Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Afghanistan policy has been off track ever since we started funding the religious groups and sectarian warlords in opposition to the Soviets and a secular pluralistic government in Afghanistan. Our idea was to destabilize Afghanistan and force the Soviets to expend more resources than they cared trying to manage a failed state with sectarian groups at each other's throats. It worked so well the Soviets gave up and the proxy war left a failed state.

The cold war was more about alliances and control of resources and spheres of influence than ideology, economic systems or political systems. The Afghanis accepted the Taliban because they were better than the chaos they replaced. Ruling a failed state is difficult because the fighting destroys infrastructure that is needed for progress. We need to figure out how to do this because we face the same problem in Iraq that the Soviets faced in Afghanistan.

Democracy cannot function in the absence of rule of law. First the rule of law has to be returned, then they can think about democracy.

"Come to think of it, why should I be surprised that Bush security policy is as inept and feckless as Bush economic policy?"

To quote Wargames

"What's the difference?"

Iraq was an attempt to get out of an economic bind by putting lots of cheap oil online. It failed, or rather, it has not worked fast enough to save Bush's first term. The result being they have had to load up on debt, and "declare defeat and go home" in Iraq. The result, long term, will be the creation of more downward pressure on oil as Iraqi supplies come on line, but it does not change the fundamental problem that a petrol based energy supply has both source and sink limits, and places an unhealthy amount of control over the world economy in the hands of the "universal central bank" - OPEC.

I just hope Osama goes down fighting, so Bush cannot brandish a live body during the election.
And before I got too excited about that, I would want to see Al Zawahiri out of action.

Yes, but as Elizabeth Bumiller said in the the CBS debate yesterday, we have not been attacked, so doesn't that mean Bush is doing a super job?

"I just hope Osama goes down fighting, so Bush cannot brandish a live body during the election.
And before I got too excited about that, I would want to see Al Zawahiri out of action."

The word of the day is "Osamatober"

"Come to think of it, why should I be surprised that Bush security policy is as inept and feckless as Bush economic policy?"

Et tu Brad? I thought this kind of "dualism" about the administration was the province of the over-educated right wing! You know, people like Andrew Sullivan and Dan Drezner, who like Bush's foreign policy but say his fiscal policy is a disaster, as if they were choosing dishes at a buffet. (The same reasoning is almost invariably cited when Richard Nixon's name comes up.)

Of course, it was these same folks who, when Clinton was in office, ignored any and all good points while saying it's the overall character of a man that matters, but intellectual consistency is an over-rated virtue.

The problems with our current fiscal policies aren't minor matters of detail --- X versus Y percent for the top bracket, or how long to maintain a given stimulative tax credit --- they are based on fundamental deficiencies in the way the administration operates. We are governed by people who value short term political gain over long term planning, who substitute ideology for policy research, and who ignore empiric facts and the lessons of history. They do occasionally get things right, but so do monkeys at typewriters. Given the chance, I'd vote for the monkeys.

Why should you be surprised that Bush security policy is as inept and feckless as Bush economic policy?

You shouldn't. Today they claimed that Aristide had asked to leave Haiti. But hours after his disappearance, Agence France Presse had reported from a caretaker at the palace that he had been marched out at gunpoint. Aristide has now confirmed this and called it a coup, an abduction.

You know, who you gonna believe, Bush or your lying eyes?

This is pretty high on the fecklessness scale, and about an 8 for 10 on the raw incompetence scale. They get points for not assassinating him outright, I suppose.

You know Republicans, they need to overthrow a country a year or they just don't feel manly.

Well, I know a lot of democrats this year who are thinking about 'regime change' closer to home...

Of course if we ratio the Bush Administration's "war on terror" with the previous Administration's, we get a very large number - approaching infinity.

Calling 9/11 an Act of War, rather than a huge crime, was the first mistake. Lots of the present disaster follows directly from that.

Of course Brad shouldn't be surprised: Bush and Company are genuine all-around incompetents, and confusing a crime with a war is just one of the many incompetencies they've quite naturally shown.

"Calling 9/11 an Act of War, rather than a huge crime..."

Yeah, I remember Jane Fonda saying the same thing.

Lawrence,

Terrorist organizations are never destroyed militarily. They are defeated politically. That's not to say that sending in the military and killing a wack load of terrorist is bad. It feels great to hit back and it is part of the solution.

But that's just it, it's only part of the solution. You can't win the war on terror with the 101 Airborne.

Proving this to you requires more space than this post allows. If you want to look at it, I would examine the Sri Lankan conflict or Spain vs the ETA as some examples. Micheal Ignatieff is about to publish a new book on defeating terrorism called The Lesser Evil. My basic argument can be found there.

The problem with Bush and this administration is that they have framed 9/11 in a way that will make America lose. Sounds radical, but that's the problem as I see it.