DON'T WORRY ABOUT NUKES! The Bush-team threatens to nuke Iraq if they try to defend themselves against our invaders, using their only weapons (gas & germs).[says WASHINGTON TIMES]. But don't worry--U.S. will not likely use nukes instead of the thousands of conventional bombs and missiles they have already assembled near Iraq--for one simple reason. /
A main priority in our military policies is always to justify more war-expenditures. Using nukes would not justify more spending; but using all the thousands of bombs and missiles will make it necessary to replace them, (shovelling more billions to weapons-makers.)/We should worry instead about the catastrophic damage from 'shock & awe' strategy, [600 or more missiles in 2 days hurled at a city]--damage to Baghdad first, and to the world (including the US homeland) later.

 
INVADERS UNSCATHED? The Bush-team is gambling that Iraq will collapse quickly, that we'll prevail with few casualties, as we did in Kosovo and Afghanistan.. and as people think we did in Desert Storm./
In Gulf War I, we obviously agreed secretly that we'd let Saddam 'get away' if he didn't use his gas and germs. But somehow, our troops did get scathed..the government, after years of denial, has finally certified one out of four Desert Storm veterans as DISABLED FOR LIFE ! [read it on GOOGLE.]
This time, we are out to get Saddam (we may not, even after destroying Iraq--after all, we haven't nabbed Osama!) So he'll have nothing to lose by using his gas and germs, against our invading troops and also against our homeland (delivered by martyr-terrorists). It doesn't seem likely that we will emerge unscathed.

 
NONPERSUASIVE BUSH: On the day after Bush's maximal rhetorical effort, 11 of 15 members of UN Security Council (including 3 with veto-power) still opposed any rush to war (Assoc.Press,30Jan). Only Bulgaria and Spain sided with the U.S. and Britain. /
On the other hand, the Bush-team cited extra-Council support: Italy, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland,Hungary, and Czech Republic. Support from all of these, except perhaps Denmark, can be explained by non-rational pressures from America. The support from all these, except perhaps Britain, will be on paper, not on the ground. /

When Powell talks about our 'coalition' and says what 'WE will do', someone should ask him if he has a mouse in his pocket.

 
PUNY BIOSHIELD: Perhaps the Bush-team has been goaded by the army scientist who revealed that even the anti-germwar vaccines we have already developed have not been put into mass-production (because this wouldn't be found profitable by our pharmaceutical companies!) /
Anyway, Bush has now announced (usatoday30Jan) a 'Bioshield' to protect us. (Until now, the only program for botulism protection has been run by the State of California; budget constraints now call for its elimination.) /
The interesting part of this proposal is its puny funding: only $6 billion over 10 years (!) (compared to $1 billion each DAY for the Pentagon, to make bombers and missiles irrelevant to terrorist threats). Sen.Kennedy complained mildly about this underfunding. The program is clearly designed to (speciously) reassure Americans, not to protect them. /
We're going to spend some millions to convert US nuclear-weapons fuel to US nuclear-power fuel (thus helping the n-power industry), but we're not increasing the paltry sum to help Russia handle its gigantic, poorly controlled stores of n-material. (One Japanese n-plant has already misplaced 450 lb. of plutonium!) /
Too bad for our Empire; thanks to runaway proliferation, many countries will soon have effective nuclear or biological 2d-strike deterrents (which can damage us, though not destroy us) with which to stand up to our Superpower intimidations./
All this is more evidence of Republican disinterest in Homeland Security. In fact, for the year 2004, the Bush-team has allocated only $40 billion for the huge Homeland Security Dept., containing over 200 agencies; that's $1 for every $10 going to the Pentagon. (The underfunded Coast Guard, which is supposed to guard our shores, has been weakened further by sending some of its ships and people over to serve in the Iraq war!)

 
R2D2: THE MAIN DANGER:
What holds back the Bush-team's ambitions to rule the world? The shortage and lack of enthusiasm of U.S. foot-soldiers. The 'shock & awe' strategy vs. Iraq (800 missiles aimed at Baghdad in 2 days, as a horror-weapon) is really a strategy of despair--it would alienate the whole world even more. And it might not work; Iraqi leaders might be rage-energized, not horror-paralyzed. /
Earlier, our rulers had talked of an invasion like that of Gulf War I--but then they realized that Saddam might unleash gas and germs on our troops, and American mothers would raise holy hell--especially if the germ-ridden corpses of their sons were not sent home, but were buried in mass graves. The Bush-team threatened that such gas/germ defenses would provoke a nuclear response--but once again, that's a strategy of despair for a budding empire--after all, threatening with nukes, Russia could have a world-empire! /
Our problem is like Israel's; we can respond to attacks by independent individuals only by using clumsy tanks and artillery. /
We have no real allies any more; especially we have nobody to share the burden of occupying Iraq. (NATO balks so far at helping: not even to protect Turkey from Iraqi retaliation, or to replace our troops in the Balkans so they can bolster our forces in Iraq. We urgently need Turkey's cooperation, which will certainly not be given without assurance they'll be protected. Thus our invasion is postponed, perhaps until the summer heat makes it impractical.) /
The long-range solution lies in foot-soldier robots. We already have pilotless planes for both reconaiisance and bombing. There are robot-dogs that can help humans fool themselves that they are getting canine affection, and robot vacuum-cleaners that can steer around chairs,etc. Robot-surgeons now can do the actual cutting and sewing, controlled by the clumsier, but knowledgeable, human physicians./
Computer/robot-power is advancing with incredible speed, as Bill Joy warned in that WIRED article a couple of years ago. On TV, we see cute little tanks that could climb stairs, guided by controllers sitting at a safe distance, which could 'see' human enemies in a city and blast them with their cute little cannons. Such robots could 'occupy' a conquered country, by wiping out pockets of individual resistance. /
People have wondered about the new, seemingly crazy, army slogan: An Army of One. But it makes sense if you think the army is trying to recruit, not the usual easily-herded semiliterates that constitute a frontline force, but solitary nerds who spend their lives playing computer-games, and who could control foot-soldier robots with no risk to themselves, with no need for testosterone-bravery. /
Such robots also make possible an occupation of America by the Pentagon. We have always assumed no dictator could take over here, because U.S. soldiers would never fire on Americans.
But U.S. robots would, without hesitation. Picture the post-takeover situation,when handgun-wielding patriots are trying to fight back..against pilotless planes? against precision missiles? against robot foot-soldiers? /
Only Congress could stop this process, by forbidding the mass-production of such r2d2 robots. God help us if we have to depend for our freedom on Congress!

 
OIL AS PRIZE? We'll try to get quickly in control of Iraq's oil, before Saddam can torch the fields. But perhaps he has already booby-trapped his fields with gas & germs. [The guys who put out the earlier Kuwaiti fires have speculated about this. They have also noted that their job was made easier by friendly Kuwaiti natives; not so this time. Indeed, (a) Iraqis will know where the GIs are coming first, to lie in wait for them, and (b) US can't soften resistance in the usual way by bombing the hell out of the area first.] /
On Saudi & Kuwaiti oilfields, 'dirty bombs' might be used: explosive wrapped in radioactive material, easy to come by. ( Indeed, 450 pounds of plutonium have disappered from just one Japanese n-plant ! ) 'Dirty bombs' are not very useful to kill people--they'd scram; but as I understand it, these bombs do render the immediate surroundings unlivable for some time./
Russia (which produces only expensive oil) might well want to prevent us from taking over the cheap-oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. So Russia might have provided Saddam with the materials for 'dirty' bombs--it has tons of surplus radioactive stuff--these bombs could presumably be delivered by short-range scuds--perhaps preemptively, before we invade.
We shouldn't count on cheap oil, as a benefit from this invasion, for several years.

