Bush tax cut a boon to foreign workers
President Bush says his $13 billion tax cut is paying off, starting to stimulate the daylights out of the dysfunctional U.S. economy. In his weekly radio address, which came out on Saturday of Labor Day Weekend 2003, Bush said:
"This tax relief means that America's workers can save, invest and make purchases they have been putting off. Many moms and dads are using their extra income to take care of back-to-school expenses. As consumer spending rises, manufacturers are seeing more new orders for their goods."
The president and many among his Republican majority in Congress, in passing the huge tax cut, frequently cited President John F. Kennedy's 1962 tax cut, deemed a success because of economic gains made in its wake.
Trouble is, this isn't 1962, the U.S. economy is not at all like it was in 1962 and a very large percentage of those manufacturers seeing orders increase because of Bush's tax cut are located in China, Korea, Mexico, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries.
In 1962, the overwhelming majority of consumer goods on the shelves of U.S. stores were designed, manufactured, advertised, shipped, sold and serviced in the U.S. Consumers of 1962 who bought those goods put and kept U.S. workers in jobs at U.S. companies. In 1962 no goods produced in mainland China were for sale in the U.S. Last year, American consumers bought a whopping $103 billion worth of goods from China alone, 28 percent of those goods being high-tech products such as computers, TVs, DVD players and recorders, and the like. U.S. consumers of 2003 who go out and buy, buy, buy are helping to put and keep a whole lot of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mexican and other non-U.S. workers in jobs in their respective countries.
Those foreign workers will indeed spend and save their wages, generating sales and profits for businesses, revenues for governments and working capital for business expansion. The problem for Americans is, those businesses, governments and entrepreneurs will be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., and almost none of that spending by foreign workers will benefit workers, taxpayers and consumers in the U.S. In fact, in time, those foreign economies strengthened all the more by Bush and the Republican Congress' tax cut will just be in better competing trim to finish off the destruction of the U.S. economy that is well under way.
If you doubt any of this, go to your nearest Wal Mart, Kmart or Sears, check lots of labels for "Made in ..." and see what you find. You'll get an eye-opening insight into why the U.S. has 9 million people unemployed and more being thrown out of work every month in the longest sustained period of job losses since the Great Depression.
Bush's radio statement, like his tax cut, is just more solid evidence that he doesn't know jack squat about economic policy. At least, he knows little beyond advancing the interests of the energy and financial industries, drug and other big corporations, and seeing to it those in his favored class of millionaires and billionaires get $93,500 tax-cut kickbacks from the U.S. treasury.
And by the way, those millionaires and billionaires didn't get rich betting on losers. You can be sure most who invest their $93,500 windfall will put the money into investments in foreign countries, where economies are booming, not into struggling U.S. companies.
All of this adds up to plenty of incentive for millions of independents, moderate Republicans and those who usually don't vote to go to the polls in 2004, to send Bush and his far-right loyalists in Congress a message: "Don't mess with taxes!"
— By S.W. Anderson
They distort; You decide
Where is it written that every cable news channel must have at least one arrogant, overbearing, blowhard hosting what is supposed to be a talk show? Preferably, two or three. Preferably, each of them politically to the right of Jesse Helms.
If you've spent more than a few moments viewing Fox, MSNBC, CNBC or CNN, you know the drill. Mr. Knowitall introduces a topic carefully chosen, too often, to bait viewers nursing a big, ugly grudge against some element of society or harboring some insecurity or resentment. Sometimes the topic focuses on a seemingly ominous challenge to tradition or conventional thinking. Say, for instance:
"A professor at Fudgewallow College tells her students it's better to just live together until they're at least 30 than to get married. Now, she's put the idea out in a book. We'll ask the professor what this is all about after this message. . ."
The academic is introduced and given 20 seconds to capsulize the thinking behind an entire course and book. Then, Mr. Knowitall proceeds to rip into her, typically jumping to conclusions, twisting the guest's words, putting words in her mouth or otherwise foreclosing any chance of providing a clear understanding of the topic. When the prof tries to explain what she really said, meant, thought or taught, Mr. Knowitall interrupts her, talks over, around and through her, throws her on the floor, so to speak, and stomps her but good.
