Top 10 Kentucky Derby horses for 2008
http://www.xpressbet.com/columns.aspx?author=JohnnyD
1. Smooth Air
2. Z Fortune
3. Colonel John
4. Pyro
5. Big Brown
6. Adriano
7. Eight Belles
8. Visionaire
9. Cool Coal Man
10. Tale of Ekati
Similarly, I can see Smooth Air being first or second with a furlong to go in the Derby. If that does happen, it will put him in a prime position to possibly win because 43 of the last 45 Derby winners have been first or second with a furlong to run, the two exceptions being Grindstone and Giacomo.
Z Fortune earned a career-best 102 Beyer Speed Figure in the Arkansas Derby. There is a concern that he might regress off such a strong effort, especially with just three weeks between races.
Maybe Z Fortune really doesn’t want to go 1 1/4 miles. He had the lead with a furlong to go in the Risen Star only to be overtaken by Pyro. Z Fortune could not get by Gayego in the final furlong of the Arkansas Derby.
Colonel John just looks like a rock solid contender. I certainly can’t argue with anybody who thinks he’s going to win. He has the 2-year-old foundation and a pair of 1 1/8-mile victories under his belt at 3. He’s finished first or second in each of his six lifetime starts. It looks like Colonel John will relish 1 1/4 miles. He’s certainly bred for such a trip. Colonel John is by Tiznow out of a Turkoman mare. Tiznow is the only two-time winner of the Breeders’ Cup Classic, a 1 1/4-mile race. Point Given was out of a Turkoman mare. Turkoman won a pair of Grade I races at 1 1/4 miles. Point Given won the Grade I Travers Stakes at 1 1/4 miles and the Grade I Belmont Stakes at 1 1/2 miles by 12 1/4 lengths.
“Media reports estimated Pyro’s final quarter-mile in Saturday’s Risen Star Stake at 22.6 seconds. The natural pessimist in me found it difficult to believe a 3-year-old could finish that strongly -- even during a last-to-first rally -- so I used a digital timer to get the real story of his stretch clocking.
“Here it is:
“Pyro actually ran his final quarter in about 22.3 seconds.”
In the Grade II Louisiana Derby, Pyro had to await room turning into the stretch and early in the stretch run. When a hole materialized with a little less than a furlong to go, he charged to the front and quickly pulled away to prevail by three lengths.
Pyro’s had more than two preps this year, unlike the Florida Derby winner (Big Brown), the Santa Anita Derby winner (Colonel John), the Wood Memorial winner (Tale of Ekati), the Blue Grass Stakes winner (Monba) and the Illinois Derby winner (Recapturetheglory). Obviously, Pyro’s biggest negative is his Blue Grass debacle. He finished 10th on the Blue Grass. Perhaps a line can be drawn through that race because it was on Polytrack. Still, such a poor performance in Pyro’s final race before the Derby is cause for concern. The last Derby winner to finish worse than fourth in his or her final prep was Iron Liege in 1957.
Going into the Derby, Big Brown appears to be the most talented horse. He’s undefeated in three starts, winning by margins of 11 1/4, 12 3/4 and five lengths. Big Brown obviously is an extremely talented colt. But I wrote those exact same words about Curlin prior to last year’s Kentucky Derby. Curlin, like Big Brown, went into the Kentucky Derby undefeated and untested in three lifetime starts. But having only three lifetime starts is a high hurdle. The last time a horse won the Derby with only three career starts was the great filly Regret in 1915 while Woodrow Wilson was in the White House. There also is some concern about Big Brown being able to win a 1 1/4-mile race as a son of Boundary, who was a sprinter.
In his only start on the dirt, Adriano ran by far his worst race, finishing ninth in the Grade II Fountain of Youth Stakes at Gulfstream Park on Feb. 24. Was that clunker because of running on the dirt? Was it because he became fractious before the race? And will he be able to keep from becoming unruly before the huge Churchill Downs crowd?