 
THE CHANCY WORLD OF PREEMPTION: North Korea has veered again toward bellicosity, saying that U.S. & South Korea are planning an attack on them. (Assoc.Press, 29Jan). If they believe this, then they may launch a first strike at the 100,000 Americans near Seoul, figuring they must use their 11,000 artillery tubes or lose them. If we reflect on this possibility, it makes sense for us to launch a first attack..which makes it more sensible for them to strike even earlier....

 
IMMANENT THREAT? After Pres.Bush's speech, Democrats said he should show that Iraq's threat is 'immanent'. But in the speech, Bush didn't say he could show that; he said he didn't need to show that.
"Some have said we must not act till the threat is immanent. Since when have terrorists & tyrants ..[put] us on notice before they strike?"/
This policy (attacking countries who pose no immanent threat to us) allows us to attack any country we choose. We are behaving like the 'terrorists & tyrants' he condemns./
Bush also said we will spare "in every way we can, the innocent." ..in every way we can, while hurling 800 missiles at a city in 2 days (the 'shock & awe' strategy).
---------------------
Gen.Schwarzkopf (commander in Gulf War I) has stayed publicly opposed to Gulf War II.(DenverPost, 29 Jan)

 
MAD SINCERITY: NYTimes(26Jan) gives Tony Blair credit for sincerity in playing poodle for George Bush; Blair is sinking in British polls about as fast as Bush is sinking in US polls--and unlike Bush, Blair can be ousted quickly by his Party, which is even more antiwar than is the general British public. Blair is obviously not motivated by concerns of popularity, but instead by concern for 'right and wrong'. /
Sincerity is vastly overrated; after all, who could be more sincere than bin Laden? Here's a millionaire now living in some cave, hunted like an animal. His full concern is for 'right and wrong.'/
A fanatic is far more dangerous than is an opportunist: if he's willing to perish himself for his 'vision', he's far more willing to take everyone down with him. Without wisdom and good sense, conscientious dedication is a dangerous vice.

 
GOOFY IMPERIAL POLICY--NUTTY ANNOUNCEMENT !:
(for comment on 'shock & awe', see blog below, 24 Jan.)/
Bush's Sept. '02 policy statement says basically that we will strike first at any 'potential enemy' (as we define this) which even tries to catch up with us in weapons.We have the world at our mercy now, and (we announce publicly), we intend to keep it at our mercy. [See earlier blog about Wile E. Coyote.] People say readers of MEIN KAMPF had no excuse for not realizing Hitler's mad ambitions; other nations are not likely to make the same mistake again./
Several US hawks have complained that, while this has been our policy for some time, it wasn't very smart to ANNOUNCE it publicly (NYT26Jan). Adm.Scowcroft worries that it adds to the world's perception what we are arrogant and unilateral. (We ARE arrogant & unilateral, but he thinks we shouldn't reveal this so openly.) Z. Brzezinki worried that 'our power is not so enormous that we can afford..to lose the element of legitimacy.."/
The justification for this bizarre doctrine is that a nation like Iraq could give (e.g.germ) weapons to terrorists; we could be attacked; we wouldn't know where the germs came from. So we must strike first at any nation that might supply them. (But if we were subjected to these germs, we'd very likely use our nukes to reduce Iraq to a parking lot--never mind who really supplied them. And then we'd likely have world support.) Ah, but if we're germed AFTER we've destroyed the Saddam regime, what then?/
On the other hand, Iraq has not yet donated these supergerms..if the terrorists had them, they'd have used them on us already. The CIA in October said that Iraq is not likely to supply the terrorists with these weapons UNLESS WE STRUCK FIRST at Iraq, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO!/
Also, we've committed ourselves to feel free to strike first at ANY nation that MIGHT donate wmd's to terrorists--now North Korea says plausibly that it has supergerms as well as a couple of nukes--so we might attack No.Korea for the same reason..but knowing this, N.Korea might strike FIRST in desperation ('Use 'em or lose 'em) at the 100,000 undefended Americans now living around Seoul./
In other words, the policy of preventive war is goofy itself, legitimizing first strikes for any country (e.g., India or Pakistan against each other) but the PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT of this policy in November was certifiably nutty. And the Bush-team who OKd that announcement are still in charge. It looks like only a coalition of sane Republican and Democratic legislators would rein in these madmen. Not likely. Put your head between your knees...

 
COME HOME TO SAFETY? / We hear that Washington will warn Americans to come home from overseas if we are to invade Iraq, lest they be killed by terrorists. But after the invasion, what makes us think we will be safe at home? Worldwide Muslim rage will mean more terrorists recruited; they may be armed with supergerms (donated by Saddam in his death-throes./ Our borders are relatively unguarded; there are dozens of ways terrorists could easily attack our homeland. The Republicans have starved the homeland security program, blocking Democratic efforts to increase its funding: $1 goes to homeland defense for every $10-$16 for the Pentagon, providing irrelevant bombers and missiles./
As the CIA has warned, we will all be endangered by this goofy invasion.

 
PREEMPTION BY THE GOOSE--OR THE GANDER?: North Korea says that our imposing economic sanctions will count as an act of war. (Absurd? We completely flattened Pyongyang 50 years ago; they know they can rebuild; they may also know that economic sanctions would destroy them as a society.) / Will sanctions be imposed? U.S. envoys hint 'no'; but a senator has introduced a bill to impose sanctions. / If sanctions are imposed and No. Korea is serious, war will commence. / The dangerous situation: they will know that we could (and would feel free to) attack first, 'preemptively'--according to our nifty new policy--smothering their 11,000 artillery-tubes with bombs. So they will feel they must 'use 'em or lose 'em': they may feel that, since they're doomed anyway, they should attack first (against Seoul, with 100,000 Americans around). Knowing that they might think this way, we have all the more reason to strike first (in fact, if we were pretty sure they would respond to sanctions with war, then we'd be smart to attack instead of using sanctions)--so also they have reason to strike earlier./ If we try to sneak the hostage-Americans out, that would be a clear signal for war./ It's now clear why the Chinese counted this as a curse: "May you live in interesting times."/
If the CBS report on 24 Jan is correct, (that we plan to use 'shock & awe' missile barrage against Baghdad to render invasion unnecessary) then North Korea has all the more reason to fear it must 'use 'em or lose 'em', all the more reason to strike first, all the more reason, knowing all this, for Pentagon to strike first, all the more reason.... /
Readers might notice that I specialize in worst-case scenarios. That bias is needed to balance the wild optimism of Bush-hawks./ However, here's some good news: Peter Jennings quoted the King of Jordan as predicting, off-camera, that Saddam's army,when attacked, would collapse like a house of cards. Let's hope so.

