How Milton Friedman helped end the Draft:

At one point, Westmoreland declared that he did not want to command an army of "mercenaries."

"I stopped him and said, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Friedman later recalled. "He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.'"

U.S. officials ended the draft in 1973.

I met Milton quite a few times at Libertarian Party functions around Stanford in the early 80s. He was a Libertarian hero and, despite being ’Republican’, was a nearly pure-L libertarian. He always wanted the Lib Party to be as pure as possible, to advocate freedom from an economic view but also with freedom as a moral good. He thought bringing the pure Liberty argument into the political discussion would change the debate, in a similar fashion but a 180 degrees different direction as the Socialist view of the early 20th century.

He was great. He’ll be missed. We were proud and pleased when he visited Bratislava, Slovakia. (See the F.A. Hayek Foundation, but Hayek.sk is just in Slovak, so far.)

David Boaz lists many of Friedman’s pioneering ideas, the World Turner shows how he mattered.

"The collectivist ideas that had dominated the 20th century were being replaced by a more libertarian spirit.

And not just in England and the United States. The success of the free market in Chile influenced other Latin American countries to move away from their long tradition of interventionism and tentatively embrace markets. About a decade after Reagan's election, the Soviet empire collapsed, and many of the new leaders in eastern and central Europe turned out to be readers of... Milton Friedman."

My comment:
Thanks, David, for highlighting how successful the Chilean "Chicago Boys" experiment was -- so much more so than Castro's which started 10 years earlier.

The attacks on Pinochet for real human rights abuses, and even murders, are driven more by a hatred of successful capitalism than a hatred of murder (as you imply by the lack of criticism of China, whose leaders have murdered far more).

Milton was also influencial in Slovakia (with some Cato supported F.A. Hayek Foundation think tank ideas) -- we have a 19% flat rate tax, and a 3 pillar pension system including choice of where to invest for our required 2nd pillar. (1st pillar insurance for all poor and old; 3rd pillar tax advantaged private savings, like IRAs).

Really nice quotes you've added, too.

Your own Cato Institute is perhaps the leading proponent of many of Friedman's ideas. Please continue following the advice I heard Milton often offer to Libertarians -- advocate the pure-L libertarian position, to shift the terms of the realpolitik debate.


Ralph Kinney Bennet has one of the most notable remberances, of being 29 years younger but playing Tennis with Milton

"I began to notice that although his face was relaxed, even smiling at times, the eyes behind his glasses were very concentrated. He looked like a man enjoying himself as he moved about in the sunlight, but his eyes seemed almost apart from him and focused on nothing but the ball."

Not a big surprise in the ending, but very worth reading, a fine story, with such a refreshing lesson.

"At peace with his own strengths and weaknesses" -- what a nice balance to strive for and achieve.

I'm really glad he lived so well, and so long.

I hope the US Congress considers a better School Vouchers program, as a suitable monument to a great thinker.

The USA can not "win" -- only Iraqis can win.
The Kurds have pretty much "won" in Kurdish Iraq.

The Kurds and their rapid development are proof that Bush & Rummy had the right "strategy".

But Arab Sunni Iraqis killing Arab Shia Iraqis is choice made by the Sunnis; and increasingly the Shia.  The USA military can NOT investigate, arrest, and bring to justice the Sunni murderers -- so the Shia are grouping into death squads to do it.  Death squad justice is better than none.

The S. Viet were corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly -- all good reasons for the Dems elected in 1974 to cut aid.
But the S. Viet support for human rights was much BETTER than the N. Viet who then violated their '73 signed Peace Accords and attacked.

The US should be pushing internet availability of Iraqi gov't expenses to fight corruption; continue training the Iraqi forces, but with the BEST US troops, not the "B-teams" of reserves; and the US should continue to support those Iraqi forces who DO show up, and DO fight (and are not cowards).

Probably would be good to have bigger US provided cash bonuses to Iraqi Army units who perform well.  The Iraqi democracy victory depends on them.

The mostly Arab deaths in Iraq need to blamed correctly -- on the murderous Sunni and Shia Arabs.  Muslims murdering Muslims, trying to stop democracy.
(See Oliver North on Iraq and Vietnam)

Patterico agrees with but also criticizes a quick note of Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah says: “The Iraq war was a mistake.
…And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003.”

