I interpreted Powell’s rant on Iraq as being born of some sensitivity over his having left unfinished business (in his view as well as others). There was no secret of the Allied desire, and efforts, to kill Saddam during the war, and we shouldn’t pretend there haven’t been vigorous efforts ever since to find Iraqis to do the job themselves.
Your comments about Saddam and Castro actually retaining and strengthening their power BECAUSE of sanctions are well put. I don’t see how either situation is going to change, though.
FWIW, the Clinton administration hasn’t shown much overarching interest in internationalism, either. Perhaps the problem is really with the entrenched career Civil Service bureaucracy at the State Department, the senior members of which rose through the ranks by being Cold Warriors.
While you might ascribe “adolescent emotional reasons” to my or other poster’s reasoning are you saying that American foreign policy is likewise subject to adolescent emotions? While you may vehemently disagree with a given US policy I think you would be hard pressed to say our policies are knee-jerk adolescent thrashing. The US is a skilled diplomatic country with TONS of experience in this role and current US policy is to keep the screws on Saddam Hussein.
European political policy is a joke or rather, coherent and stable political policy is a joke. These are the countries that allowed Nazi Germany to rise and couldn’t get their act together to deal with the former Yugoslavia in anything approaching a timely manner. European countries collectively seem to whine anytime they take a shot in the pocketbook.
That Arab countries are moaning isn’t surprising either as griping about the US was something they learned taking their mother’s milk. It should be a minor point on the US radar when determining US policy.
You have a proven megalomaniac willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for his own personal benefit. I believe it needs to be STRONGLY considered what this person might try and do if the reins are loosened and I don’t believe any of it would be good.
In addition you have a policy set down by a coalition of governments most of whom wish to back out of it now. Just because the US and GB are the only remaining countries willing to see the rules met does not automatically make them wrong. What message does it send to the future if all a dictator has to do is wait 10 years in personal luxury till other countries tire of their emabrgoes?
There may be short term goals on a cost benefit analysis that look reasonable to ending sanctions but long term you will be losing if they are ended. No country need take the threat of sanctions very seriously if everyone rolls over on them several years down the road.
Hopefully, to this end, Powell will stand strong. I belive he will as the men and women he once commanded will be called upon, in the final analysis, to fix his failures. This knowledge alone may be the deciding factor in determining if he becomes a great SoS or not.
Or is it just a foregone conclusion that a new administration replaces everyone in cabinet positions? Are there any examples of new Presidents keeping on cabinet members from previous administrations?
Personally, I thought Albright did a fine job, but I guess it was a foregone conclusion that Bush would replace everyone in Clinton’s cabinet…
Speaking of which… any word on whether or not we’ll be getting a new Surgeon General, or has the absence of anyone in that post for years made it a useless and out-dated position?
A new President wants people he knows and trusts, and who owe him, in key jobs. Some of the lesser jobs can carry over, but generally a change in party control means a clean sweep of the Cabinet. Gore would likely keep many of the same members, but would get rid of ones he had crossed swords with in the past.
The Surgeon General of the United States has been Dr. David Satcher since 2/13/98. He certainly has kept a low profile in the job, though.
A little over 4 years ago when they were askign Powell to run for President, he was asked what he thought were the biggest problems in the US. HE said “racial inequality and the unequal distribution of wealth.” This is what scares me about Powell. I think he is far, far left of Bush.
So, although he apparently (according to your quoting) proposed no solutions, the fact that Colin Powell believes that the races in American are treated unequally (they are) and that wealth is unequally distributed (it is) scares you more than anything? Reactionary much?
I could have been cleare, pld. The implication was that as a political leader, he would try to redistribute wealth. I can’t imagine why he would have pointed it out as a problem if he did not think thta there was a solution. Even if he did not state overtly what his plan was, the fact that wealth is distributed unevenly is not a de facto indication of a problem. Generally, those that see it as one would prefer to distribnute wealth evenly, to which I am opposed.
