A Reasoned Voice

Remembering 9/11

2011-09-11T11:13:00.002-05:00

Ten years ago today, four passenger jets were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists. Two were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, one was flown into the Pentagon, and the fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania when its passengers, realizing what was going on, fought the highjackers for control of the plane.

Ten years ago today, over three thousand men and women died in the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil (and arguably the deadliest terrorist attack anywhere).

Today, news commentators, pundits, and bloggers such as myself comment on this tragedy. Some seek meaning; others seek to prove some larger point. I will do neither.

What I know of 9/11 is this: I know that at least one person whom I knew personally, albeit not closely, was in the World Trade Center that day and died. I know that my neighbor's grandson some years later served in Afghanistan--and because he is serving was not able to make her memorial service when my neighbor passed away last year. I know that, living close to a major airport, the lack of airplane noises because all aircraft are grounded is a silence that is far past eerie. I know that, after 9/11, several aspects of my work and my business as an IT consultant were changed--how to sustain computer networks after terrorist attacks became a disturbing and pressing reality.

What I do not know of 9/11 is whether the act itself "proved" anything. If it "proved" some weakness of the United States, why have there been no similarly successful attacks since then? If it "proved" the strength of Al Qaeda, why did Osama bin Laden spend the rest of his life in hiding?

Nor do I know if 9/11 means anything at all. Three thousand people died because some twenty or so terrorists chose to kill them, in a burst of hatred and violence that is quite beyond my understanding. I do not know why Al Qaeda and its supporters feel such hatred for the US. I do not know why terrorists feel that an orgy of violence is necessary to advance their cause. I do not know, and I do not understand. In all honesty, I do not want to understand--who would want to fathom the minds of murderers?

But I remember something else of that day. I remember that the sun rose, and the sun set. I remember that I got up, exercised, showered, and went off to work. I remember that I came home to a hot meal and a soft bed. I remember that, while three thousand did die tragic deaths, life itself continued.

Today the sun rises just as it did ten years ago. It will set just at it did ten years ago. Come the evening, I will again enjoy a hot meal and a soft bed, and I will again think upon those people who will never again enjoy either. Life itself will continue.

That is how I choose to remember 9/11. That, despite death and destruction, in spite of terror and tragedy, life itself continues--as it always has, and as it always will. Whatever successes Al Qaeda may have had that day, defeating life in all its inevitability is not among them.

Libya: Mission (not yet) accomplished?

2011-08-23T07:22:00.005-05:00

This week's award for the most ironic journalistic paragraph goes to Ben Smith of Politico, who opened his 22 August 2011 piece on the Libyan civil war thusly:

The fall of Tripoli is a foreign policy triumph for which President Barack Obama won’t hold a ticker-tape parade: no flight suit, no chest-thumping, no “Mission Accomplished” banner.

While the sentiment would have been ironic regardless of events within Libya (not to mention a tad hypocritical, declaring a "foreign policy triumph" for Barack Obama while delivering yet another implied rebuke of President Bush's theatrics when declaring the end of "major military operations" in Iraq), the irony was compounded by the fact that Tripoli had indeed fallen--but fallen into chaos, confusion, and a very messy urban brawl, as Gadhafi loyalists mounted a counter-attack and retook several portions of the city.

The rebel hand was further weakened when Seif al-Islam el-Gadhafi, the Gadhafi son reported captured by the rebels, hours later made a television appearance to taunt the rebels.

Far from being a "foreign policy triumph", Obama's strategy of "leading from behind" has produced yet another grim reminder that, even in the 21st century, war is a bloody, brutal, murderous undertaking--General Sherman's analysis remains correct, war is still hell. The strategy is serving to remind the world that, while Gadhafi is known to one and all as a thoroughly evil man, the rebel leadership is not really known at all, and that their leadership of the Libyan uprising has been fractious and uneven at best; it offers few, if any, real assurances of a government more enlightened that Gadhafi's. Far from being a "foreign policy triumph", Obama's handling of Libya is still at risk of being an expenditure of American treasure (thankfully, not American blood--yet) with nothing more accomplished than replacing one brutal autocrat with another.

Gadhafi's days of power may be over, but the days of democratic government in Libya are still a long way off. And that is nobody's "foreign policy triumph."

Libya: What has NATO accomplished?

2011-08-22T06:13:00.003-05:00

As Libyan rebels consolidated their hold on Tripoli, President Obama attempted to put his stamp of approval on matters by telling the world what it already knew: That Moammar Gadhafi should step down for the good of his people.

No kidding. For the good of humanity Gadhafi should have been overthrown decades ago, or, better yet, never allowed to come to power. Like all dictators (especially dictators with oil-derived wealth), he is not a nice man.

So, for the good of the Libyan people, Gadhafi should bow to fate and surrender to the rebel Transitional National Council, who will of course be far more benign in their rule.

Or will they? Consider for a moment who makes up this group: Their chairman, Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, has been Gadhafi's Minister of Justice since 2007, having been a judge in the Libyan judicial system since 1978--the system Gahdafi has controlled since seizing power in 1969. While Human Rights Watch did have some kind words for him for his stance on wrongful detention in 2010, he can hardly be called a dissident in the mold of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Nobel Peace laureate and staunch pro-democracy advocate. The other members of the council have all served in various government positions under Gadhafi.

The council members have not been elected by the Libyan people--indeed, their legitimacy seems largely derived from the willingness of other nations to recognize them and not Gadhafi as the "legitimate" government of Libya, and therefore entitled to received arms and other assistance in fighting the Libyan forces loyal to Gadhafi. What historical commitment to democracy and the rule of law do these men actually have?

An even better question might be to ask what history the council has; it did not exist in any form before this past March, when the council, its web site, domain, and Twitter account all magically appeared (is it a real revolution if it isn't "facebook official"?).

While the civilized world may plausibly persuade itself that removing Gadhafi from power is by itself an advancement of freedom in the world, thus far there is little practical proof that those who aim to replace him will be much better--that they were willing to be part of his regime for the better part of their respective careers can hardly be counted as a ringing endorsement of their commitment to democratic government.

Obama says Gadhafi must leave for the sake of the Libyan people. For the sake of the Libyan people, I hope he's right.

Unreasonable Voices (aka Liberal Liars)

2011-08-16T07:50:00.004-05:00

I titled my contribution to the blogosphere "A Reasoned Voice" both as a reminder to myself and a suggestion to others--that while discussion and debate should be passionate, even heated, it accomplishes little if it is not firmly grounded in facts, in reality, and in (above all) reason. How reasoned my voice is I leave for others to judge, but I do believe I have largely held to that standard in my occasional offerings herein.

I am therefore reasonably frustrated when I come across commentaries such as that from blogger Matt Yglesias from Think Progress, who takes issue with a Rick Perry comment about Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke.

Governor Perry, speaking in Iowa yesterda (Monday, 15 August 2011), offered up the following opinion of Ben Bernanke and his policies of "quantitative easing"--printing money to stimulate the economy:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.

Yglesias' opprobrium towards Perry comes from the rather banal observation that treason is a capital offense (and--not mentioned by Yglesias--is the only crime specifically defined in the constitution). Yglesias is correct on that point, and he is well within his rights to be irritated or even outraged at Governor Perry's comment. Where Yglesias departs from fact and his rights is how he promoted that particular blog entry on Twitter:

Rick Perry proposes lynching Ben Bernanke

Merriam-Webster defines the verb "lynch" thusly:

to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction

The Constitution of the United States defines "treason" thusly (Article 3 Section 3):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Federal statute--18 USC §2381--declares treason punishable by death:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Such, then, are the facts surrounding Governor Perry's comment.

Could quantitative easing be considered "treason" per the Constitution? One could argue--albeit facetiously--that printing money, thus debasing the US Dollar, strengthens adversarial nations such as China and Russia, and would therefore fall under the heading of giving them "aid and comfort." It is a flimsy argument at best, laughable at worst, but it is an argument that can be made.

It is also an argument Governor Perry conspicuously did not make; his condemnation was clear--more quantitative easing was "almost treasonous". Governor Perry's meaning is quite obvious: printing money is not helpful to the United States or the US economy. There is no second plausible interpretation of his words. Those words are a rhetorically forceful but cogent and valid statement of his view of proper fiscal and monetary policy. Those words are not an accusation of any crime, not even treason.

Further, an accusation of a crime, even if that were the import of Governor Perry's words, is not in and of itself a call to vigilante justice. Saying that "...we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas" is colorful, even perhaps provincial, but it does not suggest vigilantism.

Matt Yglesias is quite within his rights to disagree with Governor Perry's opinions. That disagreement deserves to be heard, for it is necessary if there is to be vigorous debate on the issues pressing this country hard. To broadcast via twitter that Governor Perry suggested lynching Ben Bernanke is quite simply libelous, and arguably libel per se--which is defined as follows:

broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

I can understand that liberals do not like Governor Perry--I can quite easily fathom why liberal commentators such as Matt Yglesias are intimidated by Governor Perry's uncompromising rhetoric. Governor Perry uses language that is clear and unmistakable to stake out political and even moral/ethical stands that are equally clear and unmistakable; to respond effectively to such language would require an equally clear stance of opposition--something many would prefer to avoid. Yet when one's rhetorical arsenal is nothing but outright lies, surely that only strengthens one's opponent. It surely does not advance or improve the debate at hand.

Matt Yglesias lied about Governor Perry. He lied, and he libeled by lying. Thus does he cede credibility and correctness to Governor Perry.

Matt Yglesias lied about Governor Perry, and the blogosphere is diminished for his lie. The political process is diminished for his lie. Think Progress is diminished for his lie.

Matt Yglesias should stop lying or stop blogging. There is no ethically sound third alternative.

Still a Time for Choosing

2011-08-14T00:47:00.005-05:00

Watching Texas Governor Rick Perry announce his candidacy for the 2012 Presidential election, I was struck by the parallels between his remarks and Ronald Reagan's powerful "A Time for Choosing" address to the 1964 Republican Convention, as well as to Reagan's acceptance speech to the 1980 Republican Convention. To illustrate, without reading the texts linked herein, try ascribing the following quotes to either Rick Perry or Ronald Reagan:

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.

One in six work-eligible Americans cannot find a full-time job. That is not a recovery. That is an economic disaster.

The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal, and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership, in the White House and in the Congress, for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they've done the most that could humanly be done. They say that the United States has had it’s day in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems, that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.

And what do we say to our children? Y’all figure it out?

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

No, I do not suggest Rick Perry is another "Great Communicator"--although there is little question that he is far more effective a speaker than Barak Obama. What I do suggest is that Perry's candidacy, much like Reagan's own campaign and subsequent Presidency, is very much a "time for choosing"--choosing not of men but of philosophies of government. I suggest that Perry, much like Reagan in his era, champions a philosophy of small civic government and large civic liberty. I suggest that Perry makes a clear and cogent argument for the virtue of small government, grounded in the success that is the history of the United States of America, and given the mantle of authority by his more than ten years as Governor of Texas.

The debate Rick Perry is championing is a simple one: how much government do we really need? Is government automatically a social good or is it rather more often a social burden? This debate is not new: Thoreau put forward similar questioning in his essay "Civil Disobedience", when he proudly pronounce "that government is best which governs not at all." No less a figure than Thomas Jefferson laid the foundation of that debate, both in his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and again in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, championing the states' right to nullify federal law.