The concept of >Knowledge< should mean something like knowing a) Saddam will be able to make nukes within 5 years, or b) will not be able to.


Jonah: “The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do. Washington's more important intelligence failure lay in underestimating what would be required to rebuild and restore post-Hussein Iraq. The White House did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq, never planned for it and would not have deemed it in the U.S. interest to pay this high a price in prestige, treasure and, of course, lives.”


Jonah: “I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay.
… [not just polls]
If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor.”

Both Jonah and Patterico fail to discuss what a "mistake" means. It means a bad decision, not a bad outcome. Decisions are made at a point in time, and influence the outcome, which is ALWAYS a bit unknown at the time. Good decisions sometimes result in bad outcomes; but especially when every decision will result in a bad or worse outcome.

Taking out Iraq after Afghanistan was the right decision, and the only one which makes sure Saddam doesn't have nukes or other WMDs. Not attacking means the French continue pushing to end sanctions ("the US led sanctions kill 50 000 Iraq children every year..." or was that 500 000 ?), and certainly will be increasing support for Saddam.

On WMDs, alone, taking out Saddam was correct.

On the post-Liberation planning, looking at the successful, mostly peaceful Kurds -- Rumsfeld was right, Bush had an OK plan, leave it up to the Iraqis. (An oil trust for all registered voters would have been better, as would local district representatives instead of extremist supporting proportional representation party lists.)

The Arab Iraqis, especially Sunni and Shia extremists, are responsible for the violence.
Not Bush, not America. Iraqis.

Iraqis murdering other Iraqis -- and lying about "not knowing" who the murderers are.

The conservative pro-war frustration is that we haven't "won", and don't seem able to. This idea is a mistake, because only Iraqi Arabs can win, like Iraqi Kurds pretty much already have.

Bush needs to publicly blame the Arabs Islamists, over and over, on how they are murdering/ killing innocent Muslims. The US should have been keeping track of the deaths of Iraqis, too.

The US needs to be in Iraq to make sure the pro-democracy Arabs know their gov't soldiers can get enough US support to win any real battle they choose to fight.

Jonah's idea of letting Iraqis vote is OK -- Bush should formally ask Maliki a yes/no question, should America withdraw its troops? Let their gov't give a "vote of confidence" on keeping US troops there or not.

Patterico's idea of NOT patrolling is also OK -- patrolling costs US lives. A 'lot', when they don't speak the language. Another mistake since Bush 41, & Clinton, & Bush 43 is the lack of Arabic language training. There should be big Army bonuses for those who quickly learn Arabic, and there should be Skype based interviews sent from Iraq back to be translated into English (& both texts) in America. Possibly with civilian gay Arabic speakers working for the army but not in the army -- and Jews and others who speak Arabic.


But if the US commanders think patrols with Iraqis will be better, I'd trust their decision to risk soldier lives more than Patterico's.

On cash, Bush should call for an immediate end to government aid, to be replaced with US supported Iraqi municipal bonds. Cash on loan that Iraqis will repay -- but that Iraqis, not US decision makers, will decide how to spend. So if the terrorists destroy newly built stuff, they're destroying Iraqi stuff, not US gifts.

Austin Bay links to his StrategyPage note on how China has "lost face" with North Korea blasting off a nuke (or perhaps even a dud):
"In Shen's words, China's diplomacy has also "been a failure."

Kim's nuke test publicly exposes China's failure -- a major power's failure on its own border."

While I do not actually believe that China has lost as much face as Bush, and therefore has done relatively better (in losing less), Austin's conclusions seem correct:

"Forcing North Korea to kowtow (in the regional parlance) is a way for China to re-establish its political position.
But this must be done without resort to war. That suggests a land and maritime embargo of North Korea, with the Hermit Kingdom's borders hermetically sealed. An embargo is the "stick" the Bush administration's "six-nation" diplomacy lacked. Such a cooperative international operation might actually "pry the nukes" from Pyongyang. An effective embargo requires a committed China. It's time for China to demonstrate the political will to protect its own linked economic interests."

If Austin is correct about China's face loss, a tight blockade should be easy to arrange.  If I am correct, China will talk tough rhetoric, but continue supplying cover for Kim Song-Il's madness, and trade with the N. Koreans to keep Kim in power.

