"By any rational measure, the war on terror has been a success; we've gone three years without a significant attack on US interests anywhere outside Iraq, which is better than we did during the Clinton Administration"

Would the number of U.S. citizens killed in incidents of international terrorism be a rational measure? 'Cause, according to figures from the State Department, from 1995 to 2000 (I couldn't find any reports that went back further than that) there were an average of 12.67 Americans killed per year by international terrorism. During the Bush administration… well. Obviously we'll leave 2001 out. But there were 27 in 2002 and 35 in 2003, for an average of 31 Americans per year. And those figures do not count U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"More importantly, we've taken the offensive, a precondition to winning any war."

" …But you can not fight a war on the same lines and expect to win; letting a coherent, organized enemy set the agenda and determine the pace, the targets and the timing of the war is suicide (as it was for the Taliban and Hussein)."

Yeah, the reason the United States beat the Taliban and Saddam Hussein is because they let us set the agenda and determine the pace, the targets and the timing of the war. That factor was much more important in determining the outcome of the war than the fact that both governments were facing an overwhelmingly superior force armed with a virtually unlimited supply of the most technologically advanced weapons in the history of the world. Clearly the critical factor was that they weren't aggressive enough.

If they'd just taken the initiative, like Germany did in Russia, they could have won. Because every military text book in the history of the world has said that an offensive war is much easier to win than a defensive war. And…

Oh, wait.

None of that is true. So I guess that might mean your reasoning is deeply flawed.

" The roots of terror are obvious to anyone that's read Bernard Lewis."

Wow. One author explains the whole thing? And he's right about everything? Whew. That'll be a relief. 'Cause normally when I want to know about a topic I read a bunch of books, preferably from people with radically opposing viewpoints, to try and get an idea of the whole range of the issue. Just reading one would be *such* a timesaver.

" Unless they attack us. Which Iraq and Afghanistan did."

Um… oh, nevermind. Not worth it.

"The economy is growing between 2-4%"

That is, you'll pardon me for saying, a completely meaningless indicator for most people. Only about half of American households (51.9%) own stock any stock at all. Within that group, the top 1% of stockowners hold about 33.6% of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% of stockholders own just 10.7% of total stock value. That top 1% owns about $3.5 million in stock per household, while the bottom 40% of stockholding households own an average of $1,800 in stock. (data from the Economic Policy Institute).

So, basically, the "growth" of the economy does *most* people little or no good.

"Unemployment is down over the past year"

Yeah. This *year*. During the Bush presidency overall, there's been a net loss of approximately 1.15 million jobs in an economy with about 131 million jobs overall. Meanwhile, average wages have fallen by .42/wk. So there's more unemployment and wages have fallen. And let's not forget that about 1 million fewer people have health insurance this year— so more of people's (already reduced) income will go to offset the cost of healthcare.

This is pretty easily explained: this *single* year of "job growth" that Bush is so proud of has been almost exclusively in the service sector. Manufacturing jobs with benefits have continued to disappear and white collar jobs are holding more or less steady. So basically, blue collar people are being forced out of their living wage jobs in the manufacturing sector and into lower-paying jobs in the service sector. Resulting in lower average income and less disposable income. And, hey, you know that situation where most Americans don't own any stocks? Lower income levels isn't going to help that.

Planning is easy. Real life is hard.

Ahem. Hey, I have a theory on why Kerry keeps harping on the fact that he's a combat veteran. Wanna hear it?

Joshua,

A virtual May Day parade of strawmen; all equally facile, all of which I'll light on fire and kick to the curb either this weekend or Monday.

"A virtual May Day parade of strawmen; all equally facile, all of which I'll light on fire and kick to the curb either this weekend or Monday."

Okay then. You take as many --ahem-- *days* as you need to kick my facile strawmen to the curb. I'll just, uh, go read that Bernard Lewis guy so I can understand the Middle East.

Oh, and by the way--

"A virtual May Day parade..."

I'm sorry-- did you just call me a Dirty Red? Is that where that was going? 'Cause that'd be *so* retro.

