Tomorrow I will be debating Ben Bernanke about Fed policy since the Financial Crisis.(1) But I already know how this will go. We’ll all be very polite, very thoughtful, very respectful. Otherwise, we might be mistaken for The Donald. Some people will agree with me and some will agree with Ben. But even those who agree with me will say something like this: “But at least the Fed is trying to do something, which is a damn sight more than I can say for Congress!” read more »

The Iraq War (2003)

It’s too soon to understand the full geopolitical implications of the Iraq War – the last US troops only exited at the end of 2011. However, it’s not to soon to issue a corrective to the prevailing narrative about the conflict. That narrative goes something like this: Congress and the public were misled about the justifications for the war, without which the war wouldn’t have happened. Sure, we quickly defeated the Iraqis, but so what? We’d already beaten them once. More important, we “lost the peace.” The Bush Administration had no plan to govern the country after the ouster of Saddam, and the pathetic efforts of Paul Brenner encouraged a vast insurgency, led in part by Saddam’s former military commanders. The result was a disaster of momentous proportions whose consequences continue to plague us today. read more »

Desert Storm

If Vietnam is an example of a war that was a debacle in conventional terms, but a considerable success in war-of-detainder terms, then Desert Storm was the exact opposite: a smashing American success viewed conventionally, but a terrible misadventure in geopolitical terms. read more »

Vietnam (continued)

Viewed in conventional terms, which is how 7 billion(1) people view it, the Vietnam War was a complete debacle. But viewed as a war of detainder, Vietnam can be seen through much rosier-colored glasses. It’s not a home run, like Korea, but it’s still a positive picture, especially considering what everyone thinks. The reason for this happier outcome is simple: twenty years is a very long time, geopolitically speaking. read more »

Vietnam (continued)

As noted in my last post, Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968 claiming to have a “secret plan” to end the War in Vietnam. Nixon was as good as his word, although his plan wasn’t much different than LBJ’s had been: the old carrot-and-stick approach. Nixon offered open-end negotiations that would lead to a US troop pullout, provided that Hanoi agreed to a long cease fire that would allow South Vietnam to stand on its own feet. Nixon bombed North Vietnam, both the harbor at Haiphong – Hanoi’s only window to the outside world (“outside world” meaning mainly the USSR) – and areas inside the North Vietnamese border, where enemy troops were hiding. Initial talks led nowhere, however, so Nixon upped the ante, expanding the war into Cambodia. read more »