Iraq and the Market: Volatility and Uncertainty Ahead
Mike Brady
Posts: 19
I know some won't like the source but this is dead on........
News from Iraq is a little bit like news from the current stock market: There are wild fluctuations daily or weekly. Sometimes they are caused by unwitting participants in the system, other times by manipulators. There are experts ready to opine on all sides. The government surges with aid, but its timing and effect are questioned.
In the end, people are skittish and uncertain, because neither the experts nor the government can predict what will happen. Someone's benefiting -- but it's not you or me.
Two interesting articles recently got me thinking: One was Thomas Friedman's excellent column in the New York Times arguing that if the "success" of the surge requires a Middle East expert to explain, it is not working. The second was a report today in the Times that television news is shifting its attention from the Iraq war to the 2008 election.
By now, it should be clear that whatever the Bush administration reports next month about the status of the Iraq war and the state of the surge, the White House has no intention of actually changing its policy.
Oh, Gen. David Petraeus may recommend withdrawing some combat troops in the spring to tidy up his order of battle, but as 2007 turns to 2008, there will be universal argument that precipitous changes should not be made to influence the presidential election, and that we shouldn't leave the situation in worse shape for the next president.
The Bush administration, in other words, will simply kick the can down the road. The dominant candidates already seem to realize this. On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both now said that any withdrawal must be gradual.
From the military, we'll hear more about the personnel and budget crisis. This crisis, mostly due to the $10 billion a week we are spending on two wars, comes despite an annual budget of almost $700 billion. It 's a crisis that could easily be resolved with changes in policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. But since that's unlikely, the military will favor an increase in end strength (more troops) and "bridge" money to keep troubled capital programs afloat. Congress (and the candidates) will happily salute and supply the war machine.
Of course, there is little prospect for success in 2008. I don't want to ignore the possibility that there could be a miracle. But "victory" in Iraq, at least as a normal person would define it, just isn't going to happen. Instead, the Bush administration has defined victory as Iraqis being able to take responsibility for their own security. This has been its position since long before the surge was announced; the point of the surge is to buy time for Iraqis to be able to do so, and to do as much damage to the insurgency and the terrorists in the meantime.
So what can we expect in Iraq in 2008? The stock market is not a bad analogy. Both stories are important, and how they play out will affect all of us, whether we realize it or not. Still, some people will closely watch the daily ticker because they have precious investments in Iraq (sons and daughters, current or future jobs). Others will go about their lives and hear about something very good or very bad happening, but will not pay too much attention because they are not really invested.
Television has shifted its attention away from this spectacle -- the latest American deaths generally get reported on the evening news as numbers, just like the Dow -- because the vast majority of the American public has as well.
By William M. Arkin
News from Iraq is a little bit like news from the current stock market: There are wild fluctuations daily or weekly. Sometimes they are caused by unwitting participants in the system, other times by manipulators. There are experts ready to opine on all sides. The government surges with aid, but its timing and effect are questioned.
In the end, people are skittish and uncertain, because neither the experts nor the government can predict what will happen. Someone's benefiting -- but it's not you or me.
Two interesting articles recently got me thinking: One was Thomas Friedman's excellent column in the New York Times arguing that if the "success" of the surge requires a Middle East expert to explain, it is not working. The second was a report today in the Times that television news is shifting its attention from the Iraq war to the 2008 election.
By now, it should be clear that whatever the Bush administration reports next month about the status of the Iraq war and the state of the surge, the White House has no intention of actually changing its policy.
Oh, Gen. David Petraeus may recommend withdrawing some combat troops in the spring to tidy up his order of battle, but as 2007 turns to 2008, there will be universal argument that precipitous changes should not be made to influence the presidential election, and that we shouldn't leave the situation in worse shape for the next president.
The Bush administration, in other words, will simply kick the can down the road. The dominant candidates already seem to realize this. On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both now said that any withdrawal must be gradual.
From the military, we'll hear more about the personnel and budget crisis. This crisis, mostly due to the $10 billion a week we are spending on two wars, comes despite an annual budget of almost $700 billion. It 's a crisis that could easily be resolved with changes in policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. But since that's unlikely, the military will favor an increase in end strength (more troops) and "bridge" money to keep troubled capital programs afloat. Congress (and the candidates) will happily salute and supply the war machine.
Of course, there is little prospect for success in 2008. I don't want to ignore the possibility that there could be a miracle. But "victory" in Iraq, at least as a normal person would define it, just isn't going to happen. Instead, the Bush administration has defined victory as Iraqis being able to take responsibility for their own security. This has been its position since long before the surge was announced; the point of the surge is to buy time for Iraqis to be able to do so, and to do as much damage to the insurgency and the terrorists in the meantime.
So what can we expect in Iraq in 2008? The stock market is not a bad analogy. Both stories are important, and how they play out will affect all of us, whether we realize it or not. Still, some people will closely watch the daily ticker because they have precious investments in Iraq (sons and daughters, current or future jobs). Others will go about their lives and hear about something very good or very bad happening, but will not pay too much attention because they are not really invested.
Television has shifted its attention away from this spectacle -- the latest American deaths generally get reported on the evening news as numbers, just like the Dow -- because the vast majority of the American public has as well.
By William M. Arkin
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments