TheAgitator.com
I’m Not Saying Obama Should Start a War with Iran To Save His Presidency. I’m Just Saying that If Obama Were To Start a War With Iran, It Might Save His Presidency
Monday, November 1st, 2010One of Washington’s Wise Old Davids, in this case Broder, just wants you to know:
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected.
Phew! Exept that he kind of is. After running down a list of things Obama can’t control to save his presidency, Broder comes upon the one thing he can.
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
….the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
But just so we’re clear, Broder is not advocating that Obama start a war with Iran. He’s just saying that if Obama did, it would probably help the economy. This is a very obvious point, as evidenced by the age of milk and honey ushered in by the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, Broder might add, as an aside really, that Iran is also “the greatest threat to the world.” And one more thing. Eradicating that threat would make Obama, like, one of the best presidents ever.
So Iran is evil. And dispelling that evil through war would make us richer, safer, and make Obama a great man. But Broder is not suggesting that any of this happen. Of course not. Because that would be crass.
If Broder is one of the wise old men of Washington, the city could stand to be a bit dumber.
I’m not saying Broder’s a dipshit, but…
Would this be a good time to bring in H&R’s sheep fucking meme?
“He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions.”
David Broder.
The evidence I have seen over the last two years suggests otherwise.
David Broder.
Really. So George Bush was at its mercy? So was Clinton? Basically economics is some sort of predestined lottery of the elect and damned when it comes to politicians in office? I am calling shennanigans.
While I agree the economy is bigger than any one man or for that matter the government, policies do matter. Clinton was held in check on spending by a GOP congress and they made both good and bad decisions together. Arguably some of the meltdown that Bush and Obama have experienced are the result of policies Rubin did under Clinton regarding the banking and mortgage industry.
Bush could have greatly mitigated harm had he kept spending in check (which he did not) and did not conceed some of the deregulation that Dodd and Frank promoted.
We can go on and on like this.
I am not saying Broder is a partisan hack but…
From the article:
I keep hearing that. What I think resolved the great depression was not directly WWII, but the fact that the war interrupted the government’s attempts to fix the depression thereby allowing things to actually get better.
I’ve never been able to rationalize the logic that says that the solution for a depression is to seize control of the country’s entire manufacturing sector and force it to produce billions of dollars of machinery that will then be destroyed in battle.
AFAIK, David Broder is NOT an economist, and I’m certain he dismisses Austrian economic theory the way most Washington insiders do, without really taking it seriously. Therefore I don’t take his advice as being worth listening to. Unfortunately, I’m in the minority there.
Robert Higgs says no. He points out that sure official unemployment will go down due to things like the draft, but that it is far from a welfare improving state. To go from being unemployed to being in a situation where you are no longer free to do what you want and run serious risks of a variety of injuries up to and including death is hardly what many would consider the preferred outcome.
Also a more careful analysis of things like GDP indicate that GDP had only modest gains during WWII and only at the onset. Later on GDP actually declined. The reason is that making things for national defense are more in the category of regrettable but necessary expenditures and thus should not be counted as a final good or service.
And last consumer spending and welfare followed a similar path as GDP. What really stopped the Great Depression was the boom following the end of the war when all those efforts directed at killing others were re-directed towards making a variety of consumer goods and services.
The terrible thing about war, besides the fact that well – it’s war, is how it expands the economy by diminishing liberty rather than expanding it. The war on terror is what gave us nude body scanners, business for wiretapping and surveillance outfits, contracts for military industrial manufacturing companies, and ceaseless funding for the militarization of the police.
Tom G, I doubt anyone really takes Broder seriously, including and starting with Mrs. Broder.
I know, I know, he won a pulitizer. That is like winning the presidency of your homeowner’s association, you just have to work for the correct publication, stay in long enough, not piss off too many of your colleges (being democrat-liberal helps) and you get one.
Dave Krueger,
Blowing up the rest of the world’s productive capacity played just a small part. We were the only developed nation that did not host the carnage.
Tom,
Actually some of the arguments that GDP didn’t go up aren’t Austrian. For example Simon Kuznets analysis is one of the things that Higgs points too. Of course, Kuznets didn’t go as far as Higgs would have, but others such as Tobin and Nordhaus did, IIRC. In fact, the “regrettable, but necessary” part was theirs.
