Paul Krugman: March of Folly

Paul Krugman wonders why the views of some commentators on Middle East policy are given credence given how far off their analysis has been in the past:

March of Folly, by Paul Krugman, Neocons Commentary, NY Times: Since those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it — and since the cast of characters making pronouncements on the crisis in the Middle East is very much the same as it was three or four years ago — it seems like a good idea to travel down memory lane. Here’s what they said and when they said it:

“The greatest thing to come out of [invading Iraq] for the world economy .... would be $20 a barrel for oil.” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), February 2003

“Oil Touches Record $78 on Mideast Conflict.” Headline on www.foxnews.com, July 14, 2006 ...

“Peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than historical experience in the Balkans suggests. There’s been none of the ... ethnic militias fighting one another that produced so much bloodshed ... in Bosnia.” Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and now president of the World Bank, Feb. 27, 2003

“West Baghdad is no stranger to bombings and killings, but in the past few days all restraint has vanished in an orgy of ‘ethnic cleansing.’ .... Mosques are being attacked. Scores of innocent civilians have been killed, their bodies left lying in the streets.” The Times of London, July 14, 2006

“Earlier this week, I traveled to Baghdad to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.” President Bush, June 17, 2006.

“People are doing the same as [in] Saddam’s time and worse. ... These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.” Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush’s choice as Iraq’s first post-Saddam prime minister, November 2005

“Iraq’s new government has another able leader in Speaker Mashhadani. ... He rejects the use of violence for political ends. And by agreeing to serve in a prominent role in this new unity government, he’s demonstrating leadership and courage.” President Bush, May 22, 2006

“Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.’ These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.” Mahmoud Mashhadani, speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, July 13, 2006 ...

“Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. ...Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates ... would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.” Vice President Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

“Bush — The world is coming unglued before his eyes. His naïve dreams are a Wilsonian disaster.” Newsweek Conventional Wisdom Watch, July 24, 2006 edition

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, Dec. 6, 2005

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now.” Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, on the campaign against Slobodan Milosevic, April 28, 1999

_________________________
Previous (7/14) column: Paul Krugman: Left Behind Economics
Next (7/21) column: Paul Krugman: The Price of Fantasy

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

We were "neo-conned."

[hj]

One of the most disgusting aspects of the US media is that the same "experts" appear over and over again on new shows in spite of the fact that many have been dead wrong 90% of the time, and the rest repeat the same mantras every time they appear. But evidently they come for free, or whatever and so they keep showing their faces and spouting their bromides day after day and week after week. Do you ever see Juan Cole on a news show? Or Krugman? Or any other genuine authority on what he is talking about? No. Never. Instead we see O'Reilly talking to Ann Coulter, or we see Matthews talking to some Newsweek reporter. And Andrea Mitchell is always ready with some pointless comment. In fact we virtually never see anyone who has a real clue to what they are talking about. It's beyond depressing.

[hj]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/where_are_the_h.html

gives a good taste of the utter incompetence of US media reporting. The result is that most Americans haven't a clue.

[Movie Guy]

Why isn't there a post up that focuses solely on the Israeli dual front battle situation?

Are we too timid to discuss this one?

For all the hell that has been raised about Iraq, I believe it is appropriate to address the Israeli situation.

[Mark Thoma]

I'm embarrassed to say, but will admit, that I don't know enough to say anything intelligent, so I've been reading about the politics, etc., as I can hoping to catch up. I'm hesitant to stray outside of economics topics when I don't feel I know the issues very well, so I tend to stay silent when that happens instead of acting like I know what I'm talking about.

I could talk a bit more intelligently, I hope, about what economic effects would result if the price of oil goes up, etc., i.e. the economic parts, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

[hj]

Movie Guy:

Only "anti-Semites" get involved in arguments about Israel. And who wants to be an "anti-Semite" or be called one?

[Movie Guy]

Good point, Mark.

I am pushing for a dialogue on the Israeli situation because we have seen a willingness to discuss economic costs to the U.S. action in Iraq, but we have been willing to discuss the economic costs of not eliminating terrorist threats around the globe.

The Israeli situation brings the matter of terrorism and its economic costs directly to the center of whether we should (1) spend the monies necessary to defeat terrorist organizations and those nations supporting such terrorist organizations, (2) support Israel in its efforts to defeat terrorist organizations and supporting nations challenging Israel's right to exist as a nation state, and (3) allow terrorist organizations to gain control across the Middle East, with or without popular support.

There is interesting silence over the Israeli situation by some of those who have raised so much hell about Iraq.

To those, I ask:

Double standards? Conflicted views? Don't know what to say about Hizballah and Hamas? Unwilling to acknowledge that Iran and Syria are the prime supporters of Hizballah and Hamas? Unwilling to acknowledge that Iran is a major threat for peace and stability in the Middle East?

What's up, people?

I'm not trying to wreck this thread, but provide an idea of the discussion interest I have in mind on this subject.

And Paul Krugman is dancing around it, too.

Let's stop dancing.

Let's take it front and center. Then discuss it.

[lonesome moderate]

I think Israel is already discussed enough on other forums. Not that I think it's trivial, but there are already many important economics topics that are not discussed here as much as they should be. I would hate to see those pushed further down the list of priorities so that we can make room for yet another Mideast flamefest that proves nothing and solves nothing.

says...

This is a Middle East policy thread.

[lonesome moderate]

I should have said "Israel flamefest" rather than "Mideast flamefest".

