Other People's Sacrifice

New York Times ^ | September 9, 2003 | PAUL KRUGMAN

[liberallarry]

		September 9, 2003

	Home - Site Index - Site Search/Archive - Help	Welcome, lllarryyy - Member Center - Log Out

Search:

	NYTimes.com > Opinion

	ARTICLE TOOLS

	E-Mail This Article
	Printer-Friendly Format
	Most E-Mailed Articles

		Columnist Page: Paul Krugman Forum: Discuss This Column E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

	TIMES NEWS TRACKER
	Topics	Alerts
	Bush, George W
	Iraq
	International Relations
	United States Armament and Defense

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Other People's Sacrifice

By PAUL KRUGMAN

n his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: "We cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." He also spoke, in a way he hasn't before, about "sacrifice." Yet, as always, what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people.

It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible tax cuts.

Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, "Is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody business of rebuilding Iraq?" The example of Afghanistan (where warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban — remember those guys? — is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right.

Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while others do all the giving.

The money is actually the least of it. Still, it provides a clear test case. If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last tax cut. Now he says, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . ." What does he mean, "we"? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not.

Then there's the issue of foreign participation. The key question here is whether the Bush administration will swallow its pride and cede substantial control over the occupation to the U.N. That's surely the price of a large contingent of foreign soldiers. Mr. Bush didn't address this issue directly, but he did say that he is seeking only one more multinational division, which suggests that he isn't going to make major concessions.

Yet as I understand it, one more division won't make much difference in the security situation. In particular, it will do little to alleviate the looming problem identified by the Congressional Budget Office: in March, the U.S. will have to start withdrawing most of its troops if it wants to maintain "acceptable levels of military readiness" in the Army as a whole.

Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes major concessions, forget about it.

But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about money or control — it's about truth-telling. He squandered American credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid.

Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?

So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.

[liberallarry]

If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last tax cut. Now he says, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . ." What does he mean, "we"? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not.

[liberallarry]

Sorry about the irrelevant sidebar and header. Missed it when I did partial source.

[Puppage]

what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people

And,how does Kruggy feel when the money is for BS liberal social programs, hmm?

Surprizingly quiet, I suspect.

[liberallarry]

And,how does Kruggy feel when the money is for BS liberal social programs, hmm? Surprizingly quiet, I suspect.

Touche. As has been noted many times, liberals are incredibly generous with other people's money.

But this is about more than partisan politics and Krugman's biases.

Who is going to pay for the war? The administration sold the war by exagerating the immediate threat of Saddam's WMD and downplaying the costs of reconstruction and the continuing need for further conflict with the Muslim world - justly I believe, because I trusted that the Administration knew what it was doing.

Now the bill is coming due. How is it to be paid?

[Puppage]

Now the bill is coming due. How is it to be paid?

I would think that once the oil starts to flow freely, we'll take a piece from that. I think that's always been the plan.

We can't NOT do something that protects us all, and frees an oppressed people, for fear of "sticker shock".

[Zack Nguyen]

(There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.)

Would this author be in favor of invading Saudi Arabia, then? I doubt it.

[Zack Nguyen]

The administration sold the war by exagerating the immediate threat of Saddam's WMD...

"Exaggeration" would indicate they "lied" and I don't think that is the case. President Clinton thought that WMD were there. Our entire military/intelligence establishment seemed to think so. We have received reports from spies and multiple defectors who spoke to the fact that they were there. I don't believe there was any exaggeration at all, rather acting from the best evidence we had. Either the WMD's are there and we haven't found them, or it was a massive counterintelligence coup the likes of which should go down in the pantheon of history. I am holding out for the former.

[alpowolf]

The thing I still want to know about "WMD" is this: if Saddam was going to gas NYC or DC with his "WMD" (or provide them to someone else to do the same thing), why didn't he do it in the 1980s? He had the stuff then. Why didn't he do it in the 1990s? Hell, Bill Clinton was President, what better time to attack the U.S.? Why didn't he do it in 2000, 2001, 2002? I'm sorry but this story that Saddam was going to gas us just doesn't hold water.

Mr. Krugman is wrong to tie the tax cuts to this issue. Keeping taxes high is not going to help matters at all. We need to cut taxes more. Of course, we also need to spend less money, something the GOP is as incapable of doing as are the Democrats. When it comes to spending OPM they're one party.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Now the bill is coming due. How is it to be paid?

How was Reagan's arms build-up of the 1980's (and resulting victory in the Cold War) paid for? I trust you're not going to try to claim credit for liberals in Congress for that...

It was "paid for" by freeing future generations in the US and millions behind the Iron Curtain from the tyranny of Communism... it allowed, if only briefly, a "peace dividend" during the 1990's which Bill Clinton quickly cashed as he was depositing PRC campaign contributions in exchange for satellite and rocket technologies they had been unable to develop on their own. Bill Clinton pines for a legacy even approaching that of Reagan's -- on his victory over the communists, on his kick-starting the great economic boom... I assume Clinton never had aspirations of matching Reagan on character and personal comportment in office, so we'll skip those obvious comparisons.

It (the Cold War victory and deficits from the arms build-up) also allowed this country to avoid the kind of economic blackmail that we would have faced when Saddam invaded Kuwait: we had a 300,000 person army we could drop on Iraq under the "Powell doctrine". Finally, those deficits were also paid for by the economic growth that Reagan was sigularly responsible for -- I'm sure Prof. Krugman gets a bit dizzy trying to figure how that worked despite all the Keynesian hand-wringing, even in retrospect -- due to his supply-side tax cuts which kick-started (and sustained) the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history. It took longer than he expected, but yes, we grew our way out of those deficits.