Joe Katzman at Winds Of Change discusses the N. Korea problem more clearly:
"Forget North Korea ...
The truth is that North Korea is an irrelevant bit player in this whole drama. The real player here is China. They have helped North Korea at every step, and North Korea's regime cannot survive at all without their ongoing food and fuel aid. Kim Jong-Il's nuclear plans may be slightly inconvenient to the Chinese - just not not inconvenient enough to derail a strategy that still promises net plusses to those pursuing it within China's dictatorship."

Joe claims China is pursuing a two-faced strategy, to avoid Kim's destruction (and having 25 mil. refugees on the border) while supporting anti-American forces in S. Korea.  The goal, Finlandization of S. Korea, with China having the veto power.  The answer?

"The biggest cost, and the only one that will be real to [China] in any sense, is to have Kim Jong-Il's nuclear detonation result in parallel nuclear proliferation among the nearby states China wishes to dominate/ bully. That would be a foreign policy disaster for the Chinese, and would cause the current architects of China's North Korea policy to be buried along with their policy."

Victor Davis Hanson is also calling for US support of democracies having nukes.  I think the idea of supporting other democracies having nukes is a great carrot for allowing more countries into the nuke club, but pushing democracy.

Yet I think a "democracy proliferation is acceptable" strategy is good.

However, for actually getting China to act, there should be an immediate 10% import tax on all Chinese goods into the US.  Until N. Korea disarms.  Or until China allows S. Korea/US/Japanese joint blockade inspections on trade going into North Korea, and only allow minimal food+medicine.
China pushing for regime change in N. Korea is the solution.
10% import tax, increasing 1% every quarter, is a better answer than proliferation.

Glenn at Instapundit is wondering why we are losing momentum in Iraq. He quotes Iraq the Model approvingly:
"this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran." That seems right to me, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has let the momentum grind to a halt.

Glenn quotes TM Lutas saying he's wrong:
"The US is fundamentally trying to slow things down, occasionally biting where it chooses, chewing, and swallowing chunks of Al Queda and company at its convenience. Al Queda tries to make it politically impossible to maintain a sustainable pace so that the US is forced by political realities into burnout, leading to an opportunity where Al Queda can actually claim a durable military victory."

Glenn quotes an email from Barry Dauphin:
to paraphrase someone else, you go to war with the democracy that you have. Democracies have to fight wars with a certain level of popular support or they can't genuinely fight. Bush's approval ratings aren't low because we haven't invaded Syria, but because Iraq is so very difficult.

Finally he quotes an anonymous source:
The Pentagon strategy is a very deliberate form of tough love that is forcing the Iraqis to defend their own country. Arabs are culturally the most passive, fence-sitting people on the planet. By their own admission they follow the strongest leader out there.

This is almost correct.  Tough love is about growing up. 
This is the Iraqi "War for Independence."  After it is won, those Iraqis who were murdered while standing in lines to join the Police or the Army, they will be Iraqi heros.  Most survivors will be for a democratic Iraq, and claim to have always been strongly in favor.

The Iraq war is an Iraq story, not an American story.  (Just like Vietnam was not really an American story.)  In the Harry Potter stories, it is Harry who must slowly gain the strength to face evil Voldemort (Islamofacists are deatheaters!)

Iraq is the Harry Potter in the Iraq war story.  America is Hermione and Ron, and Dumbledore too -- supporting Harry, often doing things, but the decisive actions are Harry's actions. 

Both Reps and Dems have the problem of pretending that the Iraq War is an American story, so that either we are main character Harry or main evil (Bush is Hitler/ Voldemort!).

If this was the Lord of the Rings, America would be Gondor, and Iraq would be Frodo.

Glenn earlier talks about Mark Steyn's upcoming book, America alone.

The real reason America is alone is because Western Civilization is missing a myth, missing a story -- of how a Good, Strong King can still be fighting against weak, evil people.
Either the King is Good but weak; or Strong but not so good -- or else he's not much involved in the story.

The story from Bin Laden is usally both -- America is NOT good (Great Satan), AND America is weak (Vietnam, Shah of Iran, Somalia, Rwanda ... and Iraq).


Finally, Glenn's anonymous source correctly concludes with comparisons, something the MSM fails to do, with the Iraq action and some French and Russian actions.