Er, Josh? I have lots of plans for this weekend, and blogging isn't one of them.

As far as the May Day Parade image - it's the image itself I was going for; endless ranks of identical, unsmiling conscripts. It didn't center around Joshua, hard as that may be to believe.

"It didn't center around Joshua, hard as that may be to believe."

HA! You're kill'n me here.

If only.

OK, here goes:

"Would the number of U.S. citizens killed in incidents of international terrorism be a rational measure?"

No, not really. There's a war on. The enemy is killing Americans.

We suffered vastly more casualties in 1944 than i 1943. Didn't mean that the war was going the wrong way.

"Yeah, the reason the United States beat the Taliban and Saddam Hussein is because they let us set the agenda and determine the pace, the targets and the timing of the war. That factor was much more important in determining the outcome of the war than the fact that both governments were facing an overwhelmingly superior force armed with a virtually unlimited supply of the most technologically advanced weapons in the history of the world. Clearly the critical factor was that they weren't aggressive enough."

Strawan that betrays both ignorance of military history and an overreliance of talking points suppied by the ignorant. Your facile sarcasm betrays the former.

So what if the Taliban and Hussein didn't have the art or technology of modern warfare mastered? Assuming that your enemy is dumb, underequipped and slow is suicidal.

"If they'd just taken the initiative, like Germany did in Russia, they could have won. Because every military text book in the history of the world has said that an offensive war is much easier to win than a defensive war. And…"

Jeeez, Joshua - stick with topics you know something about. Nobody says offensive wars are "easier". Merely that keeping the initiative is almost always a better idea.

"None of that is true. So I guess that might mean your reasoning is deeply flawed."

Well, since nothing you said above was in any way valid, I'd love to hear how. Do try to not bullshit me, in the process.

"Wow. One author explains the whole thing? And he's right about everything? "

Strawman; I cited Lewis by way of saying the Middle East isn't an opaque mystery inscrutable to mere mortals - or that the understanding of it trumps the defense of this country. Lewis (never read him, have you? It shows) provides a superb primer.

"The economy is growing between 2-4%"

"That is, you'll pardon me for saying, a completely meaningless indicator for most people. Only about half of American households (51.9%) own stock any stock at all."

First: Growth is stated as much more than just stock ownership.

Second: You are being disingenuous in saying that "only" half of American households own stock. That number doubled in the previous decade. And I think that figure only includes direct ownership (IRA, 401K, etc), and not institutional ownership like union pensions and so on. More Americans than ever have a direct stake in the market.

"Within that group, the top 1% of stockowners hold about 33.6% of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% of stockholders own just 10.7% of total stock value."

Right. Because they start the companies that issue the stock.

"So, basically, the "growth" of the economy does *most* people little or no good."

Yes, but the job market that's created by accelerated investment *is* good for everyone.

"Yeah. This *year*. During the Bush presidency overall, there's been a net loss of approximately 1.15 million jobs in an economy with about 131 million jobs overall. "

Right. There was a downturn. The downturn began before Bush took office, and the stagnation was exacerbated by the war - maybe you heard about it. Cycles happen. In point of fact, there is very little a president can do about them, except, ideally, get government out of the way. Which Bush, to some extent (not nearly enough) did.

"This is pretty easily explained: this *single* year of "job growth" that Bush is so proud of has been almost exclusively in the service sector. "

Talking point. The growth in W-2 *Payroll* income has largely been in the Service sector. You say that as if it's a bad thing. *I* work in a service sector, a sector that counts everyone from pump jockeys to interior designers. And the growth in non-W2, 1099 jobs has been *extremely* strong - which isn't something the people that feed you your talking points want to acknowledge, because it's a sector largely dominated by people starting new businesses, or independent contractors (like me).

"Manufacturing jobs with benefits have continued to disappear and white collar jobs are holding more or less steady".

Right. Manufacturing is changing. Industries change. The industry I started in has changed profoundly snce I left it - NONE of the jobs I started in exist anymore. I had to retrain myself; it's a fact of life, not the end of the world. And propping up specific market sectors - "corporate welfare" - should not be a role of government.

