As Jennifer noted yesterday, the latest WikiLeaks revelations definitively refute Barack Obama’s “linkage” theory: that Israeli concessions to the Palestinians were necessary to persuade Arab states to oppose Iran’s nuclear program. But what the documents reveal about the profound strategic misconception behind this theory is frightening.
The list of Arab states urging America to bomb Iran, and the forcefulness with which they urged it, is astonishing. It includes Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates; virtually the only exception was Qatar. Clearly, no Israeli concessions were needed to persuade these countries that strong action against Iran was desirable.
But both Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush insisted that this behind-the-scenes urging wasn’t enough; they needed Arab states to go public with it. As CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid told UAE officials in 2007, “we need our friends to say that they stand with the Americans.”
If Bush had any strategy for achieving this goal, it doesn’t emerge from the reports I’ve seen. But Obama did: linkage. If America showed that it’s on the Arabs’ side by extracting Israeli concessions, the theory went, then Arab states would no longer be reluctant to stand publicly beside the U.S.
But the idea that “soft power” could solve a quintessentially hard-power problem is a profound misconception, because the issue wasn’t the Arabs’ view of Washington as too pro-Israel; that never stopped them from supporting America if it served their interests before.
The real issue was their fear, given the visible reluctance to attack Iran displayed by both Bush and Obama, that if they publicly urged America to bomb Iran, and then America didn’t do it — they would be left alone to face the wrath of a nuclear-armed neighbor. And no amount of arm-twisting directed at Israel could possibly assuage that fear.
Indeed, only one thing could have done so: a clear American determination to attack Iran. You needn’t look far to find the model; it’s the one used by the first President George Bush in the Gulf War.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Arab states also initially refused to publicly back American action against Iraq. The day after the invasion, the Arab League even passed a resolution warning against outside intervention in the conflict.
But Bush, ignoring the verbiage, took swift action to assure Iraq’s neighbors that America wouldn’t leave them to face Iraq alone. Within a week, two naval battle groups had deployed to the area and more than 80 fighter jets had begun patrolling Saudi Arabia’s border. More forces arrived subsequently.
Only then did he start forming his coalition to invade Iraq. And with their protection assured, nine Arab states ultimately joined it.
Today, too, Arab states won’t publicly support attacking Iran without the surety that America will follow through. Nor can you blame them: they’re the ones who will have to live with a vengeful nuclear neighbor if America punts.
But you can certainly blame Washington for the delusion that gestures on an unrelated issue would suffice to allay a well-grounded existential fear — and be deeply worried that American leaders could misread the situation that profoundly.
The Big Three auto companies have no chance until they get that parasitic has been purged from their system, and that should beone of the terms of any federal assistance — off the UAW. .
Unions have lost their real honest usefulness, and lost it decades ago. Now it’s just gaming the system, organized and legalized theft…
And since the car companies haven’t got any money left, the union got a bit MORE organized and reached for the taxpayers’ wallets… and dammit, it’s gonna happen.
John Galt, here I come.
There is no satisfactory solution to the dilemma. The price of an economic recovery that is relatively prompt and painless in historical terms — presuming the government continues with alacrity — is greatly increased statism and the moral hazard implicit in multiple bailouts. The laissez-faire alternative risks severe and prolonged deflation, unemployment, social unrest and calls for even more radical solutions. How lucky do you feel?
It is interesting. The elites ( including those on Commentary) don’t mind bankers and wallstreet manipulators being bailed out but enjoy throwing UAW workers under the bus. They actually relish the thought.People who never in their lives did a hard day’s work love to jump on those who actually make axles,engines,fenders ,etc. Let’s face it. A large body of Republicans care lttle about those who make things Everything the administration has done in recent months has been to bail out the wealthy. NOTHING has been done to keep or make JOBS.. It is jobs that will revive the economy. Otherwise ,say farewell to what remains of your retirement funds.
RayS,
Sadly, GM hasn’t been doing a good job of reviving the economy in Detroit. What makes you think that keeping GM artificially and non-commercially afloat would help the overall economy?
Yes, the axle-makers will lose their jobs, but it is poor long-term policy to keep them at their axle-making jobs if nobody will by the cars with the axles that they’ve made.
Wouldn’t it be better to redeploy these axle-makers into more productive endeavors, where they make things that people want to buy. That would create a virtuous circle. Bailing them out won’t.
Ray S
GM and Ford are socialistic enterprises. They build cars to pay benefits.
GM is just taking the money out back and burning it. At an astounding rate. They have sold off their profitable operations to raise money. To burn. They will burn through another $25 billion in a couple of quarters. They have no plan whatsoever to fix the problem.
If we don’t fix the problem then we are throwing good money after bad.
The $700 billion dollar bailout – whether you like it or not – had a specific goal of easing the credit situation so the economy could start working again.
A GM bailout would have the specific goal of letting GM run for another 6 months before they asked for more money.
RayS, I think you miss the point. I for one am not enthusiastic about the financial bailout, but accept that it may be necessary to avoid a total economic collapse. If we don’t bail out the car companies, we’re just putting a hitch in the car industry – we’ll have cars from other car companies to fill the void. Money makes the economy go around – not cars. You can get a car with money. The opposite is not so simple. Cars are only a small part of the overall economy. Money is involved in ALL parts.
I will confess that I would relish seeing the unions collapse. They are historically corrupt, are concerned only about their own well being (as opposed to the company they work for, for other non-union workers and even the country, as evidenced by their opposition to any sort of NAFTA/CAFTA type agreements) and are obsolete. Way back when, when people were forced to work 27 hours a day without a bathroom break, they helped to right some wrongs. Today, these wrongs no longer exist.
On a final note, you (disingenuously??) portray us nefarious Commentary readers as uncaring about Joe Axel Worker and only care about multi-millionaires on Wall Street. I would have to guess that most of my fellow Nazi-Commentary Neanderthals feel the same as I do about the financial bailout – it’s about doing what’s right for the economy as a whole and by extension, the country. I’m not concerned about the individuals who hold CEO positions at AIG and Goldman Sachs. I’m concerned about what happens to America if those institutions collapse. Along the same lines, when I say I’d love to see the unions collapse, I only mean the institution of unions, not the individuals themselves. Presumably people will still want cars if GM goes down. Those union workers will still be able to get jobs in the auto industry if the demand is still there. It just may not be a union job.
I refer all to #3 Seth Halpern. Perhaps he says it best.
For once, I will actually support an anti-free market bailout, with one single condition:
Every single union-based commitment is flushed down the toilet– start over from scratch.
The pathetic lefty trolls here will accuse me of not caring about the littlte guy. No, that’s not quite right.
Like everything else, it’s a question of balance. And in the case of Detroit, the pendulum is so far to the unions’ side that it’s simply preposterous. So all you lefties, before you criticize me, ask yourself this question: Do you want these jobs “shipped overseas” or not? If not, then get off the idea that every single worker on every single assembly line is entitled to a starting wage that would make immigrants weep, utterly complete and free healthcare, and a guaranteed golden parachute retirement.
It’s a small world, you idiots.
Wait til they pass “Card Check” and all those Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and BMW plants are unionized….
And I’m still hoping to buy a Corvette at The Dollar Store….
You guys are morally reprehensible (except for Ray S). You want to trash the workers who in good faith bargained for “good” contract against an incompetent management. I do not see anyone who has justified the various financial bailouts asking managers who make over $150,000 and there are plenty of those, to give back the excess salaries. Maybe we should pay these guys at civil service rates.
I think those who want class warfare for the sake of efficiency might find a resurgent labor movement ready for a fight.
Where would the Repubs be w/o the Reagan Democrats?
What? Hasn’t all this been solved, since Obama was elected? Surely, if he believes he can lower the oceans, he can fix Detroit…
Mr. Abrams – so the workers’ “good faith bargain” means the company is supposed to honor that contract all the way through bankruptcy and into complete oblivion? Maybe that alone explains why unions should be economically obsolete, since your statement implies they have absolutely no responsibility for the financial health of the entity that employs them.
I had the pleasure of taking a labor class with a roomful of labor leaders more than 20 years ago. It was astounding to me, the degree of “us vs them” they exhibited at every turn, even in the classroom – zero flexibility on work rules, no interest in increasing productivity, nothing but political antagonism towards management.
One more story: as a college student, I worked for a State Hwy Dept one summer, supervising the concrete-mixing plant. One day, the unit I supervised overflowed, threatening to shut down. To keep it going, I pitched in, picking up a shovel and helped to keep us “on line”, instead of shutting down and delaying the pour (which would have caused dozens of workers to stand around, waiting for concrete). Later the same day, my boss called me over and reprimanded me. The union steward had “reported” me – I could NOT pick up a shovel and help keep my concrete plant operating, under any circumstances. Needless to say, I lost all respect for and see no use for unions, from my personal experience.
##4&13: Tantrums and threats (“economic justice!”) in place of argument — ain’t the “reality-based community” wunnerful?
Gosh. An America without Ford, GM and Chrysler would be like an America without Hudson, Studebaker and Packard.
If there is a bailout of the auto industry, I will never buy another vehicle manufactured by any firm that receives more government dollars. I say more because they have already been getting assistance.
Stimulus Does Not Cure a Recession
The amount and type of things people want has been drastically changed by the end of borrowing against rising house values and the loss in house values. Businesses want to produce and sell, but they don’t know how much or what, so they lay off people and wait for price signals to guide them to future production.
