Enemy of the State

Obama vs. The Unwashed Masses

2009-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:00

"Last week, around the same time President Obama was giving his health-care speech to Congress, I was in Washington to interview some administration officials for an upcoming story in Esquire. They were so damn positive. And hardworking. And energetic — the kinds of people who actually wake up at dawn to go running just so they can get to the office by 7:30, who eat salads and read only useful books. They don't watch television. They never drink more than a glass or two of wine. Sometimes they might indulge in a social beer, but it really is a social beer."

Thus Josh Koster -- a truly shameless, fawning sycophant if there ever was one -- begins his ridiculous tirade against those who dare oppose Obama and his legions of utterly perfect bureaucrats. These positive people, Koster explains, are dumbfounded by the medieval, hateful hordes of the opposition who, in Koster's words, "would rather do the wrong thing than do what is good for them."

To be sure, just like any mass protest, 9/12 brought out more than a few kooks. The media of course eagerly captured every hyperbolic Hitler-reference and every ranting apocalyptic prophet. The unfortunate result of these overzealous and less-than-rational displays is that the pro-Obama media machine has been given ample ammunition to discredit all those opposed to Obama's grand vision for a new America.

For those like Koster, the popular culture consensus, fed by this media narrative, is that support for European-style national health care is the only option for rational, civilized people. Those expressing doubt over the feasibility or cost of such a system are instantly branded as shills for the evil insurance companies or as reactionary, racist yokels. Never mind that these evil insurance companies stand to gain huge profits and are among Obamacare's biggest supporters. Never mind that establishing such an immense social welfare program without affecting the deficit (as promised by Obama) is virtually impossible.

Unburdened by such silly concerns, Koster outlines the brilliant strategy of Obama's infallible czars:

"...they really don't want to force anybody to do things. They believe in this idea of "libertarian paternalism," which means they'll put the fruits and veggies right there at eye level by the counter and put the chips and sugary sodas way up on the top shelf. They're not going to force you to pick the public option, [..] they're going to use "choice architecture" to "nudge" you toward what is obviously good for you."

It is unfortunate that Koster is so enamored with the Obama administration's technocratic social engineering that he fails to recognize that this concept of "libertarian" government control is completely contradictory and nonsensical. Apparently, we are to believe that Obama's "public option" will remain a passive and beneficial option for those in need, never to expand or cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, Koster thinks we ought to be thankful that despite our obvious incompetence and self-destructive behavior, daddy government is willing to give us a loving "nudge" toward contented serfdom.

Just in case it was not abundantly clear that all non-Democrats are backwards sociopaths, Koster finally reveals that opponents of Obama are in fact slavery-loving Confederate sympathizers (no, really):

"It's no accident that much of this impulse comes from the southern states, which recent polls suggest are virtually united in their opposition to President Obama. After all, this is the region that fought government intrusion upon its freedoms by forming its own government to intrude upon its freedoms, that imposed the Fugitive Slave Law on other states in the name of states' rights, that fought for slavery in the name of liberty."

If one is to avoid being branded as a hateful and ignorant Confederate, Obama's ridiculous concept of "libertarian paternalism" must be embraced unquestioningly. Doubts about the fiscal feasibility of Obama's health care insurance reforms must not be voiced. The childish citizenry must not dare suggest that unintended consequences might arise from these massive changes to the health care industry.

That political discourse in America has sunk this low is truly tragic. If this piece of inane garbage is at all indicative of the beliefs of the Democratic party or President Obama -- and I fear that it may be -- things will be getting much worse before they get better.

Afghanistan: A Strategic Analysis

2009-07-02T00:14:00.000-07:00

Early Thursday morning, approximately 4,000 Marines from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade moved into the Taliban-controlled Helmand River valley in southern Afghanistan. This marked the beginning of the first large-scale operation in Afghanistan to implement a new set of counterinsurgency (COIN) practices -- practices adapted from General David Petraeus' Iraq "surge" strategy.

