Bacevich on Iraq

Andrew Bacevich, the international relations expert and author of the exceptional work The New American Militarism, has written an excellent piece in the Washington Post. The article revolves around Bacevich's attempts to affect change in America's foreign adventurism -- a policy that ultimately resulted in the death of Bacevich's son, who was killed earlier this month by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Bacevich relates how a number of ignorant and callous people wrote to him after his son died, blaming him for his opposition to the war and claiming that he somehow supported the terrorists, causing his son's death. While one might be tempted to dismiss these statements as the blather of far-right extremists, Bacevich notes that their sentiments run parallel to a wider social pattern which demands unthinking support of the President, and looks on dissent as treasonous.

Most importantly, Bacevich explains how, in the wake of 9/11, he thought that the American people could speak up and bring about change in destructive government policies. This belief, however, was crushed when the American people turned decisively against the war, and yet the political elites in Washington -- both Republicans and Democrats -- totally ignored the "will of the people" and did nothing. In his words:

I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

Even worse than the stubborn refusal of the President to change has been the Democrats' betrayal of the very promises that got them elected in 2006. Despite their affinity for making noise about ending the war, Democrats have done nothing to bring the troops home. Many of these politicians have pieced together elaborate justifications for their inaction, when in reality their betrayal of the American people stems from the undemocratic power of wealthy elites and corporations:

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check.

It is surely hard to accept that our government answers not to the people but to elite interests, yet the continuation of the war in Iraq -- despite overwhelming public opposition -- shows this to be undeniably the case. Unfortunately, the men and women with the power to end the war in Iraq are bought and paid for, acting according to their own interests with little regard for the lives of young American soldiers. The sooner we come to accept this tragic reality, the sooner we can begin to make things right.

The only real way to bring about positive change is by escaping the false choice Americans are given between the two establishment parties. I'll leave you with Bacevich's words on this system, with the hope that more people will see the truth of Bacevich's critique and work to bring about change.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

Bipartisan Cynicism

For those who have been following the sparring between President Bush and Democrats in Congress over funding for the war in Iraq, you may have noticed that the debate is fast losing any connection to reality. It should appear somewhat odd that, despite overwhelming support (over 70 percent in many polls) among Americans for "compelled withdrawal" from Iraq -- meaning legislation that mandates an end to the war and the return home of the troops -- it appears Democrats totally lack the political capital to carry out the will of the people.

While such disparity between popular opinion and politicians' voting is not that uncommon, the reasons why so many legislators were opposed to the recent bill proposed by Democrats (which would cut funding for the war, forcing Bush to start pulling out troops) are certainly odd. The first and most important reason that most Republicans and many Democrats opposed the bill was because of the persistent myth that cutting funding would leave the troops without necessary supplies, or otherwise endanger them. As has been noted in other articles, this claim is unquestionably false and has no place dominating the discourse as it has.

Granted, one could reasonably think that cutting funding would of course result in shortages that could effect the troops, but only by neglecting to actually look into the way the war is funded. In reality, even if Congress passed a bill that immediately ceased funding the war, the Pentagon would still have enough money queued up to operate rather smoothly -- with only minimal budget trimming on non-essential programs -- for a number of months. Furthermore, if funds were cut by Congress, officials in the Department of Defense would presumably be wise enough to promptly begin the process of withdrawal. Of course moving so many soldiers home from a country on the other side of the world would call for extensive planning and preparation. This is why the fund-cutting bill proposed in Congress did not immediately cease funding, but rather gave ample time to prepare and execute an orderly withdrawal.

If America's political elites voted in accordance with the opinions of the American people, there would be little or no difficulty acquiring the 2/3 majority necessary to override Bush's veto of any bill that calls for withdrawal. The way things stand now, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cannot even secure the votes of all their fellow Democrats. Thus we see that the problem is more than one of insufficient political capital -- there are obviously a fair number of Democrats who see the continuation of the war as in their interests.