The French lost 18,000 in Algeria, a KIA rate three and a half times ours. The Soviets lost 14,000 in Afghanistan, a KIA rate twice ours. The Russians officially lost 5500 in the First Chechen War of 1994-96, but Soldiers' Mothers of Russia puts the actual number at 14,000, a KIA rate ten times ours. Nobody knows how many Russian troops have died in the Second Chechen War, but Soldiers' Mothers of Russia had the number at 11,000 by 2003.

Our strategy in Iraq is sound. It's keeping our own casualties down, and it's forcing the Iraqis to defend themselves.

Don't despair. We're winning.

Yes. "We" are winning -- but actually, only Iraq can win. We just share.

++In this WSJ article, returning from Iraq First Lt. Pete Hegseth argues for more troops (it should be fully read):

The future of Samarra, and Iraq as a whole, ultimately lies in the hands of her people--their sympathies are the ultimate prize in this war. No matter how many insurgents we kill, city leaders we meet or policemen we enlist, it is all for naught if we cannot provide security and stability. Tribal sheikhs told us that even within Samarra--deep in the Sunni triangle--a vast majority of people just want peace and order and will side with whoever can provide it.

The end goal in Samarra is for Iraqis to do everything for themselves. But their government and security forces are not ready. Insurgents use death threats and murder to assert power over anyone working with the City Council or joining the police force. This atmosphere forces moderate Samarrans to keep their mouths shut, and their silence abets the insurgents who live and fight in Samarra. Despite killing scores of insurgents, we are unable to provide lasting security, and so the Samarran street slips away.

How terrorists successfully terrorize moderates certainly needs to be told more.  If I believed that more troops would make the moderate Samarrans brave enough, sure of winning, to fight the terrorists by merely calling in where the terrorists are staying, then I'd favor more troops.  I flatly do not believe that the 'moderates' will really do so for US, or primarily US forces.

"Rather than take the risks necessary--like small patrol bases and frequent foot patrols--our unit opted to secure itself and its supply routes rather than commit resources inside the city. And while this approach is safer in the short run, it only prolongs mission accomplishment, ultimately endangering more troops."

Here is where Lt. Hegseth is wrong about the mission.  He thinks the mission is to kill insurgents.  No.

The mission is to create an Iraqi Security Force able and willing to kill the insurgents.

His own analysis shows why more troops would not succeed in the mission of creating a stronger Iraqi Security Force:

"American troops are tolerated, even welcomed when they effectively provide security; but their presence is cursed when it does not accompany progress. Violence persists not because American troops are present, but because our presence is futile. Many local leaders asked us, "How come the most powerful country in the world cannot defeat local criminals and thugs?" They suggested our failure was part of a larger conspiracy to keep the Iraqi people suffering."

The local leaders want the USA to do the work of defeating local criminals and thugs -- so that they local leaders can get the security benefit AND blame the US for any problems.

NO. NO. NO.  Violence persists because the "local leaders" are NOT leading the Iraqi people to actively STOP the violence, by telling the US and Iraqi forces who the terrorists are.

Iraqi violence needs to be owned by the Iraqi leaders, and the US military mission is to ensure that local Iraqi pro-democracy leaders can win any battle they are willing to fight.

If Rummy is saying that the US job is to end the insurgency, he is wrong.  He should be saying that it's the job of the Iraqi leaders to end the insurgency, and we are there to make sure they don't lose any significant battles.

Key Judgments  of the NIE -- leaving Iraq would Increase terrorism.

This is the key finding that must be asked of every Dem.  Do they support leaving Iraq and increasing terrorism, or do they support staying until victory -- until Iraq is a stable democracy.

Google billionaires are starting some good aid agencies, with google.org, their philanthropic arm.

What they really need, instead of trying to have a "for profit non-profit" is alternate goal that is still sustainable.

They need to form Employment Maximizing companies, to voluntarily hire as many people as possible.

Transparency bill So Bill Frist has gotten Senate Approval of the Transparency bill -- GREAT!

It would be good for the Reps to
a) publicize this bill and victory,
b) attempt a NEW bill to extend this transparency to all US foreign aid, and
c) attempt a NEW bill to require this level of detail from the United Nations.

There are NO defense secrets at the UN -- every expenditure, as well as every memo, email, official visit, lunch, and document should be public knowledge and publicly available on the internet.

Priests for Life Father Pavone and his Priests for Life are openly supporting politicians committed to support for unborn babies, and against killing people (euthanasia) for the convenience of others.