The COIN strategy at the center of this new operation concentrates on building economic and political infrastructure, protecting the Afghan population, and establishing a working relationship between the people of Helmand and the Afghan government. Whereas the emphasis was once on "kinetic" operations targeting Taliban forces, US forces are now to be primarily concerned with assisting and protecting the Afghan people rather than hunting the enemy. In order to do this, Marine units will move into small outposts, dispersed among the population, much like they did in Baghdad during the 2007 surge.

Media accounts have thus far focused mainly on the similarities between the new operation and the successful Iraq surge of 2007. However, the immense geographical and political differences between Iraq and Afghanistan will play a greater role in determining the outcome of this operation.

In Iraq, concentrated counterinsurgency efforts in the central hub of Baghdad had the effect of spreading stability throughout the country. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has no such urban center where COIN efforts can be concentrated. The country's harsh mountainous landscape also serves to isolate communities from each other in a way not seen in Iraq. Less than 10 percent of the nation's population lives in large cities, and as a result stabilization efforts require greater troop numbers, more dispersed throughout the country.

The enemy in Afghanistan is also quite different from that in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency was highly fractured -- consisting of many opposing Sunni and Shiite militias and foreign terrorist elements. The US military's ability to leverage hostilities between these groups (in the form of the Anbar Awakening, where Sunni militants turned against foreign terrorist elements) was central to the success of the surge.

In contrast, the Afghan Taliban has acted for some time in Helmand as a de facto government, after forcing government officials and police out of the area. This grants them a unique degree of legitimacy and support among the population not enjoyed by Iraq's militant factions. Whether Afghan citizens' support for the Taliban is merely a begrudging product of fear, or willing support, is hotly contested among experts.

The US military, however, is counting on the willingness of the Afghan people to turn against the Taliban once US forces bring some degree of stability and progress. Whatever the Afghan peoples' attitudes toward the Taliban, winning their support will also require tangible improvement in the Afghan government, which is perceived as hopelessly corrupt and ineffective.

The challenges presented by Afghanistan are uniquely daunting. The prospect of success will depend greatly on US forces' ability to quickly and effectively adapt strategies to unforseen circumstances and unique challenges. In a nation more populous and geographically dispersed than Iraq, and with only a fraction of the manpower, victory in Afghanistan is far from certain. In such a fight, a firm understanding of the enemy, the underlying politics, and the geography can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Calling North Korea's Bluff

2009-07-01T01:45:00.000-07:00

Kim Jong-Il, "Dear Leader" of the backwards, bellicose, dystopian dictatorship that has held its southern neighbor hostage for half a century, is truly unique in his twisted ingenuity. He defied the international community's resolutions, demands and threats for decades, while extracting concessions from the world's most powerful nations. He developed nuclear weapons, conducted ballistic missile tests, and openly threatened other nations. He is among the world's most dangerous proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, if not the most dangerous. Despite all this, Kim and his pathetically stagnant nation remain, for all practical purposes, untouchable.

In response to North Korea's most recent bout of nuclear tests and threats, hawks in Washington are once again calling for a hard, unforgiving approach. The Wall Street Journal's Gordon G. Chang recently gave voice to these hawkish sentiments in his article "How to Stop North Korea's Weapons Proliferation". According to Chang, North Korea's recent renunciation of the 1953 armistice, which in effect ended the Korean War, means that the US and North Korea are once again technically belligerents at war. This gives the United States legal standing to interdict North Korean vessels -- specifically the Kang Nam, an infamous proliferating ship now being trailed by the US Navy.

Chang proposes that rather than passively watching the Kang Nam unload its illegal goods, the US Navy should board it and seize its crew and cargo -- an approach that North Korea already said it would consider to be an "act of war". So once again the US is presented with a now-familiar choice: allow Kim Jong-Il to thumb his nose at the world, or risk the resumption of war on the Korean peninsula.

