Tucker Carlson is on fire. Gob bless him. He is taking on two of the more vocal, visible policy nerds eager to cheerlead the United States into a conflict with Russia and Iran. If you have not seen these verbal sparring events then you should carve out 20 minutes and enjoy.
The first is Tucker's interview with Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters. Important to note that Ralph Peters never made it to full bird Colonel. While treated by some media types as a 21st Century version of Clausewitz, I think that Peters is captive to a world view that will imperil America if implemented. Here is his interview with Tucker:
Next up, Max Boot. Boot is even crazier and more strident than Peters.
Tucker's position is very simple and wise--our support for certain countries and policies should hinge on whether or not a policy or relationship serves the interests of the American people. One of the lies that Max Boot pushes in his feckless attempt to best Tucker is the false assertion that Iran killed "hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." Iran did no such thing. Of the total U.S. fatalities in Iraq during our ill-fated time there, about 10% of the casualties were attributable to groups with ties to Iran. One of these Iraq Shia groups was led by Moqtada al Sadr aka MOOKIE. Those familiar with MOOKIE and his moods understand that he is anything but an Iranian puppet. He marches to his own drum beat and does not readily nor easily take instructions from Iran. Those familiar with the intel during this period know that Iran was discouraging attacks on Americans. Why? Because we were doing their dirty work for them. We were helping destroy the Sunni leadership and infrastructure. Everything we did in that regard furthered the interests of Iran.
Those insistent on demonizing Russia and Iran need to answer a couple of basic questions? First, what is our end game in seeking a conflict with both? Is it war? Something short of war?
Second, what would Russia and Iran need to do differently in order for us to find them acceptable as policy partners?
The World View of both Peters and Boot rests on the delusion that the United States is in control and can dictate the future. We have convinced ourselves that we are the GREAT OZ. We refuse to come to grips with the reality that we are like the doddering old fool behind the curtain. Yes we have nukes and a global military presence. But we are hanging on to this status by spending with the equivalent of credit cards while refusing to make any substantive investments in human capital and infrastructure at home. In pursuit of our ambition for global dominance our leaders are allowing America to be hollowed out at home. Peters and Boot are prime examples of this rot.
MRW,
I believe you are conflating several things.
Yes, Congress is the legislative body under our Constitution and passes the laws. It created the Federal Reserve Banks and gave them the authority to do several things under current law. Of course it can change them in the future including disbanding the Fed.
What does the Fed do under current law? It manages the payment system, is a regulator of commercial banks, is a lender of last resort to commercial banks, and it manages monetary policy which includes issuing legal tender currency, setting interest rates, etc.
Under current law the Treasury can't issue currency, that role has been given to the Fed. The Fed is independent in its conduct of monetary policy. The Treasury and the President can't dictate it.
The expenditures of the federal government under current law must be financed through taxes, duties and other revenue and the remainder has to be borrowed. This shows up on the balance sheet as a debt obligation. The Fed can choose to buy federal government securities but there are no laws that force them to do so.
The value of a currency -its purchasing power is not fixed. It fluctuates and as Sam Peralta noted in the open thread that is a function of mass psychology. His point that that leads to a limit on how much the government can spend. During an existential war people are willing to expend all resources in fighting that war but in other circumstances they may not. Sovereign fiat currencies have collapsed in the past.
Posted by: Jack | 17 July 2017 at 12:45 PM
Babak Makkinejad,
If you are correct, that would be a very interesting correction-addition for me to install into my knowledge base. It goes against the little I have read. I may just look it up.
Posted by: different clue | 17 July 2017 at 08:42 PM