The most logical reason the same Democrats who have mercilessly criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq would still support its continuation is simple politics. As long as the war in Iraq continues, Democrats can exploit the ongoing Republican failure to their advantage. After winning majorities in both the House and the Senate due mostly to concern over the war, many Democrats are committed to keeping Iraq alive as an issue, at least until the 2008 presidential election.

Coming from those who daily decry the unnecessary bloodshed and inevitability of failure in Iraq, this might all seem sickeningly cynical. That would be because it is. While one can fairly look with contempt on those who attempt such a cheap, unprincipled political trick, in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that these Democrats are not the only cynical ones in Washington.

The Bush administration has earned a reputation for exploiting every conceivable threat of terrorism -- whether substantial enough to merit concern or not -- for political benefits and as justification for a practically endless expansion of presidential power. Just as disturbing, Bush has tried to use these fears as justification for numerous secret programs of quite dubious legality. Without a doubt, using fabricated fears to undercut the most fundamental limitations on government power and gain politically is just as contemptible as supporting a war for political gain.

The fact that many Americans actually view these new near-authoritarian powers and probably-unconstitutional programs as legitimate counter-terrorist measures is a testament to the effectiveness this whole scheme. By rhetorically inflating the serious-but-limited problem of terrorism into a monstrous threat to the American way of life, amazingly enough Bush has managed to convince a large number of Americans that they must sacrifice their most basic freedoms in order to preserve, well, their freedom.

Thus we have two immoral and complementary ploys by elements in both major parties -- schemes that are both deeply cynical and profoundly harmful. Democrats are getting away with two-faced support of war-as-political-booster. At the same time, the Bush administration's betrayal of basic American principles -- in the name of preserving the American way of life -- is chipping away at our most precious freedoms. When confronted with these inexcusable actions, politicians flatly deny the obvious, while their apologists in the media point the finger at their opponents saying "Look at them! They're worse than us!", as if two egregious wrongs make a right.

Immigration Issues

The "STRIVE" ("Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy") immigration bill currently making its way through Congress has managed to outrage large swaths of Americans throughout the political spectrum. Conservatives have labeled the bill as granting amnesty to lawbreakers, while many liberals see the bill's enforcement provisions as too harsh. President Bush has voiced his approval of the bill, drawing fierce criticism from many conservatives who accuse him of betraying conservative principles and the interests of the American people.

The bill includes strengthened border protection, enforcement and employment verification provisions, and establishes a number of new visa reforms and worker programs. The most controversial section of the bill -- Title VI -- deals with the legalization of currently-illegal immigrants inside the country by creating new paths to legal citizenship and permanent residency. These new routes to legalization, which include relatively large fines, stringent background checks and testing, also place illegal immigrants at the "back of the line" for attaining permanent visas, behind those applying from their home countries.

Despite the penalties and requirements associated with legalization, the eventual effect of the new programs would most likely be the acceptance of a large number of illegal immigrants as legal residents or citizens. For this reason, and since the bill lacks any provisions calling for large-scale crackdowns or mass deportations, critics have claimed that the bill encourages illegal immigration instead of stemming it.

The real question behind the current furor over immigration reform is whether large-scale immigration -- primarily from Mexico and other Latin American countries -- is beneficial or detrimental to Americans and the economy. Conservatives have overwhelmingly taken the stance that the substantial influx of unskilled, uneducated labor only serves to socially destabilize and economically undermine American citizens.

The notable exception to this has been the support by conservative-leaning big industry interests for lax immigration controls and legalization. For the most part, it appears that American businesses believe that Latin American immigration -- whether legal or illegal -- is good for the economy. Democrats have also called for legalization on the grounds that businesses are able to unfairly exploit and abuse undocumented workers. Furthermore, Democrats have pointed out that legalization would increase the number of taxpayers and offset the costs of medical and social programs used by undocumented immigrants.

