Saturday, December 23, 2006

American Military Policy

Greg Mankiw presents a good Critique of a Washington Post story, hinged upon an economic analysis of increasing Productivity, rather on the posited view of Worker activism of the article. I am in total agreement with Greg in his assumption that increased Productivity was a necessary condition for rising Living Standards during the Period since 1900. It is rather a denial of history to dismiss Worker activism as unnecessary though, as no nation achieved those improved Living Standards without Labor unrest, except possibly for Switzerland; a place flush with Cash from elsewhere, and localized Government in Cantons. Swiss policy was basically one of avoidance of Labor unrest by close, homogeneous neighbors. Suppression of Union activity in Underdeveloped Countries will likely not generate rising Living Standards, or break the monopoly of traditional employers who limit economic opportunity and Job transfers. (no seeming relationship to the rest of the Post, until you ask what is the worst form of Labor unrest?)

Cactus at Angry Bear notes the Generals sudden pursual of more Troops for Iraq, and asks what comes next. I wonder at the same, understanding that the nominal increase proposal was very small when contemplating a military policy change. The reason the increase must be so small resides in the lack of trained Troops. I might say ‘I told You So", having established some time back the Concept that inveighing Troops to return is much simpler, the fewer the number of Tours they have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suggested an increase in military troop levels of some 100,000 somewhere back when most of the current Troops were on their first Tour. I will not say it, but they will still hate me because I can say it.

This sea change in military policy must also be debated, as a Troop increase cannot be assumed to be a Saturation move, not even of Bagdad. Al Sadr will eat 20,000 more Troops without surrendering his control of the city. The western provinces would require an investment of at least 100,000 more Troops to quiet the area. The Kurds will be difficult in any attempt to move against their controlled areas. We could move Troops into the River valleys, but these are the only areas where Iraqi Police and Military seem to have effective control. The Military Objectives of any Troop increase should be clearly outlined. Christopher Hayes has a good Post on the desires of Bush, much commented upon by Mark Thoma, PGL and Steven Kyle at Angry Bear, with a related comment by Thoma again on articles concerning changing current U.S. policy on the pursuit of the Iraq war .

My Take on the issue is that Bush has decided to establish permanent bases in Iraq, while maintaining continuous pressure on the Iraq Government to allow American Oil companies First Call upon Iraqi Oil, with suppression of Iraq Oil production to conform to Saudi policy of Production curtailment to hold up the World Oil price. This Wealth Cronyism will lead to continuing pools of American blood on Iraqi streets. lgl

No comments: