Month: November 2010

Recently, the Washington Post’s David Broder resurrected the tired and long debunked case for wartime prosperity, claiming that “a showdown with the mullahs” in Iran would be a boon to the economy. As political economist and historian Robert Higgs has shown time and again with regards to WWII, the economy did not fully recover until after the war ended and employment numbers looked good merely because much of the labor force was drafted into the military at below-market wages. While some have rejected Broder’s column, many fail to understand this point.

In 2003, Higgs responded to a similar argument made in the Wall Street Journal, calling it a “hoary fallacy” and showing instead that “unemployment fell during the war entirely because of the buildup of the armed forces. In 1940, some 4.62 million persons were actually unemployed (the official count of 7.45 million included 2.83 million employed on various government work projects). During the war, the government, by conscription for the most part, drew some 16 million persons into the armed forces…Voila, civilian unemployment nearly disappeared…”

Higgs concedes that “officially measured GDP soared during the war. Examination of that increased output shows, however, that it consisted entirely of military goods and services. Real civilian consumption and private investment both fell after 1941, and they did not recover fully until 1946. The privately owned capital stock actually shrank during the war…It is high time that we come to appreciate the distinction between the government spending, especially the war spending, that bulks up official GDP figures and the kinds of production that create genuine economic prosperity. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in the aftermath of World War I, ‘war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.’”

When I asked Higgs for his reaction to Broder’s column, he said, “if you mix one part historical superficiality, one part economic confusion, and one part sheer immorality, you get the combination that qualifies a journalist to become known as the dean of the Washington press corps.”

Bette Rose Bowers is the Hug Lady. She greets incoming soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan in airports. And what does she tell them? Things like: God bless you, we are proud of you, you are appreciated, thank you. She talks about the joy of having a father see his baby for the very first time. She talks about children not having seen their father for many months. No mention of Iraqi or Afghan fathers seeing their children killed by U.S. bombs and bullets. No mention of Iraqi or Afghan children never seeing their father again. Should returning U.S. soldiers be greeted in airports? You be the judge.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 4th, 2010:

National Review Online: Foundation for Defense of Democracies president Clifford May suggests that should Palestinian Authority president Abbas declare Palestine a state and request UN recognition, Obama might not oppose this declaration of statehood because he “believes in a ‘two-state solution.’” May notes such a move would be met with opposition from Arab countries, because many of them “define victory as Israel’s destruction.” Besides, writes May, establishment of Palestinian state would escalate the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. The international community will be uncomfortable backing Hamas, “a terrorist organization openly and unequivocally committed to Israel’s extermination, and guided by the jihadi rules of Iran.” If Hamas gains control of the West bank, it will be obligated to “’resist’ Israel’s existence” and, when Israel responds militarily, “Will Syria and Iran come to Hamas’s aid?.” This dire scenario, concludes May, is reason for Obama to make absolutely clear “that he does not want Abbas to bypass negotiations and head down a road leading to a minefield.”

Newsweek: Dan Ephron writes that while “the composition of Congress does not necessarily determine Washington’s approach to the Middle East,” Israeli leadership may believe that the Republican-led House may be “more amenable to the idea of considering military options in case sanctions don’t work.” Ephron predicts that the White House will set foreign policy on Iran but Ahmadinejad will offer more resistance to Washington’s efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program, perceiving that Obama is now a weaker president.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 3rd, 2010:

The American: Writing on the blog of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute’s journal, AEI fellow Ali Alfoneh details the latest machinations between Iran’s power players. The news hook is an article critical of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a monthly journal of the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). A direct attack on Ahmadinejad by the IRGC is a new development, notes Alfoneh. He reflects on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s efforts to “restore the balance between the political forces” since Ahmadinejad seemed to, with the Leader’s blessing, consolidate power after his disputed June 2009 election victory. Whether Khamenei’s efforts will work remains to be seen, but Alfoneh concludes: “Such a degree of disunity among political elites of the Islamic Republic is bad news for the regime and good news for those who desire to extract concessions from it.”

Forbes: Abigail R. Esman blogs that Ahmadinejad’s denial that packages aboard planes bound for the UK and the United States contained explosives should raise questions about Iran’s involvement in the attempted terrorist attack. Without additional information linking Iran to the plot, Esman asks, “Does this relate to President Ahmadinejad’s recent determination to investigate the events of 9/11 (which he has called “a complete fabrication”), and specifically to determine “why 3000 Jews did not show up for work” at the World Trade Center by 8:45 am on that day?” Esman repeats the allegations that al-Qaeda and Iran are closely cooperating. Finally, without providing any evidence linking Iran to the terror plot, she ends by asking, “Was Iran involved in the latest bombing attempts? And if so, what do we do about it?”

The Wall Street Journal: Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, considers the loading of fuel rods into the nuclear power plant at Bushehr “… emblematic of an illegal nuclear policy that could spell the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—perhaps the most important pillar of global security.” Kantor warns a nuclear weapons possessing Iran could be a “paradigm breaking order” in the Middle East, kick off a global nuclear arms race, and make the use of nuclear weapons commonplace in war. And if Iran provided a “dirty bomb” to terrorists, its use “…would turn inhabitants of the Western world into fearful hostages of terrorists, resulting in the moral and psychological collapse of our civilization.” Kantor calls for Western countries to implement expanded sanctions, repeating the talking point that Western countries are about to repeat the mistakes made in appeasing Hitler in 1938.

Ilario Pantano, the Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 7th district, was defeated 54-46%.

Ilario Pantano shot and killed two unarmed prisoners in Iraq while serving in the Marines and survived charges of premeditated murder before returning to America to run for Congress in North Carolina this year.

According to Pantano’s version of events, the men moved toward him in a threatening way and he opened fire in self-defense, shooting up to 60 rounds and killing both of them. He then put a sign next to the bodies with a Marine slogan: “No better friend, no worse enemy.” Pantano told New York magazine: “I believed that by firing the number of rounds that I did, I was sending a message” to other potential insurgents.

Thankfully, the voters sent Pantano a message.