 
TRUST? C'MON! A reporter asked Mr. Wolfowicz of the Pentagon why the world should rely on their claims of secret intelligence of Saddam's fearsome weapons, when they won't or can't offer any public evidence? He replied, "Who would you rather trust--Saddam or the U.S.?" /
But the U.S. has not spoken, only a few Pentagon creeps. Why should we trust EITHER SET of liars? We should insist on public evidence./ Republican Senator Warner also said we should trust the President, which is another way to say we have no public evidence to offer./
Earlier the Bushies agreed publicly that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq could be used only to develop nukes. Now the international inspectors say that a) these tubes aren't suitable for developing nukes, and (b) they are suitable for regular artillery, which is what Iraq has said. (Incredibly, the President REPEATED this discredited charge shamelessly in his State of Union speech! ) Like Saddam, the Bushies are shameless liars. /
Here's a cynical view of the strange position-switches of Russia and France: they voted for the inspections 'with serious consequences' because our rulers had assured them that they'd get their share of the spoils when we won. Then they switched to oppose the war again when they decided that our rulers' promises couldn't be trusted. There's little honor among thieves.

 
MORE ON SANE AMERICANS: The latest CBS/NYTIMES poll shows, happily:
a) 55% of Americans now realize that, under the Bush regime, we are losing the respect of the world;
b) 77% say that if inspectors find no weapons (which they haven't) we should keep looking, not go to war.
Even if the Bushies rush on to war, we at least have the comfort of knowing that our neighbors are sane.

 
SILLY EXPERT / Letter to NYTIMES/
Thomas Friedman(22Jan) lays out possible advantages of our invasion of Iraq: by building a replacement-democracy for Saddam's regime, we can set an example for other Arab states, and thus, in a couple of generations, stop the generation of undeterrable terrorists. /
We are to justify a (possibly catastrophic) invasion today by citing possible advantages fifty years from now? C'mon!/ (Some at the Pentagon are proposing to bury germ-killed GIs in Iraq in a mass grave (DenverPost24Jan) ; they see the awful risks of the invasion..they just don't care.)
Secondly, who says we can (or indeed want to ) build a democracy in Iraq? We are now led by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, not by long-sighted geniuses like George Marshall. Americans have little interest in the outside world; we can't even get our collegians to study a foreign language./
Look what we've done to Afghanistan; we've destroyed the Taliban regime, to replace it with the old warlord regime that was so awful that Afghans preferred the repressive law-n-order of the Taliban. /
The old Normans destroyed the Saxon regime and then built a great new society. The new Amerika is like al Quaeda: talented only for destroying, not for building.

 
WORLD OPPOSES INVASION: [USATODAY 23Jan]
Of 15 UN Security Council Nations, only 6 puny countries will support U.S. & Britain in backing the Iraq invasion, say observers. And these are yielding to pressure, not really approving. "The only reason people would support us is that they don't want to stand against the U.S., not that they think it's the right thing", said a Brookings think-tank analyst. Similarly, another independent analyst says, "The U.S. pressures are absolutely gigantic on these countries..an overwhelming number of countries..don't want to see this war." / Among our 'coalition' countries, only Britain has sent troops--and a huge majority of Britons oppose a 'go-alone' war, as do 3 out of 4 Americans./ Bush has to rush the invasion, because every week his support sinks further. He figures that if we win quickly and easily, Americans will approve nonetheless--and he's right...IF we win quickly and easily, which is not at all certain./ Of course, then we'll get no help from any other countries in 'rebuilding' Iraq. Similarly, we have received little help in 'rebuilding' Afghanistan, and we're making no real attempt to do that. Our talent is for destruction, not building./
We might have to leave 100,000 GIs to occupy hostile Iraq for 3 years--this besides our troops in Okinawa, South Korea, Germany, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia: (stationing 'infidels' in Sacred Arabia is one of the affronts to Islam that sent bin Laden over the edge.) / Also, we might be provoking North Korea into an 'armageddon' attack on 100,000 Americans near Seoul. / Costs of the Iraq adventure could be up to $2 million millions ($2 trillions), when we're already running a destructive deficit.
The terrorists are completely distinct from the Saddamites; they don't have supergerms now (immune to our vaccines) but in his death-throes, Saddam may well give them these germs to be delivered against our Homeland by terrorist martyrs. / The Bush team are as goofy as they are wicked.

 
CRAZY? NO, CLEVER: Republican politicians stand up stoutly for God & Guns, for billionaires & fertilized eggs, for bombing women & children, but NOT for protecting our homeland effectively. (Bush just moved to allow income-tax deduction up to $75k for buying an SUV!)
Is this a crazy-quilt? No; they have almost no principles themselves; they carefully put together ways to please various goofy pressure-groups, then add hundreds of millions of dollars for TV ads--managing to persuade,every couple of years, 51% of the minority who vote. Thus they have wangled control of all 3 branches of the Federal Government, and may do as they please.
The only sincere part here is their fervent love of billionaires.

 
IS IRAQ REALLY HELPLESS? We're not going after North Korea because we think they can strike back (at our allies). We are going after Iraq because we feel sure they're relatively helpless.
But should we trust our semi-competent intelligence agences telling us they are helpless?
They might have VX gas that can penetrate our invading soldiers' space-suits.
The Pentagon is counting on ordinary Iraqis hating and deserting Saddam, as the draftees did in Gulf War I. But nobody has noted that, since then, we have been bombing Iraq for 10 years! We say we bombed only air-defense sites, but Saddam has been telling them we're killing civilians. If someone has been bombing your country for a decade, and your government says they are killing civilians, you'd tend to believe that./
Also, since the sanctions we imposed, millions of Iraqis, many of them children, have died of sickness and hunger. We say that's Saddam's fault; he says it's our fault. They may well believe him.
The ordinary Iraqui may hate us more than they despise Saddam./
The Saddamites claim they have armed every household; each family may be waiting to shoot an invading American./
One has the strongest impression that the Bush-team is gambling irresponsibly with their own political future and with the future of America. "I don't think this White House has a clue on what will happen..I don't think they understand the long-term implications of the hatred we're generating in that region, AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE."(caps mine). This from an anonymous former CIA agent with recent Middle-Eastern experience (quoted in Denver Post,20 Jan.)