The idea isn't to enlighten or inform. It's to let Mr. Knowitall, through his questions, expressions of disagreement, distaste, disapproval, etc., strike blows that elicit in viewers a "yeah, man, hit her again" response. So viewers get a vicarious chance to strike blows against things in modern life and changing society that they perhaps don't understand but do fear and resent. And, of course, Mr. Knowitall gets to play the hero of the piece, boosting his already oversized ego.
People who've heard the professor explain her thoughts elsewhere, where she could complete two sentences or more in a row, know what she's trying to do is help stem the high divorce rate among twentysomethings. She doesn't like or particularly approve of people living together out of wedlock. But as she will explain, if given a chance, the alternative to rushing into marriage that she suggests offers some sensible advantages for some people and for society.
"C'mon, professor, this is just the shackin' up that people without moral standards have been doing for a long, long time, isn't it? It's playing house without having to pay the rent, right?" asks Mr. Knowitall, adding, "It's just one more blow against traditional family values, against marriage, that ivory-tower liberals are brainwashing our kids into thinking is all right, that's what you're really doing!
"That's how I see it, but I'll give you the last word. Go ahead, you've got seven seconds."
The professor responds, "Well, as I was trying to tell you . . ."
"Uh-oh, sorry, prof, gotta go. After the break, what happened when a crusading prosecutor tried to shut down an X-rated bakery. That's right — porno pastries and dirty donuts. Keep it right here and we'll be right back."
This is the modus operandi of Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity, of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, of CNN's Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak. They are the playground bullies of squawk TV.
To appreciate how decent, fair, informative interviews can be conducted, watch with a discerning eye how CNN's Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs, CNBC's Keith Olbermann and Lester Holt, and MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams operate. Unlike Mr. Knowitall, they're class acts whose primary objective is providing a clearer understanding of whatever is under discussion. They're not self-promoting egotists hell-bent on impressing everyone with how right-thinking, knowledgeable and no-nonsense they are. They're skilled pros who know the value of letting the subject be the story and who possess the self-confidence to play it straight.
As viewers, we would do well to reward quality by being discriminating about who we watch and refuse to watch. Network decision makers let the ratings be their guide, so what is at stake is what will be available to us and to our children in the future — more Woodruffs and Williamses or more Mr. Knowitalls.
— By S.W. Anderson
Trend line looks like bad noose for Bush
Poll results reported this week on CNN indicate that if the election were to be held now, in August 2003, 43 percent of voters would vote to re-elect George W. Bush, while 43 percent would vote for any Democratic challenger.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It hasn't been that long since the nation's first judicially appointed chief executive enjoyed poll-result approval margins that ranged from very comfortable to sky high.
The any-Democrat aspect of this seems especially meaningful because it does not pit Bush against a particular toothpaste-ad smile, charisma package or hunk of burning Potomac fever. Rather, it smacks of an incipient anyone-but-Bush sentiment abroad in the land. Reasons for a big uptick in dissatisfaction abound, as they have from the spring of 2001. What's different is that this poll caught the president with his distractions down.
Back in the spring of 2002, as shock and preoccupation with the 9-11 attack and the war in Afghanistan began to wear off, attention turned to the economy. Not a pretty sight, that. Unemployment was high and rising, along with business failures and personal bankruptcies. With corporate CEOs downsizing, outsourcing and globalizing with a vengeance; benefits running out for increasing numbers of long-term unemployed; and any thought of business expansion drowning in tidal waves of cheap imports, the Bush administration became the focal point of pointed questions. Where were all those jobs the president's first huge tax cut was supposed to create? Where was the recovery that was supposed to get business moving again, get people back to work and make Wall Street appear a suitable final resting place for a privatized Social Security system? And, by the way, why weren't Enron CEO Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay and his henchmen being tried and sent to jail?
The news out of Washington, D.C., revealed an administration whose stable of economic soothsayers — arguably the most mediocre pack of supply-side ideologues and ineffectual yes men since the Hoover years — offered nothing but bland nostrums and vague reassurances. To make matter worse, congressional elections were coming up. Something had to be done, quickly. As newspaper editorials and on-air commentators turned up the heat, the president responded in his trademark decisive way. First, he replaced his economic team with a fresh set of trickle-down nonentities. The importance of their advice and counsel were soon underscored when the president relocated them from the White House to other D.C. accommodations. Secondly, Bush unveiled his economic policy: another and much bigger tax cut.
