As the Troops Roll Along

[adios]

They're being greeted with open arms by many, WMD's are being uncovered, civilian casulties are minimal (Saddam probably would have killed more of his citizens in this time span), oil facitlities that belong to the people of Iraq are being preserved, and massive humanitarian aid is on the way.

[MMMMMM]

And the destructive protests are increasing in the U.S. (I mean the protests which block rush hour traffic, etc.)

As more Iraqi troops surrender, as more Iraqis cheer the liberating troops, as more WMD are discovered, expect to see the hard-core anti-war crowd protest all the harder and more desperately.

Some people can't admit being wrong.

By the way, as France offers/insists on being a major part of the restructuring of Iraq, I hope we tell them "Thanks, but no thanks." Let total loss of their oil contracts be their punishment for being the most activist anti-US nation in this entire affair. They didn't just vote against US--which would have been OK--they went far out of their way to mobilize the entire world against us.

[Clarkmeister]

"WMD's are being uncovered"

Provide a link please.

"civilian casulties are minimal (Saddam probably would have killed more of his citizens in this time span"

The chances of this are zero %. Its a nice rationalization though.

"oil facitlities that belong to the people of Iraq are being preserved"

They wouldn't be threatened if we hadn't invaded. I think you would be better phrasing it as "future streams of cheap oil that is the birthright of all Americans are preserved."

"massive humanitarian aid is on the way."

The first wave of humanitarian aid will sadly be used by those whose lives we just destroyed.


Actually, it would be nice if Saddam just gave up and it ended now. And I will concede that things appear to be going relatively smoothly so far. But the true test comes when we get to Baghdad next week. And lets not get so wrapped up in self congradulatory gloating that we lose balance in our perspective.

[Clarkmeister]

"Some people can't admit being wrong"

M, we could find all sorts of chemical and/or biological weapons and it still wouldn't mean that our decision to invade was correct. Bush can frame the argument in those terms all he likes, but that doesn't make it so.

Also, anything we can do to screw France is A-OK with me. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Jimbo]

M wrote "civilian casulties are minimal (Saddam probably would have killed more of his citizens in this time span"

Then Clarkmeister wrote in response "The chances of this are zero %. Its a nice rationalization though."

Clarkmeister for a poker player whom claims to understand odds this is a very funny statement for you to make.


Then in another post you said "M, we could find all sorts of chemical and/or biological weapons and it still wouldn't mean that our decision to invade was correct. Bush can frame the argument in those terms all he likes, but that doesn't make it so"

Why on earth would you believe this to be true? I would think even a die hard pacifist like you would understand how silly this sounds.

[adios]

"Provide a link please."

In the news conferance today Generals Brooks and Franks stated this.


"The chances of this are zero %. Its a nice rationalization though."

Estimating that Hussein has been responsible for at least a million deaths in his reign of terror that's easy to see how it could be true. They don't call him the butcher of Baghdad for nothing.

"They wouldn't be threatened if we hadn't invaded. I think you would be better phrasing it as "future streams of cheap oil that is the birthright of all Americans are preserved."

Since the oil money was supposed to be directed at providing the basic necessities of the Iraqi people but instead has gone into Hussein's pocket, the people of Iraq haven't realized the economic benifit that is rightfully theirs from the oil. Furthermore one of Saddam's sons controls and operates black markets in the basic necessities that the Iraqi people require. It's outrageous that Hussein steal the oil for his own benefit and exploits the Iraqi people with black martkets to boot. The USA is on the record stating that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.

"The first wave of humanitarian aid will sadly be used by those whose lives we just destroyed."

Again you are woefully misinformed. Saddam has exploited his people economically for many, many years and the Iraqi people have suffered greatly.

"Actually, it would be nice if Saddam just gave up and it ended now. And I will concede that things appear to be going relatively smoothly so far. But the true test comes when we get to Baghdad next week. And lets not get so wrapped up in self congradulatory gloating that we lose balance in our perspective."