And with all the rationing and outright prohibitions on various activities and types of consumption it isn’t surprising that consumer welfare would go down during WWII. My guess is people just didn’t complain as much as it was seen as unpatriotic and “doing their part on the home front” during the war.
But many Statists love the argument that WWII got us out of the Depression. They love it because it supports their arguments for more Statism.
Because 200 dollars for a barrel of oil are so helpful to the economy, right? I think Broder went around the Alzheimer’s bend a while ago and someone needs to take his pen away before he gets more people killed.
I was going to comment on the absurdity of Broder’s article and then just decided to quote Daniel Larison instead: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/11/01/an-iranian-war-would-ruin-obama/
He doesn’t say everything that could be said, but makes a good summary of why Broder is completely wrong on the likely domestic reaction to such a military adventure.
Remember when Glenn Beck was on HLN? You couldn’t turn on his show without hearing him talk about how Iran is the world’s biggest threat and should immediately be attacked.
I have an Iranian friend at work and I used to constantly tease him that the U.S. was going to attack Iran any day now. I told him to watch Glenn Beck if he didn’t believe me. We discussed numerous times whether Bush would start a war with Iran before leaving office, especially since it was looking like Obama was going to be elected, ending Republican control of the U.S. war making power. You may laugh now, but it wasn’t so outlandish back then.
Actually, the only reason Iran is even on our radar is because of the threat they pose to a tiny strip of strategically insignificant beachfront property on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
The joke about the whole hypothetical war with Iran talk is that it is completely dependent on how that war is fought. Will it be a regime changing occupation once the IRGC is defeated? Is it going to be a couple days of non-stop missile attacks co-ordinated with Israel/Europe/anti-Iran Arab countries.
We love to talk with simplicity about what the outcomes of highly sophisticated events (like war) will be. I’m as opposed to the Iraq war as anyone but I believe if it had been fully planned out and run with some clear thought then we’d have been gone before the ’04 election… Of course if there was planning and clear thought in the 2002 Bush White House, we never would’ve gone so it’s a moot point.
Personally, I think a well-executed series of strikes against Iran could be good if executed properly but that ‘if’ is the biggest factor because a sloppily put together attack would destroy any of the ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and send us fleeing from the Middle East.
Under Broder’s WWII scenario of using a pretext to launch a war, Obama would be playing more the Hitler role than the FDR role. Nice.
So, the argument can be made that entering WWII ended the Great Depression in the United States. Let’s assume that’s true. For the same thing to work for Obama, it would have to be possible to mobilize public opinion behind a war on Iran. Just sending in troops would not be the same thing as the kind of Gung Ho! public spirit behind the Second World War.
I’m not saying its impossible; but Obama would have to rather quickly undo an awful lot of anti-war opinion shaping. I consider it unlikely.
However, it is just another violation of the Constitution for the US to particiapte in any war that is NOT DEFENCE of the several States.
Just thought I’d mention it since no one bothers to follow the law any way. The US has been in about 2 legitmate wars, 1812 and WW II. All the other wars including the revolution are questionable as meeting constitutional muster.
Preemptive war is NOT defense.
I think our best defense is to make Obama personally fight Ahmedinejad but then I’m not ready to become muslim when Obama loses.
Okay, I left out the real WTF in this whole question:
Is it going too far to say that anyone who seriously advocates starting a pre-emptive war with Iran is sociopathic ?
Such a person is literally advocating mass murder of innocents – including hundreds or thousands of their OWN COUNTRY’S troops. For what ? Political advantage ?????
#11 | tb |
Exactly! When the rest of the industrialized world was blown the fuck up, we were the only economy left worth a damn. That’s the reason WWII ended the depression, and caused several more in Germany, Japan, France, and a host of other nations.
I mean, if war was is so awesome, when did the economy stagnate in the 70′s during Vietnam? Also, Gulf War: Episode One didn’t exaclty ensure victory for Bush senior. And Gulf War: Episode Two didn’t offset the housing crash either.
I like how Broder just pretends all the examples contrary to his theory don’t exist. This beyond shameless hackery. This is inexcusable stupidity.
Why do the facts that 1) this is the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a year and 2) it’s based on a false premise not give me any comfort?
I thought we were going to war with Yemen this week.
It’s so sad that anyone could even think of starting a war just to solve some economic problem.
For the love of …..
Broder said: “Iran is the greatest threat to the world ”
Am I the only American who thinks AMERICA is the greatest threat to the world?