 
INDEX TO PREVIOUS BLOGS: [at left, under ARCHIVES, to get a blog from, say 1/17, click on the week containing that week, i.e., 1/12 to 1/18]
11/2: "BEST DEFENSE IS GOOD OFFENSE!" NONSENSE!
GERM-WAR: THE GREAT EQUALIZER(Superman hasn't noticed the Kryptonite.)
11/3: MAIL-IN(NON-SECRET) BALLOTS
plus 2 epigrams on war.
11/4:THE WORLD OF AUTOMATION-GLUT
11/6: HOW LIVE AS INTELLIGENT MINORITY IN DEMOCRACY?
11/8: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS VS. INVASION
plus epigram on wealthy Republicans
11/10: THE BLUSTERING OF WILE E. COYOTE
HOLIDAY SPENDING
11/11 WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND PRIDE
MEMORIALS TO FAME AND INFAMY
11/15: MEGATECHNOLOGY & virtue of weakness
11/25: HOME SECURITY JUST AS AN EXCUSE FOR TYRANNY
--------------------
12/2: MISSILES VS. AIRLINES
12/3: GLAMOROUS B-52S
12/4: DITTY: 'BOMB IRAQ!"
12/6: PLUMMETING RESPECT FOR AMERICA
12/10: WATCHING WAR: A SPECTATOR SPORT
KILLING: FORESEEN VS. INTENDED
12/12: NUKES: A NEW GAME
12/13: PROLIFERATION IN IRAN
12/16: A DUMB LETTER TO NYTIMES
12/18: CENSORED GOOD NEWS ABOUT POLLS
plus 2 epigrams
12/28: ADMIT YOU SUPPORT WAR!
12/29: PARTIAL 2D-STRIKE DETERRENTS
12/30: ARE ALL THE WORLD'S ELITE WRONG ABOUT US?
12/31: FAILED PROPAGANDA
--------------------
1/1/03: MORE ON GLUT
1/2: WHAT EMPIRE WOULD BE OK?
WE NEED NURSES, NOT NUKES!
1/4: BUSH'S INSULTS TO NO.KOREAN STRONGMAN
1/5: IGNATIEFF'S POLITE DENUNCIATION OF OUR NEW EMPIRE
1/6: US & EL QUAEDA: ABLE ONLY TO DESTROY
plus epigram on Republicans
1/7: OPINIONS,POSSIBILITIES ON INVASION
1/8: LOW PAY
1/9 RESOLUTE BUSH
ADDING VALUE BY REDISTRIBUTION
WHO CARES ABOUT HOME SECURITY?
1/10: GUNS & CAVIAR / SADDAM'S WMD'S
1/11: THE SELF-STYLED RICH
1/12: QUARANTINE: THE PRIMITIVE SOLUTION
1/13: ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS SANE?
1/14: IDENTIFYING UPWARDS
1/15: ANTS BETWEEN 2 ELEPHANTS
SHAMELESS SQUARED
BAKESALES VS. BIOTERRORISM
1/16: MORE ON THE SELF-STYLED RICH
BRITISH ALLIES?
1/17: REPUBLICANS DON'T CARE ABOUT HOME SECURITY
1/18: IRRELEVANT TEETH & CLAWS
1/20: IS IRAQ REALLY HELPLESS?
1/21:CRAZY? NO, CLEVER
1/23: WHOLE WORLD OPPOSES INVASION
1/24: SILLY EXPERT
MORE ON SANE AMERICANS
TRUST? C'MON!
SHOCK WITHOUT AWE
1/25: PREEMPTIONS BY GOOSE? OR BY GANDER?
COME HOME TO SAFETY?

1/27: UPDATE ON SELF-CENSORSHIP
BLIX'S REPORT
BLAIR'S MAD SINCERITY
GOOFY IMPERIAL POLICY/ NUTTY ANNOUNCEMENT!
1/29: IMMANENT THREAT?
CHANCY WORLD OF PREEMPTION
OIL AS PRIZE?

 
Comments welcome! just click on COMMENT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to NYTIMES / IRRELEVANT TEETH & CLAWS
On 17 Jan we read that the Pentagon plans a '30-year war' on terrorism--whose emphasis is on attacking or intimidating NATIONS which, allegedly, harbor terrorists. The Pentagon has to pretend that the problem is evil nations, because its weapons (bombs and missiles) are useful only against nations. Whereas the terrorists may well be individuals who are not tied closely to any nations, who will not be deterred by attacking nations. (After all, the U.S. itself 'harbors' terrorists!)
We are like a leopard who has stirred up a large nest of angry hornets. He has always prided himself on his teeth and claws, so he relies on these to attack a smaller leopard nearby. Satisfying, but irrelevant to his new problem. [I've made this point before; but it bears repeating.]

 
WHO CARES ABOUT HOME SECURITY? Republican pols show little concern for Home Security (they just blocked Dems' attempt to add to measly $25 billion budget (compared to $400 billion for Pentagon).
This inspired this thought: ABOUT TERRORISM:
If safety were something
that money can buy,
Then the rich would live,
and the poor would die;
But I thank God, it is not so--
The rich and the poor,
together must go.
[The terrorists may PREFER to attack the American rich vs. the poor..after all, the WTC bombings were aimed at a symbol of wealth. That's what makes it puzzling that the wealthy, who own the Republican pols, don't insist on an adequate program to mitigate terrorist attacks.]

 
BRITISH ALLIES? NYT (14Jan) quotes a recent ITV poll in Britain: only 13% favor invasion involving only U.S. & Britain (which is the shape it will have, barring token Australian help); only 53% back invasion even if endorsed by UN. Remember, Blair (unlike Bush) can be removed promptly by his party.
So far, he's defying his own people, though now he talks as if he doesn't back a 'rush' invasion, before the inspectors have a real chance to complete their work, while the 'Bushies' want an invasion right after 24 Jan./ The Bush-team must face the real chance that we'll have to invade alone, without any real help from Britain..and a large majority of Americans oppose an invasion on those terms..(they would probably also oppose an invasion where Britain provided only 20,000 troops and we offered up 250,000 to 500,00 to the risk of being gassed.)

 
MORE ON THE SELF-STYLED RICH:
A friend responded to my piece on 'the Self-Styled Rich'. I said that the median person, with $80k net worth, was relatively close to destitution, when compared to billionaires. The friend responded that the median person differs markedly in COMFORT from the destitute person; in fact, he might be just about as comfortable as the billionaire. He doubts that many will lean out the window and yell: "I'm comfortable--and I'm not going to stand for it!"
--------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE:
We're prisoners of the myth that, if I have enough for comfort, I'm not harmed by others having preposterously more. That ignores 'relative political power', which is a zero-sum game.
My brother had an auto-chain worth, on paper, $11 million. He got drunk in Las Vegas, in true Irish fashion, and punched a high executive of his auto company, who said, "We'll get you."
[I won't name the auto company, to avoid a frivolous, but troublesome, libel suit.]
They pulled several stunts, including forging his name on orders for cars they knew wouldn't sell. He was forced out of business, and, because they controlled the local banks, he couldn't even get a new job. He sued, using a couple of young lawyers who would work for contingency fees.
The first judge was clearly bought by the corporation. After the longest trial in the city's history--corporate delay tricks--the jury found the corporation guilty of 87 counts of misconduct. The judge reversed the verdict in one paragraph; they had to sue again to get his reasons (6 months later), which turned out to be taken, word for word, from the corporation's brief.
Because Bob technically lost the first round, he had to put up $1 million as bond to appeal.
Luckily he still had $1 million squirreled away. He finally won in the State Supreme Court. The corporation had 350 lawyers on retainer. This whole process took 10 years. Then the corporation said, "Now let's see you collect." (the Remedy is distinct from the finding.)
By now, Bob had family problems. He settled for $1 million, plus his lawyers' fees.
He said he was going to write a book DEEP POCKETS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MERE MILLIONAIRE SUES A GIANT CORPORATION.
This story made 'relative power as a zero-sum game' vivid for me. That's the sense in which the typical American (with $80k net worth) is 'relatively near destitution'. If he ever has a rivalry with Bill Gates (political or legal) he is almost as helpless as is the destitute person. And we do regularly have political rivalries with billionaires, in which we are regularly defeated--e.g., the interests of median person vs. interests of HMO corporations. Or the FICA tax for only the first $87k of earned income (never for dividends,etc.), plus sales tax which is a mere scratch for the wealthy--plus tax-cuts mainly for the wealthy, plus no tax on wealth except the 'Death' tax, which is being repealed.
If the median person only realized it, he has more common interest with the destitute person than with the billionaire, especially since HIS CONTINUED COMFORT IS QUITE INSECURE--but to realize this, he thinks he'd have to say "We Losers" vs. "Those winners". (Actually, he'd have to say only "we winner/losers".) He'd almost rather starve.

 
BAKESALE VS. BIOTERRORISM: Letter to DenverPost
I read Gov. Owens' inauguration speech, and was horrified: he went on about expanding prisons
(never mind that Finland has shrunk many prisons without the crime rate rising!) And he talked
tough about terrorists, but never said anything about the expensive measures needed to protect
our people from terrorism.
For instance, he said nothing about the severe shortage of nurses we face already, even before
the bioterroism attacks likely in the future. That problem would be very expensive to address;
all the money here, he says, is THE PEOPLE'S money; we mustn't tax the People for such
collective emergencies. We must hold bake sales and hope that citizens will chip in enough of their
money to fund an emergency program to recruit and train nurses, before it's too late.
By making tax-cuts irreversible, Owens forfeited any flexibility we might have had to meet
terrorist emergencies. Perhaps he still believes, as he said once, that the way to protect
Coloradoans from terrorism is to invade Iraq. This invasion might also counter the drought and
West Nile Virus.

 
SHAMELESS SQUARED: Acc. to H.Hertzberg in NEWYORKER (20jAN), Pres. Bush actually said this in Chicago: that his new stimulus plan would save 92 million Americans an AVERAGE of $1083 of their own money.
That's true, but [as Hertzberg notes] only in the sense that, if Bill Gates happened to drop into a homeless shelter, the average person then in the room would have a net worth of one billion dollars. [The average net worth is the total wealth of everyone in the room, INCLUDING GATES, divided by the number of the people in the room. And the $1000 average refund in Bush's proposal is simply the total $92 billion to be refunded (mainly to the wealthy) divided by 92 million Americans.
However,the MEDIAN American [that is, the American in the middle, where half the people make more than he does, and half make less--the American from a household where the earnings from husband plus wife's earnings each year total about $40,000]--this TYPICAL American would get a refund of around $200, whereas a few fortunates will each get $80,000 in refunds!
This episode shows the absolute shamelessness of the Bush team (one doubts that the Shrub could make up this clever deception himself), not caring about the contempt of educated people for this kind of low trick.
It also illustrates the abysmal ignorance of the typical Americans Bush was addressing, who don't know the difference between 'average refund' and 'median refund'. Thomas Jefferson said democracy couldn't work if the people weren't educated; this example shows how easily they can be fooled today.

 
ANTS BETWEEN 2 ELEPHANTS:
Letters to USATODAY
Advocates of toughness toward North Korea say that if they 'get away with it', then their
neighbors, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, might also go for nukes.
Whatever happens between U.S. and North Korea, these countries would do well
a) to develop a 2d-strike deterrent, probably biological but perhaps nuclear, against future
possible intimidation by Amerika, the New Empire.
Also, (b) they would do well to separate themselves from U.S. policies. Eventually Amerika
and China will come to conflict; if these small powers are seen as pawns of the U.S., they may
be punished by China.

 
IDENTIFICATION UPWARD: THE INEVITABLE CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRACIES
[Inspired by an essay by David Brooke in NYT 13 Jan].
In Wyoming, there are hardly any African Americans, except the athletes at the university in Laramie. Nevertheless, when these athletes, obviously from out-of-state, pull on their Wyoming jerseys--then Wyoming males stand taller if 'we' win, and wilt if 'we' lose.
Part of this phenomenon is biological; a Utah psychologist compared testosterone in various males, and found, as expected, that victors have a surge (in sports or even in chess)--but also, SPECTATORS have such a surge if 'their' team wins. It's not just that the fans admire their athletes, they see a 'magic' IDENTITY between themselves and their heroes.
Who knows what evolutionary purpose the 'selfish genes see' in developing such a mechanism?
Apparently it's there. [See piece here on WAR AS SPECTATOR SPORT. 12/10 ] Ordinary people, neither complete winners nor complete losers, want to think of "US WINNERS" vs. "THOSE LOSERS'.
Ordinary people usually feel the same identification with the rich and powerful as they do with their athletic heroes, so they approve of benefits going to the rich, not to themselves.
Adam Smith noted the 'unselfish admiration' people feel for the rich and powerful..unselfish in that they don't expect any return to themselves from this admiration.
Observers note regularly that unpoor Americans, once they have enough to eat and a place to live, feel friendliness, not resentment, towards the wealthy. So the 'politics of envy' has no force here. (Americans do note those in their same general strata who do unseemly well..'riches is earning more than your wife's sister's husband.')
The interesting question is not why Americans put the interests of 'us rich' ahead of their own actual self-interest, but why 'class warfare' does get a grip ELSEWHERE. A HAUGHTY celebrity will be resented; and the wealthy in countries like Britain (until recently) emphasized their difference from ordinary people. The landed aristocracy in ancient Greece resented the 'new-money' people who wanted to raise their class-standing by marrying aristocratic daughters--and 19th-century 'squires' looked askance at anyone 'in trade' who wanted to marry into their class. But Maggie Thatcher put a 'middle-class' face on Toryism--and until that party disgraced itself dramatically, ordinary Britons went for the new image. Queen Elizabeth,impersonating an ordinary woman in public, is loved by the British, who hate her haughty relatives) The American wealthy have, by smart instinct, always pretended to be 'ordinary people' who just happen to be rich.
A residual resentment of 'elites' remains here, but this is manifested, not against the rich, but against 'cultural elites' who sneer at the dumbness of the ordinary persons (and their heroes, like Ronnie Reagan and 'Shrub' Bush.) Pornography is blamed on 'cultural Hollywood elites', not on the corporations who use it to sell soap.That's because the ordinary person sees a pretty unbridgeable gap between himself and an accomplished artist or scholar; but the bilionaire seems to be an ordinary guy like himself, who got lucky: "If I won the lottery--and I might!--I could be like him."
I noted in my book DEMOCRACY,RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (2000) that the tragedy of all politics, ('democratic' or not) is that elites don't care much about the long-run interests of ordinary people, AND NEITHER DO THE ORDINARY PEOPLE. (They care mainly about satisfying their immediate whims; after that they care about appeasing their egos, perhaps by vicarious identification with 'winners'; they don't care enough to learn how to advance their true LONG-RUN interests.)

This means that the main supposed general advantage of a democratic system (the idea that the commonman knows better and cares most intensely about his own interests) is just false. However, that doesn't make 'democracy' worse than other forms of government--it's just not generally better for ordinary people than other forms.

On the other hand, when megatechnology makes the world supercomplex, then a country run by the informed and intelligent would likely avoid at least those disasters which harm the elite as well as the poor--for instance, global warming, overpopulation, destruction of the ozone layer, world deflationary Depression, or universal germ warfare.
Whereas, in a democracy, the few who benefit from certain policies may be able to persuade majorities to endorse policies harmful to 'all'. (For instance, demagogues in Ulster have managed easily to stir up violent hatreds beween lower-class Catholics and lower-class Protestants, hatreds which have wrecked the Ulster economy and harmed the upper classes as well. A similar disaster is befalling all the Palestinians and Israelis--rich and poor. educated and ignorant. Saudi Arabian elites have long tolerated the hatred for non-Muslims spread by crazy imams, so long as they could enjoy their oil wealth undisturbed; now all Islamic societies may suffer from the rage of the hyper-armed First World, provoked by Islamic terrorists. In America, ordinary white males are firmly committed to the Republican party, reacting against the Democratic appeasement of 'uppity' feminists..and so, not only can the Republicans get away with plundering the nation for the wealthy, they can also plunge us into silly and destructive wars,which might well harm the rich as badly as the poor.
When the issue is regulating safety procedures by mighty corporations, the average citizen has an instinctive sympathy with the active, successful corporate executives ('the ones who say GO!'); he is easily persuaded to sneer at the persnickety regulators (the ones who say STOP!) So regulation necessary for the welfare of everyone get neglected.

