On the Contrary

Every now and then it pays us great dividends to stop, think, and evaluate and examine some of our preconceived ideas.  As I am totally absorbed by the economic crisis, on this Monday morning in our rush to fix the problem, maybe it is time to slow down and think, not just about the economy, but some of our other assumptions especially with the upcoming debate.  So here goes:

• The conventional wisdom is we need to act fast to save our economy.  My simple mind understands the economic rescue plan as an attempt by the Fed to buy up bad credit instruments to restore liquidity and capital for borrowing so necessary to the function of our economy.  But the first thing that crosses my mind is that this Republican Administration that touts small government, low regulation government is expanding government and its supreme control over the economy in ways that tower over anything we have ever known.  From an administration that rails at the mention of a government controlled medical system we get a government controlled economy.  Second thought is will it work?  Why should we be bailing out these businesses if the $700b could be used to simulate the economy in other ways?  Exactly who controls this money and what assets will secure these outlays?  Who are the winners and losers in this thing and what is the impact on our ability to rebuild our infrastructure and make investments in alternate energy that are also critical to our financial survival?  If our economy impacts the world economy, why aren’t they offering to help in the bailout as we have helped them in the past?  The people who are structuring this plan are the ones that presided over this debacle, so why are we giving them the benefit of the doubt?  I think it is time for some calm debate about what our choices are instead of being rushed into a 3 page plan for $700b hatched in a backroom and rushed to Congress for a rubber stamp.
• The conventional wisdom is that the surge has worked in Iraq and this works in the favor of John McCain.  This claim and belief is based upon the fact that the violence has been reduced during the surge, ergo, the surge is working.  But this ignores the fact that the policy of paying Sunnis (the Awakening) came into play and full fruition about this time and that as the surge started the segregation of the population into sectarian groups was just completing.  There are an estimated four million displaced Iraqis, half of which left the country and the other half in sectarian enclaves to protect themselves.  So we put more cops on the beat and street thugism is down, but are we not still sitting on a seething caldron of unresolved hate?  Add to that as the Shiites take control of the country, they are not incorporating the Sunnis into the military or police in any meaningful way.  Meanwhile the Kurds are solidifying their control of oil rich areas.   I think we are sitting on a ticking time bomb which has little to do with al-Qaeda.  One might ask John McCain what his definition of winning is and just how much longer can we be responsible for holding the lid on this thing.
• The conventional wisdom in Afghanistan is that this is where the real war is, we had almost won it, and now we need to recommit to it with more troops and strong investment in the soft forms of power (read economy and nation building).  In a highly informative and basically non-partisan discussion, five previous Secretaries of State on CNN’s “The Next President: A World of Challenges” reflected this view.  But in an equally informative interview on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, the 85 year-old wise ex-Prime Minister of Singapore gave this advice on Afghanistan:

“You’re going to bring democracy to Afghanistan? They have been warring with each other for hundreds of years. They enjoy warring with each other. Thirty-plus years ago they killed a king who was nominally holding the country together, and it’s been shattered ever since.

How do you restore the writ of Kabul? By some 30,000 NATO troops, ISAF, and a few more brigades of Marines or special forces?

The Russians had 140,000 boots on the ground with tanks, helicopters and the lot. And they left.

I think nation-building is not doable. I mean, are you going to do nation-building in Pakistan? If you can’t get Pakistan right, you will never get Afghanistan right.

That Durand Line was arbitrarily drawn by the British between the Northwest Frontier Provinces and Afghanistan. They are the same tribes, brothers, cousins — porous borders. They’re in and out.

Now you’ve not only got Talibans, you’ve got Pakistanis joining the Talibans — or that’s the latest intelligence that I’ve been reading.

It can go on for decades. Do we want to be in Afghanistan for decades?”

So the bottom line here is we are starting down the same road we went down in Iraq.  I think we ought to have a real debate on what is doable and what we can afford.  We may have to weigh whether improving our security through improving our economic strength and position in the world is a better investment that occupying countries in the 7th century who are still engaged in tribal warfare.

Just some idle thoughts of a Contrarian as we move toward the debates and understand that every question asked comes with hidden assumptions that may not stand up to the test of reality.  Thus the answer may be the answer to the wrong question.