Last and certainly most important, from the standpoint of covering his political assets, Bush began beating the drums, loudly and daily, for his planned war with Iraq. After all, there's nothing like all-out war, with some spectacular bombing, fighting and dying, all of it displayed in live, round-the-clock TV coverage, to take people's minds off a few pesky domestic problems. And who knew, maybe by the time Saddam Hussein was in custody or proven dead with DNA certainty, the business cycle would rebound and everybody would be happy.
Here we are, a year and a couple of months later. Wall Street is looking less like a marathon demolition derby, but people who know their stuff say real underlying unemployment is about 10.5 percent and not budging. The economy is still losing jobs, not adding them. Forty-six of the 50 states have had to boost taxes and/or cut services because of severe fiscal problems. The effects of their actions can be expected to greatly blunt any stimulus effect from the latest federal tax cut. Meanwhile, the federal deficit is projected to be $480 billion (down from a projected $2 trillion to $5 trillion surplus when Bush became president). Our latest record trade deficit stands at $300 billion so far for the year, to be $530 billion by year's end. And should some lender country or group of lender countries wish to put the slats to any possibility of a U.S. economic recovery, they need only demand higher interest on all that trade-imbalance debt they are financing.
Iraq is all ours now and in barely coping mode it's costing us $4.5 billion, give or take, per month. Actual restoration and democratization will take years and cost tens or hundreds of billions, depending on who's doing the predicting. And then there are the daily casualties, which now number more American lives lost since Bush declared major hostilities over than were suffered during the invasion.
Oh, by the way, people are still asking, why aren't Enron CEO Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay and his henchmen being tried and sent to jail?
Come on, all together now, let's hear it for W:
"Uh-oh!"
— By S.W. Anderson
Kerry should rethink trade position
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., really doesn't get it — the part about "it's the economy."
In an Iowa Public Television interview from last week rebroadcast on C-SPAN Sunday, the senator was asked what to do about the outflow of jobs to foreign countries and the resulting stubborn high unemployment hurting so many Americans.
Kerry gave his stock answer: People shouldn't jump to the conclusion we must adopt any kind of trade barriers; during the Clinton administration, "we" created 23 million jobs (with the implication that most of those jobs were the direct result of free trade and globalization-friendly policies). Kerry concedes, eventually, that there is some unfairness; the playing field is not always level.
And what would the good senator do about that? He said we can all be assured that as president he will not sign any trade legislation that does not seek to raise wages and hours standards for foreign workers, to bring them up to what they are in America.
OK, let's look at that. First, it's a little late in the game to simply say that from here on out we're going to impose standards on trading partners. We're already up to our eyeballs in bad deals: the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, numerous bilateral free-trade agreements with nations large and small. And, we've got the year-after-year record trade deficits to show for it. So far this year, we're up to $250 billion more bought from foreign sellers than foreign customers have purchased from us. Projections for the full year are for a blockbuster $530 billion trade deficit -- the latest in a steady string of record-breaking trade deficits stretching back to ratification of NAFTA and our entrance into the WTO.
In seeking Congress' approval for granting China permanent normal trade relations status three years ago, President Clinton stressed that making that change would mean more exports to China and more jobs for Americans. Instead, our trade deficit with China has grown by more than 25 percent, to $103 billion of last year's $435 billion trade deficit. In March, China was holding $316 billion U.S. dollars or IOUs, which is a huge claim against our economy.
Aside from the direction of flow of jobs, to China and elsewhere, and money, to China and elsewhere; and goods, debt and unemployment, to the U.S., there is the matter of getting countries such as China to do what they don't want to do. In free-trade theory and supposedly in our treaties, U.S. firms are not supposed to have to compete with foreign firms operated or subsidized by governments. In reality, in the authoritarian, completely closed police state of China, the government funds, assists, operates or otherwise involves itself in any and every enterprise it chooses to be involved in. Valuation of China's currency, which many believe is being held ridiculously low to perpetuate China's already huge trade advantage, is entirely China's business.
There is no mechanism for oversight for any of this. No penalty is mentioned, much less levied. China's leaders are busy doing as they see fit. America's leaders are busy not making waves with China's leaders. That is the reality.
