(no subject)
Nov. 8th, 2006 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here is a possibly boring political screed that you probably won't read because you're tired of that sort of thing by now. It was inspired by the recent discussion on my friends' list of whether all Republicans are evil and stupid. In general, I don't think Republicans are evil or stupid, but I do think the current Republican administration is incompetent.
If the Republican administration were competent...
They wouldn't have proposed a goofy Social Security reform plan that would have increased the indebtedness of Social Security by trillions of dollars.
The person they put in charge of FEMA would have had expertise in emergencies instead of in Arabian horses.
They wouldn't have put up on the Internet a guide to building an atomic bomb, written in Arabic, based on Iraq’s nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
When they invaded Afghanistan, they wouldn't have waited nearly five months after they began their invasion before sending U.S. troops to look for Osama bin Laden. Instead, they would have immediately used enough U.S. troops to prevent bin Laden from escaping. They would have encircled the areas where they thought he was probably hiding, and prevented him from fleeing by air.
(I assume, here, that George W. Bush meant it when he said that he wanted Osama bin Laden alive or dead, that he wasn't just using Osama bin Laden as an excuse for regime change in Afghanistan, and that he didn't deliberately let Osama bin Laden escape so that people would vote Republican because of their fear of terrorists.)
They would have believed their experts who told them that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were enemies of each other. They would have realized that Saddam Hussein's police state was doing an excellent job of keeping terrorists out of the portions of Iraq under SH's control. They would have paid attention to the fact that the last time the SH regime attempted a terrorist act against the US was back in 1993. They would have paid attention to the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't likely to kill vast numbers of Iraqis in the future because all of his enemies were either dead or in other countries. They would have looked for solid evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. They would have anticipated how difficult it would be to force democracy on Iraq. They wouldn't have believed that we would be welcomed as liberators.
In light of all the above, they wouldn't have invaded Iraq. They might have taken out the one terrorist camp in Iraq, in an area that S.H. did not control.
But if they had invaded Iraq anyway, they would have invaded with 400,000 troops (the number necessary according to a Clinton administration study). They would have guarded the borders so that terrorists and agents of foreign governments couldn't infiltrate. They would have guarded Iraq's nuclear power plants to keep children from playing with drums filled with radioactive waste, and to prevent the unexplained disappearance of equipment that could be used by terrorists to enrich uranium. They would have guarded Iraq's cultural treasures. They would have had sufficient troop strength to greatly reduce looting, sabotage, and sectarian killings.
Their Secretary of Defense wouldn't have believed that U.S. troops would only be in Iraq for three months. Their Secretary of Defense wouldn't have threatened to fire anyone who thought it was necessary to do "post-war" planning, where "post-war" meant "after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein". They would have put the State Department, which had done considerable post-war planning, in charge of the occupation, rather than the Pentagon, which had done none.
They would have realized the importance of showing the Sunni Muslims that they did not need to resort to violence because they could have a share of political power. They would not have outlawed the Baath party. They would not have disbanded the Iraqi army or fired thousands of civilians for being members of the Baath party.
Bush would have taken advice on economics from economists rather than from college dropout Karl Rove. Remember the following conversation about Bush's second tax cut, as reported by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill?
BUSH: Haven’t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut’s gonna do it again. Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?
ADVISER: Well Mr. President, the upper class, they’re the entrepreneurs.
BUSH: OK.
[…]
BUSH: Well, shouldn’t we be giving money to the middle, won’t people be able to say, “You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?”
KARL ROVE: Stick to principle. Stick to principle. Don’t waver.
Many people were shocked to learn that Bush realized that he was giving two tax cuts to the rich. What shocks me is that Bush didn't suggest asking some economists what they thought about the second tax cut. He could have said, "Let's find out what Alan Greenspan thinks about this. Let's find out what the Council of Economic Advisers says." He could have respected the opinion of his own Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. Instead, he fired O'Neill because of his opposition to the tax cut.
If the Republican administration were competent...
They wouldn't have proposed a goofy Social Security reform plan that would have increased the indebtedness of Social Security by trillions of dollars.
The person they put in charge of FEMA would have had expertise in emergencies instead of in Arabian horses.
They wouldn't have put up on the Internet a guide to building an atomic bomb, written in Arabic, based on Iraq’s nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
When they invaded Afghanistan, they wouldn't have waited nearly five months after they began their invasion before sending U.S. troops to look for Osama bin Laden. Instead, they would have immediately used enough U.S. troops to prevent bin Laden from escaping. They would have encircled the areas where they thought he was probably hiding, and prevented him from fleeing by air.
(I assume, here, that George W. Bush meant it when he said that he wanted Osama bin Laden alive or dead, that he wasn't just using Osama bin Laden as an excuse for regime change in Afghanistan, and that he didn't deliberately let Osama bin Laden escape so that people would vote Republican because of their fear of terrorists.)
They would have believed their experts who told them that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were enemies of each other. They would have realized that Saddam Hussein's police state was doing an excellent job of keeping terrorists out of the portions of Iraq under SH's control. They would have paid attention to the fact that the last time the SH regime attempted a terrorist act against the US was back in 1993. They would have paid attention to the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't likely to kill vast numbers of Iraqis in the future because all of his enemies were either dead or in other countries. They would have looked for solid evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. They would have anticipated how difficult it would be to force democracy on Iraq. They wouldn't have believed that we would be welcomed as liberators.
In light of all the above, they wouldn't have invaded Iraq. They might have taken out the one terrorist camp in Iraq, in an area that S.H. did not control.
But if they had invaded Iraq anyway, they would have invaded with 400,000 troops (the number necessary according to a Clinton administration study). They would have guarded the borders so that terrorists and agents of foreign governments couldn't infiltrate. They would have guarded Iraq's nuclear power plants to keep children from playing with drums filled with radioactive waste, and to prevent the unexplained disappearance of equipment that could be used by terrorists to enrich uranium. They would have guarded Iraq's cultural treasures. They would have had sufficient troop strength to greatly reduce looting, sabotage, and sectarian killings.
Their Secretary of Defense wouldn't have believed that U.S. troops would only be in Iraq for three months. Their Secretary of Defense wouldn't have threatened to fire anyone who thought it was necessary to do "post-war" planning, where "post-war" meant "after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein". They would have put the State Department, which had done considerable post-war planning, in charge of the occupation, rather than the Pentagon, which had done none.
They would have realized the importance of showing the Sunni Muslims that they did not need to resort to violence because they could have a share of political power. They would not have outlawed the Baath party. They would not have disbanded the Iraqi army or fired thousands of civilians for being members of the Baath party.
Bush would have taken advice on economics from economists rather than from college dropout Karl Rove. Remember the following conversation about Bush's second tax cut, as reported by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill?
BUSH: Haven’t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut’s gonna do it again. Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?
ADVISER: Well Mr. President, the upper class, they’re the entrepreneurs.
BUSH: OK.
[…]
BUSH: Well, shouldn’t we be giving money to the middle, won’t people be able to say, “You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?”
KARL ROVE: Stick to principle. Stick to principle. Don’t waver.
Many people were shocked to learn that Bush realized that he was giving two tax cuts to the rich. What shocks me is that Bush didn't suggest asking some economists what they thought about the second tax cut. He could have said, "Let's find out what Alan Greenspan thinks about this. Let's find out what the Council of Economic Advisers says." He could have respected the opinion of his own Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. Instead, he fired O'Neill because of his opposition to the tax cut.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-09 03:52 pm (UTC)