[spongeworthy]

Krugman's got a column in the NYT and he's been wrong so many times and on his supposed area of expertise too. This is a finger I would think Krugman would be ashamed to point, but it appears shame is lost on the guy.

BTW, using presidential diplomatic foo-faw to set up his "See, they were wrong!" constructions is a cheap shot. What's Bush supposed to say,"Speaker Mashhaddini is about as good as we can expect from this backwards shithole and we should ignore his pandering Jew-baiting because we have little choice"?

[hj]

I have to laugh, and heartily, at the idea that we can "elminate terrorist threats around the globe." It would have been easy not to invade Iraq; it would only have required an intelligent and honest President, not the bozo we've got. Eliminating terrorist threats, largely provoked by our imperialism, around the globe, is not so easy, now. Read Juan Cole today on Bush's overheard ideas re Lebanon. Cole has got it right. Bush has been way out of his depth since 2000. An ignorant little man who sees the world in black and white and who often confuses the two.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

I will bite.

Bombing makes no sense regardless of how costly it may or may not be. How many civilians have been killed and who will rebuild the stuff?

Very few real terrorist trolls are killed by bombers or long range arty.

And if the news photos of the 155's are correct, it shows their utter contempt and lopsidedness. Who would have the rounds stacked next to the gun, obviously no one is in any position to shoot back.

Or do they think no one knows how over confident they have become?

So how many are killed by 155's and 500 pound bombs whose demise really contributes to defeating terrorism or trolls for that matter?

Israel is lashing out, spending a lot of money and getting nowhere.

Hamas holds a number of seats in the Palestinian Gaza parliament. Hizbollah holds a number of seats in the parliament of Lebanon.

Bombing Lebanese and Gaza infrastructure harms the whole country and makes neither a tactical nor operational contribution to any rational strategy, ie to defeat terrorism, if that is a worthy goal (which I rather send Thors hammer after trolls, trolls being as real as terrorists as a group you can kill off) or preserve the state of Israel.

It is like someone who can attack Israel because Likud runs the place and they are loose cannons, not that I know that to be fact.

So, looking back on the strategic bombing report after WW II, and I was an Air Force type, there is no conclusive evidence that we hastened the demise of Germany nor that we did much more than make civilians suffer. The war effort took more from them, and they stayed loyal until our troops came in and all their vets claimed only to have killed Commies.

As in Asia, as in Europe, as in Japan you must occupy the ground to assure the armies are defeated.

Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank for 35 years and look what it got them.

Bombing and long range arty do not do that, never have.

So, the talking heads and the nuts talk about nuking Iran, talk about invading Syria, more lashing out.

There will remain huge recruiting pools when all the radiation subsides, all who hate Israel and the US.

Yes, we need Thor's hammer, and his sight to see the right trolls to kill.

So, your 3 positions:

(1) spend the monies necessary to defeat terrorist organizations and those nations supporting such terrorist organizations,

To figure out how much; we need strategy that is delivered by operations that are executed by tactics. Bombing and long range arty are none of those.

They could use a large number of nukes, sort of like Thor's hammer. But that is very costly. I do not see it as a cost issue but as a moral issue, you need to kill em all.

Far too much for me.

(2) support Israel in its efforts to defeat terrorist organizations and supporting nations challenging Israel's right to exist as a nation state,

If Israel has tactics and operations I guess but see 1) far too much moral repugnance there.

and (3) allow terrorist organizations to gain control across the Middle East, with or without popular support.

That seems to be the most likely outcome, your other options are possible but essentilly improbable.

So, do we fight the idea of terrorism or do we kill them all.

Israel is venturing on the 'kill them all', making their job very large and improbable.

Can israel occupy enough land to buffer and how much do we and they pay?

Arafat was so easy, all they had to do was roll the Centurions up to his compound and make a scene.

[hj]

ilsm:

Naughty, naughty. You're going to get yourself smeared as an "anti-Semite". Of course, you might come back with "ethnic cleanser." And so on and so forth, etc., etc.

[hj]

A good analysis of our bozo in chief:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1822909,00.html

[Chris Mann]

You make the mistake of thinking that Israel is trying to stop terrorism. They tried that with a massive land invasion in the 1980s which didn't go well for them. This time they are taking a different tact.

Because of Lebanon's comprehensive failure over the last decade to stamp out armed militia operating from within their own borders the Israelis are taking matters into their own hands. They're creating a 250km dead zone inside Lebanon to buffer themselves from further artillery attacks, and to hell with the lebanese civilian casualties. If they see anything with their UAVs in that area that is larger than a motorcycle and moves they'll have an F-16 with a 500lb bomb dispatched within the hour to 'stop it from moving'.

[motorcycle oil]

A few years ago, it was difficult to find synthetic motor oils, and equally difficult to find someone who admitted

to using them. Nowadays, however, you can find synthetic motor oils on the shelves of Wal-Mart, and other retailers,

and the number of people turning to synthetic motor oils, particularly in light of the recent events affecting fuel

prices, has risen greatly.

So why do people use synthetic motor oils rather than sticking with the old petroleum based stand-bys which are

admittedly cheaper?

1. Let's start with the cost per quart issue. Synthetic motor oils ARE more expensive at purchase. However, these

oils last longer, requiring fewer oil changes. As a synthetic motor oil outlasts several changes of petroleum based

lubricants, the ultimate out-of-pocket cost of the lubricant is less. This cost savings becomes even greater if you

have someone else change your oil for you rather than doing it yourself!