Based on her 2008 Beyer Speed Figures (100, 99, 96, 91), Eight Belles not only belongs in the Derby, she is a bona fide contender. In all four of her races this year, she’s looked as if she will do just fine going 1 1/4 miles. Her paternal grandsire, Unbridled, did just fine going 1 1/4 miles when he won the Derby in 1990. As mentioned earlier for Smooth Air, if Big Brown loses due to his lack or experience or some other reason, the door then is open for someone else to win. The Beyer Speed Figures indicate that someone could be Eight Belles. There also is the concern of Eight Belles lugging in during the stretch run of the Grade II Fantasy Sakes at Oaklawn Park. She lugged in again while coming home in her five-furlong workout in :58 1/5 at Churchill Downs last Sunday. This will be Eight Belles’ first start against colts. No filly has ever won the Derby without having previously raced against colts.
Another positive for Visionaire is his trainer, Michael Matz, who sent out Barbaro to win the Derby in 2006. Based on Visionaire’s breeding (a son of Grand Slam out of a French Deputy mare), I’m not sold that he can win a 1 1/4-mile race. This concern is accentuated by the fact that Visionaire has not finished at least third in a 1 1/8-mile race. Since 1955, only four horses have won the Derby without doing that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY KENTUCKY DERBY FACTORS
In 1999, I came up with various key factors to determine how a Kentucky Derby candidate looks from a historical standpoint in terms of class, stamina, style and precedence. When a horse doesn’t qualify in one of the 10 categories, he or she gets a strike.
Here are how many strikes each Kentucky Derby winner has had since 1999:
1999 Charismatic (1 strike)
2000 Fusaichi Pegasus (1 strike)
2001 Monarchos (0 strikes)
2002 War Emblem (0 strikes)
2003 Funny Cide (2 strikes)
2004 Smarty Jones (0 strikes)
2005 Giacomo (2 strikes)
2006 Barbaro (1 strike)
2007 Smart Sense (1 strike)
Based on what has happened in the last nine years, I’d say there is roughly a 78 percent chance the 2008 Kentucky Derby winner will have zero strikes or one strike. The following 2008 Kentucky Derby entrants are in that boat:
ZERO STRIKES
Adriano
Smooth Air
Z Fortune
ONE STRIKE
Big Truck
Colonel John
Cool Coal Man
Cowboy Cal
Eight Belles
Pyro
Tale of Ekati
Visionaire
Z Humor
Based on the last nine years, I’d say there is about a 22 percent chance the 2008 Kentucky Derby winner will have two strikes. These 2008 Kentucky Derby candidates are on that list:
TWO STRIKES
Big Brown
Gayego
Monba
I toss out any 2008 Kentucky Derby candidate with three or more strikes. They are:
THREE STRIKES
Anak Nakal
Bob Black Jack
Court Vision
Denis of Cork
Recapturetheglory
Here are my 10 key Kentucky Derby factors:
1. THE GRADED STAKES FACTOR. (The horse ran in a graded stakes race as a 3-year-old before March 31.) This points out horses who have competed against tough competition early in the year at 3 and not just at the last minute in April, enabling the horse to be properly battle-tested. (Exceptions: Since the introduction of graded stakes races in the U.S. in 1973, only Genuine Risk and Sunny’s Halo have won the Derby without running in a graded stakes race at 3 before March 31.)
Recapturetheglory gets a strike.
2. THE WIN IN A GRADED STAKES FACTOR. (The horse has won a graded stakes race.) This points out horses who have shown they have the class to win a graded stakes race. (Exceptions: Alysheba in 1987, Funny Cide in 2003 and Giacomo in 2005 are the only exceptions since the introduction of U.S. graded stakes races in 1973; Alysheba did finish first in the Blue Grass only to be disqualified and placed third.)
Bob Black Jack gets a strike.
3. THE EIGHTH POLE FACTOR. (In either of his or her last two starts before the Derby, the horse was either first or second with a furlong to go.) This points out horses who were running strongly at the eighth pole, usually in races at 1 1/16 or 1 1/8 miles. By running strongly at the same point in the Derby, a horse would be in a prime position to win the roses. Keep in mind that 43 of the last 45 Derby winners have been first or second at the eighth pole. Giacomo was sixth at the eighth pole in 2005; Grindstone was fourth at the eighth pole in 1996; Decidedly was third at the eighth pole in 1962. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the Derby winners who weren’t either first or second at the eighth pole in his or her last two starts have been Tim Tam, Carry Back, Cannonade, Gato Del Sol, Unbridled and Sea Hero, with Canonero II unknown.)