Thank goodness, W is following that script instead of his father's.

[liberallarry]

We can't NOT do something that protects us all, and frees an oppressed people, for fear of "sticker shock"

Agreed. We're in and we better win. But it'll be very costly, so how will we pay? Iraqi oil alone won't cut it. No one ever thought it would.

[liberallarry]

Would this author be in favor of invading Saudi Arabia, then? I doubt it

I don't know Krugman's position on the war or on neo-con ideas generally. Most of his articles criticize the dishonest way it's been presented and executed - not the positions themselves.

[Puppage]

The security of our country shouldn't depend on cost. I'd rather see our tax dollars go to something like our very own existence, than say some liberal, feel-good social program.

[liberallarry]

"Exaggeration" would indicate they "lied"...Either the WMD's are there and we haven't found them, or it was a massive counterintelligence coup the likes of which should go down in the pantheon of history"

Neither.

As you and others have pointed out, Saddam has long manufactured and used biological and chemical weapons and has attempted to obtain atomic weapons. But we destroyed much of his arsenal and treasury. What remained was mostly dual use production lines and scientists and technicians with know-how. Most probably, there's nothing to find.

Nonetheless, his desire never wavered. He was only waiting for our will to falter. Then he would begin again. The administration did not lie about this. It exagerated the immediacy of the threat in order to use the window of opportunity offered by 911...that's entirely consistent with our national security strategy of preemptive attack. That strategy tells what is necessary militarily, but not how to achieve it politically.

[liberallarry]

Why didn't he do it in 2000, 2001, 2002? I'm sorry but this story that Saddam was going to gas us just doesn't hold water

He didn't because he couldn't. But what about 2003, 2005, 2008? Who thought 911 was possible?

Mr. Krugman is wrong to tie the tax cuts to this issue.

No, he's right both politically and economically. Unless the Administration can pull one out of the hat - and I don't rule it out - the American people are going to have to pay for the wars and reconstruction with taxes and perhaps a draft. Can you imagine trying to sell that while justifying huge tax cuts for the wealthy (that's just the reality - forget the caveats and justifications)?

[liberallarry]

I'm sure Prof. Krugman gets a bit dizzy trying to figure how that worked

I can't follow it either...but I hope you're right and that the experience translates to the current situation...because - as we both know - we can't cut and run. We must win.

[alpowolf]

He didn't because he couldn't. But what about 2003, 2005, 2008? Who thought 911 was possible?

Why couldn't he?

Jacking up taxes is not going to work. The "wealthy" that you're referring to will easily avoid the increases. Look, for instance, at the luxury tax aimed at yachts. That didn't bring in any significant revenue, and in fact was a net loss, since those who manufactured and supported yachts all lost their jobs and businesses.

As for a draft, it will be interesting to see if either "major" party has the guts for it. Besides, why should they need a draft? Aren't they claiming that the American people all support the war?

[liberallarry]

Why couldn't he?

Either because he wasn't willing to pay the price, or didn't have the capability. What kind of question is that?

Aren't they claiming that the American people all support the war?

Nobody claims that. Again what kind of question is that? Do you want us to lose simply because you dislike the administration?

Jacking up taxes is not going to work

If it wouldn't work then the cuts were meaningless since the wealthy weren't paying taxes anyway. Just who are you?

[moneyrunner]

”Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat,”

Here Krugman perpetuates the “BIG LIE” of the left. It has been told so often, that many, even many on the Right, now believe it. Unfortunately for LIBERAL LIARS everywhere, the internet search engines now give anyone the power to check the facts. And the facts are these, in Bush’s own words from his second State of the Union speech:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

In this speech Bush specifically disavowed the strategy of waiting until the “threat is imminent” because of the impossibility of determining the imminence of a terrorist threat. Was 9/11 imminent on 9/10? Obviously yes. Is the threat of a suicide bomber imminent in Israel?

Fools like Krugman, if they actually believe what they profess, are still in denial about the threat of terrorism. The war we are in does not allow the luxury of observing an enemy army assembling in a plain. The military geniuses of the Left are still fighting – God help us – the Napoleonic wars.

[liberallarry]

Here Krugman perpetuates the “BIG LIE” of the left

Stop blaming the Left and making it a partisan issue. Buchanan's not the Left. Neither are the other paleocons or many, many others of no common political orientation - all of whom believe Bush exagerated the immediacy of the threat.

And stop playing with words. Bush, like Blair, presented the threat as immediate. Not in the sense that we knew of a particular plan to be executed on a particular day just around the corner. Not immediate the way Blair used it - meaning Saddam could deliver WMD in 45 minutes or so. But immediate in the way nations usually mean it - extremely dangerous now and capable of horrendous acts in the near future.

[alpowolf]

Either because he wasn't willing to pay the price, or didn't have the capability. What kind of question is that?

It's a simple question. Let me put it another way: what changed to make it an emergency? Why could he not do it in 1995, but suddenly could do it in 2003?

Nobody claims that. Again what kind of question is that? Do you want us to lose simply because you dislike the administration?

Actually I hear it all the time. Now, where do you get the "want us to lose" crap? It's another simple question: why would we need a draft, wouldn't enough people volunteer if they support the war?

If it wouldn't work then the cuts were meaningless since the wealthy weren't paying taxes anyway. Just who are you?

I believe in people keeping what they produce. Why does this upset you so?