With an aging Baby Boomer generation causing crises in American entitlement programs (like Social Security and Medicare) and a shrinking labor supply, some are saying that high levels of immigration could save the American economy from disaster. On the other hand, others are warning that the potential for higher wages that would come with a smaller labor supply could be canceled out by large-scale immigration.

Barring a sudden change in momentum, it appears that Washington Democrats and Republicans have arrived at something of a consensus on this touchy issue. While there are strong indications that this consensus runs counter to popular anti-immigration sentiment, in the long run it may turn out to have benefits not recognized by the majority of Americans. Then again, it could turn out to be as disastrous as its critics claim. If this episode has revealed nothing else, it has once again shown that the decisions made in Washington need not reflect the desires of the American people.

Socialized Medicine

With the coming release of Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko, a hard-hitting critique of the American health care system, it is inevitable that socialized health care will become a hot issue yet again. This issue is sure to become a quite passionate one, since proponents of the system seem to hold the "common sense" moral high ground -- what sane person could be opposed to a program that provides good medical services for everyone, for free? As is common in these situations, libertarians are left with the unenviable task of explaining why the shallow, illogical proposals of the left are destined to fail and do more harm than good.

The first strike against socialized medicine is that its biggest selling point -- that it is free -- is total nonsense. Of course Americans would have to pay much higher taxes to fund such a program, but the real problem arises when you account for how inefficient government programs are. The U.S. government already pays over $2500 annually per person in health care costs, and this number is certain to skyrocket as a growing bureaucracy devours the lion's share of all funds. We have seen this with virtually every large-scale government program, including public schools and entitlement programs. There is no reason to believe that socialized health care would be any different.

The second problem is that, even if Americans could stomach the necessary massive tax increases, it is unlikely that the government could do even a mediocre job of managing the health care system. Social Security and Medicare are on the verge of collapse, due to the total ineptitude of the federal government. The American welfare system is so absurdly wasteful that only around 10 percent of funds actually go to those in need, compared to an average of 90 percent for private charities. All these programs are rife with corruption and abuse, and are notorious for falling short of all stated goals. After all, we are talking about the same federal government that mysteriously "lost" trillions of dollars that were allocated for reconstruction in Iraq. If the federal government is so obviously incapable of competently managing these programs, what in the world makes Democrats think that something as complex as a national health care system could be run by the government?

I'll have more on the push for socialized medicine as things continue to heat up...

Urban Asymmetric War in Najaf

This video from YouTube, documenting a firefight between a group of Marines and an insurgent sniper, demonstrates a number of the challenges facing U.S. forces in Iraq. While moving through a cemetery in the city of Najaf (160 km south of Baghdad), a group of Marines came under fire from a Soviet-made Dragunov (SVD) semi-automatic sniper rifle. The sniper, who was discovered to be hiding in a hotel a few hundred yards away, was able to totally suppress a sizable group of Marines, killing one soldier.

In the end, it took the concerted effort of the Marines and two M1A1 Abrams tanks -- probably expending hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of ammunition and fuel -- to fight off the single shooter with his inexpensive rifle. The hotel from which the sniper had been firing was mostly destroyed, yet the sniper himself was not killed and only forced to flee.

In urban operations such as this one, U.S. troops are susceptible to fire from all directions, including from elevated positions in buildings. In addition, when they come under fire, the troops are forced to carefully choose their targets, since the densely populated urban environment makes civilian casualties a major possibility.

While some of the difficulties faced by the troops in this situation are common to virtually all engagements with skilled snipers (i.e. the ability of one shooter to suppress large groups, the difficulty of accurately directing counter-sniper fire), these difficulties are aggravated and added to by the need for U.S. forces to minimize damage to infrastructure, avoid civilian casualties, and generally react in a very restrained manner. When every action of the troops has a potential negative effect on the attitude of the Iraqi population, the need to carefully measure the effects of all actions can seem to take precedence over the more immediate necessities of the engagement. This greatly decreases the effectiveness of American forces, however failure to act in this way would seriously harm the efforts of the U.S. and fledgling Iraqi government.

Since U.S. forces are attempting to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and economy in order to increase stability and eliminate the forces that feed the insurgency (unemployment and poverty, for example), all the insurgents have to do is foment chaos and instability, which is much easier to achieve than the more constructive goals of the coalition forces. They have been remarkably successful in doing this, while the massive, well-trained and well-equipped U.S. forces have been incapable of translating their conventional military supremacy into meaningful political gains.

Viewed as a microcosm of the larger predicament of U.S. forces in Iraq, this engagement is revealing. With minimal resources, the insurgent was able to inflict unacceptable losses on the Marines (since virtually any loss is seen by the West as unacceptable), force the Marines to expend a relatively large amount of resources, and increase the atmosphere of chaos and instability (the destroyed hotel, the fear among Iraqis generated by the engagement, etc). Throughout Iraq, insurgents have achieved these goals on a larger scale by hindering economic growth, preventing political progress, and deepening sectarian divisions between Iraqis. They have also forced the United States to expend massive resources (almost $429 billion in 4 years) and have inflicted politically-unacceptable losses of 3,441 killed and 26,000+ wounded American troops.

By any conventional metric, the insurgency in Iraq has been a complete failure. The insurgents have not decisively won a single battle against U.S. forces, and have suffered hugely disproportionate numbers of casualties. As was seen in Vietnam, however, unconventional forces are capable of sustaining massive losses, and need not win decisive victories on the battlefield in order to defeat the more central objectives of an occupying force. All this goes to show that the prospects of victory or defeat in Iraq depend on much more than the number of troops on the ground or even their effective use in battle. If political reconciliation and progress continue to prove elusive, the endless queue of insurgents will continue to grow, and America's currently-weak political will to continue the fight will disappear entirely.

Police...

Breaking News! Police are hypocrites!



These videos were taken in Washington, D.C. during "National Police Week", when thousands of police officers from throughout the country descended on the capitol and proceeded to drunkenly and loudly disturb residential neighborhoods with impunity. Of course anyone else acting as they were would have been promptly arrested, but then again what's the point of being a police officer if you aren't above the law?

Lobbying and Hypocrisy

After (rightfully) harping on the corruption of Republicans and their ties to Jack Abramoff and other shady lobbyists, Democratic leaders in Congress faltered when it came time to take action on their anti-lobbyist rhetoric. Reform of the corrupt lobbying system in Washington was central to the campaign promises offered by Democrats, and doubtless helped them win majorities in the Senate and House. While they have followed through on some of the points in their "100 Hours" plan for reform, they have suddenly become less enthusiastic about increasing transparency in lobbying -- no doubt largely because they now stand to gain much more from corrupt lobbyists as the majority party.

Conservative pundits are merrily pointing out the hypocrisy of this, while liberals are trying their best to ignore the failure. What neither side seems to have realized, however, is that such corruption is nothing more than a natural extension of the way government works. Special interests will always have disproportionate influence in government, and politicians will always exploit their positions of power for personal gain. This has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, since there is not a party in the world that would refrain from such actions.

The reason such corruption is inevitable is because it is not categorically different from the "legal" and "ethical" things that politicians do every day. If a congressman receives massive campaign donations from an industry and then backs legislation that is favorable to that industry, this is supposedly "ethical". Yet it is "unethical" if that same congressman allows that same industry to pick up his travel expenses, or if he benefits in other ways from his relationship with the industry. The point is that none of this is really ethical -- no matter what fancy language you use to dress up these actions, they amount to nothing more and nothing less than wealthy interests buying legislative power and influence. Politicians make money and expand their own power by catering to special interests (as represented by lobbyists), while wealthy and well-connected institutions and industries gain obscene benefits from the government at the expense of taxpayers.