Anak Nakal, Court Vision, Denis of Cork, and Z Humor each get a strike.
4. THE GAMENESS FACTOR. (The horse did not get passed in the final furlong in either of his or her last two races.) This points out horses who don’t like to get passed in the final furlong. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the exceptions have been Venetian Way, Cannonade, Foolish Pleasure, Ferdinand and Silver Charm, with Canonero II unknown.)
Bob Black Jack, Cool Coal Man, Cowboy Cal, Gayego and Recapturetheglory each get a strike.
5. THE DISTANCE FOUNDATION FACTOR. (The horse has finished at least third in a 1 1/8-mile race before the Derby.) This points out horses who have the proper foundation and/or stamina for the Derby distance. (Exceptions: Since 1955, the only exceptions have been Kauai King, Sea Hero, Charismatic and Giacomo.)
Big Truck, Eight Belles, Pyro and Visionaire each get a strike. For all four, it is their only strike. Anak Nakal and Denis of Cork also each get a strike.
6. THE SUFFICIENT RACING EXPERIENCE FACTOR. (The horse has had at least six lifetime starts before the Derby.) This points out horses who have the needed experience. (Exceptions: Since 1955, Grindstone in 1996, Fusaichi Pegasus in 2000 and Barbaro in 2006 have been the only exceptions. They each had made five starts before the Derby.)
Big Brown, Denis of Cork, Monba and Gayego each get a strike.
7. THE NO ADDING BLINKERS AS A 3-YEAR-OLD FACTOR. (The horse has not added blinkers in any of his or her races at 3 before the Derby.) This seems to point out that, if a horse is good enough to win the Derby, the trainer is not searching for answers so late in the game. (Exceptions: Since Daily Racing Form began including blinkers in its past performances in 1987, no horse has added blinkers at 3 before winning the Derby. Strike the Gold did have blinkers removed in his second start at 3. Sea Hero had blinkers removed for the Derby after racing with blinkers in the Blue Grass.)
Anak Nakal, Bob Black Jack and Court Vision each get a strike. (Bob Black Jack and Court Vision are expected to add blinkers for the Derby. Not adding blinkers for the Derby would bring either Bob Black Jack or Court Vision down to two strikes.)
8. THE RACED AS A 2-YEAR-OLD FACTOR. (The horse made at least one start as a 2-year-old.) (Exception: Apollo in 1882 is the only Derby winner who didn’t race as a 2-year-old.)
All 20 entrants qualify.
9. THE NOT A GELDING FACTOR. (The horse is not a gelding.) (Exception: Funny Cide is the only gelding to win the Derby since Clyde Van Dusen in 1929.)
All 20 entrants qualify.
10. THE SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE AS A 3-YEAR-OLD FACTOR. (The horse has made at least three starts at 3 before the Derby.) (Exceptions: Of the last 55 horses to run in the Derby with fewer than three preps, 53 have failed. The only exceptions since Jet Pilot in 1947 were Sunny’s Halo in 1983 and Street Sense in 2007.)
Big Brown, Colonel John, Court Vision, Monba, Recapturetheglory and Tale of Ekati each get a strike.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Idiot's guide to Idiots
I've read some tripe in the past, but to see this "everyone's out to get us" BS seven and a half years out from "9/11" is astonishing. AEI, the author's benefactor, is often described as a "conservative think tank." In a sense, Frum illuminates those qualities-- he's conceivably been traped in a deprivation tank for the last few years, and is conservative in the sense of adhering to tradition, albebit then one of repeating falsehoods and provocations until such statements ring "truth" in the establishment. Read on and be your own judge. as you go through, ask yourself, are some of these sentences simply upsupported conclusions that beat that serve indirectly as argument for further war?
David Frum, AEI douchebag, wrote:
"Mystery solved. On Sept. 6 of last year, Israeli warplanes struck a facility in the deserts of eastern Syria. The Israelis refused to explain what they had hit or why. The Syrians immediately bulldozed the site to block all further investigation. The U.S. government acknowledged the attack but declined otherwise to comment. And the world was left to speculate.