The massive bailouts are misallocating resources. In very special cases, it makes sense to prop up a failing company. For example, we can’t let the electric company go dark. Overall, the bailouts are a mistake. Moving resouces from productive uses to failing uses kills jobs, even if the particular business or industry is propped up for a few years.
People think that bailouts somehow keep the financial system from collapsing. Ironically, they promote that collapse. Failing, inefficient businesses with dumb management continue to use resources badly when they are bailed out. The government does not have the time or knowledge to decide which businesses should prosper.
Stimulus packages are a mistake. A stimulus package produces a small extra demand for consumer items like TV’s. This demand is small compared to total production, and is temporary and artificial. Companies can’t tell what to produce after the stimulus is used up. They can’t tell if demand is shifting or if it is only the stimulus acting.
A stimulus package is only a gift to the public, taken out of the savings and investment of the society (such as Social Security). It is like losing a job, then throwing a party to cheer up. It interferes with looking for the next job, and it uses up savings.
(http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/11/stimulus-does-not-cure-recession.html)
Andrew Garland
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com
jim r Says:
November 11th, 2008 at 8:26 AM
If there is a bailout of the auto industry, I will never buy another vehicle manufactured by any firm that receives more government dollars. I say more because they have already been getting assistance.
jim r, under those terms, you can’t buy a vehicle made anywhere on earth.
Raise your hand if you know what Chapter 11 is about.
Banks and financial institutions do sell something with tires you can kick. They sell peace of mind. If you don’t have confidence that they will be there, you don’t deal with them. A bankrupt financial institution is a defunct financial institution.
Not so a bankrupt airline or railroad. People patronize them, no jobs are lost that need to be done, and life goes on.
Where do auto companies fit on this continuum? I’m not sure. But my guess is that a bankrupt GM will compete very nicely with Toyota et al., building cars here for the same cost as they. So, as it turns out, the party that needs to be “bailed out” is the present and future union retiree with his retiree benefit package that renders his employer noncompetitive. The employer can unload its obligations in bankruptcy court, so its’ the union that is at risk, and so it is the union that the government must save.
FDR tried to save the unions with the NIRA, which “helped” unions by imposing additional burdens on employers. But that didn’t work because the employers then failed under the load. No, the government needs to provide direct help to the unions by bailing out their welfare funds, through a change in the priority of Medicare and private plans and/or some more direct relief. If the unions can be spared the cost of an industry bankruptcy, those bankruptcies may not be necessary, but if they are, it will be as part of a managed process in which the dominoes of factory closings and supplier job losses are avoided.
So, my angry liberal friends, don’t think that a recognition of the unsustainability of union contracts is a slam at unions, or that the suggestion that car companies be allowed to reorganize so that they can unload their union obligations is intended to throw the union employees under the bus. It is a recognition that unless those contracts are changed, there will be no bus. Preserving the lost benefits at taxpayer expense (bear in mind that retirees losing health benefits still have Medicare) may not be unduly expensive, and it will provide an economic stimulus. Everybody could win, if some people weren’t so intent on seeing that to it that someone lose.
The government needs first to relieve the Big Three of their onerous union contracts. It can do that either through the bankruptcy courts or by fiat, taking on Otherwise, they cannot compete and will never be viable. Then, the government can bail out the party that really needs the bail-out
Sorry, banks and financial institutions do NOT sell something with tires you can kick. (I hate when that happens.)
Ray S,
First, thanks for the Obama guy; he looks promising for our economy … in Michigan.
Second, in light of recent developments regarding the Big Three automakers, their downward-spiraling fortunes, and the upward-spiraling bailout of said companies, I would like to thank you, on behalf of all the overpaid UAW Michigan residents in advance for agreeing to the bailout.
Now all those middle-aged Michigan semi-skilled workers earning six figure salaries, life time health care benefits, unsustainable pensions, and enjoying easy work loads (yup, I have worked in union shops as a line worker) can continue to enjoy their lifestyle on your nickel directly, rather than through the marketplace, which has been stubbornly uncooperative in providing money for this system.
We anticipate no longer needing your cash about the same time that Michigan’s farmers refuse your money. (You do know about farm subsidies, right?) At this point, Michigan has not been able to set up direct withdrawal from your paychecks, but perhaps in the near future Speaker Pelosi et al will arrange for that.
(end sarcasm)
Having worked at more than one union-organized manufacturing shop in my youth as a part-puller, deburrer, and other such jobs before I went to college, I never met a more clueless and lazy worker class than the Michigan union worker, except perhaps state employees.
There are now nearly 40 companies that have received or requested taxpayer bail-out money. Some, like American Express, probably do not need the money. I am reminded of Lincoln’s description of all those seeking Federal dollars in his time – “There are too many piglets for the tits.”
chsw
cant believe they arent allowing vouchers, talk about a soft tyranny