The only principled alternative to the corrupt lobbyist influence in Washington is to take politicians out of the business of granting favors to their favored interests. This can only be accomplished by letting free markets work and limiting government from intruding in the private sector in unnecessary ways. This means ending harmful corporate welfare programs, unnecessary subsidies, and wasteful pork legislation by strictly limiting the role of the state in the private sector.

While liberals would no doubt claim that such a removal of government influence would lead to out-of-control corporations, the truth is that, without the ability to mold government policy to their ends, corporations would be quite effectively limited. They would no longer be able to exploit corrupt politicians to turn $100,000 in campaign contributions into $100 million in (taxpayer-funded) subsidies, as they do now on a regular basis. Removing the state from the private sector would keep corrupt politicians and corporations from picking the pockets of hard-working taxpayers, and would go a long way to creating a more free and equitable society.

Televangelists Are Bad People

The recent death of "Moral Majority" founder and hateful bigot Jerry Falwell -- and the resultant sickening, sycophantic media coverage of his legacy -- brings up the question: why do Americans tolerate hate-peddling televangelists? These so-called Christian leaders, who contribute nothing to political or religious discourse except for hateful, divisive nonsense, are widely regarded -- even by the allegedly liberal media, which has every reason to despise them -- as prominent, respectable members of society.

The two most prominent American televangelists, who were largely responsible for the rise of the "Christian conservative" movement that now animates the Republican party's more authoritarian, moralistic legislative agenda, are the contemptible Pat Robertson and the late Falwell. Both of these men were instrumental in the transformation of American conservatism into an authoritarian movement that has embraced criminalization of homosexuality, dangerous nationalist apocalypticism, and all sorts of other destructive, intolerant, and ridiculous political causes. What is most disturbing is that these men have been taken relatively seriously, and have unquestionably influenced the policies of the highest levels of government.

The list of Robertson and Falwell's hateful public statements is much too long to cover in its entirety here, however the shocking depth of their ignorance and bigotry can be grasped by considering the following statements:

Speaking about Muslims on The 700 Club, Robertson said: "These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is Satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with. ...by the way, Islam is not a religion of peace."

Also on The 700 Club, mere days after the 9/11 attacks, Jerry Falwell said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

In addition to this, both men have earned reputations as shameless liars, often wildly exaggerating or totally fabricating claims. For example, 76-year-old Robertson famously claimed to be able to leg press 2,000 pounds -- a feat that is impossible for most athletes in the prime of their life, and totally impossible for an elderly man.

In 1984, Falwell was forced to pay a gay activist $5,000 after lying about hateful statements he had made regarding homosexuals. Falwell appealed the decision, claiming that the judge in the case was biased because he was Jewish. He lost the case again, and was forced to pay another $2,875.

Both Robertson and Falwell have also claimed to have "faith healing" powers, despite the total lack of evidence that anyone had ever been healed by their actions. Of course both men became obscenely rich by exploiting these fantastic claims of having healing powers, by conning gullible and desperate people out of their money.

Robertson's corruption and total moral bankruptcy goes far beyond "faith healing" chicanery. In 2003, it was revealed that Robertson had established extensive business relations and a personal friendship with Liberian warlord and dictator Charles Taylor, who was known to be responsible for numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. Taylor had also been accused of harboring and assisting al Qaeda terrorists around the time of the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Despite all this, Robertson continued to advocate for and associate with Taylor, and was granted rights to utilize Liberian gold mines. Robertson also used funds raised for charity under his "Operation Blessing" program to airlift diamond-mining equipment as part of a corporate program established with Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

Robertson only escaped criminal prosecution for these plainly illegal activities when Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley refused to bring charges against Robertson. What could justify Earley's total disregard for the law in letting Robertson get away with plainly illegal activities? Earley had received his largest campaign contribution, $35,000, from none other than Robertson 2 years earlier, just as the investigation against Robertson was starting to move forward.