I haven't heard one administration official "gloat." A cautious General Franks today more or less stated that it's over. I noticed that you didn't mention the Iraqi people welcoming the USA as liberators. I don't understand the support for Hussein. Do you actually deny that the vast majority of Iraqi want Hussein deposed?

[IrishHand]

In the news conferance today Generals Brooks and Franks stated this
Actually, neither said we've found lotsa WMD, which was your original claim. However, since you are apparently prepared to accept the word of a US government spokesperson as gospel, there isn't much point in debating this topic. I, myself, have always preferred more objective sources of information.

Claims that we've found WMD are about as persuasive to me as claims that we've got the Iraqi high command involved in pleasant cell phone conversations with American intelligence - an obvious tactic designed to foster suspiscion and dissent among the enemy's military leadership. Propaganda is nothing new - it always surprises me when supposedly intelligent people start believing what one side or the other involved in a war has to say about the topic.

Estimating that Hussein has been responsible for at least a million deaths in his reign of terror that's easy to see how it could be true.
Feel free to change your story anytime. First, we're causing less deaths with our bombs than Hussein would have in the same time if we weren't bombing (which is completely laughable)...now, our killing of Iraqi civilians is being compared to Hussein's entire time in power (an especially useful and relevant comparison - 3 days v. 20+ years).

The USA is on the record stating that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.
Of course it is. And we're making sure that they're also very willing to sell it to us at a 'fair' price. Clearly, the Iraqi people will be the beneficiaries of this - much like the average Saudi benefits from our trading with that country.

"The first wave of humanitarian aid will sadly be used by those whose lives we just destroyed."
Again you are woefully misinformed. Saddam has exploited his people economically for many, many years and the Iraqi people have suffered greatly.
Did you even read Clarkmeister's post? He states that it's sad that the initial wave of humanitarian aid will be used exclusively to restore the lives, homes, jobs, etc of the Iraqi citizens that we destroyed. Your response is that Hussein has exploited his people for years. Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in Rome? Certainly Hussein exploits his people - the same can be said of every government that I'm aware of to some degree or another. We will be happy to conitnue the exploitation of the Iraqi people once we've replaced his regime with one of our choosing. Howver, returning to Clarkmeister's point - it is indeed unfortunate that we will be able to paint ourselves as benevolent interventioninsts when it was primarily our actions which precipitated the humanitarian crisis there.

You, and others, seem to be laboring under this ignorant delusion that the Iraqi people are poor, abused cavemen (or their desert equivalent). You might be surprised to learn that they have cities, jobs, lives, etc and generally lead normal lives. Certainly, there are cultural and religious differences, and there is obviously a clear economic disparity between the average Iraqi citizen and the average American. However, they're still people, living normal lives. I don't see how a rational person can argue that our bombing their industrial structures and national infrastructure to the degree necessary to render them militarily impotent won't have the side effect of crippling the Iraqi nation and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in the process - and that's ignoring the inevitable direct consequences of that bombing and invasion (civilian casualties).

I don't understand the support for Hussein.
That's because you share the same myopic view of the world shared by too many in this country. People can either support the US's current policy, or they are anti-American, pro-Hussein traitors. The idea that intelligent people can both think Hussein is a deplorable character AND think that a military invasion of Iraq is completely inappropriate is apparently beyond you. Is Hussein a brutal dictator? Yes. Does Iraq pose a threat to the US (or anyone else, for that matter)? No. Is Iraq connected in any way with 9/11 or Al Queda? No. End of story. Being patriotic doesn't mean swallowing official b/s and telling everyone how tasty it is.

Irish

[Michael Davis]

Any good poker player knows you base decisions on long term results. Of course all immediate appearances will make it seem that this was a good decision by the United States. But twenty years in the future, with terrorism and terrorists increased by huge percentages, our military engaged at various hot spots across the globe (if we are to continue the totally unacceptable foreign policy we have adopted), and no allies to speak of in a world that we have alienated by our arrogant, overly self-interested policies, then we can judge the results of this war.

-Mike

[adios]

Actually what world history has shown is exactly the opposite of what you state for democracies that are established. There is no basis in fact for your claim.

[andyfox]

"M, we could find all sorts of chemical and/or biological weapons and it still wouldn't mean that our decision to invade was correct. Bush can frame the argument in those terms all he likes, but that doesn't make it so"

Why is this silly? No one in this country that I have heard who is against the war has claimed that Saddam Hussein is a good guy and we should leave him alone. The question is whether or not his weapons pose(d) a credible threat to the United States.

[Michael Davis]

Yes, the United States has an excellent track record when meddling in other countries' affairs.

[adios]

Nice try changing the subject. You made a prediction that has no basis in fact. Hussein is an illegitimate despot who his people want deposed and they need help.

[IrishHand]

lol

What world do you live in? There is a direct hisotorical correlation between US presence/intervention in the middle east and terrorism directed at the US from that part of the world. In 50 years ago, there were no US military bases sprinkled around the middle east, and there was no threat of terrorism. Now, we have bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc and are one of the terorrist targets of choice. I have no idea how you (or anyone else) thinks that the current "invade and replace" war will result in anything other than a continuation of this trend.

[adios]

Has Saddam ever supported terrorists? Does Ansar al-Islam operate in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam? If it was al-Qaeda instead of a group Ansar al-Islam would that pose a credible threat? My answer is yes he has supported terrorism so he is a credible threat. Just today Ansar al-Islam most likely committed the following terrorist act:

Car bomb kills 5, including journalist (http://www.msnbc.com/news/889223.asp?0cv=CB10)

Saddam is more than not a good guy he's a maniacal, genocidal, terrorist sympathizer, despot, and tyrant who rules Iraq with an iron fist. He needs to go and he'll be gone soon AND the world will be a much better place for it happening.

[Jimbo]

I have no idea how you (or anyone else) thinks that the current "invade and replace" war will result in anything other than a continuation of this trend.

Then it is a good thing that your superiors in the White House do understand and are the ones making the decisions.

[Clarkmeister]

Re: "They're being greeted with open arms by many, WMD's are being uncovered, civilian casulties are minimal (Saddam probably would have killed more of his citizens in this time span), oil facitlities that belong to the people of Iraq are being preserved, and massive humanitarian aid is on the way. "


Iraqi troops aren't surrendering, locals aren't uprising, Iraqi expatriates are returing to Iraq to defend it, we've found no WMD, civilian casualties are mounting, and we can't even distribute food because the enemy is so firmly entrenched within the cities themselves using effective guerrilla tactics, and we now need to stop for a week simply to consolidate, something that was entirely avoidable.

[Cyrus]

Tom Haley : "[American troops] are being greeted with open arms by many, WMD's are being uncovered, civilian casulties are minimal, oil facitlities that belong to the people of Iraq are being preserved, and massive humanitarian aid is on the way."

Clarkmeister : "Iraqi troops aren't surrendering, locals aren't uprising, Iraqi expatriates are returing to Iraq to defend it, we've found no WMD, civilian casualties are mounting, and we can't even distribute food because the enemy is so firmly entrenched within the cities."

Well, apart from all that, Tom got everything right.

(Just yanking yer chain there, Tom! I know you're not reading my posts any more.)

[Jimbo]

Iraqi troops aren't surrendering,FALSE locals aren't uprising,FALSE Iraqi expatriates are returing to Iraq to defend it, TRUE and this is good, get them all in one spot we've found no WMD,YET civilian casualties are mounting,And you expected no civillian casualities? and we can't even distribute food because the enemy is so firmly entrenched within the cities themselves using effective guerrilla tactics,Interesting theory but little proof and we now need to stop for a week simply to consolidate,Not unexpected according to the Generals something that was entirely avoidable.Hardly proof here

Plese provide some substantiation with your suppositions Clarkmeister.

[adios]

Exactly. Everything I stated is actually true. While he's at it maybe he can explain this pearl of knowledge which he never has:

"As we float all those 6 month and 1 year T-bills we leave ourselves incredibly vulnerable to any increase in short term rates."

Apparently my pointing out that Bush's popularity has increased dramatically since the war started put him on tilt.

[Clarkmeister]

"Everything I stated is actually true"

OK, lets examine:

"They're being greeted with open arms by many,"

We can argue all day about the definition of "many". Its certainly fair to say that our reception hasn't been as rosy as we initially thought it was/would be.

" WMD's are being uncovered,"

Nope. Not true.

"civilian casulties are minimal (Saddam probably would have killed more of his citizens in this time span),"

Currently there are reported between 3,000 and 4,000 civilian casualties/injuries. Surely this isn't minimal given that its 40x the rate that our actual combat troops have suffered. Also you aren't alleging that Saddam injured/killed 3-4k civillians per every 10 day period are you?

"oil facitlities that belong to the people of Iraq are being preserved, "

I didn't know that they were being destroyed prior to our decision to invade. The only reason they would be damaged is in response to our attack, so I don't know how we are somehow to be clothed in glory for putting out a dozen fires.


"and massive humanitarian aid is on the way."

OK, this is true. And the bulk of it is still on the way. Because we can't get it to the civillians because of the staunch resistance we are encountering. Also, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, most of the aid is going to be used by people whose strife is directly caused by us.


As far as interest rates. I didn't respond because, frankly, I thought the answer self evident. If you refinanced your mortgage every 6 months at the current 6 month rate, isn't it fair to say that you expose yourself to short term interest fluxuations? That's exactly what we do with a significant portion of the national debt. Its also why Clinton got his "surplus" at the end of his term. It wasn't some brilliant planning. It was luck due to unforseen drops in the S/T rates.

[Clarkmeister]

"Iraqi troops aren't surrendering,FALSE"

Not in the numbers initially reported, nor in the numbers we thought we would see.

" locals aren't uprising,FALSE"

Again, not in the numbers initially reported, nor in the numbers we expected to see. In fact, it appears to be going the opposite way. In other words, rather than uprising against Saddam, many Iraqis appear to be taking up arms against us instead.

" Iraqi expatriates are returing to Iraq to defend it, TRUE and this is good, get them all in one spot"

This is a borderline irrational view. Why the hatred?

"we've found no WMD,YET"

Hey, we agree on one!

"civilian casualties are mounting,And you expected no civillian casualities?"

No, I expected huge numbers of civillian casualties. Thats part of the reason I was agaisnt the war. You act like its OK that we have caused casualties since we expected to.

"and we can't even distribute food because the enemy is so firmly entrenched within the cities themselves using effective guerrilla tactics,Interesting theory but little proof"

I don't feel the need to cite tons of articles for what is common knowledge. The city is Basra. The problems are well documented.

"and we now need to stop for a week simply to consolidate,Not unexpected according to the Generals something that was entirely avoidable.Hardly proof here "

Of course the Generals will say they expected it. Duh. Surely you can do better than that. But the obvious fact of the matter is that if we expected we wouldn't have to stop for a week while we ordered more troops and supplies. They would have been on their way already.

Jimbo, I really don't know why you insist that everything is going perfectly when clearly its not. This isn't a pro or anti war argument, its simple observation of whats going on. When you are watching a football game and your team struggles in the first 5 minutes, do you insist that the coaching staff planned on it? Or do you maybe consider that their initial gameplan wasn't so sharp and that maybe they need to make some adjustments.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49010-2003Mar29.html

[Jimbo]

Well Clarkmeister I suppose we'll just have to wait for the final result. In the end many people will die, Saddam will be overthrown, a new government will be developed and you can bet on next years Acadamy awards.

"This is a borderline irrational view. Why the hatred?"

Not hatred but I am being pragmatic. If they are willing to die for Saddam it is better they die on the battlefield of Iraq rather than as a suicide bomber or carrier of a deadly toxin to the USA. Actually I thought this point was most obvious.