Well, it’s kinda refreshing to see somebody worrying about Colin Powell being too liberal! I don’t think you really need be concerned, Mr. Z (I’m sorry to say).
(“Unequal distribution”: this is something that came up on Gad’s “What makes a liberal?” thread too. It always puzzles me that many people seem to think that anyone who opposes a very uneven distribution of wealth must therefore favor an even distribution. Don’t you think there might be something to be said on practical grounds for reducing destabilizing levels of inequality, without necessarily advocating a hyper-Marxist egalitarianism whereby every individual is allotted exactly $46,394.87 and a 1993 Yugo? I am intrigued that many of the people on one side of this question seem to perceive it as an issue without any middle ground.)
Well, I think the fact that wealth is distributed unevenly is a problem, and I don’t think it should be distributed evenly.
In any case, what if his solution was a radical implementation of supply-side economics, with a reduction of the top rate to 20% and elimination of the minimum wage in favor of a market-determined labor price?
A country is not skilled, public servants are skilled. Ergo, the issue is not the US, but rather what policy the foreign policy staff serving Bush concoct. Insofar as people are human, yes sometimes our policy is formed by adolescent emotions in the place of rational interest based analysis, see Cuba.
US policy is to keep the screws on Saddam Hussien. That policy will not work without a coalition. The coalition is crumbling. If Saddam were not such an idiot and clutz, politicaly, it would have broken long ago. However, he plays into our hands so very readily at every key moment. Even so, the Gulf States have grown tired of the sanctions for a variety of reasons, so has Europe. It will take a great deal of skill just to maintain current sanctions another two years, let alone ‘tighten the screws’ as some want. Of course if Saddam goes and does something very, very stupid (50-50 chance of that) then the equation changes.
Depends on the subject and the interests involved. Not a joke, rather simply difficulties in coordinated policy. In re Iraq the important players are France and Germany (England being our yes man). The French and Germans both have displayed varying degrees of waning interest in maintaining sanctions.
Neither did we. Your point is pointless.
]
This is rich. Your parochial viewpoint is noted and dismissed. I’ll let European dopers note their perspective on Unca Sam. Pot, Kettle, Black.
We bloody well better pay attention to our friends. It should be rather among our priorities to see that we keep healthy, reasonable relations with them.
I see you’re from the throw your weight around and think later school.
He’s a thug. Meglomaniac? Eh, whatever, I’m not into easy, armchair psychology. As I said before, policy toward Saddam should be informed by rational analysis, including weighing the costs and benefits of the current policy. That’s neither an argument for lifting nor against lifting, only for rationality. The above argument is emotion: if the costs of keeping him down exceed the benefits, find a new policy.
Wrong does not enter into this. The whole question is about power. All the moral words and window dressing are just that. We don’t put the screws on dictators just for being bad guys, the policy was put in for cold dollars and cents reasons. As for the message, there is none. Saddam clearly paid heavily in terms of prestige, power and so forth. He once aspired to be the de facto kingpin of the region. Now that’s out of the question. He paid dearly in terms of power. Lesson is already made. The question comes, do the benefits now continue for the US or not. Does it hurt or help our long term goals in the region, such as our continued good relations with the Gulf States, the Europeans etc.
Sanctions which are unilateral are rarely effective. Everyone knows that. In the long term, if you undermine your relations with your hosts (of the military bases) and allies, that’s where you lose. Not in making an emotionally laden point.
Aside: Distribution of Wealth
Zambezi. Knee jerk opposition is not worthy of the topic: Massive mal-distribution of wealth may be as bad as leveling. I’ve read economics literature suggesting strong corelation between high inequalities in wealth distribution and low growth rates.
Ergo, from a free market perspective it can be a serious problem to be corrected by public policy to achieve greater wealth all around. Usual ‘libertarian’ style free market solutions are investment in public infrastructure to benefit the poor, such as better public schools, etc. allowing them to better and more effectively participate in the market.