On Thursday, the Bush administration at last confirmed what had long been rumored: The Syrian facility was indeed a nuclear plant. The plant followed the same design as the Yongbyon plant in North Korea, and North Korean engineers and workers had helped to build it. North Korea and Syria had initiated discussions on the plant in 1997. Construction had commenced in 2005. When the Israelis struck, the plant was only weeks from completion.
All that would have been needed then would have been enough plutonium to start a weapons production cycle. Had the Syrians been allowed to proceed, they might well have been a nuclear weapons state by now.
This terrible story carries some significant lessons.
Military action against nuclear facilities can be effective--especially if those facilities are located far from population centres, as Syria's was.
1) For years we have heard that it was impossible, inconceivable, that states such as Syria, North Korea, Iran or Saddam Hussein's Iraq could ever co-operate with each other. We were told that Shiite Iran could never possibly ally with Sunni terrorist groups such as Hamas or al-Qaeda. Yet again and again, over the past half dozen years, we have witnessed just that. North Korea did help Syria. Iran and North Korea did exchange technology. Iran did subsidize Hamas. Al-Qaeda leaders did find refuge in Iran.
You know, it's almost like they form an axis or something.
2) Many have urged the Bush administration to "reach out" to Syria. The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker, suggested that Syria could help broker a solution inside Iraq. Before that, Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher elaborately courted Syria, visiting Damascus more often than any other government on Earth. Yet the bad faith, aggression and recklessness of the Syrian regime continue unabated.
Happily, this latest deadly threat was intercepted in time. But can we at last recognize that Syria's Assad regime is part of the problem in the Middle East--not part of the solution?
3) Democrats and liberals have fiercely criticized the Bush administration for focusing on state sponsors of terrorism such as Syria and Iran, instead of focusing exclusively on non-state terror groups such as al-Qaeda. We've even heard it said that focusing on state sponsors of terror is a "distraction." But terrorists with nuclear weapons are a lot more dangerous than terrorists who lack them. Al-Qaeda's attempts to acquire nuclear weaponry have fizzled. It is from states such as Syria and Iran and North Korea that the threat of nuclear terrorism chiefly comes.
4) Military action against nuclear facilities can be effective--especially if those facilities are located far from population centres, as Syria's was. And despite Syria's command of terrorist organizations, there has been no Syrian terrorist retaliation. Something to think about in connection with the much more ominous Iranian nuclear program.
5) The revelations underscore the lethal naivete of the advisers around Barack Obama. As Gabriel Schoenfeld has pointed out on the Commentary magazine blog, Joseph Cirincione, the man most widely identified as Obama's top nuclear-affairs adviser, last September pooh-poohed as "far-right" "nonsense" the early rumors that the Syrian nuclear facility was indeed a nuclear facility.
Cirincione wrote on the Foreign Policy blog: "This [early news of the Syrian facility] appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a pre-existing political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria."
Cirincione seems to have been so determined to avert what he regarded as the threat of U.S. over-reaction--so eager to promote dialogue with Syria--that he blinded himself to the reality of a nuclear threat.
And this way of thinking is not, unfortunately, unique to him. It pervades the Democratic foreign policy establishment--and especially that portion of the establishment that has gravitated to Obama.
So here's the final lesson from this week's: For the safety of the world, these people have to be kept far, far away from political power.
David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI."
Reprinted from http://aei.org/axis_of_evil_idiots_guide_david_frum.htm
David Frum, AEI douchebag, wrote:
"Mystery solved. On Sept. 6 of last year, Israeli warplanes struck a facility in the deserts of eastern Syria. The Israelis refused to explain what they had hit or why. The Syrians immediately bulldozed the site to block all further investigation. The U.S. government acknowledged the attack but declined otherwise to comment. And the world was left to speculate.
On Thursday, the Bush administration at last confirmed what had long been rumored: The Syrian facility was indeed a nuclear plant. The plant followed the same design as the Yongbyon plant in North Korea, and North Korean engineers and workers had helped to build it. North Korea and Syria had initiated discussions on the plant in 1997. Construction had commenced in 2005. When the Israelis struck, the plant was only weeks from completion.
All that would have been needed then would have been enough plutonium to start a weapons production cycle. Had the Syrians been allowed to proceed, they might well have been a nuclear weapons state by now.
This terrible story carries some significant lessons.