To be sure, Perry is not alone in his call for small government. Michelle Bachmann has electrified crowds across the country and won the Iowa straw polls with her small government rhetoric, while Ron Paul has, Cassandra-like, warned repeatedly of the inherent unsustainable nature of a large and growing federal government. Still, Perry moreso than Bachmann or Paul lays down the clear philosophical challenge:

You see, as Americans we’re not defined by class, and we will never be told our place. What makes our nation exceptional is that anyone, from any background, can climb the highest of heights. As Americans, we don’t see the role of government as guaranteeing outcomes, but allowing free men and women to flourish based on their own vision, their hard work and their personal responsibility. And as Americans, we realize there is no taxpayer money that wasn’t first earned by the sweat and toil of one of our citizens.

Nor does Perry merely stop with taxes. Again echoing Reagan, Perry put forth a simple assertion of the proper political order in the United States: that government is always subordinate to the will of the people

In America, the people are not subjects of government. The government is subject to the people. And it is up to us, to this present generation of Americans, to take a stand for freedom, to send a message to Washington that we’re taking our future back from the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micro-manage our lives.

Thus I suggest that, before we consider Perry the candidate, or any contender for the next election to the office of President, we first consider the philosophical gauntlet being laid down--most forcefully by Perry but also by many within the GOP--how much government is too much? How much government is enough?

The coming months and all of 2012 will be filled with paeans and jeremiads for and against all Presidential contenders, Obama included. But before we consider the candidates, we should consider for ourselves how we would answer these questions. As we consider the candidates, we should realize that every election is and will always be a very personal "time for choosing."

Forward or Backward?

2010-06-23T23:04:00.000-05:00

Move America Forward, which presents itself as "the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization", has issued a call for ousted General Stanley McChrystal to "come public with the true extent of the Obama Administration’s disengagement with the war in Afghanistan."

“Now that General McChrystal is no longer part of the military chain of command, he is free to expose the mismanagement of the war by the Obama administration, which is what got him in trouble in the first place.” said Move America Forward’s Director of Communications, Danny Gonzalez.

Has Obama mismanaged the situation in Afghanistan? There is an argument to be made that he has--certainly there are deep divisions within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan, divisions Obama has not managed to heal, and it is the civilian side of the US presence in Afghanistan, not the military side, that has a growing rift with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Yet there are also complaints to be levied against the Pentagon as well. The glacial pace of the troop buildup in Afghanistan for the "surge" strategy (the last of the 30,000 troops are only now arriving in Afghanistan) can only be laid at the feet of the Pentagon, not the Administration.

If indeed Obama has been "disengaged" from Afghanistan, creating a continuing public controversy over his handling of matters to date is hardly going to assist him becoming "engaged" now. Operations in Afghanistan are still unfolding, and there will be ample opportunities for General McChrystal to lend his perspective to the strengths and weakness of the Administration's efforts. To "come public" with inflammatory charges of mismanagement and misconduct does not help the Administration focus its energies on Afghanistan.

Obama has publicly re-committed himself to the "surge" strategy. In announcing the replacement of McChrystal with General David Petraeus Obama stated: "This is a change in personnel, but this is not a change in policy."

If the goal of Move America Forward is to ensure the Obama Administration is fully engaged and supportive of the troops in Afghanistan, McChrystal's career-ending flirtation with Rolling Stone has already done most of what can be done to achieve that goal. Supporting the troops now means standing back and giving the Obama Administration the latitude to manage things as they wish. Obama remains the Commander In Chief until 2012; for the sake of the troops, that needs to be respected.

McChrystal Out, Petreaus In, Challenge Remains

2010-06-23T17:03:00.000-05:00

A day after Rolling Stone published a profile piece of General Stanley McChrystal in which McChrystal and several of his senior staff made caustic, derisive, and arguably insubordinate comments about Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and several members of Obama's administration, Obama fired McChrystal, replacing him with General David Petraeus, head of the US Army's Central Command (and, ironically, technically McChrystal's superior).

In many respects, Petraeus is an easy choice to make for McChrystal's replacement. As the architect of the successful "surge" strategy in Iraq that for many has been the model of what needs to take place in Afghanistan, he is arguably the Army's foremost expert on counterinsurgency strategies and tactics (COIN, in the military argot). As the general many credit with salvaging the situation on the ground in Iraq, Petraeus is quite popular with Republicans in Congress (there has been considerable speculation as to whether Petraeus would be drafted by the Republicans for the 2012 Presidential elections) Indeed, that the new assignment is technically a demotion for Petraeus only serves to underscore the heft Petraeus brings to the table.

What Petraeus does not bring is a substantial alteration to the situation in Afghanistan. US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Obama's diplomatic lead in Kabul, has never walked back the opposition to a "surge" strategy he voiced last fall in a series of classified cables to Obama (that were subsequently leaked to the New York Times). Neither has Vice President Biden, who was quoted by Jonathan Alter in The Promise that "In July of 2011, you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it."--an assertion Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphatically rejected earlier this week. Despite assertions by Obama in announing McChrystal's ouster that he could tolerate debate but not division, divisions over Afghanistan are everywhere in Obama's Administration:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone along with the project, but Vice President Joe Biden—who might have been secretary of state had the cards fallen in a slightly different way—has not. Divisions within the administration grow by the day.

Nor does Petraeus have large numbers of troops in his back pocket to take to Afghanistan. He flies to Kabul alone, to take command of McChrystal's men and execute McChrystal's strategy, on the eve of a major push to retake Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city. The last of the 30,000 troops allocated by Obama to the Afghanistan "surge" are just now arriving on the battlefield--delays in their arrival have been a principal frustration of the Kandahar offensive. Secretary Gates is counseling patience, to give the strategy time to succeed, but the political reality is that time is running out on Afghanistan; the July 2011 pullout date is fixed in the minds of many, and Americans, by a 53-44 percent margin, do not count the Afghanistan war as one worth fighting--and certainly one not worth American lives.

By replacing McChrystal with Petraeus, Obama is essentially rebutting the crux of McChrystal's Rolling Stone complaints, a lack of strong support for the troops. However, if all Obama does is replace McChrystal with Petraeus, he will have largely validated McChrystal's complaint.

He may be gone, but McChrystal has managed to box Obama in yet again.

McChrystal and Rolling Stone: Why Obama is losing the Battle of Kabul

2010-06-23T08:58:00.000-05:00

General Stanley McChrystal, by opting to be the subject of a profile in Rolling Stone Magazine, to be published in issue 1108/1109 of that publication, touched off a firestorm with the biting criticisms attributed to him and his staff of several members of the Obama Administration, including Barack Obama himself. The profile piece may very well cost him his career, and could send US military efforts in Afghanistan spiraling into chaos.

There can be no doubt that McChrystal erred by speaking as he did, and by allowing his subordinates to speak as they did, to reporter Michael Hastings. Not only does Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly make the President the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces and therefore McChrystal's superior in the chain of command, but Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes insults and criticisms by military officers of the civilians placed over the military an offense punishable at court martial:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Yet what many have overlooked is that the Rolling Stone article portrays McChrystal's deepest conflict as being with US Ambassador to Afghanistan former Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry:

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so."

While the comments attributed to McChrystal in the Rolling Stone profile do indeed make him and his staff appear, in the words of John Dickerson of Slate magazine, "petty, frustrated, and reckless," Eikenberry's cable last fall--and its subsequent leaking to the New York Times shows him to be equally so (it was Eikenberry, not McChrystal, who alienated Afghan President Hamid Karzai by attending news conferences called by Karzai's opponents in last year's elections). That incident also showed the intense competition between Eikenberry and McChrystal for resources and support from Washington:

General Eikenberry has been an energetic envoy, traveling widely around Afghanistan to meet with tribal leaders and to inspect American development projects.

He has been pushing the State Department for additional civilian personnel in the country, including in areas like agriculture, where the United States wants to help wean farmers off cultivating poppies. The State Department has tried to accommodate his requests, according to a senior official, but has turned down some because of budget constraints and its desire to cap the overall number of civilians in Afghanistan at roughly 1,000.

He played a significant role, along with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in persuading Mr. Karzai last month to accept the results of an election commission, which called for a runoff presidential ballot.

That Michael Hastings was granted nearly two months of access to the inner workings of McChrystal's staff shortly after the New York Times piece where Eikenberry undermined McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy leaves one wondering if this was not the latest in a tit-for-tat media conflict between McChrystal and Eikenberry. Even if it is not, there is no denying that Obama's top diplomat in Kabul and Obama's top general in Kabul do not like each other and are taking steps to undermine each other. There is also no denying that Obama appointed them both to serve at his pleasure; it is difficult to envision Obama being pleased with either man at this juncture.

What Michael Hastings has revealed to the world is that the real battle for Kabul is in fact a clash of egos between the leaders of Obama's military and civilian strategies in Afghanistan--strategies which require each other if Obama's chosen task of building the Afghan nation is to succeed. McChrystal and Eikenberry appear to view each other as more of an enemy than the Taliban or al Qaeda.

While Eikenberry is poised to win that battle (by default, as McChrystal is likely to be forced to resign), there is little likelihood of the clash of egos ending. McChrystal's staff and deputy commanders are quite loyal to him personally, and any McChrystal replacement needs to come from those ranks if Obama is to avoid any major disruptions in the execution of the counterinsurgency strategy Obama chose in his speech at West Point last December. The profile piece showed that McChrystal's staff and deputy commanders share his criticisms of the civilians involved in Afghanistan.

What is most disturbing about this ego clash is that it has been going on even as the military and diplomatic situation in Kabul deteriorates, and that it has been going on under Obama's ultimate leadership; nor is there indication of any effort by the Obama Administration to bring McChrystal and Eikenberry to some form of modus vivendi. The Obama strategy for Afghanistan is a two-pronged strategy that involves defeating the Taliban militarily while building up the Karzai government diplomatically to withstand other insurgencies in the future. That strategy demands cooperation and coordination between the military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--between McChrystal and Eikenberry. Not only has Obama not been getting that cooperation, he seemingly has not been demanding such cooperation.

Whether or not McChrystal loses his job over this is problematic, but regardless of that, unless Obama can get the civilian and military personnel in Afghanistan to play nice with each other, he faces a very serious risk of losing Afghanistan. As the battle for Afghan hearts and minds has played out thus far, the clear loser at this juncture is Barack Obama.

Evil Taking Root in Europe -- The Next Day

2010-05-10T23:02:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's announcement of a €750 Billion bailout of eurozone sovereign debt was cause for some celebration in the world's bond markets. That celebration appears to have been short lived, as by the end of the trading day today bank swaps and the LIBOR inter-bank interest rates showed pessimism over the viability of the bailout, while the Japanese yen rose against the euro.

The market place assessment of the bailout has been simply this: "That's fine for today, now what about tomorrow and the day after next year?" The bailout may have arrested the free-fall of eurozone sovereign debt in the marketplace, but it does nothing to eliminate the burden that debt places on the economies of Europe.

“Markets realized quickly that this crisis won’t be cured by adding liquidity, no matter how big it is,” said Toshihiko Sakai, head of trading for currencies and financial products at Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corp. in Tokyo. “The structural problems of the euro zone will persist. I’m not surprised at all the euro is losing strength again.”