The theory being extreme inequalities represent a sort of market failure due to inefficiencies, such as in information (education) or other externalities, preventing efficient market operations.
Take it or leave it, but just because Powell recognizes this as a legitmate problem in no way implies he’s liberal. Plenty of relatively conservative economists have become interested in the subject.
Of course what constitutes extreme is something of an emperical question, which I recall the literature tried to address. Unfortunately I don’t have any cites to offer, files are in a box somewhere.
OK, fair points. Let’s just say that I think the system of taxation and social services currently screws people that are in the top 10% of earners. isn’t it like 10% of the population that pays 90% of the income tax?
Understanding my view, any attempt to further take money from one group and give it to others, even if it isn’t a marxist system, is wrong. I never said he was a marxist, just a leftist on fiscal policy.
My opposition to Powell is not that he wants a fairer system, it is that he thinks our current system is unfair to the poor. I could not disagree more and I find it worrisome that he wants to take even more money away from me.
I think that the current system is unfair…to the “rich.”
[what is considered “rich” is, I believe househiold income over $80,000. That it not much money in my book and is certainly not enough to justify paying 37% income tax. When Al gore says “rich” he is, IMHO including a lot of people that most would call “middle class.”]
Collounsbury, I’m inclined to agree with you; I consider the sanctions to be pointless cruelty, having no influence whatsoever on Iraqi policy.
One thing I would like clarified; had Powell been named Secretary of State yet when that article was published? Given that Bush has apparently decided to continue Clinton’s hard-line sanctions policy, Powell may be right not to publicly deviate from it. It would be unwise for the U.S. administration not to present a united front on the sanctions issue.
OTOH, if Powell was speaking solely for himself, then I think his judgment about the sanctions policy was poor.
Pardon my saying so, but the reason you aren’t following me is because you appear to be pathologically incapable of understanding the difference between “less unevenly distributed” and “evenly distributed.”
**
Depends on the extent of the distribution.
Well, do they hold 90% of the wealth? If so, then I don’t see a problem.
Just so we’re clear, does that include, say, giving tax money to corporations to promote their products in overseas markets? I’m hoping you’ll say it does, and that I won’t find out that your opposed to downward distribution but in favor of upward distribution.
He hasn’t even said such a thing. I thing you’re projeting some middle-class paranoia onto the man, frankly. And frankly, you may not be a millionaire, but you aren’t hurting, either. I’ve seen you talk about what you and your wife are paying for fertility treatments or IVF or whatever. You aren’t exactly toeing the poorhouse line.
It’s academic in any case. As secretary of state, Powell will have nothing to do with internal U.S. policy, and less than nothing to do with the tax code.
Oh, pish posh. You know I’m a libertarian, and you know I hve philosophical objections to the tax system, but academically speaking few if any rich people are being made poor via taxation. To claim otherwise is the very height of disingenuousness.
You’re making the a priori assumption that they are not recieving disproportionate services for their taxes. (Note: I am not making either assumption, only pointing out the assumption they are being screwed rests on the idea they are not getting their money’s worth, this is something to examined, not assumed a priori)
Even if they are, or if they do not recieve a proportion of services relatively equal to their input, their tax payments may be going to services which have such positive externalities that they are compensated for their direct tax payments through greater wealth (and I mean in strict economic terms) in society in general and thus a higher standard of living (greater personal wealth overall). One needs to look at emperical evidence on these matters.
Why? In any case, it is all subject to rational cost benefit analysis. I’m not a fan of “wrong” and “right” in terms of absolute statements in economics or politics. What results in the greater long term benefit for all is what should count. Is the pie larger if we undertake some forms of wealth distribution? Are there externalities which in the end raise everyone’s boats?
You will note in the example I noted, and I am sorry I don’t have cites on hand but I do promise I don’t fabricate, a strong connection has been drawn through emperical economic research between excessive inequalities in wealth and lower growth rates. Insofar as growth is necessary for increased wealth, the wealthy can effectively impoverish themselves, relative to a moderate redistribution of wealth which is aimed at wealth generating assistance to other segements of society.