This kind of thing can happen also in countries that are not formally democracies; the ordinary person must be appeased (and manipulated) somewhat even by autocratic rulers--for instance in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Turkey--but the tendency is most marked in countries with democratic institutions.

Today it may be no longer true that 'democracy is a terrible form of government; but all the other forms are worse."

The Chinese rulers may be doing well not to allow democratic institutions until the transition to functioning capitalism is complete. (The premature transition to democracy has been a disaster of historic proportions in Russia.) However, once a prosperous, more-or-less-educated middle-class is formed, as in Taiwan and Korea, then some form of popular rule,for good or ill, is inevitable.
In the U.S., the lower one is in the social classes (e.g., in education and wealth) the less one is likely to vote. This is perhaps a good thing; but the lower classes are still consulted in polls; we find, for instance, that they are more likely to favor the Iraq invasion than are the educated Americans.And the 'lower-middle-brows' here do vote--e.g., the typical people here with 4-year college degrees--and they vote pretty ignorantly.[For instance, a prosperous 13% of Americans think they are in the top 1% of the wealthy! These deluded people are 'long-schooled' but not, typically, educated.]

(It may be that life is now SO complex that only a very tiny elite minority--if anyone--could plan rationally. [Horribly, this tiny elite, knowledgeable about all important aspects of a social problem. might NOT include me!] In that case, a compromise with democracy wouldn't help much--e.g., a literacy/information test that would, for instance, let only those people vote who knew that Iraq was not in Scandinavia.

 
ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS SANE?
Recent polls (for Knight-Ridder, by Princeton Survey Reasearch Associates) have some bad news, and some good news about that. The bad news is that 83% would back a war with Iraq
(a) IF UN backed the war and (b) IF it was carried out (like Gulf War I) by a multinational coalition.
The good new is impressive: WITHOUT UN approval plus an allied coalition, only ONE IN THREE Americans back the invasion.
These polls may not affect what is going to happen. The Bush-team seem determined to invade,at the end of this month, no matter what the People think--and they undroubtedly have the power to do that. They figure they're going to win quickly, with few U.S. casualties, and then the People will back the enterprise with enthusiasm..and no doubt this would happen IF THEY WIN QUICKLY, with few U.S. casualties. There's reason to doubt the victory will be so quick and easy..so their gamble may well backfire, for themselves and for all of us--but that's not my point here.
Americans are typically confused about what's happening in the world (55% think at least one 9/11 hijacker was Iraqui !) but they oppose a 'go-it-alone' war, which isTHE KIND OF WAR WE'RE HEADING FOR. (Turkey seems to be backing out of our 'coalition'--80% of the people opposed, as is Britain [77% oppose a US/Britain attack; 43% oppose even a UN-backed invasion!--even Blair is now calling for 'no rush'--whereas the U.S. is heading for invasion at end of February.!] It looks like a token force from Australia, and the robust backing of Spain, is all we can count on. France says it will pitch in IF
UN approves--which will NOT happen at the end of this month or the next, when the inspectors will say they have found no smoking gun, that they'll need much more time to do their job.)
It's too late now for the American People to block the war, once they elected the crazies to take over the whole federal government, when Democratic pols are still too cowardly to block the invasion. But it's comforting to know that, even if our neighbors are not especially well-informed or noble,
AT LEAST THEY'RE SANE.

 
QUARANTINE: THE PRIMITIVE SOLUTION
(1) Vaccines for many war-germs are available in labs, but the govt. has not seen to it that these are mass-produced; (2) the govt. has done nothing about the severe shortage of nurses here, even before any bioterror attack.
These facts suggest strongly that the only measure the govt. plans for a bioterror attack is quarantine.
Infected people will be segregated in 'leper colonies' and left to die. Quarantine is the measure used by primitive societies to limit epidemics.
Of course, infected people will therefore block being diagnosed, and will stay out in the public to infect others.

 
THE SELF-STYLED 'RICH':
Ellen Goodman (RmNEWS, 11Jan) quotes Ralph Nader as saying that 13% of Americans think they're in the top 1% of wealth, and 20% more think they will be.[David Brooke repeats this claim in NYT 13 Jan.]
[If you dont make $373,0000 per year, then sorry, bub, you're not in the top 1% ! )
And 1/3 of Americans think they will have to pay 'Death' tax, when actually only 2% would pay it, if it survives. With all these self-styled 'rich', it's small wonder that the GOP, dedicated to the welfare of billionaires, gets about half the votes!
If these figures are true, they illustrate the social ignorance, not just of the bottom level of Americans, but of the middle-class (that is, those with median incomes and wealth.)
(Surveys have shown that most investors--with, presumably, comfortable incomes--understand little about investment facts.) I'd guess that most Americans have no idea how much a billion is--that's why I constantly emphasize that the Pentagon gets 1000 millions of dollars per DAY.
We should work to educate these people (though their egos would resist such education).
The TAX FOUNDATION says that only 1 in 4 income tax returns shows Adjusted Gross Income over $55,000--that's before personal and standard deductions; that presumably includes '2-income' families.
The median houshold income is around $42,000.[Presumably all readers here know why 'median income' counts, not 'average income'!] Half of the taxpayers report less than $28,000 !
One way to make this point vividly: Imagine the person with $80,000 net WEALTH (e.g., house-equity minus debts--when the housing bubble bursts, this person will have a lot less wealth.). Imagine a line where this person is 5 inches from the left (while totally destitute people are at zero point); the poorest billionaire is ONE MILE from the left. The median American is RELATIVELY close to destitute.
This billionaire has 12.500 times the wealth of this median American. That means he has 12,500 times as much political power--the power to rent politicians, and to hire better lawyers and to control the Media--as does the median American. (Small wonder that inequality INCREASES steadily: spending thousands on politicians and lawyers can pay off with millions in benefits!)

Ignorance is not stupidity; but self-confident ignorance ("The things I don't understand are not important")--this IS stupidity. (By this definition, many professors--ignorant in all fields but their specialty--are stupid.) The typical American is self-confidently ignorant--that is, he rarely answers a poll by saying 'Don't Know', and he votes confidently, ignorantly, for candidates who differ on complex issues like taxes, or the 'War on Terrorism'. He figures he knows as much as his brother-in-law does, and--says the ideology of Democracy--that must be enough.
The stupid person cannot learn, because he doesn't realize that he needs to learn.
That's why this maxim is true: "The Wicked can repent; but Stupid is forever." That's why,
in our complex modern world, democracy inevitably leads to Plutocracy. (If the Plutocrats were wise, this might not be so bad..but...)
When the world's sole 'Superpower' is a democracy/plutocracy, the result could be World Catastrophe.
(55% of Americans think that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers was Iraqui! [DenverPost12Jan]. Uninformed Americans support the coming invasion more than do informed Americans.)