"Of course the Generals will say they expected it. Duh. Surely you can do better than that. But the obvious fact of the matter is that if we expected we wouldn't have to stop for a week while we ordered more troops and supplies. They would have been on their way already."

Clarkmeister in the real world where we live today if this delay was seriously unexpected it would not be denied. You should worry more if they had not anticipated some delays. In addition you keep saying a week because that was the initial news report. Try watching Meet The Press and listen to Donald Rumsfield for clarification. I imagine if it was your ass in Baghdad with bombs falling all around you you might be saying "What frigging delay?"

I have not insisted that everything was going perfectly, I have stated nothing that has occured so far was completely unexpected wheras that is exactly what you are stating. How you can believe this baffles me. I have no doubt given you undue credit in the past.

[adios]

As far as WMD's I guess Scud missles don't qualify and yes biological weapons and chemical weapons have not been uncovered yet. If and when they are it will be interesting what you have to say. Are you prediciting that they won't be found?

As far oil facilities they never belonged to the people they belonged to Saddam and his henchmen.

Do you have a source for your civillian casulties. Yes it's unfortunate but so are the terrorist tactics that are being employed by the Iraqi regime. How much blood is on Husseins hands during his reign of terror? This seems to be an issue that you seem to never address.

Here's what you wrote about interest rates:

"As we float all those 6 month and 1 year T-bills we leave ourselves incredibly vulnerable to any increase in short term rates."

This is your reply?

"As far as interest rates. I didn't respond because, frankly, I thought the answer self evident. If you refinanced your mortgage every 6 months at the current 6 month rate, isn't it fair to say that you expose yourself to short term interest fluxuations?"

No it's not fair. First of it's a non response since we were discussing the budget deficit. All I can say is that there all kinds of mortgage loans available with various durations, various, interest rates, various terms on what you pay, various kinds of adjustable rate mortgages, various kinds of fixed rate mortgages etc. Quite frankly your statement is absurd on it's face value and non sensical. The only person that would go broke by refinancing every month is a complete moron. It's akin to hitting your hand at blackjack until you bust on every hand. Fixed rate mortgages rates have little to do with 6 month and 1 year T-bills. Check out the spread between various fiexed mortgage rates and 6 and 1 year T-Bills over the past year and you'll see. Here's a little clue for you, the Fed determines the shape of the yield curve from 0-2 years. The bond market sets the shape of the yield curve 2 years on out. As far as ARM's are concerned well there's a lot of options available. There certainly isn't a ubiquotous ARM that all mortgage borrowers use so it's impossible to make a blanket statement about a short term rise in interest rates. The next move by the Fed is likely to be a lowering of interest rates due to the uncertainty that the war is bringing about. Economic activity is definitely slowing. A budget surplus was brought about during the Clinton administration by budget cuts and by a booming economy where unemploymnet reached record low levels thus tax revenues reached maximum levels. Now with a sluggish economy and unemployment quite a bit higher tax revenues are less, thus a budget deficit. Of course spending increases and tax relief will further add to the deficit but tax relief should spur economic activity. Government spending will as well. As I pointed out to you the other day interest rates are at record low levels for treasuries and this is exactly the time you want to borrow money which means that this is the time the government wants to borrow money. Sell high (treasuries are near record highs) and buy low. Yes expect the Fed to buy back a lot of treasuries some time in the future when interest rates are higher.

"Its also why Clinton got his "surplus" at the end of his term. It wasn't some brilliant planning. It was luck due to unforseen drops in the S/T rates. "

At the end of Clinton's term short term rates were rising. The reason was that unemployment had reached record low levels and the Fed was concerned that the unemployment rate was too low. There is concept in marco economics called the natural rate of unemployment. The theory goes (one that the Fed subscribes to btw) that there will always be some level of unemployment due to various reasons even when the economy is at full employment. Also from macro economics there is something called the Phillips Curve which shows an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation. When the Fed started raising short term rates at the end of the Clinton administration, they perceived a great inflation risk due to what they called "tight" labor markets. The Fed saw that the demand for labor was outstripping the supply. Applying the Phillips curve the inflation risk was greatly increased due to the record low levels of unemployment. The Fed put on the brakes and for many reasons, mainly lack of investment spending, the economic growth hasn't accelerated very much since then.