In short, Robertson and Falwell are among the most contemptible, corrupt, immoral and dishonorable people one could imagine, yet for some reason the mainstream media continues to place them on a pedestal as models of Christian goodness and as moral leaders. While the vast influence they have had on American politics is undeniable, most of this influence has served to propagate hateful, ignorant ideas and encourage extremist, fundamentalist views of Christianity. It is well past time for the media to stop enabling those like Robertson and Falwell, who degrade the integrity of our society and government with their hateful, corrupt and dishonest dealings.

Dondero Attacks Ron Paul

Outraged with Republican congressman Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq, a former aide has announced that he plans to run against Paul in the next Congressional election. Eric Dondero claims that he is "the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996", and that he is capable of defeating Paul as punishment for his opposition to the party line on the war in Iraq, as well as other issues.

Dondero says that he will step aside if another pro-war Republican steps up to run against Paul, however his announcement made it clear that many Republicans are feeling deeply threatened by Paul's recent press. As I have said before, Ron Paul poses a greater threat to most establishment conservatives than the Democrats do, since the Democrats have failed to articulate a coherent response to the Bush administration's policies. Furthermore, the large number of conservatives who are fed up with Bush and his supporters in Congress are unlikely to support Democrats on ideological grounds. A principled libertarian conservative like Paul, on the other hand, presents a very attractive alternative to the current welfare-warfare state as represented by the dominant parties.

If Ron Paul's recent blip on the national radar begins to transform into anything more lasting -- if he is able to gain a foothold and widen his exposure -- we can expect attacks like this to increase from both Republicans and Democrats. It is not very often that we get to see such a clear example of how the establishment mobilizes against anyone who threatens their controlled two-party system. While it is somewhat disturbing to see the efficiency of the dissent-crushing political machine in action, the fact that Paul has emerged from his rather obscure status -- even temporarily -- shows that there is some hope for opposing voices to gain traction in national discourse. Ron Paul was able to exploit the format of the Republican debate to mostly bypass the numerous barriers to new ideas presented by the establishment media, and the American people responded well to his fresh message.

Is it possible that, as Americans become more aware of the limitations of government -- both in foreign adventures and at home -- they will come to embrace a more libertarian kind of reformism? Only time will tell, and there are certainly numerous barriers to such progress. Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve their pet entitlement programs and other big-government traditions, while Republicans will be forced to either embrace a more libertarian approach or try to kill the movement in its infancy. What should be emphasized, however, is that while Paul is nominally a Republican, his views line up with those of both Democrats and Republicans on different issues, and therefore his politics cannot be clearly labeled as either Republican or Democratic. Libertarian politics more broadly, and Paul's politics in specific, seem to be a very potent and principled combination of views that might actually address the problems Americans are concerned with.

Ron Paul Shakes Things Up

Those who tuned in to the recent Republican presidential debates were given a special treat when an unlikely contender bravely stood apart from the "moderate" posturing of the other candidates. Enunciating a strikingly original form of conservatism, Texas congressman Ron Paul -- who is a member of both the Republican and Libertarian parties -- denounced out-of-control spending, foreign adventurism, executive overreach, and the distancing of the Republican party from its libertarian roots.

Paul uncompromisingly outlined his plan for America, calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System and the CIA, as well as the repeal of the Federal Income Tax. Paul also outlined a new foreign policy vision centered around non-intervention and cessation of meddlesome military adventures abroad. While those who have advocated similar foreign policy ideas in the recent past have been shunned as "isolationist", the chaos in Iraq and the widely-perceived failure of president Bush's aggressive foreign policies may have given new life to Paul's libertarian plan.

Most controversially, Paul pointed to the relationship between America's meddlesome military practices abroad and the growth of Islamic extremism, saying that America's military presence in the Middle East and sanctions against Iraq (which caused the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children) contributed to 9/11. While Rudy Giuliani and other critics have decried Paul analysis in this regard, Paul has pointed out that the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have both concluded that American military involvement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East contributed to the popularity of radical Islam and the rise of al Qaeda.

