only several companies and the news is bent to follow the owners wishes. Since the owner is one the rich, what does he care about the truth.

[Mason]

The war now touches each of us personally because our government is out of money and resorting to borrowing money from foreign countries or printing money to continue its daily operations. Both options lead us over the edge of the cliff and into chaos. To avoid the unpleasantness of chaos, we must take action to get our spending under control. We cannot afford to fix our flat-lining economy and continue to fight these wars. We must eliminate one of these two expenses or perish.

Since these wars are not about defending our homeland from a foreign invader, our choice is easy. End the wars and bring our troops home or perish.

[timezone]

I agree, Mason and Agent. I was just making the point that on an emotional level, because of the draft in effect then, I believe more people got DIRECTLY involved in protesting Viet Nam, at least that was one of the reasons. Iraq certainly affects us all and I certainly wish we were never involved in it in the first place.

[Agent420]

I say, let them sink in their own crap. It is time to stop 'fixing' things from the top down and start FIXING them from the bottom up. The guys at the top don't make America any money, they make it for themselves never thinking about the people at the bottom until election time. Then it is just to sing a load of crap about how they are going to help you and the consolidated media all reading from the same page. Unless you are willing to take the time and look around the Internet, you may never find the truth. The truth is that we, on the bottom, make all the money for them. They do not produce a product. I know, financial products, but are they really products or documents of servitude?

NO BAILOUT

FIX IT FROM THE BOTTOM UP!

[Mason]

We can't afford to fix anything if we don't end the wars in the middle east and bring our troops home. Then we can decide how to fix our broken economy.

[Mason]

Debating the merits of the wars that we are involved in is a waste of time because the discussion quickly gets sidetracked into irrelevant issues such as patriotism, political ideology, and courage. Supporters of these wars demonize its opponents in as many irrelevant ways as their nimble minds are capable of conjuring up. Consequently, discussions about the wars evolve into shouting matches that result in its participants views becoming more entrenched.

If a monthly magazine were to copy the format of National Geographic or the old Life Magazines and devote each issue to telling the personal stories of surviving innocent victims of these wars in color photographs that capture the horror, devastation, and suffering endured, I believe we would see fewer fruitless debates about the propriety of these wars. If each issue also detailed the daily cost of these wars and the mounting total I think support for the peace movement would spread like fire and its supporters would have to change their minds or shut-up to avoid humiliating themselves in public.

We can change minds by conceding points with which we disagree to focus discussion on the one issue with which every American can and should agree. We can't afford it.

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Is it possible there are in fact some kind of differences that may be helping or muting the decisions of the financial crisis. The idea of a given --where we just look at the demonstrable behaviour of men in parliament usa and not considerinf questions of relationship between popular preferences and government action
and 2--the social background that assumes that behaviour will be in accord with differences of outlook
Arethese views--as old as they are being skewed and accentuated today in preference to solving the finacial-- a resource--
held by them--
crisis