Chapman has it right again:

Stopping proliferation is not a one-time fix. Says University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer, author of “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” “It’s not viable just to conquer and occupy a country to get those weapons.”

That’s because the next government may also want to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it’s a democracy — as democracies such as India and Israel already have. “You have to stay forever,” he warns.

And the $442 billion Dubya wants to spend on this offensive defense in 2007 is just not worth it, considering that the containment and deterrence strategy currently in place has worked pretty damn well. It doesn’t require stationing troops in Iraq forever or installing a secular, constitutional democracy amid a hostile populace.

This all would be simply academic if it weren’t for the fact that real dangers continue to evade our supposed protectors.

Invading Iraq is like the War on Drugs. Isolated, it’s a bad policy. But combined with the fact that much greater dangers actually exist (in the War on Drugs, murderers, rapists and thieves; in the Iraqi war, Al Qaeda terrorists) and our ability to combat it is weakened by this distraction, the policy is just about insane.

Be cautious about what you say in Chicago. You could get fined $300 for choosing the incorrect words to express yourself. “I mean, we have too much profanity,” said Ald. William Beavers.

Those fuckers! Oops. Where’s my checkbook?

That’s what hawks ask about invading Iraq. They want to make it appear as though people who oppose the war are just getting hung up with petty concerns.

Ultimately, we’re being selfish. But it’s only responsible to ask what could go wrong, as Steve Chapman does in his latest column.

Among the possibilities he cites: bloody urban warfare in Baghdad, radical takeovers of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, smallpox, poison gas, an Israeli nuclear response to Iraqi attack, and nukes getting into the hands of terrorists (you know, actually, not as alleged by Dubya & Co.). He concludes:

Americans are looking forward to a brief, easy conflict that will make the world a safer place, and they may very well get it. But they should also realize that more than any war we’ve fought in the past half-century, this one carries the real risk of catastrophe.

And to those who say, “Well, every war has its risks,” I’d say, “You’re right, but not every war must be fought.” And this one doesn’t need to be fought. We’ve effectively contained Saddam for more than a decade. Moreover, we’ve got a real, live enemy that wants to kill as many American civilians as it can. It’s called Al Qaeda, and they’re still alive and kicking in spite of having been “smoked out” of Afghanistan.

Here’s one way to spread the word.

(Thanks to Amy Phillips on Stand Down for the link.)

That’s Chuck Karczag’s challenge to conservatives who voted against various pro-marijuana initiatives.

In his latest column, Doug Bandow concludes, “There is no more fundamental duty for government than to protect its people from outside threats. Yet President Bush admits, ‘We’ve got a long way to go’ to defeat al-Qaeda. Making war on Iraq will make that defeat even more distant.”

Exactly. I’m not much for mind games, but you’ve got to wonder why Dubya has it so bad for Saddam when Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists still pose a much greater threat to lives of American residents. Is Dubya taking on Saddam because the decentralized Al Qaeda organization is too difficult to track down and defeat?

Cato’s Michael Tanner says the elections were a big victory for Social Security choice. But all the races he cites as evidence don’t quite fit the description.

He cites Dole’s victory over Bowles in South Carolina. But while the race was close and certainly winnable for Bowles, it’s hardly a shocker that a Republican with high name recognition like Dole won in the conservative South. It’s not a referendum on anything but that the South is a solid Republican bloc nowadays.

In Georgia, Tanner even admits that Chambliss’s win over Cleland “largely turned on national security issues.” He also notes that Minnesota’s Norm Coleman took a Social Security Choice pledge. But that victory more likely turned on Minnesotans’ reaction to the Wellstone family’s memorial service turned liberal Democrat rally and Mondale’s flaccid debate performance. Anyhow, Coleman barely won that race.

Furthermore, when Dubya stumped for candidates his main selling points were the need to invade Iraq, create a Homeland Security Department, and make the tax cuts permanent. And it’s obviously his popularity as a war president, not as a Social Security reformer, that helped carry some Republicans to victory.

And the political reality, as opposed to the campaign promises, is that the real test on Social Security choice is not public opinion about a theoretical idea, but the pragmatic difficulty of killing the Democrats’ golden goose. It wasn’t a bad night for Social Security choice, but let’s not get carried away.

It’s only right that the poor souls who serve as Daley stooges and rule over their little ward fiefdoms voted themselves a long, long overdue pay increase Wednesday.

Their salaries are now pushing up against $100,000 a year with a $33,280 annual expense allowance! I’m not making this up. In their infinite wisdom, they made Hizzoner Jr. the highest-paid mayor in America, with a salary of $216,120.

Words are pointless at a time like this.

It does not bode very well for the advocates of smaller government when the Republican president’s stump speeches for congressional and senatorial candidates center around his need to have allies to help him create a gigantic new bureaucracy.

