Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Withdrawing Devil's Advocate
Why isn't the media playing devil's advocate in the current Iraq debate about the downside to withdrawing? Bush continues to argue withdrawing from Iraq would be catestrophic. Many experts say the resulting civil war in Iraq would spill over to the borders and draw in Iran, Turkey and maybe more countries. Iraq would also become a haven for terrorists.
It's not just Bush and the pro-war forces pushing this thinking, many democrats also use this as the reason they can't support an immediate withdrawl or cut off funding.
But would pulling out really result in the catastrophy that the conventional wisdom envisions?
I'm not trying to make an argument that pulling out won't be so bad, but where is the media to question these assumptions? Back in October Leslie Glib argued that Vietnam shows withdrawing won't necessarily look like our fears. But there's been little followthrough from the media, excect last week's Left, Right & Center.
The conventional wisdom is that withdrawing from Iraq will be potentially catestrophic for these reasons:
1. A civil war in Iraq will likely spread to other countries, particularly Turkey and possibly Iraq as the Kurdish people seek to join in one nation. Iran is also seen widening its presence in Iraq. And the other nations may provide aid across borders based on to their religious orientation.
2. An unstable Iraq will be a haven for terrorists who will then strike against the US and US intersts.
3. A war in the Mid East is a huge threat for the world economy with all the oil in the region.
But you can make a strong case against all these and that withdrawing won't be the nightmare this alarmest thinking envisions.
1. One problem here is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the two countries, outside of Israel, that the U.S. can exert the most pressure on in the Mid East. So we have options if the Suni or Kurdish ties to the civil war become a problem. We can also put troops in key areas along the borders to prevent any escalation.
2. It can be argued that the Iraqis only tolerate outside terrorists because they are fighting against the US presence. Once the US presence is gone, they may not tolerate these outsiders interfering in their affairs. And the US can still strike against terrorists camps as they've done recently in Somalia.
3. Iraq isn't exactly producing oil, so unless this really spills over to Iran or Saudi Arabia, this isnt much more of a threat than at the moment.
Since much of the alarmist talk in running up to the Iraq war didn't turn out to be true, why should we trust the arguments this time around? And Vietnam is certainly a recent historical precendent that the media can grasp to show that alarmist talk ("Domino Theory") doesn't always prove true.
Will the pack mentality of the media break out its cycle of failing to explore the conventinal wisdom and spin from both parties?
It's not just Bush and the pro-war forces pushing this thinking, many democrats also use this as the reason they can't support an immediate withdrawl or cut off funding.
But would pulling out really result in the catastrophy that the conventional wisdom envisions?
I'm not trying to make an argument that pulling out won't be so bad, but where is the media to question these assumptions? Back in October Leslie Glib argued that Vietnam shows withdrawing won't necessarily look like our fears. But there's been little followthrough from the media, excect last week's Left, Right & Center.
The conventional wisdom is that withdrawing from Iraq will be potentially catestrophic for these reasons:
1. A civil war in Iraq will likely spread to other countries, particularly Turkey and possibly Iraq as the Kurdish people seek to join in one nation. Iran is also seen widening its presence in Iraq. And the other nations may provide aid across borders based on to their religious orientation.
2. An unstable Iraq will be a haven for terrorists who will then strike against the US and US intersts.
3. A war in the Mid East is a huge threat for the world economy with all the oil in the region.
But you can make a strong case against all these and that withdrawing won't be the nightmare this alarmest thinking envisions.
1. One problem here is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the two countries, outside of Israel, that the U.S. can exert the most pressure on in the Mid East. So we have options if the Suni or Kurdish ties to the civil war become a problem. We can also put troops in key areas along the borders to prevent any escalation.
2. It can be argued that the Iraqis only tolerate outside terrorists because they are fighting against the US presence. Once the US presence is gone, they may not tolerate these outsiders interfering in their affairs. And the US can still strike against terrorists camps as they've done recently in Somalia.
3. Iraq isn't exactly producing oil, so unless this really spills over to Iran or Saudi Arabia, this isnt much more of a threat than at the moment.
Since much of the alarmist talk in running up to the Iraq war didn't turn out to be true, why should we trust the arguments this time around? And Vietnam is certainly a recent historical precendent that the media can grasp to show that alarmist talk ("Domino Theory") doesn't always prove true.
Will the pack mentality of the media break out its cycle of failing to explore the conventinal wisdom and spin from both parties?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Grand Bargain
Rep. Barney Frank laid out a "grand bargain" this week in a speech, which the Wall Street Journal titled:
"Businesses wondering how to deal with the Democrats taking charge in Congress today have a blunt offer from a top lawmaker in the majority: Support our priorities and we'll support yours.
The "grand bargain" laid out by Rep. Barney Frank represents a road map to how Democrats may strike deals to aid unionization, expand health-care coverage and find common ground on other issues, while giving businesses concessions on immigration, trade and investment."
I really like the tone of this. I don't think it's going to find any traction because my theory is that Congress has about six months to get anything done before the 2008 presidential campaign begins to crowd out any policy initiatives. But while Frank's talk may not result in any real policy iniatives in 2007, perhaps this is a tone that can carry over into the 2008 presidental campaign. Bigger issues like health care and education require this kind of thinking. Hopefully this is the start of a trend.
"Businesses wondering how to deal with the Democrats taking charge in Congress today have a blunt offer from a top lawmaker in the majority: Support our priorities and we'll support yours.
The "grand bargain" laid out by Rep. Barney Frank represents a road map to how Democrats may strike deals to aid unionization, expand health-care coverage and find common ground on other issues, while giving businesses concessions on immigration, trade and investment."
I really like the tone of this. I don't think it's going to find any traction because my theory is that Congress has about six months to get anything done before the 2008 presidential campaign begins to crowd out any policy initiatives. But while Frank's talk may not result in any real policy iniatives in 2007, perhaps this is a tone that can carry over into the 2008 presidental campaign. Bigger issues like health care and education require this kind of thinking. Hopefully this is the start of a trend.