[IrishHand]

Terrorist tactics being employed by the Iraqi regime? What weed are you smoking? We invaded their country. It's not terrorism when you're defending your homeland against an invader, any more than you can call our bombing of their cities "terrorism". It's war - plain and simple. It's not pretty, it's not nice to think about and even less so to experience, but that's war.

Behaving as though the enemy you just invaded should play according to your idea of the rules (which, by the way, are completely at odds with how our miiltary - and every other - behaves during wars) is insane. Branding the enemy a terrorist for the way he defends his land is just trying to be manipulative. Really - this whole obsession with "terrorism" is a product of this time. Nobody called the Japanese kamikaze pilots "terrorists" that I'm aware of, and I've read a lot of books on the topic.

[Clarkmeister]

"No it's not fair. First of it's a non response since we were discussing the budget deficit"

Maybe you were talking about the deficit, but I was clearly talking about the debt. We finance much more than the current deficit with short term bills. After reading the information at the following site, about 1/3rd of the national debt is held in short term securities. That's $1 Trillion worth of exposure to short term interest fluxuations.

All quibbling aside, you'll like these two links I think.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm022003.prn

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

[adios]

"That's $1 Trillion worth of exposure to short term interest fluxuations."

The national debt and the national deficit are the same thing since a deficit applies to multiple years too. Using a 6 month treasury as an example, today the quote is at 1.03%. If the government sells this 6 month treasury at 1.03% and yields go up to 1.2% on 6 month treasuries (a spike up), does the price of the bond that the USA sold rise or fall? If the price falls then the price difference is a gain for the USA is it not? This is because the bond that was sold yielding 1.03% is worth less when interest rates spike up to a higher rate. So I fail to understand what your point is. Anyway spikes in short term rates don't happen randomly and people that want safety buy short duration government bonds. The reason is that they, the buyer of US govt bonds are insulated from interest rate increases more or less.

[Clarkmeister]

The problem isn't what happens to the 6 month treasury during the 6 months. Obviously that has no impact on the US since its obligation remains unchanged. The problem is at the end of the 6 months when the US needs to float a new treasury and now has to do so at the higher rate.

Let me try and make my point another way. Lets pretend the US finances its entire $1T worth of s/t debt tomorrow through the issuance of a 6 month treasury. In 6 months, it is vulnerable to whatever the new 6 month rate is.

[nicky g]

From TOm: "Does Ansar al-Islam operate in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam? " -

I doubt it. It operates (operated) in Kurdish - controlled Northern Iraq. Noone has ever come up with any evidence as to why it would be in league with a secular dictator.

By the way it seems some WMD has been discovered. After an American plane blew up a British tank (nice going - it was broad daylight, they were clearly marked and there was no battle for miles), the troops recovering the body had to wear chemical warfare protection suits - to protect themselves from the coalition's atomised depleted uranium.

[IrishHand]

US 2, UK 0
We're doing a good job blowing up British vehicles.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand if you can't pull an April Fools joke on your friends who are you gonna tease?

[brad]

of course.

as we used to say, 'f*** em if they cant take a joke'

[adios]

We've gone from debt to mortgages back to debt.
"Let me try and make my point another way. Lets pretend the US finances its entire $1T worth of s/t debt tomorrow through the issuance of a 6 month treasury. In 6 months, it is vulnerable to whatever the new 6 month rate is."

First of all you seem to not want to acknowledge that short term interest rates rise when government revenues are increasing. Second of all much of the older more expensive debt is continuosly bought back with lower interest rate debt. Third I don't what those links you provided are supposed to prove. From my reading of the link public debt treaury notes and bonds outstanding outnumer T-Bills by 3-1.

Here's a link explaining treasury securities:

The Basics of Treasury Securities (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/of/ofbasics.htm)


Here's something you might find interesting issued by the Treasury Department on April 30,2002.