Obviously, "we" -- Clinton and Kerry -- got it dead wrong in 2000. As a result, millions of Americans are out of a job, millions more have settled for low-pay, no-benefits, make-do jobs, and the gutting of the U.S. economy continues apace.
Kerry, who has a long and overall admirable record of public service, whose stand on so many issues is excellent, has a lot to offer the country as president. But on a critically important issue, one fully as important as the war on terrorism, his thinking is wrong-headed and muddled. He ought to pull his wagon to the side of the campaign trail long enough to rethink free trade, globalization and what it will take to make right some crucially important things his Senate votes have helped make so destructively wrong.
Economic ignorance a luxury we can't afford
Ever wonder how the U.S. economy got into such a mess -- stock market struggling feebly to get out of a three-year trough; 6.7 percent unemployment, officially, 10.5 percent more realistically; jobs, businesses and whole industries leaving the country in droves; 10 years of record-breaking trade deficits ($245 billion so far this year, going for $530 billion by year's end); the federal budget locked into huge deficits for the foreseeable future, and the term "job security" has become a sarcastic joke? For a clue, read on . . .
For the first dozen decades of U.S. history, most Americans lived in rural settings and engaged in farming, ranching, logging, mining, hunting, fishing and related activities. In hard times they could get by largely on crops they could grow, meat and fowl from hunting, fish they caught, and so forth. The economy of currency, of purchased goods and services, of banks and investments, was of little importance.
The minority of Americans who lived in cities, worked in factories or shipyards, or for the railroads and such, were the forerunners of today's average American. Unlike their country cousins, who mostly homesteaded on land free for the taking along the paths of westward migration, city dwellers mostly rented quarters and depended on an employer. If they lost their job in hard times they were obliged to sell their possessions, seek charity or go out to the countryside to live off the land.
Economics were direct and simple for most rural Americans of decades past. They worked hard all the time. In good years, they could produce more than the family needed and sell their surplus for money. They could spend, save or invest the money. In bad times, they could subsist largely on what they could produce, perhaps with some additional bartering. They thus needed very little economic education to deal effectively with the demands of their lives. Intuition and common sense usually sufficed.
Relatively few Americans live on the land these days and subsistence farming is negligible. Most of us live in urban-suburban settings and are completely dependent on the money economy, the paycheck economy. What's more, most are heavily if not completely dependent on businesses and individuals removed from them by several layers of the economic and political power structure, and by vast geographic distances. Yet, to their great and obvious disadvantage, most Americans today navigate the economy using the same few and rudimentary tools their great-great grandparents used.
Consider: Public schools do not teach economics as a separate subject; what little is taught is incorporated into the often bland stew served up as "social studies." Colleges and universities only require economics be taken by those seeking degrees in business or economics. So, very few Americans receive any significant formal education in economics -- and it shows.
Widespread ignorance of economics explains how and why this country has gone from being the world's largest lender nation to being among its biggest debtors within a generation. It's no surprise that we created the "tech bubble," tuned out as our manufacturing capability deteriorated drastically and adopted a so-what attitude about the decline of organized labor.
No surprise, then, that we're on our third president in a quarter century who perpetrates trickle-down, "voodoo economics" and the second who adheres unquestioningly to the crackpot theory of free trade and, for good measure, is all in favor of globalization. People who bought into all this nonsense (or let it go right over their heads) went to the polls in sufficient numbers to elect these bozos. And to go with them, people voted in a host of members of both houses of Congress who are economic dunces as well. The upshot is that many Americans who are not rich, powerful and well connected are paying a high price for their ignorance of economics.
What is to be done? It's too much to expect large numbers will play catch-up ball, learning as adults what was not learned in youth. That is, unless the economy collapses. As 9-11 recently demonstrated, calamities tend to focus the mind and spur people to take seriously things they were long content to blow off. Short of that, people can read, discuss, ask hard questions of candidates for public office and at least try to check with reliable sources for second opinions on the answers the candidates give.
Last but not least, we would all do well start talking to our local and state education officials about making economics a separate and required course for all high school students in a pre-college program, and for all college students seeking a bachelor's degree. Just don't expect those educators to jump at the chance to teach a subject most of them failed to learn when they were students.