Still unanswered are the lingering questions about how successful efforts to trim deficit spending in the eurozone will be--even fiscally prudent Germany's deficit will be in excess of 5% this year, well in excess of the 3% allowed under euro rules. Nations such as Greece and even the UK are faced with the daunting challenge of growing their economies while drastically slashing government spending, a task that yesterday's bailout mechanism does not even begin to address.

The eurozone is spending the equivalent of $1 Trillion, not to solve their sovereign debt crisis, but to buy (on credit) a little time before they must resolve their sovereign debt crisis. That does not seem a wise use of increasingly scarce financial resources. €750 Billion of new debt will not make the existing debt any less troublesome; it will most likely make that debt more troublesome.

The evil taking root in Europe is simply this: to defend a particular bit of money--the euro currency--Europe is prepared to lay waste to its nations' finances and economies. The marketplace realizes this, and so the euro's downward spiral against other currencies continues despite Europe's spending their very last euro to reverse that course.

Evil Taking Root in Europe

2010-05-09T23:12:00.000-05:00

Last week I speculated on the practical wisdom contained in the Bible verse "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil....." Since then, events in Europe have conspired to reinforce the Biblical warnings about the inordinate focus upon money, as the $146 Billion bailout of Greece announced on 3 May 2010 failed to soothe global bond markets, producing a pan-European debt crisis by midweek:

Yields on German two-year debt reached a record low, falling to 0.71pc on safe-haven demand in echoes of credit stress at the height of the financial crisis. This is below the European Central Bank's short-term rate of 1pc. "This is very unusual and indicates concern about systemic risk from sovereign debt," said Stephen Lewis from Monument Securities.

The response of European finance ministers was to blame the bond markets themselves, laying the need for a fresh bailout of the Euro currency itself squarely on the bond markets:

“In the night, when the markets are opening, we cannot afford a disappointment,” said Finance Minister Anders Borg of Sweden, one of 11 EU nations not in the euro. “We now see herd behavior in the markets that are really pack behavior, wolfpack behavior.”

The solution to the Euro crisis? Pile on still more money--this time on a scale to rival the US Treasury's TARP program in 2008:

European policy makers unveiled an unprecedented loan package worth nearly $1 trillion and a program of securities purchases as they spearheaded a drive to stop a sovereign-debt crisis that threatened to shatter confidence in the euro. Jolted into action by last week’s slide in the currency to a 14-month low and soaring bond yields in Portugal and Spain, governments of the 16 euro nations agreed to make loans of as much as 750 billion euros ($962 billion) available to countries under attack from speculators.

Or is that really a solution, when every nation in Europe has external debt in excess of one hundred percent of GDP?

Greece' external debt is 170% of GDP
Italy's external debt is 147% of GDP
Germany's external debt is 182% of GDP

European nations are all highly leveraged--far more so than the United States is (external debt is 96% of GDP)--which begs the question of from where do the EU countries presume to get these billions of euros?

Further, how does the creation of still more debt by nations already drowning in debt lend strength and credibility to the euro? This latest rescue package is still little more than a series of preferential loans to distressed nations--cheaper than what those nations could borrow on the open market, but borrowing nevertheless. This past week's currency crisis is a debt crisis on steroids, and the European Union's solution is to just borrow more, albeit at more "friendly" rates. Given that the debt crisis is predicated upon the grave doubt that Greece and other nations will be able to pay off their external debts, further borrowing does not deliver any new assurance that the new debt will be easier to repay than the old debt.

Finally, the bailout mechanism is laden with its own potential instabilities, for it empowers the European Union to reach deeper into the governance of member states than any ratified treaty envisions:

"It is an absolute general mobilization: we have decided to give the eurozone a veritable economic government," said French president Nicolas Sarkozy, once again basking as Europe's action man. "Today we have an attack on the whole of the eurozone. This is a systemic crisis: the response must be systemic. When the markets open on Monday morning we will be ready to defend the euro."

In the space of a weekend, the EU has determined to arrogate to itself powers well in excess of those contained within the Lisbon Treaty:

But if the early reports are near true, the accord profoundly alters the character of the European Union. The walls of fiscal and economic sovereignty are being breached. The creation of an EU rescue mechanism with powers to issue bonds with Europe's AAA rating to help eurozone states in trouble -- apparently €60bn, with a separate facility that may be able to lever up to €600bn -- is to go far beyond the Lisbon Treaty. This new agency is an EU Treasury in all but name, managing an EU fiscal union where liabilities become shared. A European state is being created before our eyes.

Perhaps this is an inevitable evolution, but it is worth noting that the United States Constitution was hammered out over a summer in 1787, and that the Constitutional Convention was only called after some years of ineffective central government under the Articles of Confederation; similarly, the Treaty of Lisbon--analogous in many ways to the US Constitution--took the better part of a year to craft. Is zealous defense of a particular currency sufficient impetus to accomplish in a weekend what otherwise would (and, arguably, should) take far longer?

Very likely, the answer will turn out to be "No." Already, there are consequences to the bailout strategy which reach beyond Athens and Brussels, and even Berlin. Regional elections in Germany have produced a rejection of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's acceptance of a Euro-centric response to the ongoing financial crisis and with it her control of the Bundesrat, the upper house of the German parliament.

According to a poll on Saturday, 21 % of voters said their decision would be influenced by the bailout.

And the next day they voted the regional coalition of Mrs Merkel's Christian-Democrats (CDU) and their liberal Free Democrat allies (FDP) out of office.

Such are the "sorrows" generated by making currency--money--the center of everyone's attention. Such are the "sorrows" cautioned against by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy.

The nations of Europe have lived beyond their means for many years--Greece in particular although not exclusively. For years they have consoled themselves with a conceit that a common currency meant money would always be in abundance. For years they have ignored the fundamental economic nature of money:

It's time to get back to basic economics. Money--both the paper and electronic varieties--is, in and of itself, worth nothing; it has no intrinsic value. It is a means--and a profoundly important one--of enabling people to more easily conduct transactions without having to go through the clumsy and utterly inefficient barter process.

What the governments of Europe refuse to acknowledge is that the current debt crisis within the Eurozone is not "wolfpack behavior" but a vote of no-confidence by bond markets in those governments' fiscal policies. There is no denying that is the fiscal policies of European nations that have brought them to this point--the decision to run a deficit is a fiscal decision, after all--and therefore it will be within the realm of fiscal policy that ultimate resolution to the debt crisis will be found.

This, of course, is the crux of the problem, for no nation wants to take on the hard choices necessary to bring their debts under control. As Bill Fleckenstein observed in his "Contrarian Chronicles" column:

The ending is not clear, but here's something that is: There's virtually no chance that the Greeks (who have defaulted on debt often in the past) will be willing to adhere to austerity measures just so they can use a colored piece of paper -- the euro. Especially since government workers, the folks who would probably have to give up the most, are the most entrenched.

Nor is a nation such as Great Britain any more amenable to such policies:

Mervyn King is warning that the victor in next week's election will be forced into austerity measures that will keep the party out of power for a generation, according to the US economist David Hale.

Instead of tackling these issues head-on, the nations of Europe have opted to merely shovel more money on top of the pile, digging themselves deeper into a financial hole, in hope that stabilizing the euro will make all these distasteful duties disappear.

When at last the money runs out, Europe may find itself so deep in a financial hole that not a single one of the institutions it has built up since WWII will survive intact. Such is the destruction that comes when the evil that is a love of money and currency takes root on a national scale.

Arizona's Immigration Law -- Affirming Federal Law, Challenging Federal Supremacy

2010-05-04T22:12:00.003-05:00

The State of Arizona accomplished something remarkable last week, when, on 24 April 2010, Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into law. Widely described as "the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration", SB1070 empowers local and state law enforcement officers to investigate a person's immigration status in conjunction with the normal investigations carried out during routine stops such as for speeding or other traffic violation.

The reaction of the Obama Administration has been one of condemnation:

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”

The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

How does SB1070 "undermine basic notions of fairness"? By strict enforcement of Federal immigration statutes, as stated plainly in Section 1 of the bill:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

It is certain that a number of mis-statements have been reported about the bill. The New York Times, for example, incorrectly stated that the bill criminalizes a failure by immigrants to carry their immigration documents with them at all times:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

In fact, such failure has been a misdemeanor under Federal law since 1952, and may be found at 8 USC §1304(e):

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

8 USC §1306(a) enhances the penalties for willful non-compliance with this requirement:

(a) Willful failure to register
Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

What SB1070 does do is add to the federal misdemeanor offense a state offense of trespass, according to Section 3 of the bill:

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Additionally, SB1070 explicitly defers to Federal authority in determining a person's immigration status:

IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

However, SB1070 does not, in fact, enhance the criminality of being in the United States illegally. The Arizona Criminal Code already defines trespass in sections 13-1502 and 13-1503, in both sections establishing the criteria of "Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully" at a particular property. Arguably, then, even without the provisions of SB1070, an illegal immigrant is guilty of trespass wherever he or she goes, within the jurisdiction of Arizona law.

Thus SB1070 becomes a most paradoxical articulation of states' rights--an affirmation of the right (and perhaps duty?) of a state to enforce and thus re-affirm Federal law. The historical expressions of states rights generally run counter to this, as far back as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

Penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, the Resolutions asserted the power of states to nullify Federal law on the basis of unconstitutionality, as the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 declares quite forcefully:

Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

South Carolina, in enacting its Ordinance of Nullification in 1832, was similarly emphatic in proclaiming the power of an individual state to invalidate Federal statute on the basis of unconstitutionality:

We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and, more especially, an act entitled "An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight and also an act entitled "An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void.

Far from nullifying Federal law, SB1070 declares a most unequivocal support of Federal law--specifically, the willingness of Arizona to expend state resources in its enforcement.

How is it, then, that Arizona's immigration law has earned especial opprobrium from Obama, his Administration, and a number of commentators throughout the media?

One possible answer may be that Arizona's statute, as it affirms the probity of Federal law, also affirms Arizona's power and prerogative as a state in enforcing all the laws governing its territory--including Federal law. While such affirmation is not a direct challenge to Federal authority, it does pose a challenge to Federal supremacy. Arizona, with passage of SB1070, has declared itself co-equal with the Federal government in enforcing immigration law. With SB1070, Arizona need not await the pleasure of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to investigate the immigration status of persons contacted in the ordinary course of law enforcement; Arizona proclaims for itself the autonomy to undertake such investigations, and to act on the results.

However, the Constitution only asserts that Federal statute is superior to state statute:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution is silent upon whom has the authority to enforce Federal law, and the 10th Amendment certainly opens a window for a state to assert a role in such enforcement. The Constitution makes it clear that Federal law is fully upon a state, and the courts of every state are obligated to uphold Federal law; what state courts are obligated to uphold, state law enforcement officers might reasonably be tasked to enforce. As the Constitution does not expressly delegate exclusive enforcement jurisdiction of Federal law to the Federal government (and in fact expressly delegates some measure of jurisdiction to state courts via the Supremacy Clause), the reservations of the 10th Amendment may reasonably allow states to declare for themselves a role in enforcing Federal statute:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Federal law enforcement is not a power prohibited by the Constitution to the states--a fact somewhat acknowledged in the 1956 Supreme Court Case Pennsylvania v Nelson:

It should be said at the outset that the decision in this case does not affect the right of States to enforce their sedition laws at times when the Federal Government has not occupied the field and is not protecting the entire country from seditious conduct.