As such, from an economic perspective this is not wrong, if your goal is to increase wealth all around and thus general well-being.
And as I noted, noting the problem of wealth distribution as a valid issue within free market economics is not leftist at all. You seem to be under the misapprehension that understanding and noting distortions in the market is leftist. It is not. What solutions are chosen might be. But even in plain vanilla free market economics there are solutions offered. I don’t know how effective they are, but the issue is recognized.
You’re making a number of a priori assumptions here. I won’t beat a dead horse.
Uh, Nah, I don’t have the time to decompose this statement.
But if you want to discuss this could you stop hijacking my thread and open a new one?
Mr. Z:My opposition to Powell is not that he wants a fairer system, it is that he thinks our current system is unfair to the poor.
Where’d he say that, Mr. Z? All I heard was that he considers our current high level of income inequality to be a serious problem. You can consider something to be a problem without believing that it’s an injustice, right? For example, I might think that high levels of pollution and energy consumption in this country are a problem (owing to lack of long-term sustainability) without feeling that they were particularly unfair to anyone. As pld aptly pointed out, there are practical reasons to limit wealth inequality. Your ideas about why Powell might consider inequality to be a problem seem to be derived just from projecting onto him attitudes you disagree with.
And once again, with regard to your latest post: it is possible to consider that wealth distribution is too uneven without wanting to eliminate all inequality! Lordy, folks, this concept is not that hard! And in Phil’s case, I think he just means that in his view this is admittedly a problem, but one that the government has no business trying to fix. (I’m intrigued by a remark in a recent post of yours, by the way: you say that “any attempt to further take money from one group and give it to others is wrong.” So is all taxation and social spending wrong? If not, how much is too much, and how much is too little, and how much is juuuuust right? What’s the perfect amount of inequality vs. redistribution, and why is that the perfect amount and not, say, 2.67% more or less?)
(Note added in preview: Yeah, what Phil said.)
Jeff42: *What message does it send to the future if all a dictator has to do is wait 10 years in personal luxury till other countries tire of their emabrgoes? *
snort What message did it send when the same dictator was treated as our favored ally while he was gassing Kurds in his own country and committing other atrocities? The message we have been sending to the Middle East right along has been perfectly clear and consistent: “We want you to do what we say and we will lean on you if you don’t.” Believe me, they’ve got that message, for better and for worse. I see no useful purpose in reiterating an additional message to the effect that “We prefer to see your children starve than to quit leaning on your dictator if we don’t think we’ve leaned on him enough.”
It’s hardly fair to blame others for not noting a distinction that one has not made. You did not say “less evenly distributed”, you said “unevenly distributed”. If you wish to amend your statement to “I think that the fact that wealth is distributed as unevenly as it is…” then you should do so. But as your statement stands, you are contradicting yourself.
Well, what I heard Al Gore quoting was how much of W’s tax cut went to the top 1% and that is household incomes above $319,000 [with an mean income of $915,000 for this group].
It is true that many of Al Gore’s proposed tax breaks phased out at somewhere below $80,000 ($65,000 maybe?) if you were filing single…although it was higher for a couple. And it meant I wasn’t eligible for them, which in my view is the way it ought to be.
Actually, Powell is one of the most political C-JCS we’ve had in recent memory. He came to that position AFTER the fall of the USSR, and operated very well in the new enviroment. Any assumption about Powell being a latter-day Dr. Strangelove doesn’t fit the observed facts, and smacks of old paranias. He is in no way a warrior, but is a very capable commander. I’d hesitate to call him a ‘Hero’, but migh consider him a ‘hero’ and role model for those looking to over-come social disadvantage.
BTW: While Bush mayn’t have the raw intelectual horse-power of others, he centainly makes a damn-sight better use of what he has than do others whom are ‘better’ equipped.