— By S.W. Anderson
Justice Department victimizes Enron victims
In President George Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft's America, the notion of justice delayed being justice denied takes on a whole new meaning: it's obviously their policy, at least where victims of energy industry crimes are concerned. There's no other way to explain the obscene delay in securing justice for tens of thousands of victims of Enron's criminal executives.
It's been 20 months since Enron went down, costing investors and Enron employees and their families billions. Yet, moving at the speed of continental drift and exhibiting a spectacular lack of zeal for their work, U.S. Justice Department prosecutors have yet to send even one of the Enron crooks to jail.
Incredibly, this apparent foot-dragging and lack of incarcerations is not the worst of it. While Ashcroft was preparing to set out across the country this month on a PR mission to gin-up support for the U.S.A. Patriot Act, his legal eagles lost for Enron victims $3.8 million of the pittance that might be returned to them, if only they live long enough. Talk about adding insult to injury.
The lost money was part of $11.8 million surrendered by Michael Kopper of Houston, who pleaded guilty one year ago to money laundering and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Kopper was one of those involved in partnerships the Enron crooks set up to hide the corporation's debts and pump up the appearance of profits. Kopper's vehicle was LJM2 Co-Investment LP and he was managing director of LJM2 Capital Management.
Somehow, according to the Houston Chronicle, $3.8 million of the money Kopper turned over was allowed to remain in a Charles Schwab account in the name of LJM2 Capital Management. This March, that outfit went to court to claim the money. Somehow, the Justice Department failed to go to court to argue the money should go to the people cheated by Kopper and his former boss, Andrew Fastow, at Enron. So, at the beginning of this month, a U.S. District Court judge in Houston vacated the agency's claim.
In an earlier and, some would say, a better time, the outcome of this story would be quite different. That would be a time when such a performance would result in a few Justice Department lawyers swinging at the end of ropes dangling from long branches on tall trees, adjacent to the rotting carcasses of Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow and whoever at LJM2 Capital Management had the gall and the greed to go to court to screw the Enron victims out of another $3.8 million.
Judge mistaken about Constitution, faith
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore put a granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the state's Supreme Court in Montgomery, expecting . . . ? Given that Moore reportedly installed the monument at night, in secret, it's reasonable to assume he expected trouble.
Sure enough, trouble ensued. Moore has been taken to court by Americans for Separation of Church and State and other groups concerned with civil liberties, and has lost at every step of the way. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who had given Moore nine months to remove the monument, has threatened $5,000-a-day fines for continued defiance.
Moore is not waging a lonely struggle. Crowds rallying through the week in Montgomery in support of Moore and the commandments have included such notables of the Christian right as the Rev. Jerry Falwell. If Moore is after national attention, he's certainly getting it, with guest shots on cable news channels and a segment on ABC's "Nightline." On that program, Moore insisted he would be violating the Alabama Constitution by removing the monument because by doing so he would be "disacknowledging" the religious beliefs from which the Alabama Constitution originated.
This trumped-up brouhaha makes it easy to appreciate the keenly practical reason why church and state should remain mutually respectful but forever separate and distinct in America.
This nation was founded as a representative democracy by a group of middle-aged and elderly Protestant men of Northwest European and British Isles ancestry. Interlocking church-state arrangements were the norm in the world they knew, so it would've been completely understandable if they had replicated that in the Constitution. Instead, they specifically said Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor any law forbidding the practice of religion. There is no ambiguity in this. They clearly and emphatically made the federal government separate and neutral, where religion is concerned.
To function, to even survive, every democracy requires that elected representatives and others compromise. Without compromise democracy gives way to chaos and violence. That is followed in time by a strongman -- a tyrant -- who gains power in return for restoring peace and order. By contrast, it is the essence of religious faith to believe completely and uncompromisingly in the word of God, and to put the word of God above all else. So, in a nation of people who pray to many gods of differing divine guidance, and of some who recognize no god, melding government and law with religion and faith is a recipe for deadlock leading to disaster. Justice Moore's obstinacy is a perfect case in point.
Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution will be upheld, the 5,000-pound monument will be removed from the lobby of Alabama's high court and, sadly, religious fundamentalists of Moore and Falwell's ilk will still not get it:
Faith is not a matter of what's displayed on a monument, written in a book, depicted in an icon, hung on a wall or sung as a hymn. Unlike all those things, real faith is something you carry in your mind and heart. Unlike all those things, real faith is something no government can give you and it's something no government can take away.
We can avoid a quagmire in Iraq
The thinking behind, planning for and progress of our post-invasion efforts in Iraq closely parallel our pre-invasion efforts to create a broad "coalition of the willing" to take out Saddam Hussein's regime and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Which is to say we're in deep trouble.
American soldiers are being killed every day in Iraq, picked off in ones, twos and small groups by snipers and small bands that stage sneak attacks. Yesterday, 17 people were killed and 100 injured in a truck-bombing of the United Nations' main building in Baghdad. It's apparently common knowledge that residuals of Saddam's military and political party are being joined by Arabs who hate Americans and other non-Arab outsiders, and who have slipped into Iraq from other countries. Effectively sealing the borders would require a much larger deployment than the Bush administration is willing to make.
As these daily killings continue, coalition efforts to restore public services and the economy are being thwarted by sabotage. MSNBC reported this week that oil pipeline sabotage is adding $7 million a day to the cost of our Iraq project, which is costing U.S. taxpayers billions. Just how many billions is the subject of speculation ($4 billion a month has been mentioned) because the Bush administration has spared no effort in keeping us uninformed.
Pivotal in all this are the people of Iraq. Among them are individuals who know which of their neighbors, friends and relatives have sworn to kill the Americans and drive them out. Iraqis know who has weapons, who the infiltrators are who have come into their country to kill the Americans. They know and, mostly, they keep what they know to themselves. With their willing assistance we could restore the country and be on our way with minimal loss of life. Without their help, what you see is what we can expect to get as time passes.
The typical Iraqi's attitude, as best we can tell, is very close to this: "You wanted Saddam out of power and he is out of power. You said he had many weapons of mass destruction. Well, where are they, now that you are free to look everywhere to find them?
"In the wake of your war, in which many of our people were killed and injured, you have brought us looting and chaos in the streets; outbreaks of violence, sometimes ending in the killing of innocents; disruption of commerce, leaving us no way to support ourselves; the discomfort of 130-degree heat unrelieved by fans, air conditioning and, in some places, adequate water; and our police and other public services are gone. We didn't ask you to come and we do not want you to stay. If you stay, you deserve whatever happens to you."
Also pivotal in this, however, is the Bush administration. It's not hard to imagine hearing George W. Bush saying, in his most down-home, "let me tell you how it's gonna be" way: "I'm not about to be the president who presided over the defeat that followed the victory in Iraq!"
Thus, we have the makings of a quagmire, but this need not come to pass. The answer is to put the onus on the Iraqis themselves, for it is they who will inevitably determine the outcome in their country. That is true whether the final determination comes in a month, a year or a decade.
Here is one way to do this. First, spend one week using every means of communication available, all over the country, informing all Iraqis of what is at stake and what is expected of them.
What is at stake is whatever awaits them should Americans pack up and pull out precipitously. Such a pullout could result in ongoing civil war and/or more crime and chaos. It could even mean invasion by the Iranians and/or Syrians. Saddam's return to power is another possibility.
What is expected of the Iraqis is that they will inform on and otherwise act to thwart those who seek to kill and injure our soldiers and other non-Arabs who are in Iraq to help restore the country.
So, let's put it to them: Be careful what you wish for because we will give it to you -- our best effort to leave behind, as soon as we can, a country that is independent, politically stable and economically viable, or our immediate departure. Then, give them one week to discuss the matter, after which, at an appointed hour of an appointed day, all who want U.S. forces to stay should go out into the streets and roads, all over the country, for one hour. Those who want U.S. forces to leave should remain indoors or out of sight. By plane and satellite surveillance, record and quantify the response. If it's clear a substantial majority wants our forces to leave, then, as soon as possible, our forces should withdraw, along with those of our coalition partners.
Either way, a quagmire situation will be averted. The Iraqis will have been given the chance to have their say, the world will see Americans respecting the Iraqis' wishes and, as should be the case, the Iraqis will ultimately have themselves alone to thank, or curse, for what follows.
— By S.W. Anderson