 
SADDAM'S WMD's:
Has Saddam produced and stored chemical and biological weapons? Of course!
After years of threatening, the world's sole 'Superpower' is organizing titanic forces --
e.g., 4 aircraft carriers--to crush Iraq. (Richard Perle, senior advisor to Pentagon, was just quoted
by London TELEGRAPH as saying that we '& our allies' (?) would feel free to invade even with no
UN backing, presumably before March. Tony Blair just said the same thing (14Jan).
Wouldn't Saddam be a fool NOT to get these weapons? However, if Saddam uses them against the invaders, Bush says he'll nuke Iraq. We'll see what happens.

 
Letter to USATODAY GUNS & CAVIAR
Walter Shapiro (10 Jan) notes that Bush proposes deficit-raising tax-cuts
just when we're spending prodigally for a new war. He says the Bush-team is
proposing 'guns, butter, and tax-cuts'.
But the tax-cuts for the ordinary person will be so small they can
afford little extra butter. The tax-cuts for the rich are sumptuous indeed. A better way to put this
point is to say that Bush proposes 'guns and caviar'.

 
letter to NYTIMES WHO CARES?
A top biodefense officer says (9 Jan) that we have many anti-germ-war vaccines developed in labs, but they are not in mass-production (ready to protect our population from very real btiowar threats) because no pharmaceutical company has seen enough profit in the project to produce them!
The White House doesn't wait for corporations to find it profitable (without subsidies) to produce planes and missiles---the Pentagon is given 1000 millions of dollars per DAY to get those things produced, so we can attack other nations ! But when it comes to vaccines needed to protect our people, the government just shrugs that mass-production is not profitable to corporations, so it won't take place.
What better indication coulld there be that our government doesn't really care much about protecting our homeland and our people?

 
ADDING VALUE BY REDISTRIBUTION:
Imagine 2 islands: Island A produces a huge surplus of potatoes, many of which are burned to take off a small morning chill. But Island B has a great shortage of potatoes, with many people going hungry.
On Island A, there are two innovators: Joe figures out how to increase potato production, so they have even more 'potatoes to burn'. But Fred builds a great ship so he can transport surplus potatoes for sale on Island B, where they're badly needed. Surely Fred contributed more value (relieving hunger on Island B) by shifting the goods, than Joe did on A (extra chill-relief) by his extra production.
Now consider a country where a few are wildly richer than others. For every hundred dollars divided among a hundred people, one person gets $40, while the bottom 80 average about 20 cents each. (That's how it is in America--see the book TOP HEAVY.)
Here,let us suppose, a corporation figures out how to increase the 'aggregate wealth' (by increasing the wealth of the rich). Meanwhile, suppose the government transfers some wealth from the very rich to the very poor. The corporation may be just increasing access to certain silly luxuries (e.g., fabulous sports cars)--but the government can create new access to basic health care and education.
Right-wing thinkers take it as self-evident that people who produce more goods, cheaper, do more for society than those who 'merely transfer' wealth. But the example above refutes this claim: governments can do more good by redistributing wealth to the poor--who can put it to a better use--than corporations do in increasing GNP.

 
RESOLUTE BUSH:
A biographer of Pres.Bush, a former intimate, says he is not curious (and so not informed) but his big virtue is his resolute character. One is reminded of a movie comment about a general who came to a bad end: "The weakness of his intellect was matched only by the firmness of his will."

 
LOW PAY: Acc. to TAX FOUNDATION, using latest IRS data, 1 in 4 Americans made more than $55 thousand per year; ONE IN TWO EARNED LESS THAN $28,OOO! (reported in RockyMtnNews, 8 Jan.) (Household pay is higher, because of 2-income phenomenon. Yet a 2-income family would be reporting, say, $56,000 as AGI...?)
On the one hand, many of these 'low-income' taxpayers may be--perhaps involuntarily!--working only part-time. On the other hand: right-wingers like to point out that many low-income earners are now not paying any income-tax at all; but it turns out that half of the actual taxpayers report adjusted gross income of less than $28,000!
(We want to remember that a single person with $28,000 agi is paying $2700 federal income tax, with no earned-income credit, also paying state income tax, also paying 8% of her income in social-security (FICA) taxes, plus 2% medicare tax, and 5% or 6% in sales-taxes!)

It's one thing for our rulers to ignore the plight of the destitute minority; it's another to ignore the problems of HALF OF OUR PEOPLE. And things will get worse as automation and cheap foreign labor destroy even more of our 'bottom' jobs, so that these people are competing for fewer jobs, and willing to take even less pay.
The danger is not that these people will vote socialist; the danger is that, ignorant as most of this 'bottom half' are, they may, in desperation, vote in some kind of fascism. (That may be what the Bush-team desires!)
So far, these 'bottom-half people' don't usually vote at all; the Democrats may be making a big mistake trying to persuade them to vote.

 
OPINIONS AND POSSIBILITIES ON INVASION:
--USATODAY(7 JAN) More than 2 of 3 U.S. corporation CEOs predict that invading Iraq will have 'mild' negative results for America. (It's not clear how many thought the negative results would be more than mild.) Only 1 in 7 think the invasion will benefit us.
IGNORANT BACKING OF INVASION:
An ABCNEWS poll in January showed 55% of Americans thinking Iraq is a bigger threat to U.S. than North Korea; but Iraq has no nuclear facilities (while chemical/biological facilities might be concealed, nuke facilities cannot be hidden from inspectors!) and none of any kind have been found); North Korea has a couple of nukes already, is getting ready to put nukes into mass-production, possibly for sale. North Korea has 37,000 GIs and 70,000 other Americans as hostages within artillery-range. North Korea has at least one type of missile capable of reaching our homeland..our vaunted 'missile-defense' system is years from being finished. (The argument vs. attacking No.Korea is NOT that they don't pose a threat, but that they are so formidable we don't dare attack them!)
68% would back airstrikes vs. Iraq [nonexistent] nuke facilities; 63% would back a ground war 'to destroy Iraq's abilities to make nukes.'
Compare this with corporate CEO's firm opinion that the invasion will harm America.
Luckily the most ignorant Americans don't vote at all; the problem is the (lesser, but formidable)ignorance
of those who do vote.
--(Assoc.Press, 7 Jan) Jack Straw, Tony Blair's henchman, just said that invasion had become less than 50% probable. / Does this signal that Blair is becoming less supportive of the war? He just sent an aircraft carrier to the region, and the talk is of 20,000 British-military getting involved. (How many ground troops? 250,000 to 500,000 total Americans could be involved.)

A top U.S. physicist made the point that with inspectors present in Iraq, Saddam would find it much more difficult to maneuver in terms of 'wmd's. (This assumes wrongly that these wmd's are America's main reason for invasion.) Before we invade, we have to be sure the UN inspectors are gone; suppose they refuse to leave?

It seems sure that on 27 January the inspectors will say that so far they have found no real evidence of wmd's in Iraq. Suppose the UN Security Council then passes a resolution (invalidated by U.S. veto) opposing the invasion?

--It's true that Daddy Bush started Gulf War I with only 47% poll-support, which then swelled up to 71%.. But that war produced few visible U.S. casualties (though a decade later, about 1 in 4 vets of that war, mysteriously, are certified as disabled for life!)