Unsurprisingly, Paul's presentation of these challenges to the Washington "consensus" of big government and military aggression has been met with hostility from throughout the political spectrum. The left has decried his "extreme" plans to dismantle the wasteful welfare state, while the right has rejected his non-interventionist stance. Both sides of the aisle have joined in the bashing simply because neither of them can afford to have viable alternatives offered to a public that is increasingly fed up with the same old failed policies of the Washington establishment.

Paul's critics have gone so far as to attempt to have him barred from further debates, claiming either that his views are "offensive" or that he is somehow not a "serious" candidate -- all because his views go against the grain, calling into question the most sacred "truths" of Washington's entrenched political elites. The "mainstream" media has treated Paul as something of an irrelevant novelty, despite the fact that he emerged on top in numerous post-debate polls. This treatment clearly shows how the Washington establishment -- from veteran politicians and parties to think-tanks and the media -- work to silence any truly dissenting viewpoints that do not fit neatly into the Democratic/Republican mold of controlled "opposition".

One should not underestimate the power of the media to form opinions and exclude ideas from national discourse, nor should one neglect to recognize the interest of political and media elites in maintaining the status quo, even where Americans clearly favor new ideas. That Ron Paul was able to reach such a wide audience during the debates was something of a coup in itself, however there is much work to be done before libertarian ideas can be fairly presented to the public and judged on their merits next to the tired ideas of the big-government establishment.

New Tactics, More Casualties

The Washington Post reported yesterday that April was the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers thus far in the war in Iraq, with at least 104 American troops reported killed. This has brought the total number of U.S. deaths to over 3350, and has led to an increase in domestic opposition to the war among those who see the high numbers as indicating the failure of the new "surge" security plan.

While those opposing the war cannot be blamed for taking these increased casualties as a further reason for American withdrawal, it should be noted that this increase was by no means unexpected -- it is a direct, predicted result of the new tactics being used by American troops in Baghdad. More than just increasing the number of troops on the ground, the new counterinsurgency tactics adopted by General Petraeus have moved American troops out of heavily-fortified "mega-bases" and into smaller patrol bases throughout Baghdad.

As many others have pointed out, the reasoning behind this change in tactics is theoretically sound, since a primary aim of counterinsurgency is gaining the trust and support of the populace. By dispersing U.S. troops throughout the city in smaller numbers, closer to the Iraqi people, Gen. Petraeus hopes to achieve a number of goals: to enhance security through a more visible, active American presence; to gain the trust of the Iraqi people by living among them; and to commit troops to neighborhoods that they can learn well and more effectively protect.

In bringing about these changes, Petraeus is finally replacing the old, ineffective methods of the U.S. forces with tried-and-true counterinsurgency methods. The trade-off that accompanies this change in tactics, however, is that American troops become much more vulnerable as they move into the city and live amongst the Iraqi people. While casualties can be expected to increase in the short term, the hope is that the more effective methods being utilized now will actually decrease casualties in the long term.

Whether or not this gamble will work out will only be revealed in time. A number of analysts believe that this change in tactics, while certainly reflecting much more competent and experienced leadership, is "too little too late" given the larger situation in Iraq. What is certain is that the U.S. military, after more than 4 years of conflict, finally managed to implement some of the counterinsurgency tactics that should have been utilized from the very beginning. Exactly why the military brass failed to do so, and instead used outdated, highly ineffective (and predictably ineffective) methods, is not entirely clear.

In the meantime, the failure of the Bush administration to articulate the reasoning behind this change in tactics -- and the short-term costs of the change -- is likely to harm both the administration and the effort, as Americans conclude that the new strategy, rather than decreasing casualties and increasing security, is doing the opposite. It is hard to find fault with this conclusion, however, since the increase in casualties, even if temporary, is very real and worrisome to many Americans.

