But before you dismiss the idea of a ‘Marshall Plan’ too readily, consider what you advocate in terms of bottom up development and micro-loans as a microeconomic strategy, expressed elsewhere as “the most effective way to immediately meet the fundamental objectives of a Marshall Plan policy directed against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”

I should clarify that when I say we don’t need a Marshall Plan, I’m talking generally about a top-down aid package to the government rather than microeconomic aid. Admittedly, that point was very clear.

Thanks for the fascinating contribution!

But before you dismiss the idea of a ‘Marshall Plan’ too readily, consider what you advocate in terms of bottom up development and micro-loans as a microeconomic strategy, expressed elsewhere as “the most effective way to immediately meet the fundamental objectives of a Marshall Plan policy directed against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”

http://en.for-ua.com/analytics/2007/08/06/121201.html

The case for this kind of intervention against the seedbed of terrorism inherent within the legions of disenfranchised and impoverished, was in fact pitched 5 years before 9/11 as you may read from my website link.

Now, using Iraq as as the example of failure, the point is made that not only is Peace cheaper than War, but that for the cost of one weeks’ involvement in Iraq, another country might be drawn into lasting democracy and cooperation, which would even provide a return on investment over the project lifetime.

Macroeconomic strategies and trickle down development may struggle to reach all of a given population within the ideal of a mature democracy, but in an environment where corruption is endemic and basic human rights are near to non-existent they have no chance of succeeding.

Jay, at some point, you’re going to come to the same conclusion that I’ve come to: That there’s going to be a change of ownership on the GWOT/Iraq War. That means that the Dems are going to have to put on the Big Boy pants and properly lead this war.

I hope so. What I fear is that the Democrats will do their best to ignore it, just as they did for 8 years under the Clinton Administration. We’ll see increased barriers to communication between law enforcement and intelligence, political correctness in going after Islamic charities, and an unwillingness to commit US forces abroad.

If the Democrats do take responsibility, great. The problem is that they’re showing absolutely no willingness to do so now, and it’s hard to argue that they’re going to change in the future.

This also means that the Dems are going to ask folks like you and me to salute everything they run up the flagpole WRT the GWOT/Iraq War.

Even in the likelihood that the Dems will keep a military presence in Iraq (which will happen for at least the next 25 years!), methinks the Right will show the Left how “Support the Troops but not support the Mission” gets done!

Won’t we, Jay?

I think we’ll see continued support for the GWOT from the Right. The criticism will be the that Democrats aren’t prosecuting the war vigorously enough. Even with Bosnia, there was a lot of criticism over what Clinton did, but that criticism didn’t go nearly as far as what we see today, and the Bush Administration didn’t do much to change the policy in Kosovo after Clinton left office.

Even in the likelihood that the Dems will keep a military presence in Iraq (which will happen for at least the next 25 years!), methinks the Right will show the Left how “Support the Troops but not support the Mission” gets done!

Won’t we, Jay?