Wars based upon falsehoods, torture of detainees, murder of innocents, collateral damage galore, devastation to world economies, more lies than a Congressional cookout, etc.
What country, in the last 15 years, has done more harm to the world? Not threatened to do harm, but actually done it?
JS, he’s not talking about an economic problem, he’s talking about a political problem. Cost, ethics, lives, these things are not a consideration, as long as his guy WINS.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68329.html
War and the State are the last bastions of scoundrels.
Now George Orwell. That guy was a wise old sage. This guy is a typical Washington scumbag
Will Congress ever again take up its responsibility to declare a war? Will such an act, in fact, be unthinkable?
I am not saying that David Broder has his head so far up his ass that it is coming back out his shoulders but…they call him pretzel back for a reason.
“Am I the only American who thinks AMERICA is the greatest threat to the world?”
Well Dante, there are at least six of you. I am not going to disagree that there are things that need fixing, but don’t be so self hating. And whoever voted this ” +5,” come on. America has its problems, but it is not the greatest threat to the world.
#19:
“However, it is just another violation of the Constitution for the US to particiapte in any war that is NOT DEFENCE of the several States.”
Can you prove this? Congress has the power to declare war – no other criteria are prescribed. It does appear to be unconstitutional to call up the Militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.”
“Bad” != “Unconstitutional”
Brandon “JS, he’s not talking about an economic problem, he’s talking about a political problem. Cost, ethics, lives, these things are not a consideration, as long as his guy WINS.”
True. Wow. It’s worth it no matter what the cost as long as team Pepsi beats team Coke.
I think you’re right too Dante. America, or at least the US government is easily the biggest man made threat to the world.
Joe,
Tell that to Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Mexico, Bosnia, (well you see where I am going with this).
If you define the world as “European economic powers, China, and Japan.”
Then yeah the US is an ok guy.
If you live in the third world and the US disagrees with your government on the War on Drugs, War on Terror, Copyright laws, or any number of foreign policy decisions there is a good chance crippling UN economic sanctions, or outright military action is headed your way.
Just because the US isn’t chaotically attacking everybody doesn’t mean we are the good guys by default. Our government has spent the last 50+ years engaged in more or less permanent military action against someone, with the CIA assassinating and overthrowing foreign governments whenever it felt like.
The US is my home, and I desperately want us to be the land of the free home of the brave that we have convinced ourselves that we are. But I’m not delusional, I know what our government has been doing in the world since WWII. I know that far too much of the hatred we receive we rightfully deserve.
Just noticed an error in my post regarding the Militia. The purposes listed are the only Constitutional ones rather than being unconstitutional.
Tell that to Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Mexico, Bosnia, (well you see where I am going with this).
Yeah I see where you are going with this. I respectfully disagree? Bosnia? I think you mean Serbia, don’t you? Or maybe not.
I can go down that list and agree with you with things the U.S. did wrong in each of those places. I can also go down that list and point out things the U.S. did right in each of those countries.
Iran the biggest threat? Not by a long shot. They’re a pimple compared to the chinese.
Joe “I can go down that list and agree with you with things the U.S. did wrong in each of those places. I can also go down that list and point out things the U.S. did right in each of those countries.”
But that’s just it Joe, you can’t go down that list and find where the U.S. did what they should have done-nothing. Those aren’t our countries and it’s not our “strategic interest” to have an overseas empire of over 800 military bases in 140 countries. Where in the entire universe is it ever “none of our business?”
The right wing has tried to rewrite history with the “It took WWII to end the depression meme” – which broder slips in and it gets echoed without critical examination- but its not true.
The US GDP showed healthy growth from 33 onward – (with a little di in 38) – WWII spending did not change the rate of GDP growth that much. Of course the reason for the healthy growth continuing was that federal stimulus spending was replaced with federal war spending- much the same thing. By 1940 the unemployment rate had dropped by half from the depression peak –
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html
GDP growth:
1934: 10%
1935: 11%
1936: 13%
1937: 5%
1938: -3.4
1939: 8%
1940: 9%
1941: 17%
1942: 18%
1943: 16%
1944: 8%
1945: -1.1
1946: -11%
Broder and the right get away with repeating the falsehood about the depression because they know most americans are too stupid to look up the facts for themselves.
Yes, it would be better if we could avoid military engagement with the world. Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place and even if we do nothing, we are going to find ourselves engaged with unpleasant things.