As I argue at other Pro-Life gatherings, what is most important is to create a culture where every mother wants her baby to be born.  Adoption, rather than abortion; but also abstinence rather than promiscuity. 

Abstinence to get love, rather than casual sex & hooking up to enjoy animal lusts.

On poverty, every woman should be offered a job.  The Church needs to be looking at how to offer more jobs to poor people.  I suggest employment maximizing companies.

Iraq lessons Great start on these  from Clifford May.  Better intel,  Iraqi gov't in exile,  stem militias (but my way below a bit more direct than his), more forceful anti-intervention from Syria and Iran, and especially more publicity from Bush that fighting an insurgency is long, slow, and hard.

 
First lesson, on philosophy:
Only Iraqis can win in Iraq -- this should always have been known, supported, and promoted.

Where is language training? Since 9/11, everybody in the US military, and the Reserves, should be required to take Arabic (or Farsi - Persian, Iran) lessons; with those showing an aptitude to get bonus cash and possible promotion.  And a transfer to Iraq.

Where is the big military program to learn how to do most rapid language learning?  Open source English-Arabic on-line dictionaries and translation?  Verbal Arabic Words to Text programs, and recordings; as well as Optical Character Scanning of Arabic documents.

 

On political organization, why not use Switzerland as a better model?  The terrible Proportional Representation democracy, like Israel and most Euro countries have, contributes to democratic fanaticism.  Geographic districts would be much better, and less radical.  The 18 Iraq provinces could become like Swiss Cantons.  And Iraq would be more peaceful, sooner, if they did.

An Oil-Fund for Iraq citizens should have been declared, and cash distributed to those registering for it -- which would become a voter reg replacement to the food ration cards.

Voters, citizens, plus their houses AND cars should have been registered in computer DBs.  And the cars tracked more closely.

The imperfect Iraqi leader we had, Chalabi, needed more unified US support -- to be clearly only a transition figure. 

Local elections for a mayor/ city councilors should have been done immediately -- and the non-officer Army men should have been recalled to their parent's homes to form a local Security Force, to replace the police force (usually police are more corrupt than army conscripts); and to be under the control of the city council appointed head Sheriff. 

US reconstruction aid should only go thru elected local Iraqis -- with a local Data Base of all expenditures (like what PorkBusters wants for the US!). 

But MOST reconstruction cash should be municipal bonds, which the US gov't underwrites, controlled by the Iraqis.  So when Iraqi terrorists destroy reconstruction, they're destroying Iraqi reconstruction.

Condi Rice and Rumsfeld should agree with Pres. Bush on some Public Relations strategy for the disarming of Hezbollah.

I suggest calling for some 50 000 strong international security force, to join with the Lebanese Army in a 70-50 (~ 59:41) ratio, with a mandate to take over security duties in the Hezbollah controlled areas, and disarm Hezbollah.

The US should support an immediate cease-fire when those 50 000 troops are in Lebanon.

And possibly not before.  And if that means the mission, disarm Hezbollah, must be agreed to before, then that agreement in the international community must be the first step.

China and Russia, France and Britain, each should be asked for 10 000 troops for such a mission.

Starting with troop commitments will likely mean ceasefire delay -- but will also focus those who complain about Israel, and whether they are serious about disarming Hezbollah, and helping Lebanon assert sovereignty -- the monopoly of legitimate force on that territory.

The disarming of Hezbollah must be part of any "sustainable ceasefire". 

If the current UN mission doesn't include that job, they should leave -- and stop being voluntary UN human shields for Hezbollah terrorists and murderers.

Born July 11, 1956, I just turned 50.
Most of my life I expected to live with communism, and the Iron Curtain -- despite knowing that economically forced socialism fails.  Voluntary socialism usually fails too, because people leave it if they can -- but the Church sort of works on a sort of voluntary socialist method.  More on this later.

I reread Rerum Novarum,  after 115 years, still relevant.  More later.

The election of Hamas and the Lebanese support for Hezbollah, and their desire to fight Israel and kill Jews rather than build Palestine or Lebanon, respectively, means a "war" is inevitable.

I support victory for the west, victory for human rights; and while I support democracy, the goal is human rights--democracy is the main gov't path.

Free speech and Free religion, the two key peace-oriented rights.

My main blog: tomgrey.motime.com