" So basically, blue collar people are being forced out of their living wage jobs in the manufacturing sector and into lower-paying jobs in the service sector."

Or into 1099 jobs. Or into different lines of work. It is difficult, sometimes wrenching, often painful, frequently a good thing, and in any case a fact of life. The alternative is...

" Resulting in lower average income and less disposable income. And, hey, you know that situation where most Americans don't own any stocks? Lower income levels isn't going to help that."

Except incomes aren't lower - payroll incomes are, and that's by no means permanent. While they're lower than they were in 2000, they're still higher than they were in 1995, and they're starting from a more solid base.

"Ahem. Hey, I have a theory on why Kerry keeps harping on the fact that he's a combat veteran. Wanna hear it? "

I already have.

I have one, too. It's because it's the only thing he has. He has no "plan" for anything, and even if he did, as I note, it would be pretty much worthless.

But I'm sure your idea will be both entertaining AND delivered with the sort of solipsistic condescension that we've come to expect. Don't disappoint!

Yeah, okay...

"No, not really. There's a war on. The enemy is killing Americans."

Yeah. That's why I specified that the casualties are outside the war zone. But wait! Don't tell me, let me guess, "The whole world is the war zone." Right?

So riddle me this, Sugar Pants: exactly which objective, military, civil, or economic is advanced by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that will *end* the war? Not some vague business about "getting rid of all the terrorists". There have been terrorists in the world for the entirety of recorded history, so I'm reluctant to believe they can be entirely gotten rid of. Tell me, please, what *specific* outcome current U.S. foreign policy is advancing that will *end* the war on terrorism.

"Strawan that betrays both ignorance of military history and an overreliance of talking points suppied by the ignorant."

Listen, if you're going to run around calling everything I write a straw man, at least take the time to learn how the term is used: I would be using the straw man debating tactic if I were to take the weakest point in your thesis, disprove the weak point, and then declare that I have disproved your entire thesis. So my sarcastic comments about the Taliban and Saddam Hussein would only qualify as straw men if I was declaring them to have some bearing on a larger argument on your part.

Which I'm not.

"Your facile sarcasm betrays the former."

That's not an argument, it's an insult-- and not a very good one at that. It doesn't address any of my reasoning, and it puts forth a fallacious assertion. Sarcasm betrays contempt, not ignorance. Demonstrate a little less of the latter, I may shoot less of the former your way.

"So what if the Taliban and Hussein didn't have the art or technology of modern warfare mastered? Assuming that your enemy is dumb, underequipped and slow is suicidal."

Which fails to address my point. Maybe you missed the point in all the sarcasm. Let me try again, with less of that ambiguous irony:

You said that allowing one's enemy to determine the conditions of engagement is a mistake (true), then suggested that the Taliban and Hussein as examples of this mistake in action. The Taliban and Hussein are terrible examples of that principle in action. It's like pointing to a cockroach that's just been stepped on by an elephant and saying, "See what happens when you don't choose your ground!" My point was simply this: I'm pretty sure there were other factors that weighed much more heavily in that engagement than the enemy's failure to maintain the initiative.

"Jeeez, Joshua - stick with topics you know something about."

And just as a point of order— you basically accuse me of ignorance twice in rapid succession, but don't support the accusation with data in either case. Not only that, you're not even specific about what it is I supposedly don't know. That's a charming rhetorical tick, and I'm sure it adds a subtle authenticity to your Rush Limbaugh impression at parties and get togethers, but as a debating tactic it doesn't even rise to the level of one of your precious strawmen. So please, be specific; what, exactly, did I say that was so poorly informed?

"Well, since nothing you said above was in any way valid, I'd love to hear how."

You didn't prove that. You barely even argued it. You basically just called me ignorant twice, didn't offer any counterpoints or new reasoning, and now you're doing a little victory dance. Which I find totally adorable, believe me.

"Do try to not bullshit me, in the process."

Heh. Now *that* was irony. Wasn't it? God I hope so.

"Strawman; I cited Lewis by way of saying the Middle East isn't an opaque mystery inscrutable to mere mortals - or that the understanding of it trumps the defense of this country. Lewis (never read him, have you? It shows) provides a superb primer."

Oh, horseshit. What you did by way of "citing" Lewis was to write:

"The roots of terror are obvious to anyone that's read Bernard Lewis."

My point which, again, you seem to have had trouble following through the obscuring waves of sarcasm, was that nothing should be "obvious" to *anyone* after reading *one* author's perspective. I mean, if I said, "The roots of terror are obvious to anyone that's read Edward Said," that'd betray poor reasoning on my part. And not because everything Edward Said said was bullshit, but because, like everyone, Edward Said had a huge fucking bias. If you want to understand Said, it's helpful to read Dershowitz, then maybe go out and rent "The Domim Tree", read up on Russian Zionism, pan-Arabism, and the history if Great Britain in Palestine. Read some Kinzer. And kind of on and on like that, you know?

You seemed to feel pretty free accusing me of ignorance and over-reliance on talking points because I used sarcasm. I don't see the causality there. Rudeness is about delivery, not content. BUT. Declaring that the roots of terrorism are clear to anyone who's read *one* book suggests both ignorance and orthodoxy very strongly. And that's what I accused you of.

"First: Growth is stated as much more than just stock ownership."

That's very interesting (sarcasm). What are the other parameters you're considering, Mitch (honest question)?

"You are being disingenuous in saying that 'only' half of American households own stock. That number doubled in the previous decade."

The second sentence does not prove the first one.

"And I think that figure only includes direct ownership (IRA, 401K, etc), and not institutional ownership like union pensions and so on. More Americans than ever have a direct stake in the market."

You think? Great. Let me know when you're sure. And, while you're at it, be clear about numbers— who, how many, and in what concentration. Specificity seems to be a hurtle for you, but I think it'll help you grow as a person.

"Right. Because they start the companies that issue the stock."

Or, hey, maybe it's because they sacrificed their children on a stone altar and made a deal with the Lord of the Flies. I mean, as long as we're making completely unsupported assertions about economics, why not go all-out?

(more sarcasm, by the way. can you spot the underlying criticism? here's a hint: without corroborating data, all unsupported assertions may be considered equally true. for example:

if joe says "acorns grow into oak trees," and paul replies with, "that's because god tunnels under the earth and replaces the buried acorn with a tiny oak tree," paul hasn't actually contributed anything to the discussion except his fancy. which, entertaining as it is, shouldn't be mistaken for data about the phenomenon of acorns growing into oak trees.)

"Yes, but the job market that's created by accelerated investment *is* good for everyone."

That's a trickier assertion. Accelerated investment sometimes expands the labor pool, but establishing consistent causality there is complicated. Like, for example, the recession supposedly ended, what, like, three years ago? And for most of that time, the job market continued to shrink. I'm not saying there's no relationship, I'm just saying it's not as straightforward as the above quote suggests. We can argue that in more detail if you'd like.

"There is very little a president can do about them, except, ideally, get government out of the way."

That is patently untrue. C-ref. the New Deal.

And, just as a point of order— first you argue job growth for the last year like it's a point in favor of Bush, then you say that the president can't affect economic cycles. Which is it?

"And the growth in non-W2, 1099 jobs has been *extremely* strong - which isn't something the people that feed you your talking points want to acknowledge, because it's a sector largely dominated by people starting new businesses, or independent contractors (like me)."

Well, now you're into a bigger question. Because yes, according to the American Small Business Administration, the number of sole proprietor tax returns has increased by 778,300 since 2001. Which is about par for the course. The number of sole proprietorships has increased every year since at least 1980, on a fairly clean upward-sloping line. Using those two metrics there's still been a net loss of jobs under Bush, but it's not nearly as dramatic.

But if we're bringing other metrics into the equation, try this one on for size: according to the BLS, the American labor force grew by 2.7 million people from 2001 to 2003. To put that in perspective, according to the BLS, the American labor force grew by 12.6 million people between 1994 and 2001. And, to put *BUSH'S* performance into perspective, during that same stretch of time (1994-2001), non-farm wage employment grew by 17.5 million jobs, sole proprietorships increased by 1.8 million, and average weekly earnings increased by $18.78 in *adjusted* dollars.

And, just to be clear, the period from 1995 to 2000 was the first sustained increase in average weekly earnings in adjusted dollars since 1979.

So basically what that boils down to is that the total number of jobs has suffered a net decrease since Bush has been in office, while the labor pool has experienced a marked increase, resulting in more unemployed people (as distinguished, please, from "unemployment"), and a stagnation of wages. Translation: the economic prosperity of the average American has suffered dramatically since Bush has been in the White House.

And by the way: you can just blow that "talking points" crack right out your ass. I do my own research, and I support my opinions with numbers. And I don't just get them from regurgitated media sources. Every figure I've used in my comments in this string has been pulled straight from a government monitoring agency and calculated by yours truly. You can accuse me of a lot of shit, but toeing some kind of fucking party line is not on the list. You can read my blog or you can ask Ryan about that one if you don't believe me.

And, just as a point of order— where are you getting this line about "talking points"? I'm not sure, but I've had it thrown at me in every argument I've gotten into with a pro-Bush blogger from A Small Victory to Burton Terrace. Is it possible it's nothing more than a… wait for it …talking point?

Yeah, I think it might be.

"Right. Manufacturing is changing. Industries change. The industry I started in has changed profoundly snce I left it - NONE of the jobs I started in exist anymore. I had to retrain myself; it's a fact of life, not the end of the world. And propping up specific market sectors - "corporate welfare" - should not be a role of government."

See, now there's an *excellent* example of a straw man argument. The specification of "manufacturing" is irrelevant to my point, which was that benefits and income have shrunk during the Bush administration. I used manufacturing as a prime example. But it''s not the crux of the whole argument. So you're picking an irrelevant point and trying to use it to disprove my whole argument. Then you bring up "corporate welfare"— repeat *YOU* brought it up— and tacitly accused me of advocating for it. Which I don't and didn't.

"Or into 1099 jobs. Or into different lines of work. It is difficult, sometimes wrenching, often painful, frequently a good thing, and in any case a fact of life."

Just as a point of order, according to the BLS, unemployment rates among people who report their occupation as manufacturing have increased at approximately the same rate as job loss in that sector. At least for the time being, most of those people aren't going anywhere.

"Except incomes aren't lower - payroll incomes are, and that's by no means permanent."

I couldn't find data on 1099 incomes. If you have some I'd be interested to see it.

"While they're lower than they were in 2000, they're still higher than they were in 1995,"

I'm sorry. What's your point? That incomes have fallen off since Bush has been in office but that they were steadily increasing before that? How does that support your position?

I'm not going to follow that Vietnam thread any farther. I'm on the record as thinking he should just drop that one.

Joshua, your jobs data is off.

Total employment as of December 2000 = 131.878 million
Total employment as of August 2004 = 131.475 million

Unless of course we use the household survey, which seems to me more accurate, in which case the numbers would be....

Household Survey (W-2 employment, 1099 contractors, self-employment, etc.)

Total employment as of December 2000 = 135.836 million
Total employment as of August 2004 = 139.681 million

Either way, Joshua, your numbers are off. Where are you getting your numbers from?

"Yeah. That's why I specified that the casualties are outside the war zone. But wait! Don't tell me, let me guess, "The whole world is the war zone." Right?"

You act as if there's some ironic "Gotcha" if I answer yes. Terrorists aren't confined by any borders (let's see if I can get the post-ironic inflection down) Right?

"So riddle me this, Sugar Pants: exactly which objective, military, civil, or economic is advanced by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that will *end* the war?"

In order:

Military: Putting a large US force into easy striking distance of most/all of the world's terror-supporting powers. This is not something the government talks about a lot - the locals are intensely sensitive about it - but the fact that we have a large force in place *right in the center* of the major terror-supporting powers (Syria, Iran, the Saudis, Pakistan) is huge. The US threat to terrorists and their friends is no longer hypothetical. Oh, yeah - and permanently removing any WMD threat Iraq posed. Go ahead, take that one on.

Civil: Democracy in the Middle East. An Arab Democracy. Something that vexes the tyrants that control pretty much every other country in the area (and the terrorists they support or house), in the same way that an independent, democratic West Germany scared the Politburo; it gives the people of the region something to compare with their own lots in life, favorably.

Economic: Between them, Iraq and Saudi Arabia control a huge portion of the world's known, easily-recoverable oil (20 and 40%, if I recall correctly). This puts us in a position to directly influence the disposition of that oil. Which is not so much a matter of keeping Halliburton in the chips as it is keeping the entire *world* economy solvent; the third world and Europe are much more vulnerable to cutoffs in Arab oil than the US is. But everyone's economy suffers if Arab dictators (or the Wahabbists that threaten to replace them, a not-insignificant possibility in Saudi Arabia) gets cut off.

How's that, "Sugar Pants"?

"Tell me, please, what *specific* outcome current U.S. foreign policy is advancing that will *end* the war on terrorism."

Removing their financing, their safe havens, their access to WMD, and (in the much longer term) their access to huge, disposessed, disenfranchised majorities of people.

"Listen, if you're going to run around calling everything I write a straw man,..."

Yadda yadda. Listen - puffing up a non-existent point ("Oh, yeah - the Taliban could have taken the offensive! Woot woot!") exactly fits your definition of a strawman; you took what you felt was a weakness in my argument (but which was in fact a non-existent part of my argument) and used it to try to invalidate my larger point.

At this point, I'll toss this in; I usually try to avoid gratuitous insult. I probably try less hard in this case, Joshua, because you nearly always ooze arrogance, condescension and insult in everything you write - your blog, here, and of course your old comments on "Plain Lane", along with a hearty "Take it or leave it".

You deal out the insults, the sarcasm and the condescending dismissal pretty freely, "Sugar Pants". What should you expect in return?

Better, obviously, since I normally try to be better than that.

That said, there are areas where you clearly substitute sarcasm and misplaced condescension for having done your homework. You are - no, I'll be clear here, you *seem* - transparently ignorant (as in "not well read") about military history. And not knowing about Bernard Lewis - one of the top rank of western academics writing about the Arab and Moslem worlds - is certainly forgiveable, but certainly doesn't justify your response to the context in which he was mentioned.

Onward:

"You said that allowing one's enemy to determine the conditions of engagement is a mistake (true), then suggested that the Taliban and Hussein as examples of this mistake in action. The Taliban and Hussein are terrible examples of that principle in action."

Only if you strictly limit the discussion to what the Taliban and Hussein, themselves and nobody else, actually *did*. And I may have used them imprecisely; it's a comment. The larger point - the one I was shooting for - is that we ceded the initiative to the terrorists (and those who root for and support them, like the Taliban, Hussein, etc...) in the nineties, allowing them to pick the place, means and time the war would be fought ("WTC, Planes, 9/11/01"); Kerry would do it again. Bush re-took the initiative. It's a vastly more sound way to fight a war.

"And just as a point of order— you basically accuse me of ignorance twice in rapid succession, but don't support the accusation with data in either case."

Because it wasn't ignorance about data, it was ignorance about concepts - or so it seemed at the time. Now, three comments full of condescension, sarcasm and misplaced dismissal into this dostoyevskiian thread, you finally betray some appreciation of the notion of initiative in warfare; it's a first. I insulted you (bad boy, Mitch) because you condescended and insulted without actually seeming to be equipped to have the actual argument.

"Heh. Now *that* was irony. Wasn't it? God I hope so."

You did indeed seem to be trying to bullshit me on basic military history.

I'll finish this later in the weekend - probably. I have to get to show prep.

Border Guard: I suspect the mistake/variance is that the spreadsheet I was using when I posted that comment only had figures up through June 2004 (and the May and June figures were preliminary on that sheet), and I was counting Bush's term from Febraury, 2001.

Mea culpa in any case; I should have updated to August.