I am all for scaling back the military industrial complex, avoiding wars when ever possible, stop interfering in internal politics in coutries, and living according to our stated values (which means no torture, etc.). And yes we are engaged in way too many places and need to scale that back. My heroes in that regard are guys like Eisenhower, and Marshall, and Bob Gates.
But what JS, random guy, and Dante propose? No. That would make the world more dangerous, not less.
I am all for treating our neighbors with respect. I also expect them to treat us with respect.
But I love this country, with its flaws. And the truth is it is by far a greater force of good and the world has greatly benefited by its existance, although it can stumble. That may seem naive and old fashioned to some of you, but I know it to be true.
Idk either Joe, nobody really does I guess. But obviously becoming the world’s policeman hasn’t worked. What about a return to the foreign policy advocated by George Washington in his farewell address? What about simply admitting that some things are actually none of our business? I’m not sure how that would make the world more dangerous and I don’t really care if it does. I guess my position is that not one drop of American blood and not one penny of OUR money should go to defend, exploit or dictate policy of other people’s countries. I don’t buy the “But somebody has to do it” argument.
If North Korea wants to invade South Korea then I really don’t give a fuck, it’s none of our business. If Japan wants our troops to go home then we should go home. I just really don’t see any benefit to anybody except the military industrial complex for our empire. The American empire is very strange in that historically most empires exploit the colonies to enrich the homeland but America exploits the American people in order to give the CIA an empire (and enrich Blackwater, Boeing, Haliburton, etc. )
JS, I support scaling this back. I agree that George Washington’s example is a generally a good one, but it isolationism did not work then 100% then and definitely would not work now.
That said, I agree with you that the Taiwanese, South Koreans and Japan should provide for their own defense and we should maintain a far lighter touch.
I think there’s a difference between isolationism and non-interventionsim. Isolationism could be how you describe Japan after it was opened up to the west but it would hardly describe an America that simply minds it’s own business.
I think you’re a good poster on this site Joe and having read a lot of your posts I respect your opinion a great deal. I was a bit surprised to find you don’t see Washington’s foreign policy the same way that most libertarians do but that’s cool. It’s always an interesting exchange of ideas.
“But what JS, random guy, and Dante propose? No. That would make the world more dangerous, not less.” – Joe
I didn’t propose anything. What I was doing was pointing out that in the state of the world today America made most of its own enemies. And I don’t see how respecting other nations and not acting like a nosy neighbor with a gun would not dramatically improve our standing. The world isn’t quite so dangerous when you don’t go looking for trouble, or start it for that matter.
The thing is I can’t buy into this idea that we spent the last half century building up and in some cases directly funding dangerous groups, so now we get to use the existence of said groups as an excuse to go play cowboy. It just seems naive to me to say “well there are bad guys out there right now so we need to hold off on the peace and respect thing.” Politicians always claim the next threat, no matter how unrealistic, is the most important thing right now. No consideration is given to how these policies have worked in the past. No mention is made of how they tend to blow up in our face at great human and monetary cost. Then like an amnesic we get ourselves into another debacle before the dust has settled on the last one.
So this position you have of we need to dial back the military-industrial complex, but not right now, just seems unworkable to me. There will ALWAYS be another threat, real or imagined, but to seek them out is not an effective way to promote the long-term security of the US. Your begrudging approval is still approval. I don’t see how your position qualifies as an effective challenge to the status quo. You can’t approve of the military actions in a general sense and still pretend that your pleas for restraint will be heard.
As for the isolationism, while I support military isolationism, I do not agree with the same approach to trade or foreign policy. We should work towards building the global economy, as prosperity is the best deterrent to war. We don’t even have to spend money to do this, just working to reduce trade restrictions through foreign diplomacy could be more than sufficient. As it stands funding the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan war does nothing to increase the security, militarily or economically, of the US. They also kill a lot of people, if that counts for anything.
*The Bosnia reference was to the deployment of NATO forces in 1996, they also went into Croatia and Serbia, so yeah that was the same thing.
1. Mr. Broder, keep “pluckin” that chicken!
2. luvzbob, you’ll have to forgive me for being a bit distrustful of US gov numbers on GDP during the depression (on any time in the last 75+ years).