Military action against nuclear facilities can be effective--especially if those facilities are located far from population centres, as Syria's was.
1) For years we have heard that it was impossible, inconceivable, that states such as Syria, North Korea, Iran or Saddam Hussein's Iraq could ever co-operate with each other. We were told that Shiite Iran could never possibly ally with Sunni terrorist groups such as Hamas or al-Qaeda. Yet again and again, over the past half dozen years, we have witnessed just that. North Korea did help Syria. Iran and North Korea did exchange technology. Iran did subsidize Hamas. Al-Qaeda leaders did find refuge in Iran.
You know, it's almost like they form an axis or something.
2) Many have urged the Bush administration to "reach out" to Syria. The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker, suggested that Syria could help broker a solution inside Iraq. Before that, Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher elaborately courted Syria, visiting Damascus more often than any other government on Earth. Yet the bad faith, aggression and recklessness of the Syrian regime continue unabated.
Happily, this latest deadly threat was intercepted in time. But can we at last recognize that Syria's Assad regime is part of the problem in the Middle East--not part of the solution?
3) Democrats and liberals have fiercely criticized the Bush administration for focusing on state sponsors of terrorism such as Syria and Iran, instead of focusing exclusively on non-state terror groups such as al-Qaeda. We've even heard it said that focusing on state sponsors of terror is a "distraction." But terrorists with nuclear weapons are a lot more dangerous than terrorists who lack them. Al-Qaeda's attempts to acquire nuclear weaponry have fizzled. It is from states such as Syria and Iran and North Korea that the threat of nuclear terrorism chiefly comes.
4) Military action against nuclear facilities can be effective--especially if those facilities are located far from population centres, as Syria's was. And despite Syria's command of terrorist organizations, there has been no Syrian terrorist retaliation. Something to think about in connection with the much more ominous Iranian nuclear program.
5) The revelations underscore the lethal naivete of the advisers around Barack Obama. As Gabriel Schoenfeld has pointed out on the Commentary magazine blog, Joseph Cirincione, the man most widely identified as Obama's top nuclear-affairs adviser, last September pooh-poohed as "far-right" "nonsense" the early rumors that the Syrian nuclear facility was indeed a nuclear facility.
Cirincione wrote on the Foreign Policy blog: "This [early news of the Syrian facility] appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a pre-existing political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria."
Cirincione seems to have been so determined to avert what he regarded as the threat of U.S. over-reaction--so eager to promote dialogue with Syria--that he blinded himself to the reality of a nuclear threat.
And this way of thinking is not, unfortunately, unique to him. It pervades the Democratic foreign policy establishment--and especially that portion of the establishment that has gravitated to Obama.
So here's the final lesson from this week's: For the safety of the world, these people have to be kept far, far away from political power.
David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI."
Reprinted from http://aei.org/axis_of_evil_idiots_guide_david_frum.htm
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Iraqi Oil Deals without a National Law for Ownership or Distribution of Profits?
Chevron, Total Seek Oil Deal in Iraq
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 12, 2008; 8:38 AM
BAGHDAD -- Oil giants Chevron Corp. and Total have confirmed that they are in discussions with the Iraqi Oil Ministry to increase production in an important oil field in southern Iraq.
The discussions are aimed at finalizing a two-year deal, or technical support agreement, to boost production at the West Qurna Stage 1 oil field near Iraq's second-largest city of Basra.
Chevron and Total confirmed their involvement in the discussions in e-mails received Saturday by The Associated Press.
"Chevron is interested in helping the Iraq government's objectives to develop its oil and gas industry," Chevron spokesman Kurt Glaubitz said in an e-mail. Total spokeswoman Lisa Wyler confirmed the French company's involvement.
Basra, about 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, has been the scene of sporadic attacks and clashes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The latest fighting broke out March 25 when the government launched an operation against Shiite militants, who remain in control of several neighborhoods.
West Qurna field, located about 40 miles west of Basra, is among Iraq's 10 "super giant" fields with its reserves estimated between 15 to 21 billion barrels, according to Iraqi Oil Ministry and Energy Information Administration.
The Ministry intends to add 100,000 barrels per day to the field's current capacity of 180,000 bpd. Its estimated pre-2003 production capacity stood at 250,000 bpd, the ministry's figures show.