And yet, that seems to have been exactly Dubya’s approach, and how successful it was. Certainly, we did not see a mandate for much change and the truth is we probably won’t see much. Sure, the monstrosity that is the Homeland Security Department will be signed into law. A few more of Dubya’s judges, for better or worse, will get voted on and confirmed.

The war in Iraq, of course, is already decided, as the Democrats folded faster Kathy Lee sweatshop worker. The 2001 tax cuts might be mader permanent, if Dubya’s really lucky. But there will be no major tax reform, no Social Security reform, no vouchers, no nada. You need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, and I don’t care how many calls Dubya makes to Mark Pryor, it’s not going to happen on a regular basis.

See what someone much smarter than me had to say about all of this.

As for the Libertarian Party, disappointment as usual. The hopes were that Cal Skinner would somehow pull off 5 percent and get the LPI automatic ballot status for 2004, but he wound up with only 2.1 percent, even though the gubernatorial race was a blowout. Matt “I write crazy letters to well-read Chicago columnists” Beauchamp wound up with 2.25 percent in his bid for Secretary of State, while Stephanie “Versus the Machine” Sailor landed 2.9 percent.

Illinois government is now completely controlled by the Cook County Democratic machine, which certainly doesn’t bode well for the O’Hare expansion issue, taxes, gun rights, spending, etc. Gridlock has served the state pretty well for a long time, though the state GOP is alarmingly moderate and in Gov. Ryan’s case completely sold out. Again, it did not bode well for advocates of smaller government in Illinois when the Republican nominee ran for office on a huge public works program, Illinois FIRST.

Around the country, the big story was Ed Thompson, who managed double digits (10 percent) in his campaign for governor. Very impressive. A Libertarian-led initative to repeal the Massachussets state income tax just barely failed, garnering 47 percent support.

All the marijuana initiatives on the ballot around the country also lost, unfortunately.

Here’s the LP’s take on the GOP’s victory — a little hyperbolic, but pretty much right on the substance.

The great city of Chicago prepares to greet an influx of anti-trade protesters.

Eager not to have a repeat of Daddy Daley’s 1968 fiasco, Da Mare has threatened to sue any individuals or groups who cause damage to city or private property. Here’s the kicker, though: “City officials also announced that parking will be banned from 6 a.m. Wednesday until 6 a.m. Saturday in two large areas: from Wacker Drive to Congress Parkway between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street; and from the Chicago River to Oak Street, from Lake Michigan to Clark Street.”

That seems a bit over the top. That’s a huge expanse of territory downtown, inconveniencing everyone just because of the possibility of unrest. I dunno about that.

Apparently, gun manufacturers must not only provide safety locks with their guns, but they’ve got to be able to divine the future as well. Such is the basis of Chicago’s suit against gun manufacturers, which was OKd by an Illinois appelate court yesterday.

Didn’t Smith & Wesson know that they had to hire the precogs from Minority Report in order to sell guns in Chicago?

After running a series of stories about how UAL Corp., United Airlines’ parent company, has landed itself in the crapper, the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board comes to the solid conclusion that it needs to bailed out.

More specifically, United wants a $1.8 billion-dollar federally guaranteed loan. They’re in such bad shape that the only way they can convince any lender to give them money is to have the feds backing them up. Yep. Sounds like a hot investment. Of course, the Sun-Times editorial board argues that if United goes under, we’re all doomed. Gee, I guess people will just stop flying in and out of Chicago if United goes bankrupt.

Doesn’t the fact that United is being outdone by smarter, more effective competitors like Southwest and JetBlue mean anything? That perhaps United’s way of doing business just doesn’t cut it anymore? That perhaps we’d be better off having them disappear?

The most fallacious part of the argument is as follows:

The airline is a strategic asset to the nation. Having a solid U.S. air transportation system is important enough that the government has kept foreign carriers out of local service by law. What good will that be if we allow our local carriers to wither and die, victims, in part, of an unprecedented meltdown in their industry sparked by terrorism?

Good point; we should allow foreign competition. And, yes, Chicago may suffer a little if United goes under and more people connect through Denver or Atlanta, but the nation as a whole will not suffer one bit. But taxpayers will suffer if United defaults on its loan and the feds have to pick up the bill. The Sun-Times is being just as provincial as the steel-producing states’ newspapers which argued that upping steel tarriffs is good for the country.

The New York Times reports, “The Central Intelligence Agency, using a missile fired by an unmanned Predator aircraft, killed a senior leader of Al Qaeda and five low-level associates traveling by car in Yemen on Sunday, American officials said today.”

How’s that for a change? Actually going after folks with a known connection to the Sept. 11 attacks and who pose a continuing threat to U.S. national security. Interestingly, while Dubya cannot wait to personally strangle Saddam, White House officials would not say whether Dubya had “personally authorized” this action.

(Also posted to Stand Down.)