Furthermore, in this case the "commonsense", amateur analysis that more casualties equals failure is a point of view being adopted by many military analysts who say that the theoretical benefits of the strategy are unlikely to materialize due to the intensity of conflict. The time to adopt these tactics, they say, was back in 2003 when American forces were transitioning from the initial phase of the war into an occupation role.

UPDATE: There is a good piece in the New York Post by Ann Marlowe, called "French Lessons", which brings up the experiences of the French in Algeria, which inspired military theorist David Galula's ideas of counterinsurgency.

In his famous work "Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice", Galula outlines a method of counterinsurgency which calls for small, dispersed groups (usually of 10-15 men) to man patrol bases throughout the insurgents' operational area. While somewhat counterintuitive (it would seem to negate the occupier's advantage of numbers), the goal of this tactic is to inspire confidence in the government by maintaining stability, and to deny insurgents safe haven among the people. As long as forces are amassed in bases far from the people, there is little that can be done to root out insurgents from within the population; the counterinsurgent's advantage of numbers is negated by their inability to maintain control of the city. Galula's theory seeks to rectify this problem, and provide a workable framework for hindering insurgent activity.

If these tactics sound very familiar, it is because General Petraeus' ideas -- laid out in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual -- are drawn mostly from Galula's theory. As pointed out above, the most curious thing is that it took this long for the American military to adopt even remotely effective tactics.

Arctic Melting and Climate Change

A new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research has been released, stating that arctic ice is melting at a rate that exceeds even the highest theorized estimates. While the models utilized by researches estimated a 5.4 percent per decade decline in arctic ice, the new evidence compiled from numerous measurements shows that the ice is in fact melting at a rate closer to 7.8 percent per decade.

This new evidence of a higher rate of melting indicates that atmospheric carbon dioxide is playing a greater role than previously thought, and has forced scientists to revise their models -- the new measurements indicate that the arctic could be free of ice up to 30 years earlier than previously thought.

While I am certainly no expert on climate change or atmospheric research, it occurred to me that one possible explanation (at least a contributing factor) to this could be that, as noted by physicist Freeman Dyson:

"...the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime."

If this effect has not been accurately modeled or sufficiently accounted for by climatologists, as suggested by Dyson's criticism here, this could at least partially explain the higher rate of climate change in the arctic and the relative stability in more temperate climates.

This new evidence also shows that while the immediate climate changes may be most pronounced in less populous areas, the effects of these changes are felt globally. If the most heavily populated areas of the world are not yet seeing substantial increases in temperature, they will soon see the effects of rising sea levels caused by this unquestionable arctic melting. The seriousness of any threat posed by these rising sea levels, and the ease or difficulty with which people will be able to deal with the changes, will of course vary from place to place. While Americans and Europeans will likely be able to relocate and adapt without extremely serious consequences, other extremely densely populated, poverty-stricken areas such as Bangladesh, India, and even along the Nile River Delta in Egypt may see widespread disruption as massive populations are forced out of their homes.

Once again, I must emphasize how important it is that freedom-minded individuals resist the urge to stick their heads in the sand and deny that climate change is occurring. Despite all the flawed theorizing and inaccurate modeling one may find, evidence like that presented by the above-mentioned study is not questionable, and must be recognized as indicating real changes. Recognizing this impending change does not imply approving of massive government action. In fact many of the problems associated with this issue are caused by government action, such as state subsidizing of people who choose to live in high-risk coastal areas.

In the absence of state intervention, people would be less likely to put themselves at risk, and it would be generally much easier for people to adapt to changes like those now being seen. This would happen because they would be in a better position to begin with (having not established residence in flood-prone areas due to unacceptable risk) and would furthermore have proper economic incentives to make safe choices.

The time for (more) libertarians to make their peace with the reality of global climate change is far past due, and the importance of drawing up workable alternatives to out-of-control statism grows with every day. A proper understanding of the relevant science and of economics will lead to highly effective answers that are perfectly compatible with the maintenance of freedom. All that remains is for libertarians to speak up.