VINCENT TRUFFY

Look at his links on the war, on plans for reconstruction, on U.S. foreign policy in the wake of GWII, etc.

A particularly important document on Truffy's reading list is Play to Win, Final Report of the bi-partisan Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction (a joint CSIS and AUSA report). The report is an overview of the steps that the commission believes are necessary in any successful effort to create long-term, post-invasion change. Not surprisingly, the report argues that all of these steps are currently underfunded:

In the security realm disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration efforts (DDR) are underfunded, as is short-term support for non-American troops or police who might be deployed in lieu of American troops or police (as with Turkey’s deployment in Afghanistan). In the area of justice and reconciliation, little money is available to field an emergency justice package, deploy human rights monitors, or support reconciliation efforts at the national or local level. In the economic and social arena, little fast and flexible funding is available to jumpstart economies, provide temporary employment, reverse brain drain, or address pressing social needs. In the area of governance and participation, no money is available to support national “constituting processes” (such as the loya jirga in Afghanistan) and civil administration needs (including funding recurrent costs during the transition period).

This point needs to be hammered home at every opportunity. The Bush administration has shown only a willingness to fight the wars necessary to implement its new national security strategies, not a willingness to pay for the wars and the post-war operations necessary to implement these strategies. Especially if you're a deficit hawk (like Josh Chafetz over at Oxblog), you should be concerned about this facet of Bush's policymaking, which constitutes a de facto retraction of the promises that attracted liberal hawks to the war effort in the first place. I am amazed at how irresponsible Bush's approach to the budget is, and astounded at how willing the press has been willing to give him a pass here.

If you want to read a little about the effects of deficits on the economy, go to this page at Brookings. Deficits are bad over the long term, but it's politically difficult to lay the groundwork for lower deficits given current political commitments. To reduce deficits, you need to raise taxes or decrease spending, not lower taxes and increase spending, as Mr. Bush and his allies in the House and Senate have been doing lately. I would also hazard a guess that if the spending choice turns out to be a choice between funding prescription drugs for seniors and helping establish democratic and security institutions in some foreign land, seniors will win.

At some point, the patriotism rush will subside and this administration will stand accused of rank fiscal irresponsibility, and I hope that the Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of the issue.