Average Maturity of the Debt (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/po3053.htm)

---------------------------------------------------------

In Treasury's chart presentation, The Treasury asked for the Committee's views on what factors regarding the composition of outstanding debt and new debt issuance should be considered in the formulation of debt management policy. The Committee first noted that the average maturity of the debt has fluctuated between four and six years for forty of the past fifty years. The current numbers all well within those ranges. Members felt that the Treasury's long-range expectations for the federal budget should be an important component in the composition and maturity of the debt. However, because of the inherent economic and political uncertainties in long-range budget projections, these should not be the sole or, according to some, even the most important factor in decisions about the debt. Some Committee members expressed the opinion that under most circumstances, the most important consideration for the Treasury is to be able to easily raise money to fund the government and to be able to do so under any and all circumstances, regardless of the business cycle. While it may be temporarily less expensive for the Treasury to raise all of its funds in very short maturities, rollover risk related to the business cycle and even to foreign participation in the U.S. market suggests that in the long run such a policy could actually increase direct and indirect costs. Another consideration that was important to Committee members, even most important to some members, is the use of Treasuries for risk transference, that is hedging, from other markets like corporates and mortgages. These markets have been growing rapidly in recent years. It was noted that while the amount of Treasury coupons has contracted in recent years, the volume of trading in Treasuries has actually increased because of the use of Treasuries for risk transference. Members believe that providing new liquid debt in maturities where hedging requirements are the greatest not only helps the functioning of these markets but over the long run reduces the cost of debt to the Treasury. By and large, members expressed the view that changes in the average maturity of the debt within the broad ranges of four to six years are not critical in and of themselves to Treasury debt management.

Occasionally, situations arise where it may be important to change the trend movement in the average maturity. For example, a few years ago when officials became increasingly convinced that budget surpluses were going to grow quickly so that all the debt would be paid down by 2011, a rising average maturity of the debt did not appear consistent with the expectations and goals of the Treasury. As of now, the average maturity has turned down and the date of a potential paydown of the debt has been pushed further into the future. Consequently, Committee members expressed the belief that other factors such as maintaining a variety of maturities to protect against rollover risks throughout the business cycle and providing securities that are available for risk transference purposes are now more important considerations when deciding on the composition and maturities of debt financing.

--------------------------------------------------------

Note the following from the excerpt:

"the chart of the average maturity of the privately held marketable debt was shown to have turned lower in the year 2000 and now stands at 5 years 9 months. Under current financing schedules, this trend will continue so that by the end of 2002 the average maturity will have fallen to under 5-1/2 years."

Average maturity of the privately held debt is 5 and 1/2 years.

"Committee members expressed the opinion that under most circumstances, the most important consideration for the Treasury is to be able to easily raise money to fund the government and to be able to do so under any and all circumstances, regardless of the business cycle. While it may be temporarily less expensive for the Treasury to raise all of its funds in very short maturities, rollover risk related to the business cycle and even to foreign participation in the U.S. market suggests that in the long run such a policy could actually increase direct and indirect costs."

Notice that the policy is to exactly the opposite of what you suggest it is.

[adios]

I guess the progress made since this post was made is rather disappointing to some, to me it seems that the progress made was anything but being bogged down. Perhaps the progress to that point wasn't rapid enough. However, in less than a month I think it's fair to say that the end of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein is very near if it already hasn't occurred. Busses and pick-up trucks are no match for tanks and A-10 war planes. "Mop up" activities will occur for a little while but the outcome is clear. Soon the efforts to build a new government in Iraq will begin (actually they've started) and this will present a unique and difficult challenge. One civilian casulty is too much but IMO the civilian casulties are low but a genocidal regime has been toppled and only time will tell if lives have been saved. Do the Iraqi's want to be free of Saddam? The answer is apparent. Humanitarian aid has been flowing into Iraq constantly. Credible reports of WMD's are starting to surface. We'll see what the search brings.