#16: “I’m as opposed to the Iraq war as anyone but I believe if it had been fully planned out and run with some clear thought then we’d have been gone before the ‘04 election… ”
Please. Name any single war that the U.S. won and is now “gone” from (i.e., has no troops stationed in-country anymore). Ever. That is simply not how it works.
“Where in the entire universe is it ever ‘none of our business?’”
The funny thing is, I remember arguing that very fact with my father back in the first Gulf War. “How could Saddam think the USA wouldn’t do something about that?” he said in defense of the war. I’m saying, “If a guy sitting in the desert on the exact opposite side of the planet can’t think that, who can?”
“2. luvzbob, you’ll have to forgive me for being a bit distrustful of US gov numbers on GDP during the depression (on any tim”e in the last 75+ years).”
If the numbers don’t agree with your pet political theory, then someone must be lying? Is that it? Do you have one shred of evidence the numbers are inaccurate? Of course not.
If your pet political theory doesn’t match the numbers, its time to change your theory.
Let me see if I can settle this for you:
America is the world’s best hope. The American government is its biggest threat.
Obama can save his presidency by sending 10,000 men/women off to die horribly…while killing at least another 100,000 other men and women.
This is somehow a sane conversation?
And, I just love the concept of “war makes us richer!”
I’d rephrase that a bit: The greatest threat to the well being of America is the American government. That’s not because the American government is currently being all that destructive, but because it has both the ability to wreck the country, and the powers within it often have the incentive to do so. That may be from running unsustainable deficits, responding to the latest terrorist threat by turning the country into a police state, f–king up the schools to the point of losing our ability to compete as a first-world economy, etc.
We’ve concentrated the *power* to wreck the country in the hands of people who often have incentives to make country-wrecking decisions. This is an insanely bad idea.
luvzbob,
I don’t understand your statement at #51. Questioning how numbers have been calculated and their accuracy is a legitimate exercise and is not a controversial act.
It worries me a little bit that Broder may be parroting the conventional wisdom of some significant portion of the DC elite.
Hey Guys, allow me to be the Devils advocate. When you argue that being the worlds policeman hasnt worked, what sense of the word work do you mean?
True, violence continues and sometimes war. Peace isn’t permanent or global. Is that your standard?
But, trade expands. For trade to flourish there must be some large component of peace and stability. Our peaceful watch over Japan and then South Korea allows trade to flourish. That is the benefit of the work that we do as World policeman.
You may argue its not our place or business, or its not Constitutional etc. You might think it ‘works’ but doesn’t benefit the average American, hurts him rather. Only benefits those with the entrepreneurial nimbleness to capitalize on it. I might agree. But that is its function and it largely works for the countries brought under our peaceful umbrella.
#55: “I don’t understand your statement at #51. Questioning how numbers have been calculated and their accuracy is a legitimate exercise and is not a controversial act.”
You ought to present better data, then. Just crying “Whaa, whaa, I don’t like those numbers” doesn’t cut it.
Thank you for the thoughtful insight, delta. You are just awesome, but no one knocked on your door.
This is a pretty big leap since the OP only posted that he’s “a bit distrustful of US gov numbers on GDP during the depression.” But by all means, you are free to believe that “numbers” cannot lie. And, all the numbers the government provides tell exactly what is needed to know the whole story. Like: Unemployment numbers, GDP, and housing. Nothing more to know and those numbers can never be taken out of context. Is that it?
There is so much available to debunk the “War got us out of the Depression” lie that creating a rule to always follow the government’s numbers is a bit silly. No, it is just stupid.
And IMO, GDP is a worthless number. You’re better off tracking the number of Charlie Chaplin movies.
Well, “ending the depression” can mean two different things.
It can mean, “decrease unemployment and get the wheels of capital grinding again”.
It can also mean, “get people’s material standards of living back to where they were before the depression”.
WWII certainly ended the depression in the first sense. In the second sense? Well, people went from having shoddy living standards just because not enough stuff was being made, to having even shoddier living standards because the stuff being made was being rationed and they were getting drafted to go die horrifying deaths at the hands of experienced warriors armed with apocalyptic weaponry.
Keynesians and mainstream economists have an extremely bad habit of equivocating between the two senses of “ending the depression”, tempting them to think that because the war got people into factories building stuff (and onto fields killing and dying for the greater glory of Uncle Sam, FDR, and apple pie), that somehow must mean that the depression ended in some way that actually matters.
“America is the world’s best hope.”
Man, we are so fucked.