--If the new invasion is immediately successful, with few U.S. casualties, Americans (as spectator warriors) will become wildly supportive. The Bush team, and the Blair team, are WILLING TO GAMBLE their political future (and the lives of GIs, and more terror in our homeland) on this possibility. But Saddam has had 10 years warning to get ready for this invasion. By bombing Iraq steadily for 10 years, we may have made Iraquis (including their very competent war-scientists) hate us even more than they hate Saddam.
If we invade through Kurdish or Shiite areas (populations hostile to Hussein) Saddam would be more willing to use gas--and maybe germs--in a profligate manner. [Turkey now is balking at our staging 80,000 troops there for invading through the Kurdish territories.] The Kuwait rulers, defying the facts to say their people support the invasion, have asked for smallpox vaccinations.
Why wouldn't Saddam, once he accepts the invasion as inevitable, preemptively use gas and germs against our troops (massing for invasion in neighboring countries) BEFORE they get to Iraq, all swathed in their space-suits? Why wouldn't he use smallpox against them BEFORE they get vaccinated? or use a new strain of smallpox?
--While we may be visibly victorious quickly (assuming that ordinary Iraquis are not really armed and ready to resist, assuming that our space-suits can really ward off VX gas, and botulinum and anthrax)--the Muslim world will be further enraged by pictures of slaughtered Iraqui women & children; then terrorist activity vs. our homeland will likely be increased--as most Americans fear.

 
U.S. & AL QUAEDA:
The maddening thing about Al Quaeda is that their only talent is to destroy; they have no realistic program for implementing their dream of rebuilding a Muslim Caliphate.
The U.S. is in the same situation: our most notable talent is dumping tons of explosives on targets from a safe distance. We may dream of constructing a 'New World Order', but we have no human resources (e.g., knowledgeable, linguistically competent diplomats) for any such project.
The 2 foes are evenly matched as disastrous for the human race.
Consider the futile exchanges of bombs and shells between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Destructive know-how without strategic know-whether is suicidal incompetence.

 
A POLITE DENUNCIATION OF OUR EMPIRE:
People should read M.Ignatieff in NYTIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE today:
"AMERICAN EMPIRE (GET USED TO IT)."
He makes basically the same points I do, except that he bends far over backward to see the
plausible arguments for empire, for invading Iraq. (This bending means he requires far more
words.)
But his final verdict is that the whole project is self-defeating--though inevitable--given
American incompetence at relating to foreign cultures. (As I said, I might favor a world empire
run by Scandinavians and Hollanders.)
His approach vs. mine is like the movIe 'Fail-Safe' with Henry Fonda (showing how even a decent,sensible President can't handle the nuke-genie) vs.[my view] Terry Southern's approach in DR.STRANGELOVE, (adding the note that we don't have a decent, sensible President..but rather a comically ignorant and tragically ferocious team which has completely taken over our government.)

 
letter to NEWYORKTIMES
A DANGEROUS GAME:
President Bush has taken to making insulting, inflammatory personal remarks about the North Korean Strongman. Two possible explanations:
--the most likely: Bush is personally such a fool that he doesn't realize what he might be doing;
--OR his handlers may be so ruthless they want to provoke a first-strike attack by North Korea on our hostage soldiers there (and on Seoul,etc.) so they can justify nuking North Korea.
This provoking might not be so difficult, even aside from a possible reaction from a marginally-sane strongman. We could launch a first-strike at North Korea, using our small nukes to wipe out their 11,000 artillery-tubes aimed South, as well as at their possible n-plants.
Knowing this possibility, North Korea might see themselves in a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation, and might be irrational enough to launch a suicidal preemptive strike.
Of course, they'd be holding in reserve their war-germs, which they could donate to the Muslim terrorists eager to inflict them on Americans, after we nuke North Korea.
In other words, the Bushies are playing with fire in both Iraq and North Korea. Could some sensible Republicans dissuade them?

 
WE NEED NURSES, NOT NUKES!
To Ft.Collins COLORADOAN:
Sean Toomey's op-ed [2 Jan] presents a familiar set of fallacies
about the threats we face:
"1) the terrorists must be backed by some governments;
"2) These states can be identified, and deterred by our nuclear threats;
"3) So terrorist threats can be countered by our nifty nukes--as we all know,
the best defense is an offense!"
We are like a leopard who has stirred up a huge hive of angry hornets. He has always prided himself on his awesome teeth and claws; so he stupidly tries to use these against the hornets.
We face a kind of threat we have never faced before: hundreds or thousands of individuals, often technically trained, independent of any State, are crazy enough to think God will reward them if they die while killing Americans. And they can get at us. Never mind how this bizarre situation came about; this is the shape of our unique present crisis.
No analogies with Cold-War successful deterrence are relevant here. These fanatics will not be deterred by threats to nuke any country, including Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, the more innocent Muslims we slaughter, the easier it will be for Osama-types to recruit extra martyrs to launch against us--armed perhaps with supergerms donated to them by Saddam in his death-throes, after our goofy invasion of Iraq.
The Bali disco bombing was aimed against the Indonesian government, to undermine its tourist industry. Should we therefore nuke Jakarta, to teach a lesson to other States harboring terrorists? (By the way, America harbors terrorists.)
We now give the Pentagon $1000 millions per DAY for 'deterrent' weapons which are largely irrelevant to our present crisis. (This expenditure will skyrocket with our Iraq campaign.)
So we CAN'T AFFORD the very expensive measures needed to mitigate (not eliminate) the actual threats we face. For instance, we already face a desperate shortage of nurses, even BEFORE any bioterror attacks! Yet the Bush-team has done nothing to address this lethal problem.

 
WHAT EMPIRE WOULD BE OK?
I agree with Hobbes that anarchy may often be worse than tyranny. So I'd probably approve of a world-empire administered by sensible agents like the Scandinavian countries, plus Holland, plus maybe Germany..no longer Britain!
But one thing is pretty sure--that linguistically ignorant, self-confident America is NOT qualified to run a world empire!

 
ADDENDUM to earlier blog [11/4/02: 'The World of Glut', where I claimed that ever-increasing 'productivity' (our ability to produce more goods through automation, with less human input) would lead to excess productive capacity, with unemployed workers unable to buy the goods, even though they're now cheaper. Thus, a world Depression seems inevitable.]
Paul Krugman, the noted economist, on 31Dec'02, in NYT, warned that the danger of deflation, ignored hitherto by many economists, is now real. "The output gap, the difference between what the economy could produce [if the stuff could be sold--Lyons] and what it actually produces [and can sell] continues to widen...by some measures, deflation is already here. The..prices received by nonfinancial corporations [for goods actually sold] have been falling since Autumn '01."
NYT 1 Jan. noted that other first-world countries, plagued also by underconsumption (the other face of overproduction), are counting on U.S. to sop up excess goods. But with overproduction here at home also...???
FAT LAND (reviewed in NYT13Jan) says the reason we're tending to obesity is that agribusiness (employing only 5% our our workers) is now producing 3800 calories for each American each day, 500 more than 30years ago--when health demands that we eat no more than 2800 calories.) So they've had to--and they've managed to--persuade us to overeat. But of course there's a limit to how much each of us can eat; and many other countries are also producing too much food (i.e., more than can be profitably sold.)