In 1997, the Russian Lukoil oil giant struck a $3.7 billion deal with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to drill at the West Qurna field. However, Saddam canceled the contract in 2002. The Russians hoped they would be able to revive it when Moscow wrote off most of Iraq's $12.9 billion debt.
The Iraqi Oil Ministry has said it is also negotiating with Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. to increase crude production in four other fields and under the same agreement.
Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, totaling more than 115 billion barrels. Iraq's average production for February was 2.4 million barrels per day and exports averaged 1.93 million barrels per day.
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 12, 2008; 8:38 AM
BAGHDAD -- Oil giants Chevron Corp. and Total have confirmed that they are in discussions with the Iraqi Oil Ministry to increase production in an important oil field in southern Iraq.
The discussions are aimed at finalizing a two-year deal, or technical support agreement, to boost production at the West Qurna Stage 1 oil field near Iraq's second-largest city of Basra.
Chevron and Total confirmed their involvement in the discussions in e-mails received Saturday by The Associated Press.
"Chevron is interested in helping the Iraq government's objectives to develop its oil and gas industry," Chevron spokesman Kurt Glaubitz said in an e-mail. Total spokeswoman Lisa Wyler confirmed the French company's involvement.
Basra, about 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, has been the scene of sporadic attacks and clashes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The latest fighting broke out March 25 when the government launched an operation against Shiite militants, who remain in control of several neighborhoods.
West Qurna field, located about 40 miles west of Basra, is among Iraq's 10 "super giant" fields with its reserves estimated between 15 to 21 billion barrels, according to Iraqi Oil Ministry and Energy Information Administration.
The Ministry intends to add 100,000 barrels per day to the field's current capacity of 180,000 bpd. Its estimated pre-2003 production capacity stood at 250,000 bpd, the ministry's figures show.
In 1997, the Russian Lukoil oil giant struck a $3.7 billion deal with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to drill at the West Qurna field. However, Saddam canceled the contract in 2002. The Russians hoped they would be able to revive it when Moscow wrote off most of Iraq's $12.9 billion debt.
The Iraqi Oil Ministry has said it is also negotiating with Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. to increase crude production in four other fields and under the same agreement.
Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, totaling more than 115 billion barrels. Iraq's average production for February was 2.4 million barrels per day and exports averaged 1.93 million barrels per day.
Destroying the Straw Man
This is trash, but a good example of crushing th straw man. Who says we have to "re-invade?" what about the Kirkuk Solution?
--------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Martinez
The Democrats' Iraq Fantasies
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2008/04/the_democrats_iraq_dilemma.html#comments
Dear Stumped:
Although invading Iraq was a mistake, pulling out hastily may only compound it. How, exactly, do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose to withdraw American troops from Iraq while preventing a civil war and the ensuing instability in the region? If, in the final analysis, the conclusion is that things were better before the invasion, then the pullout will definitely mark the beginning of the end for America's leadership role in the world.
-- Carl from Caracas
Dear Carl,
This week's testimony on Capitol Hill by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker once again made clear that it is easier to criticize the status quo, and the Bush administration's past decision-making on Iraq, than it is to offer a wise exit strategy for the future.
While John McCain is stuck supporting the surge ad infinitum, assuring Americans that we will prevail in Iraq in this century if not the next (and don't ask him to define success, you'll know it when you see it), the two Democratic presidential candidates have now embraced campaign-driven (i.e., fantasyland-based) tidy exit timetables.
Hillary Clinton, who is supposed to be the world-weary prospective commander-in-chief, ready to take over the Situation Room on Day One (unlike Barack Obama, who'd presumably have to spend Day One learning how to order room service from the White House mess), has now embraced a faith-based withdrawal timetable. She long resisted doing so, but is now committed to getting most troops out in 2009 -- regardless of the facts on the ground, her campaign says.
It's an understatement to call such rigidity reckless, and it's doubly reckless coming from someone who voted to authorize this mess. But at least there is an upside to her inflexibility: If the Clinton national security policy is reduced to a campaign pledge that cannot be tinkered with regardless of developments, she'll never have a need to answer those pesky 3 a.m. phone calls.