Setting aside the particular merits and demerits of Arizona's immigration law, that Arizona would seek to enact such a statute is a challenge to reassess the relative roles and powers of state and Federal government to an extent not seen since the 1830s. Whether the legislation is intended as a confrontational arrogation of state authority in the face of Federal inaction on immigration enforcement or as an effort to complement Federal resources with state resources, Arizona has issued a potent reminder to this nation that our system of government presents two government tracks--state and Federal--wherein neither can entirely dominate the other.

The Love Of Money -- Thoughts On Finance and Financial Reform

2010-05-02T21:58:00.000-05:00

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows. -- 1 Timothy 6:10

Greece is being pierced with many sorrows at the moment, facing the prospect of years of deflation induced by drastic cuts in government spending, imposed as a condition of the $146 Billion the EU and the IMF have jointly agreed to lend Greece.

What sort of sorrows? Essentially, Greeks will be working more for less--and will do so for the foreseeable future. Among the new government spending cuts imposed by the bailout package:

Scrapping bonus 13th and 14th month wages for public sector workers as well as for retired people from both the public and private sectors.
Raising the retirement age for women from 60 to 65, bringing it in line with that for men;
Raising the sales tax from 21pc to 23pc this year.

Politically, the sorrows include a passing of a measure of sovereignty from Athens to Berlin, as Germany's pivotal role in assembling the bailout package empowers them to dictate many of the conditions:

Berlin was Europe's capital last week, basking in summer heat of 26 degrees. The heads of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – both French, oddly – arrived as supplicants, pleading with Chancellor Angela Merkel and a stern finance committee of the Bundestag to save monetary union. Nowhere else mattered. The markets have stopped listening to Paris or Brussels.

On the other side of the globe, China is struggling to avert the sorrows of a bubble economy, raising bank reserve ratios and employing other mechanisms to stave off inflation but with no immediate impact:

China’s third increase of bank reserve ratios this year left benchmark interest rates and the yuan’s peg to the dollar unchanged, risking the need for more concerted effort to contain property prices and inflation in coming months.

The common thread in both financial events is a subordination of policy and basic economic activity to a quest for currency. Greece's bailout is driven by their accumulation of so much sovereign debt that they are effectively excluded from capital markets, while China's manipulations are calculated to curtail a growth of the money supply without curtailing the economic expansion behind the money supply:

The latest move adds to a government crackdown on property speculation after record price increases in March and came on a holiday weekend, with Chinese markets shut today. Within an hour of the central bank announcement, Finance Minister Xie Xuren said that officials remained committed to expansionary policies to cement the nation’s recovery.

These events make it worth reminding oneself of the fundamental nature of money, and its relevance to economics at any level. As Steve Forbes notes:

It's time to get back to basic economics. Money--both the paper and electronic varieties--is, in and of itself, worth nothing; it has no intrinsic value. It is a means--and a profoundly important one--of enabling people to more easily conduct transactions without having to go through the clumsy and utterly inefficient barter process.

Money is important only in that it makes transactions by which we convert other resources into the things and services we desire for whatever reason--and utterly irrelevant in all other aspects. Money is a measure of value only.

As the above quotation from Timothy points out, a focus on money invariably leads to trouble. Artificial manipulations of various money metrics, such as interest rates, serves mainly to distort the value statements implicit in the prices of goods and services. Artificially pushing prices down (as China seeks to do) implicitly declares things to be somehow less valuable, even as the desire and demand for those things is otherwise unchanged. Constant borrowing, the particular fiscal sin of Greece (and, indeed, of a great many nations including the United States), explicitly involves paying for those things without surrendering other resources--in essence curtailing one-half of every transaction.

Perhaps nowhere is the irrationality of a focus on money itself more apparent than in the contradictory efforts in Washington to "reform" America's finance industry. While on the one hand the SEC is pursuing a fraud case against one of the largest of the Wall Street banks, Goldman Sachs, Congress is pursuing "reform" legislation that would encourage Goldman to engage in still more of the behavior for which the SEC is seeking redress:

Recall that during the financial implosion of late 2008, Goldman was not bailed out directly by taxpayers, but instead received tax dollars as a creditor of AIG. Goldman received $12.9 billion in the “backdoor bailout” of AIG because of the credit default swaps it owned that AIG had insured. Goldman and other of AIG’s counterparties were paid by the government 100 cents on the dollar in this bailout, whereas creditors in bankruptcy court often get less than 50 cents on the dollar.

Bear in mind that Goldman Sachs was, ostensibly, an "investment bank" until 21 September 2008, when Goldman and Morgan Stanley, the other major investment bank in the United States at that time, opted to become "bank holding companies" and submit themselves to regulation via the Federal Reserve. Bear in mind also the presumed purpose of an "investment bank" is to assist "...corporations and governments in raising capital by underwriting and acting as the agent in the issuance of securities."

There is no denying the value to business of intermediaries such as a Goldman Sachs in gathering together the necessary funds to build a new factory or bring a new product to market. There is also no denying that the buying and selling of derivatives that has fascinated Wall Street in recent years has little to do with the actual raising of capital. Indeed, the financial crisis of 2008 did much to prove Warren Buffet's prescient 2003 description of derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction"; indeed, much of Greece's present financial dilemma appears to stem from their use--and apparent mis-use--of derivatives to sustain years of deficit spending.

A love of money, it seems, has the capacity to wipe out the economies of entire nations.

Perhaps, then, the Biblical caution offers some guidance for how to reform both financial markets and public finances. If we are to focus less on money itself, one way to do that is to focus more on the actual value of things. If we can remember that, in the act of purchase, we are merely converting one resource into another--e.g., turning a day's labor into food for the table--and that money is never a resource but merely the medium, perhaps we can see how to order our affairs--both public and private--so as to avoid the sorrows an inordinate focus upon money brings. If governments can absorb the grim reminder of Greece that even sovereign debts must in time be repaid, they can muster the institutional will and discipline to not borrow beyond their capacity to repay. If banks can acknowledge their contribution to value lies solely in their capacity to facilitate non-financial business activity, perhaps they can be dissuaded from the reckless and risky gambles that derivatives transactions have proven themselves to be.

From a practical policy perspective, the Biblical caution invites governments to restrain their spending to such revenues as may reasonably be raised--that while there can and should be debates over how much government should tax, and what government should tax, there should be little debate that government should not borrow except in extraordinary circumstance. Similarly, the Biblical caution suggests that investment banking should return to its original focus--helping businesses raise capital--and should not "invest" in synthetic means with derivative pseudo-securities whose connection to tangible assets is increasingly nebulous, and that proper government regulation of financial markets would be to maintain clear relationships between investment securities and underlying tangible assets, and that money supplies be allowed to grow--or shrink--as a rational response to the expansion or contraction of an economy's asset base--not manipulated to gain transitory advantage over other currencies in other markets.

So long as governments and financial markets focus inordinately on money, and not at all on the actual values of things, the sovereign debt crisis of Greece and the private debt crises of Wall Street are dramas that will be replayed again and again. Any effort to "reform" financial markets should begin with moving market focus away from money itself.

Afghanistan -- A chance

2010-04-18T17:42:00.002-05:00

Last fall I opined that the Afghani conflict against the insurgent Taliban was an internal civil conflict that was not and should not be the concern of the U.S. Military (Afghanistan: Never America's War). In an interview with The Sunday Times of London, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar confirms my assertion, while also creating an opening for peace in that troubled region, and a chance for American troops to return home.

At a meeting held at night deep inside Taliban-controlled territory, the Taliban leaders told this newspaper that their military campaign had only three objectives: the return of sharia (Islamic law), the expulsion of foreigners and the restoration of security.

Obama himself articulated three objectives for America's military campaign in Afghanistan in his December 2009 speech to the cadets at West Point, when he announced a military buildup in that country:

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

It is important to note that al Qaeda--the terrorist movement that remains the justification behind American military adventures in Afghanistan--is not a movement borne of the Taliban but is as foreign to Afghan soil as Americans, being the inspiration and creation of Osama bin Laden, born in Saudi Arabia to parents of Yemeni descent. Bin Laden is the sole connection between Afghanistan and al Qaeda, as the Afghan guerilla war against the invading Soviet army gave bin Laden his first opportunity to engage in jihad.

Son of a wealthy construction magnate, bin Ladin had taken to the religious sermons of Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian and disciple of Sayyid Qutb. While he participated in few actual battles in Afghanistan, bin Laden became known for his generous funding of the jihad against the Soviets.

However, bin Laden's ambitions extended beyond the boarders of Afghanistan, and he began to develop a complex international organization. He set up a financial support network known as the "Golden Chain," comprised mainly of financiers from Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states. Using this immense new fund, bin Laden and Azzam created a "Bureau of Services," which helped channel recruits for the jihad into Afghanistan. With Saudi Arabia and the United States pouring in billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebels in Afghanistan, the jihad against the Soviets was constantly gaining momentum.

The link between Afghanistan and Al Qaeda went dormant in 1989, after the Soviets pulled out of that country, and bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia:

When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in early 1989, bin Laden and Azzam decided that their new organization should not dissolve. They established what they called a base (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad. However, bin Laden, now the clear emir of al Qaeda, and Azzam differed on where the organization's future objectives should lie. Azzam favored continued fighting in Afghanistan until there was a true Islamist government, while bin Laden wanted to prepare al Qaeda to fight anywhere in the world. When Azzam was killed in 1989, bin Laden assumed full charge of al Qaeda.

This aspect of al Qaeda history takes on new importance in light of the Taliban's potential peace overtures, for the very simple reason that Obama and Mullah Omar might actually agree on two of three military objectives: removal of foreigners, and securing Afghanistan and its borders. Both sides want a secure Afghani government, and while Obama focuses on denying al Qaeda safe haven within Afghanistan, the political reality is that, if al Qaeda is expelled from Afghanistan, the rationale for a continued American presence evaporates; expell al Qaeda and all foreign forces will be happy to return home.

If the Taliban's statements are sincere and credible, the only real sticking point between Obama and the Taliban should be the matter of making Sharia Law Afghan Law. If the Taliban's statements are sincere and credible, the only major obstacle to negotiating that point is the US policy prohibiting direct talks with the Taliban. Taliban sincerity is and should always be presumed problematic, but the Taliban statements to The Sunday Times are certainly in keeping with their articulated three objectives:

Looking back on five years in government until they were ousted after the attacks in America on September 11, 2001, the Taliban leaders said their movement had become too closely involved in politics.

Abdul Rashid said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government.

“Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools].”

The Taliban’s position emerged as an American official said colleagues in Washington were discussing whether President Barack Obama could reverse a long-standing US policy and permit direct American talks with the Taliban.

Mullah Omar's interview also highlights another area of agreement with the United States: The Karzai government is corrupt and of questionable electoral legitimacy.

The Taliban objectives specified on their website had already shifted, Nato officials said, from the overthrow of the “puppet government” to the more moderate goal of establishing a government wanted by the Afghan people.

This objective fits rather nicely with another highlight of Obama's West Point speech:

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

This much, therefore, is certain: in this moment, at least, the Taliban are saying the right words to move towards a real process of negotiations and ultimate peace. It is also certain that Obama's surge is costing the United States a minimum of $30 Billion, and it is also certain that over 1,000 American servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan, and it is therefore certain that more American troops will perish in Afghanistan if a pathway to peace is not found.

Whether Mullah Omar's words open that pathway is the great unanswered question. The possibility his interview is nothing more than a posture calculated to slow and stymie the troop surge within Afghanistan is real and cannot be dismissed. Yet the question should be answered--the lives of American soldiers and the tax dollars of American citizens demand it.

Answering that question will require direct talks with the Taliban, if only because neither the United States nor the Taliban has demonstrated any great confidence in the legitimacy of the Karzai government, rendering Karzai and his administration completely compromised as a negotiations partner for either side. Mullah Omar is suggesting the time for those direct talks is now; if he is sincere, then he is right. For Obama, the question reduces to one of how to engage the Taliban directly without compromising troop deployments vital to the surge or otherwise ceding vital initiatives to the Taliban.

If Mullah Omar is on the level, and Obama can seize this moment of diplomatic opportunity, then his surge in Afghanistan will have succeeded beyond all expectations. Proper respect for the Americans who fell in Afghanistan-and the Americans who will yet fall in Afghanistan--demands that Obama explore every diplomatic avendue to engage the Taliban and pursue peace rather than continued war. Mullah Omar has given Obama a chance; pray God Obama finds the courage and the vision to pursue it.

Obama's Nuclear Posture Review: Nothing new--and that's the problem

2010-04-07T09:31:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama announced on Monday, 5 April 2010, a substantial revamping of US nuclear strategy, presumably to "substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons."

There's just one problem: Judging by the excerpts of the "new" strategy published by the New York Times, there is very little that is substantively "new" about the strategy. The United States has been trending towards a more limited strategic mission for nuclear weapons for decades.

The Department of Defense' Nuclear Posture Review from 1995 summarized the role of nuclear weapons in US military strategy thus:

The U.S. National Security Strategy states: "We will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from acting against our vital interests and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile. Therefore we will continue to maintain nuclear forces of sufficient size and capability to hold at risk a broad range of assets valued by such political and military leaders." Recent international upheavals have not changed the calculation that nuclear weapons remain an essential part of American military power. Concepts of deterrence and survivability must adapt to the new international environment, yet continue to be central to the U.S. nuclear posture. Thus, the United States will continue to threaten retaliation, including nuclear retaliation, and to deter aggression against the United States, U.S. forces, and U.S. allies.

Alliance relationships are an important element of U.S. security. Through forward basing and power projection capabilities, overseas U.S. military presence -- including nuclear capabilities -- helped promote regional stability, avert crises, and deter war. In recent years, there has been a dramatic reduction in both the overall size of the U.S. military presence abroad and in the nuclear capabilities deployed overseas. Yet maintaining U.S. nuclear commitments with NATO, and retaining the ability to deploy nuclear capabilities to meet various regional contingencies, continues to be an important means for deterring aggression, protecting and promoting U.S. interests, reassuring allies and friends, and preventing proliferation. Although nuclear capabilities are now a far smaller part of the routine U.S. international presence, they remain an important element in the array of military capabilities that the United States can bring to bear, either independently or in concert with allies to deter war, or should deterrence fail, to defeat aggression. Thus, the United States continues to extend deterrence to U.S. allies and friends.

Obama's "new" pledge to the world is this:

The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing 'negative security assurance' by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapons states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

How does this alter substantially the deterrent role of nuclear weapons outlined in 2005's Joint Publication 3-12: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations? Looking at that document (which though officially "cancelled"--meaning removed from the public domain, was never officially renounced as a guiding strategic document for the US military), it doesn't:

Deterrence. US nuclear forces deter potential adversaries by providing the President the means to respond appropriately to an attack on the US, its friends or allies. US nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential adversary leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world. Thus, US nuclear forces deter potential adversary use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and dissuade against a potential adversary’s development of an overwhelming conventional threat.

Thus, even after Obama's "new" strategy is implemented, the role of US nuclear weapons is still to dissuade other nations from acquiring or using nuclear weapons. Note the fine parsing of Obama's wording: only states who are a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance are promised immunity from nuclear strike. That wording puts not only the non-signatory nations such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh on the wrong side of Obama's promise, but also signatory states such as Iran, who quite arguably is already in flagrant violation of the Treaty. Russia and China remain nuclear states and, thus, even in Obama's "new" strategy, are vulnerable to nuclear attack.

The one shift that is substantial is a refining of the language regarding weapons of mass destruction. JP3-12 hedged by referring to that broad category of weapons, which includes biological and chemical weapons in addition to nuclear weapons. Obama's strategy limits nuclear weapons use to response against nuclear weapons; biological and chemical attacks and/or threats will be dealt with conventionally:

In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response - and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable.

Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat.

However, even that is not a new policy. "Prompt Global Strike" has been a strategic initiative of the United States since 2006, and envisions fitting conventional explosives onto ballistic missiles:

U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. James Cartwright has said he needs a prompt global strike capability to hold fleeting targets at risk. He would like a conventional weapon that could arrive on target within one hour of an order to launch, a capability currently offered only by nuclear-armed missiles. A conventional alternative would make U.S. threats more credible against targets such as a terrorist leader staying briefly at a safe house or a North Korean nuclear missile being readied on a launch pad, defense analysts say.

Obama's "new" strategy is to refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states--restating long-standing US nuclear doctine--and to pledge "devastating conventional military response" against non-nuclear threats or attacks--restating "Prompt Global Strike" from the Bush administration. In short, Obama's "new" strategic doctrine is the same as the "old" strategic doctrine.

That is what is most troubling about Obama's announcement of the doctrine, because by making his announcement he breached one of the longest-standing principles of nuclear deterrence: ambiguity. As JP3-12 states explicitly:

The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining US ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action. This calculated ambiguity helps reinforce deterrence. If the US clearly defined conditions under which it would use nuclear weapons, others might infer another set of circumstances in which the US would not use nuclear weapons. This perception would increase the chances that hostile leaders might not be deterred from taking actions they perceive as falling below that threshold.

Obama's new policy is to formally publish what was previously unpublished: the terms and conditions of a US nuclear strike--which is a strategically absurd thing to do. The danger of the new policy is not that the United States is less armed, but that a threshold of bad behavior is being set which avoids the extreme response of nuclear attack, when deterrence is the only real strategic value of nuclear weapons. To quote Robert McNamara in his 1967 "Mutual Deterrence" speech:

No sane citizen, political leader or nation wants thermonuclear war. But merely not wanting it is not enough. We must understand the differences among actions which increase its risks, those which reduce them and those which, while costly, have little influence one way or another. But there is a great difficulty in the way of constructive and profitable debate over the issues, and that is the exceptional complexity of nuclear strategy. Unless these complexities are well understood rational discussion and decision-making are impossible.

Obama's overplaying of a minor clarification in US nuclear weapons policy does not present as an action which will reduce the risk of nuclear war or US nuclear strike. By carving out a set of permissible bad behaviors, he creates the potential risk that a malefactor on the world stage--be it a nation such as Iran or a trans-national entity such as Al Qaeda--will back the US into a corner where only a nuclear strike will remain a viable option.

Obama would do well to remember the goal of deterrence is the elimination of all bad behavior by all parties.

Businesses, not jobs; self-employment not employment

2010-04-04T22:55:00.001-05:00

In March of 2010, the US economy added approximately 162,000 jobs--the largest expansion of payrolls in three years.

By most measures, this bit of economic data would be cause for celebration, but the details of those jobs does much to dampen the celebration of the moment.A significant proportion of those jobs were government jobs brought on by the decennial census (and which will disappear again after just a few months as a result), and while total private-sector payroll growth was 123,000 jobs, the overall unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. The economic impact of these jobs may be fairly summarized thusly:

The economy is growing again, but at a pace unlikely to quickly replace the 8.4 million jobs erased in the recession that began in late 2007. More than 11 million people are drawing unemployment insurance benefits.

Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, acknowledged that employment in this country still "has a long way to go." When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appeared on the Today show, he informed host Matt Lauer that unemployment "is still terribly high and is going to stay unacceptably high for a long time." Even though the jobs outlook in this country improved, the palpable effect of that improvement is practically nil.

New York TImes columnist Thomas Friedman offers up an interesting bit of economic history that may explain why the March jobs figure fails to be all that encouraging:

Here’s my fun fact for the day, provided courtesy of Robert Litan, who directs research at the Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in promoting innovation in America: “Between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were 5 years old or less,” said Litan. “That is about 40 million jobs. That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.”

Friedman's restatement is equally thought provoking:

Message: If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing General Motors nor funding more road construction will do it. We need to create a big bushel of new companies — fast.

Consider for a moment some historical figures on employment, courtesy of the US Census:

In 2002, companies with 500 or more employees had a total of 56,034,362 employees. Total number of paid employees in companies of all sizes was 112,400,654.
In 2004, companies with 500 or more employees had a total of 56,477,472 employees. Total number of paid employees in companies of all sizes was 115,074,924.
In 2002, there were 17,646,062 firms that had no paid employees.
In 2004, there were 19,523,741 firms that had no paid employees.
From 1988 to 2003, there was only one year, 2001, when companies with 500 or more employees supported more than 50% of all paid employees for that year. In all other years companies with 500 or more employees accounted for less than half of all paid employees for that year.

These results may be summarized thus: small companies (and, extending Litan, new companies) create and sustain the bulk of all jobs in this country. If President Obama is indeed "preoccupied" with creating jobs, he is focused on the wrong target. Friedman has the sense of it: America will find jobs by creating new businesses. Business growth drives jobs growth--that is the logical extrapolation of Litan's data.

Moreover, Americans as a whole are focused on the wrong target. Instead of seeking out a new job at a new employer, Americans should seek to create new businesses instead. If the primary engine of economic activity in this country is the small business--is the new business--then the solution to this nation's somnolent economy will be found not through employment but through self-employment.

The worker-as-business owner would be, in essence, a return to the fundamentals of capitalism as articulated by Adam Smith in his treatise Wealth of Nations. Smith's conceptualization of labor begins with the worker functioning as an independent entity:

In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer.

This situation begins to change with the introduction of private property, which separates other resources from the resource of labor:

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land.

It seldom happens that the person who tills the ground has wherewithal to maintain himself till he reaps the harvest. His maintenance is generally advanced to him from the stock of a master, the farmer who employs him, and who would have no interest to employ him, unless he was to share in the produce of his labour, or unless his stock was to be replaced to him with a profit. This profit makes a second deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land.

It is important to note from the nature of Smith's language that he formulated his economic theories in an era before mass industrialization, and attributes to the individual worker the initial ownership and dominion over the fruits of his labor. Switching to Karl Marx's epic Das Kapital, we find a considerably different view of labor:

THE change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying. Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first act, M—C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.

By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of these mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it.

In the modern era, Marx's view of labor and, thus, of jobs, certainly seems more attuned to the reality. Certainly workers at Ford, Caterpillar or even Microsoft do not appear to have any initial claim on the fruits of their labors. These workers, if one follows Marx, are a commodity, something bought and ultimately sold along with the raw materials that go into any manufacturing process.

A governmental focus on jobs plays into this thinking: jobs are created by providing incentives for companies to hire more workers--to purchase more labor. Yet, looking back to Litan's job creation comment, companies appear not to want to purchase more labor; over time, companies if anything strive to purchase less labor.

Might Marx have been wrong? Might labor be something besides a commodity to be bought and sold? Friedman certainly gives one cause to think so:

But you cannot say this often enough: Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers.

What Friedman points out, what Smith has right, and what Marx has wrong, is the realization that the benefit of labor is the creation of value, and, as a direct consequence, can never be regarded as a commodity to be bought and sold merely. All labor must be in its essence a creative undertaking. "Good" jobs, therefore--jobs with significant pay and stature--come from new ventures seeking new ways to produce, or sell, or distrubute (or all of the above). Good jobs come from new companies, not established ones. Good jobs, then, are the result of individuals seeking new ways to impart value upon human effort. Good jobs are reflect Adam Smith and not Karl Marx.

Thus, for all the governmental focus on spurring the creation of jobs, such efforts are doomed to failure--certainly the application to date of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has failed to produce the upturn in employment forecast by Presidential economic advisors Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein. These efforts fail because they do not address the fundamental aspect of value creation that defines the "good job".

Echoing Friedman, and recalling Adam Smith, it is not enough to merely speak of jobs. A thriving economy must speak of and dwell upon business. Each person must, in thought if not in reality, become an enterprise unto himself. Government policy must encourage such thoughts and encourage individuals to translate such thoughts into action, to create new businesses and new engines of value creation. Instead of 162,000 new jobs, America's goal should be 162,000 new businesses.

Now that would be cause for celebration indeed.

"Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill."

2010-03-16T15:54:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal captures the moment perfectly:

Ms. Pelosi actually told reporters: "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill." Her scheme to allow House members to escape political responsibility even drew the ire of the Washington Post editorial page, which has strongly backed health care reform: "What is intended as a final sprint threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats' promises of transparency and time for deliberation."

The Speaker of the House--the top Democrat in Congress--openly admits that even Democrats oppose HR3590.

Nobody wants HR3590. The public does not want HR3590. Republicans in Congress do not want HR3590. Democrats in Congress do not want HR3590.

Why is Nancy Pelosi's reaction to the realization that no one wants HR3590 to become law is to circumvent the House rules and perhaps even the Constitution to force HR3590 into law?

Elected representatives are the servants of the people, and never the master. The Preamble to the Constitution is unequivocal on this point:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As the people of the United States are opposed to HR3590, Nancy Pelosi's duty is clear, and is stated in the oath she took upon her election to the House of Representatives:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Nancy Pelosi's duty is to the American People, not to the President nor to the Democratic Party. Connivances to force HR3590 into law without even the necessary vote by the House of Representatives are not in accordance with that duty.

Why must THIS bill pass?

2010-03-14T14:31:00.004-05:00

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems determined to bring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR3590) to a floor vote in the House.

"It won't be long," before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said neither liberals' disappointment over the lack of a government health care option nor a traditional mistrust of the Senate would prevent passage in the House.

Winning House passage of HR3590 is the essential first step in the Democrats' grand strategy to enact some measure of health care "reform" (ironic, given that this bill does not accomplish anything vaguely resembling reform, as I have discussed previously). Since January, the Democrats' have pursued a two part strategy: Pass HR3590 then immediately pass legislation to "fix" HR3590.

The health care bill appeared on the cusp of passage in early January, but was derailed when Senate Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts, and with it, the strength needed to sustain a filibuster and block a final vote.

In the weeks since, the White House and Democrats have embarked on a two-part rescue strategy. It calls for the House to pass legislation that cleared the Senate in December, despite numerous objections, and for both houses to follow immediately with a second bill that makes changes to the first.

However, it is by no means certain that the bill has the votes to pass the House. Democrat leaders such as James Clyburn of South Carolina have stated bluntly that, as of today (14 March 2010), the Democrats could not pass HR3590.

A dose of reality came from Rep. James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat and main vote counter. "No, we don't have them as of this morning, but we've been working this thing all weekend," said Clyburn, D-S.C.

Furthermore, it is all but certain that the American electorate does not want HR3590 to move forward:

On the Congressional tracking site OpenCongress.org, a mere 23% of their users favor the bill, the tally as of today being 317 in favor and 1035 opposed to the bill.
RealClearPolitics' polling summary shows that every major polling organization finds Americans opposed to HR3590 by significant margins--even the Democrat-oriented Public Policy Polling reports only 39% of Americans in favor of the bill compared to 50% opposed.
A Gallup Poll published on 9 March 2010 shows that 48% of respondents want the bill to fail, and only 45% want the bill to pass.
Another Gallup Poll published on 12 March 2010 shows Americans identifying jobs and the state of the economy as more important concerns than healthcare (31% identify jobs as most important, 24% identify the economy as most important, with only 20% identifying healthcare as most important). Gallup's discussion of that poll also reveals that healthcare has not been a top priority among Americans since at least September of 2009.
In January, Gallup found that a majority of Americans favored suspending work on health care reform efforts following the Massachusetts special election to fill the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat in Congress, which was won by Republican Scott Brown.

All of which begs the question why must this bill be passed? If the American people do not want it, if the Democrats themselves are challenged to find votes for it, why must HR3590 be this Congress' contribution to health care reform?

In light of Gallup's January poll, the argument that Democrats must pass "something" or be crucified come November's mid-term elections fails to persuade; if the American people want the effort tabled for now, not passing legislation on health care is hardly going to offend voters' sensibilities.

The CBO's own scoring of the bill and its negligible-to-adverse impact on health insurance premiums over the next few years undercuts the proposition that Americans will embrace HR3590 once it becomes law and its "benefits" become known--the CBO score amounts to a refutation that there are any appreciable benefits relative to health care as it stands today.

That it is not incumbent upon Democrats to pass any manner of bill putatively classified as "health care reform", and that the "reform" being brought to final vote in the House presumably near the Ides of March for 2010 is, by Congress' own scorekeepers, not reform at all, perhaps explains why Democrats have so clearly lost the "message war" on health care--and they have. Even Democratic pollsters such as Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen acknowledge this:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

The Democrats' have lost the message war because the bill they have crafted does not meet the undeniable desire of Americans for reform of our system of health care. In attempting to rebut Caddell and Schoen, Obama pollster Joel Benenson makes a telling admission.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.

Benenson's mistake is that his reasonable assumption is not at all reasonable, because it rests on an implicit presumption that HR3590 is, in fact, "health care reform." If the presumption is changed to that HR3590 is not "health care reform", then the "reasonable" interpretation of opposition to HR3590 for lack of sufficient liberalism puts that net 10 percent firmly with conservatives who oppose HR3590 for the simple reason that, while liberals may disagree on what manner of reform is desirable, liberals and conservatives apparently can agree that HR3590 is not "reform.".

The presumption that HR3590 is not "health care reform" at all has support from the Congressional Budget Office, and that such is the perception of the American public is supported by the 9 March 2010 Gallup poll: The top two reasons for opposition, that it would raise insurance costs and that it did not address the real problems, doubled in popularity from a total of 19% to a total of 39% since September of 2009.

That alone should be reason enough to scrap HR3590 and assemble new legislation: Democrats campaigned and continue to campaign on a platform of reforming health care. With the legislation they have before Congress today, the consensus of everyone is that they are stubbornly refusing to deliver on that promise.

Since Americans want health care reform, Congress should reform health care. The first step forward in doing so must be to kill HR3590.

We see the problem....where's the solution?

2010-02-21T13:45:00.003-06:00

The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.

That was Obama's opening salvo in his weekly address on 20 February 2010. Unfortunately, he followed that disturbing statistic with a blatant mis-statement:

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

Consider, however, the financial results health insurance companies report:

Healthcare as a sector enjoyed a profitability of around 11 percent of revenue.
Health care plans overall earned a profit last year of around 3.4 percent of their revenues.
Health care plans rank #86th in terms of profitability.
UnitedHealthcare, one of the largest insurance companies, in 2009 reported a profit margin of 4.39 percent.

At the same time, drug manufacturers enjoyed a profit margin of around 18 percent. Bristol-Myers Squibb reported a 2009 profit margin of 56.42 percent.

These are the numbers that make up the "status quo" in health care costs in this country. Health insurance companies are, as a group, less profitable than most utility companies, with gas and electricity utility companies enjoying profit margins of 6.9 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively).

The status quo is decidedly not good for insurance companies. A 3.4 percent profit margin is just barely above the current prime interest rate of 3.25 percent as published in the Wall Street Journal (rate is as of 17 February 2010); a health insurance company could do just as well investing in bonds and securities and not sell insurance at all. Health insurance profit margins are roughly in line with long term inflation rates in this country. Those "record profits" insurance companies enjoy today do nothing more than ensure that tomorrow's bills will be paid.

Moreover, the status quo is what the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act reinforces. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that non-group insurance premiums in 2016 would be 10 to 13 percent higher under the Act than under current law. Among large group insurance plans, the Act's impact on premiums is negligible:

By CBO and JCT’s estimate, the average premium per policy in the small group market would be in the vicinity of $7,800 for single policies and $19,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with about $7,800 and $19,300 under current law. In the large group market, average premiums would be roughly $7,300 for single policies and $20,100 for family policies under the proposal, compared with about $7,400 and $20,300 under current law.

If Obama were indeed interested in reforming and strengthening health insurance markets in this country, and improving insurance coverage among Americans, he would not defend the bloated legislation Congress has produced on this subject. If Obama were indeed interested in improving health insurance in this country, he would demand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be scrapped in its entirety, and encourage Congress to assemble a bill that does more than institutionalize the status quo he finds so outrageous.

If Obama truly wished the problem solved, he would propose a true solution. So far, this he has not done.

Thoughts on health care

2010-01-02T14:11:00.000-06:00

On Christmas Day, I was given an unexpected tour of this nation's healthcare system: involved in a hit-and-run accident, I spent the day on a gurney in a hospital emergency room, the night in a hospital bed, and the following day attempting to extract from doctors their reasonings for their proposed treatment of my ultimately minor injuries.

My most humble and heartfelt thanks to Nancy, Debra, Gary, Steve, Russell, and Chad--your words of comfort and support are what put me at ease, not the pain medications.

In terms of technology and tools, there is no doubt in my mind that the US healthcare system is among the finest in the world. I believed that before my accident and I am absolutely convinced of it now.

In terms of having skilled specialists to treat the multifaceted natures of traumatic injuries, the US is without a doubt near the top as well. From the ER to the physical therapist to the neuro-surgeon who attended my case, I was not lacking for access to specialists.

In terms of actual access to care, I was surprised to discover just how much exists over and beyond the much maligned health insurance industry. In Texas, a hit-and-run victim has access to a state fund to cover the medical expenses of crime victims. I have long argued that the one area of health care that should be covered by the public fisc is trauma care, and, in my state at least, I have learned that my ideas are shared by at least a few.

I have also learned that where our hospitals and doctors fail miserably is in the area of compassion for the individual. An accident patient in the emergency room can lay on a gurney for hours with little more attention than a nurse to check IV bags and vital signs. A hospital patient in discomfort can look forward to the tender ministrations of doses of morphine and other pain medications. What neither patient can look forward to is much in the way of human interaction. Hospitals are filled with doctors, yet a patient will need more than X-Rays and CT scans to find the ones assigned to treating him.

Even when the doctors are present, their capacity for communicating to the patient what exactly is wrong seems minimal at best. A trauma patient already knows he or she is injured--and he or she is quite aware that the inujries hurt--what he or she does not know is the particulars of the injury. The trauma patient does not know if the pain from the wrenched back is a sign of injured muscles or something worse. The trauma patient does not know how long until the injuries heal, or what lingering effects from his or her misadventure should be expected. Trauma patients--this trauma patient in particular--have questions, and expect doctors to provide answers. For doctors to fail to provide those answers is where our healthcare system fails its patients.

Our system of health care does not need greater "access" to care, or more health insurance, or more regulation. Our system of health care has all of these in abundance--and very likely in overabundance. What our system of health care does not have in abundance, what our system of health care desperately needs, is more caring, more compassion, more empathy. Our system of health care needs doctors who are willing to converse with patients and not merely talk at them. Our system of health care needs more people who understand that good treatment addresses not just the patient's infirmities, but also their psychological, emotional, and even spiritual well-being. Our system of health care needs an understanding that "comfort" is achieved far more by human interaction and far less by pharmaceuticals.

Our system of health care needs less "system" and more "care".

Climategate's Irony

2009-11-28T17:01:00.000-06:00

One of the first great statements of the need to protect the environment is Chief Seattle's 1855 letter to President Franklin Pierce, a letter which echoes his environmentally conscious 1854 speech before Isaac Ingalls Stevens, then Governor of the Washington Territory. The letter is poetic in its depiction of the connection between Man and nature:

We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.

The letter is also, alas, a lie. There is no evidence Si'ahl--Chief Seattle--ever wrote such a letter, or even said what is ascribed to him in the 1854 speech.

"No evidence" seems to be a recurring theme among those who proclaim great concern for "the environment", as the recent release of emails obtained by a hacker from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) strongly suggests. Just as there is a seeming wide gulf between the historical reality of Si'ahl and the mythology of the environmentally prescient Chief Seattle, there is a wide--and growing gulf--between the dire predictions of the global warming "alarmists" ensconced in the CRU and the actual empirical data. So dramatic is the disparity between the published CRU findings and their source data that one journalist, James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph, has somewhat portentiously (and perhaps prematurely) proclaimed the growing scandal "the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" The "science" that has inspired the nations of the earth to gather first in Kyoto, now in Copenhagen, and soon in Mexico City, all for the sake of reversing 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', is as much of an airy piece of chicanery as the words of their philosophical forebear Chief Seattle.

Some might argue that it matters not if the scientists at the CRU were perhaps overly aggressive in their statistical manipulations....errr...analyses...of climate and temperature data. Given that the world over we see glaciers receding and ice caps melting, it is perfectly obvious that something is changing in our environment--and a changing climate can greatly impact our own quality of life, even our viability as a species. If the problem is real, what does it matter if some well-meaning scientists "exaggerated"?

The answer is found first in Jerry Clark's concluding paragraph of his 1985 debunking of the Chief Seattle myth:

Does it really make any difference today whether the oration in question actually originated with Chief Seattle in 1855 or with Dr. Smith in 1887? Of course it matters, because this memorable statement loses its moral force and validity if it is the literary creation of a frontier physician rather than the thinking of an articulate and wise Indian leader. Noble thoughts based on a lie lose their nobility. The dubious and murky origins of Chief Seattle's alleged "Unanswered Challenge" renders it useless as supporting evidence. The historical record suggests that the compliant and passive individual named Seattle is not recognizable in the image of the defiant and angry man whose words reverberate in our time.

No matter how noble the intentions of Dr Mann and the researchers at East Anglia's CRU, the nobility of their purpose disappears in the mendacity of their method. Their zeal and insistence to put forward their climate hypotheses as the only viable explanations for what we see in the world around us is the behavior of religious fanatics, not objective scientists; they have replaced the skeptical scientist's persistent question of "why" with the fundamentalist's fervent proclamation of "because." That is their great error, their great sin, and, ultimately their great downfall.

Science is more clearly defined by what is unknown rather than what is known. Even a lay person may see the world around him changing, but it is the scientist who ponders that change, who seeks the underlying cause or causes of that change. It is the scientist who ever asks "why" and never presumes the answers to be final--and when a scientist excludes all hypotheses but his own from consideration, he ceases to be a scientist.

Moreover, because even the lay person can see the changing world around us, not only is it not necessary to manipulate and misrepresent data, it is not helpful. If the changing world threatens humanity's existence, then accurate information and proper scientific inquiry are what humanity needs most, not the arrogant zealousness of a benighted few. In matters of climate, as in all matters, the truth is what matters, not who proclaims that truth.

And in matters of climate, there is one truth that resonates today as it did in 1963, when President John F. Kennedy gave his commencement address to the graduating class of American University:

So, let us not be blind to our differences - - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

Unlike Si'ahl, Kennedy actually did say those words.

Can we afford this war?

2009-11-28T15:57:00.000-06:00

Glenn Thrush on Politico reports this interesting bit of discourse by Nancy Pelosi:

PAY-FOR WAR. Pelosi was far more fiscally conservative when it came to Afghanistan, expressing sympathy with congressional liberals, including Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who thinks war funding should be subject to Blue Doggish “pay-for” rules.

"I think we have to look at that war with a green eyeshade on," Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the lefty bloggers, according to HuffPo’s Ryan Grim. "There is unrest in our caucus about: Can we afford this war?"

Pelosi qualified her remarks by noting that cost is not the top concern. "I think the American people believe that if it's something that's in our national security interest," she said, the investment is worth it.

But it still has to be paid for, she said. "Everything else has to be paid for. It must be fiscally sound. We have to hold it to the same standard, as well."

"Can we afford this war?" is a seemingly prudent question, but only if one ignores the nature of war--a focused and rapid expenditure of national treasure and human life. War is a costly and bloody undertaking in the best of circumstances. For that reason, a prudent man will never choose to wage war, all things being equal; for that reason, war will invariably choose the prudent man.

Yet such a choice is necessary before one can address the question of "can we afford this war?" Consider for a moment how the typical determination of affordability is made: If one is buying a house or a car, one determines affordability on the basis of current income--one can (or cannot) absorb the monthly payment of the loan that facilitates the purchase. If one is selecting a restaurant, one determines affordability on the basis of how much cash one has on hand (or how much room is left on a credit card). In every instance, the question of affordability is contingent on the question of desirability--we must want the house, or the car, or the meal, or the war, before the question of affordability can have any relevance. The antecedent to "can we afford this war?" is "do we desire this war?"

Thus it is that warfare, particularly in the modern era, is a distinctly non-economic affair, for what rational person would answer affirmatively the question "do we desire this war"? Yet that is exactly what Nancy Pelosi has done by implication, merely by speculating on "can we afford this war?" regarding Afghanistan. For Pelosi to be concerned about whether the war can be "afforded" necessitates Pelosi desiring the war; Pelosi, it seems, wants a war.

Thus it also is that the question is, invariably, the wrong question. War is never desirable. It may at times, be necessary, but no more than that. The merits of war rest on war's necessity, not on war's "affordability."

The proper question, the question Pelosi ignores in her desire for war, is "do we need this war?" The question has already been advanced by President Obama himself, when he deemed Afghanistan a "war of necessity." The true debate over Afghanistan is not a debate over cost, but a debate over how (and if) war in Afghanistan advances America's security and national interests. The true debate is over how much of a necessity the war in Afghanistan actually is.

Perversely, if Pelosi's Democrats have as their best argument that America can "afford" the war, they have already answered that question of the war's necessity: not very.

Health Care Tax Unconstitutional

2009-09-08T21:13:00.000-05:00

Senator Max Baucus unveiled his "compromise" health care plan today. One of the signature elements is mandatory purchase of health insurance by all Americans:

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus needs to be flogged, flayed, drawn, and quartered for this insanity.

First, let us demolish the straw man comparison to automobile insurance. The mandatory coverage for drivers is liability coverage. Drivers must have insurance coverage to pay for damages they cause in an accident. Nowhere in the 50 states is there a law mandating drivers or car owners have insurance to cover repairs to their own vehicles. The only time such coverage is imposed on a vehicle owner is when a lien holder demands. Auto liability coverage is hardly a parallel for health care insurance.

Requiring all people to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, moreover, is an unconstitutional health care capitation tax. It is a tax because it is a levy imposed by the United States. Worse, it is a direct tax imposed only on a subset of American citizens (those without health insurance), and thus is explicitly proscribed by the Constitution.

The power to tax is found in the first clause of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I Section 9 of the Constitution limits the power of taxation through the following restriction:

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Sixteenth Amendment clarifies this language to explicitly allow taxes upon income:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The penalty tax, being imposed arbitrarily on a discrete class of taxpayers--those persons not subscribed to a health insurance plan--is absolutely not uniformly imposed tax, nor is it imposed in proportion to a census or enumeration (indeed, the conditional nature of the tax precludes the possibilities of uniformity or proportionality). It is not assessed with regard to income, and thus does not qualify as an income tax, and so is not excluded from the proportionality requirement via the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court Case POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO (157 U.S. 429) states the matter quite explicitly:

Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.

The health care penalty tax is unconscionable and unconstitutional, and needs to be eliminated from public debate on health care immediately.

Afghanistan: Never America's War

2009-09-06T13:40:00.000-05:00

There is but one reason for the United States to have military forces in Afghanistan: to confront and eliminate the capacity of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to find safe haven from which to attack the United States itself. That was the thrust and practical consequence of the five-point ultimatum President George W. Bush delivered to the Taliban in his 20 September 2001 address to a joint session of Congress:

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

Indeed, the United States was never significantly troubled by the presence of the Taliban per se; it never granted formal recognition to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan declared by the Taliban after taking Kabul in 1996, but had little cause to eject them from Kabul. But for Al Qaeda, the United States would have no quarrel with the Taliban.

This is not idle supposition. Al Qaeda moved itself to the forefront of American counter-terrorist thinking with the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in 1998, and again with the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Even before the 9/11 attacks, the United States was preparing to confront Al Qaeda militarily, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with a National Security Presidential Directive having been prepared and awaiting President George W. Bush's signature just days before 9/11:

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

America's strategic adversary is without any doubt Al Qaeda and not the Taliban. Even if the Taliban were to take aggressive action now to eject Al Qaeda leaders from Afghani territory, Al Qaeda would still have places in which to gather resources, train, and plot future actions. Somalia, the world's other unequivocally failed state, has become increasingly receptive to an Al Qaeda presence within its borders:

Osama bin Laden has been urging Al-Qaeda followers to open up shop in Somalia for years, but there was always doubt about whether that call would resonate in a largely secular nation with a historic wariness of Arab interference. No longer. After January's attacks by Ethiopia--which were backed by U.S. air power and aimed to reduce the threat of terrorism--an increasingly international Islamist presence has flourished in the country, drawn by the chaos of postinvasion Somalia and the chance to strike back at the U.S. and its ally Ethiopia. In Mogadishu, Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi told TIME that an alliance has formed among Somali nationalist rebels, remnants of the overthrown Islamic government, and rebels from the Ethiopian border region. U.S. officials accuse Eritrea, which has fought several wars against Ethiopia, of lending troops to the insurgency. Other observers say hundreds of foreign jihadists are arriving in Somalia. Transitional federal government President Yusuf Abdullah has accused Iran and Pakistan of funding the rebels, while others in Mogadishu point to Libya, Egypt and disgruntled elements within the Somali diaspora.

It is vital to remember that, before the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996, Al Qaeda's headquarters was in Sudan, and that Osama bin Laden made common cause with the Taliban only after being expelled from Sudan in 1996:

A decade later, when Sudan kicked Bin Laden out of the country and he had nowhere to go, he turned to Tora Bora for sanctuary. He flew a chartered jet to Jalalabad in May 1996 and lived for a time in the nearby caves. Later that year, he moved his headquarters to Kandahar, the Taliban regime's spiritual capital in southern Afghanistan, but maintained a family and a house in Jalalabad.

It is also vital to note that some within the Sudanese government appear in recent years to be rather in favor of bin Laden returning to Sudan, having practically invited his Al Qaeda operatives to resume their prior activities in that country:

The document requests all government agencies to allow “foreign Jihadis who came to Sudan with Osama Bin Laden in 1994 to resume their political activities in Sudan given the circumstances surrounding foreign intervention in Darfur to support armed forces and the people of Sudan to fight Zionist enemies”.

The decision outlines certain steps to be taken to allow Al-Qaeda to operate in Sudan such as unfreezing their bank accounts and returning all properties confiscated in 1996.

In all fairness, it must be noted that the official Sudanese posture has been one of cooperation with the United States against global terrorism, as that same article highlights the assistance Sudan has given the United States against Al Qaeda:

The Los Angeles Times revealed last month that Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq, an example of how the U.S. has continued to cooperate with the Sudanese regime even while condemning its suspected role in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.

The U.S.-Sudan relationship goes beyond Iraq. Sudan has helped the United States track the turmoil in Somalia. Sudanese intelligence service has helped the US to attack the Islamic Courts positions in Somalia and to locate Al Qaeda suspects hiding there.

Sudan might be a future haven for Al Qaeda, but hardly a safe haven.

Yet the presence of Al Qaeda supporters within Somalia and Sudan are sufficient to demonstrate that defeating the Taliban militarily in Afghanistan will not defeat Al Qaeda at all. Al Qaeda has other places of refuge besides the hills of Tora Bora, other desolate lands in which to organize and train terrorists.

The Taliban before Al Qaeda was not America's concern. The Taliban after Al Qaeda should not be America's concern--and therefore the Taliban should not now be America's concern. The Taliban is one of many competing insurgent forces seeking dominion over Afghanistan, and is more ethnic than religious in nature. The Taliban leadership are entirely Pashtuns, and the motivation to reestablish Pashtun dominance in the region cannot be overlooked in their continuing influence within Afghanistan; indeed, their expansion into Pakistan arguably has less to do with religious fanaticism and more to do with a long-standing ethnic conflict between Pakistani Pashtuns and the Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Army:

The Pakistani army is composed mostly of Punjabis. The Taliban is entirely Pashtun. For centuries, Pashtuns living in the mountainous borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan have fought to keep out invading Punjabi plainsmen. So sending Punjabi soldiers into Pashtun territory to fight jihadists pushes the country ever closer to an ethnically defined civil war, strengthening Pashtun sentiment for an independent "Pashtunistan" that would embrace 41 million people in big chunks of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Thus it becomes clear that America's war against the Taliban is very much an accidental war--a war of coincidence only. Perversely, America's war against the Taliban is the very essence of what President Obama described as a "dumb war":

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

The words then Illinois State Senator Obama used to describe Iraq apply even more forcefully to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not merely a dumb war, it is a dumb war that was never America's war in the first place. Afghanistan is the accidental battlefield between the United States and Al Qaeda, and no more than that. This realization, and the realization that the true adversary in Afghanistan remain Al Qaeda, points the way to a plausible strategy in Afghanistan: separate Al Qaeda from their Taliban patrons, strive to qwell the ethnic tensions between Afghani Pashtuns and Pakistani Punjabis, give voice and credence to the very real ethnic (and non-Islamic) tensions in that part of the world.

Afghanistan was never America's war. The Taliban was never America's adversary. America's adversary is and remains Al Qaeda, and the transnational terrorism movements it foments and supports. Drive Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and let the ethnic peoples of that region resolve their ethnic differences--by words and peaceful parley, preferably, but by force of arms if that is their will. Target Al Qaeda, and leave Afghanistan alone.

The Kennedy Contradiction

2009-08-29T16:25:00.001-05:00

That Edward Kennedy was a true "lion of the Senate" has by now been said by enough pundits and members of the chattering class as to render the phrase the artless and clunky cliche it was no doubt destined to be. Edward Kennedy was a formidable Senator, having put forward more than 2,500 pieces of legislation in his career, over 500 of which were enacted into law. Even a brief sampling of the laws he had a hand in passing shows an extraordinary breadth of legislative accomplishment: the Americans With Disabilities Act, No Child Left Behind, Head Start, Immigration Act of 1965, and the National Cancer Institute (for which he obtained the support of no less an adversary than President Richard Nixon merely by taking his name off the bill) are but the smallest sampling of historic legislation Kennedy helped bring into being.

Edward Kennedy was not just a "lion of the Senate", he was a true "lion of liberalism"--and perhaps the last such lion. Kennedy's vision of government was an extension of the progressive ideals of FDR's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. To such liberals, "the forces of government should be marshaled to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans, with particular emphasis on the excluded and disadvantaged. It is not government’s only obligation, in this view, but it is the paramount one." It is an expansive view of government, one opposed not only by Republicans, who at least nominally hew to the Reagan aphorism that "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." but also by moderate Democrats who fashion their politics after President Clinton's "third way".

That Kennedy firmly believed in the unchallenged virtue of expansive government is beyond question. One need look only to his famous speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention, which laid out a veritable manifesto of liberal political ideas and policies:

Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.

Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.

Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.

Indeed, much of today's rhetoric about health care reform is a mere restatement of what Kennedy said nearly 30 years ago:

Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.

So it is that one can see in Kennedy's own words the great contradiction that is at the core of Kennedy the Senator, Kennedy the Liberal, and indeed of all the progressive liberal ideology of which Kennedy was the last great champion. That contradiction is a sublime bit of hypocrisy--that to care for people is to shield them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and thus some people must so order society as to "protect" the rest of humanity. The essence of liberalism is that individuals are powerless even to decide their own fates; Kennedy seemingly extended that pessimism into his personal life, judging by his handwringing over Chappaquiddick:

Kennedy's future loomed, suddenly uncertain. "What am I going to do, what can I do?" Kennedy asked.

By being the last lion of liberalism, Kennedy thus became the living demonstration of liberalism's failure--the philosophical failure of its policies and practical failure of its politics. His education legislation (Head Start, No Child Left Behind) has not reversed declining quality in American education. Despite the creation of the National Cancer Institute, the prognosis for people afflicted with the brain cancer that claimed Kennedy has improved only a little--and for many other cancers has not improved at all. His reputation as a bipartisan, collegial, and even compassionate legislator did not stand in the way of his highly partisan, inflammatory, and highly inaccurate attacks on Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

For Kennedy the Liberal Lion, everything, including basic civility and decency, could and should be sacrificed to advance the liberal agenda. Indeed, with his savage attacks on Bork, Kennedy introduced politics and policy into the judicial confirmation process in a way that has continued ever since, as every subsequent nominee is subjected to grilling on his or her judicial philosophy, with the Senate sitting in judgment on whether that philosophy comports with the American "mainstream." For Kennedy the Liberal Lion, the end of preventing a jurist whose ideas might be at odds with Kennedy's liberalism justified the means of upending the old Constitutional order of Senators ensuring federal judges were technically qualified and competent to interpret federal law and replacing it with a new order of Senators approving judicial appointments on the basis of whose theories of jurisprudence best advanced their agenda.

In the end, even the rule of law gave way to the cause of Kennedy's liberalism. In 2004, when the junior Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, was running for President, Kennedy persuaded the Massachusetts legislature to strip the power to appoint a replacement from the Republican governor, Mitt Romney. In 2009, with health care reform legislation hanging in the balance, he wrote to that same legislature asking them to reverse that law, so that Democratic governor Deval Patrick could speedily appoint Kennedy's successor. The end of securing Massachusetts' second Senate seat for the Democrats justified the means of cynically reversing a law passed barely five years ago.

The contradiction that was Senator Edward Kennedy was the contradiction of all liberals who look to government as the agent of social change and social justice--that government must mandate the just order of society because man by himself has failed to do so, and so society must trust those men who serve in government because none other can be trusted. It is a sad, albeit fitting, epitaph to note that the greatness of his career was predicated on the smallness of his vision of humanity.

An Honest Debate?

2009-08-24T14:35:00.001-05:00

In his 22 August 2009 Internet and radio address, the President called for "an honest debate" on health care in this country. Specifically, he called for one not "dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are." At the same time, he rather facetiously claims that "we've had a vigorous debate about health insurance reform, and rightly so."

To quote one of his erstwhile allies in the Congress, Barney Frank, that last statement invites the question of the President: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

What "vigorous debate about health insurance reform" is he talking about? Is he referring to the reform (the meaning of which is, after all, "to change things") which pledges to allow the 84% of Americans with insurance who actually like what they have to keep things exactly as they are? Is he referring to the reforming of health care costs, with the goal of "bending the curve down" towards lower costs overall, which commits the federal government to spend an additional $1 Trillion over the next 10 years? Is he referring to the reform of extending insurance to the much ballyhooed 47 million in this country who do not have insurance--which includes some 10 million illegal immigrants and about double that number of people with incomes well above the poverty line who, for whatever reason, simply choose not to purchase health insurance? Is he referring to the reform of expanding the use of diagnostic procedures and tests to catch disease early in hopes of reducing costs of care--the cost of which increase overall health care spending?

Of all the "outrageous myths" being spread about health care reform, the most outrageous is that there has been any debate at all on the topic. Insurance reform that begins with promising 84% of Americans that nothing will change cannot be reform by definition--if nothing is changing, nothing is being reformed. Cost reform that does not seek to alter the dynamics of health care economics cannot be reform by definition--if nothing is changing, nothing is being reformed. Reforming treatment protocols by using more tests to identity more sick people to apply existing treatment regimens cannot be reform by definition--if nothing is changing, nothing is being reformed.

A true debate on health care reform would openly question the status quo in American health care. One such question, which gets only scant attention, either from the Congress or the media, is "why must health insurance be an employment benefit (and thus employer-subsidized)?" Another such question, which has received equally scant attention from the Congress and the media, is "why are health care providers paid for each test and procedure, regardless of its ultimate utility in treating the patient (the reimbursement scheme generally summarized as "fee for service")?" A question that is not being asked at all is "how well have existing regulations served in facilitating quality health care delivery?"

I am no doctor, I am no politician, I am no lobbyist. My interest in health care reform is my own health, and how I will care for my own health. My interest is in health care that is affordable, that treats illness and promotes my good health without draining my bank accounts in the process.

I want the President and the Congress to return to Earth and address these real questions about health care. I want health care reform. I want a debate on health care reform. I have yet to see one.