Obama's exit strategy is also muddled, as McCain has noted. Obama would essentially take most troops out soon, but keep them on hold nearby, just in case sectarian genocide breaks out or al-Qaeda takes over the country -- because then, he concedes, the United States may have to reinvade.This "the sooner we leave, the sooner we can reinvade" concept reminds me of one of my favorite college mantras: "The sooner you fall behind in a class, the more time you have to catch up!"
And I would offer a word of caution about this notion that the era of American leadership in the world is coming to a close because of the Iraq debacle. Remember Vietnam, and all the subsequent talk of American impotence? Remember all the angst two decades ago, and into the early 1990s, about the overextended U.S. empire and the irreversible Japanese economic takeover? Remember Paul Kennedy's book? It was great history, but too many pundits seized on it, and our trade deficit with Japan, to write a lot of nonsense about how the United States would soon be overtaken by Guatemala as a regional power (okay, I exaggerate).
Within a few years, too many pundits had gone to the other extreme, extolling the "indispensable superpower" when it became clear that American technological ingenuity and military might still reign supreme in the world.
The current wave of obituaries being published for the U.S. empire are as silly as those published two decades ago, regardless of what happens in Iraq. That may or may not be good news for you in Caracas, depending on whether or not you back "El Comandante" and his Bolivarian revolution.
--------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Martinez
The Democrats' Iraq Fantasies
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2008/04/the_democrats_iraq_dilemma.html#comments
Dear Stumped:
Although invading Iraq was a mistake, pulling out hastily may only compound it. How, exactly, do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose to withdraw American troops from Iraq while preventing a civil war and the ensuing instability in the region? If, in the final analysis, the conclusion is that things were better before the invasion, then the pullout will definitely mark the beginning of the end for America's leadership role in the world.
-- Carl from Caracas
Dear Carl,
This week's testimony on Capitol Hill by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker once again made clear that it is easier to criticize the status quo, and the Bush administration's past decision-making on Iraq, than it is to offer a wise exit strategy for the future.
While John McCain is stuck supporting the surge ad infinitum, assuring Americans that we will prevail in Iraq in this century if not the next (and don't ask him to define success, you'll know it when you see it), the two Democratic presidential candidates have now embraced campaign-driven (i.e., fantasyland-based) tidy exit timetables.
Hillary Clinton, who is supposed to be the world-weary prospective commander-in-chief, ready to take over the Situation Room on Day One (unlike Barack Obama, who'd presumably have to spend Day One learning how to order room service from the White House mess), has now embraced a faith-based withdrawal timetable. She long resisted doing so, but is now committed to getting most troops out in 2009 -- regardless of the facts on the ground, her campaign says.
It's an understatement to call such rigidity reckless, and it's doubly reckless coming from someone who voted to authorize this mess. But at least there is an upside to her inflexibility: If the Clinton national security policy is reduced to a campaign pledge that cannot be tinkered with regardless of developments, she'll never have a need to answer those pesky 3 a.m. phone calls.
Obama's exit strategy is also muddled, as McCain has noted. Obama would essentially take most troops out soon, but keep them on hold nearby, just in case sectarian genocide breaks out or al-Qaeda takes over the country -- because then, he concedes, the United States may have to reinvade.This "the sooner we leave, the sooner we can reinvade" concept reminds me of one of my favorite college mantras: "The sooner you fall behind in a class, the more time you have to catch up!"
And I would offer a word of caution about this notion that the era of American leadership in the world is coming to a close because of the Iraq debacle. Remember Vietnam, and all the subsequent talk of American impotence? Remember all the angst two decades ago, and into the early 1990s, about the overextended U.S. empire and the irreversible Japanese economic takeover? Remember Paul Kennedy's book? It was great history, but too many pundits seized on it, and our trade deficit with Japan, to write a lot of nonsense about how the United States would soon be overtaken by Guatemala as a regional power (okay, I exaggerate).
Within a few years, too many pundits had gone to the other extreme, extolling the "indispensable superpower" when it became clear that American technological ingenuity and military might still reign supreme in the world.
The current wave of obituaries being published for the U.S. empire are as silly as those published two decades ago, regardless of what happens in Iraq. That may or may not be good news for you in Caracas, depending on whether or not you back "El Comandante" and his Bolivarian revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)