Beneath all the posturing and blustering rhetoric, the reality is this: as long as Kim's masses of artillery (and WMDs) stand ready to incinerate the bustling city of Seoul with its 10 million inhabitants, the aggressive proposals of Chang and countless other frustrated hawks will remain nothing more than dangerous fantasies. No matter how many nuclear tests Kim conducts, the United States is unwilling to call his bluff and risk not only war, but the slaughter of millions of South Korean civilians.

It is hard to imagine that Chang is unaware of this fundamental reality of US-North Korean relations. Nevertheless, he carefully plans this "legally justified" attack on the Kang Nam, conveniently omitting any mention of the catastrophic result that could follow.

Perhaps most disturbing is Chang's concluding remark: "North Korea, after all, has resumed the Korean War." In the end it seems that Chang is prepared to justify such a risk with a technicality. The Korean People's Army declared that it would "not be bound" by the 1953 armistice; therefore we have license to provoke the mass slaughter of millions.

US-North Korean relations are largely based on the unfortunate fact that Kim Jong-Il holds the city of Seoul hostage. As long as North Korea holds this trump card, talk by US hawks of naval seizures, attacks on nuclear facilities, or blockades is foolish. This is even truer because Kim very well may not be bluffing -- the insulated, eccentric leader's mental health has been called into question more than once.

As tensions with North Korea inevitably continue to escalate in the coming weeks, we must be careful to ensure that the reckless aggression of hawks like Chang does not gain traction. Though our inability to stem North Korean belligerence may be frustrating, it is certainly preferable to the extreme risk of calling a madman's bluff.

Biggest Tax in US History?

2009-06-26T19:12:00.000-07:00

According to this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, the cap-and-trade carbon emission restriction system being pushed through Congress now by Democrats will be the single biggest tax in US history. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill -- commonly called the Waxman-Markey bill -- would cost only $175 a year by 2020, yet openly acknowledged that this estimate did not even attempt to estimate the broader economic effects of such a massive regulation-and-taxation system. Similarly, the CBO used unrealistic tax estimates, ignoring the way in which the program is designed to ratchet up taxes and decrease carbon emission caps over time.

More comprehensive analysis by the Heritage Foundation found that the bill would have an enormous effect on economic growth, costing $1,870 for a family of four in 2020 and up to $6,800 for a family of four in 2035. In addition, the program -- which is in reality a severe tax on all energy consumption and therefore all economic activity -- is expected to dramatically slow economic growth. Many industrial sectors will be hard hit by the massive new tax, as they are forced to increase prices, decrease production, and most probably lay off some of their workers. As the economy slows under the weight of this massive new taxation system, gas and electricity prices will rise dramatically even as unemployment rises.

Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy points out that even with these horrible effects on the economy, the decrease in carbon emissions due to the program will fail utterly to make a difference in the big picture of global warming. Lindgren compares the bill to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley bill of 1930, which imposed large tariffs and is widely recognized to have made the Great Depression much worse. In fact, as Lindgren points out, the bill will act much like an internal tariff, and will likely have even more serious effects than the Smoot-Hawley bill. With the economy still suffering, the last thing Americans need is an expensive, harmful, and ineffective federal program that sabotages the economy for the sake of environmental posturing.

Why Iran Matters

2009-06-17T19:15:00.000-07:00

The unrest of the past few days in Iran has seized center stage in world politics, as countless people throughout the world become involved in supporting the Iranian protesters' cause. It is clear that events in Iran captured the imagination of the world, but what is less clear is why these events are truly important to Americans and other non-Iranians.

Recent events in Iran are important to us for at least two reasons. First, they represent a centuries-old struggle between liberty and oppression. Of course, Mir-Hussein Moussavi, the Iranian "reform" candidate championed by many Iranian protesters, is far from a liberal in the western sense. He has a solid record of supporting the strict structure of the Islamic republic.

However, he is far more pro-liberty than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promising reforms in women's rights and moves toward general (though gradual) modernization. The struggle of the Iranian people to have their votes counted -- and to have a say in their government -- should be defended even if their chosen candidate is less than perfect. The election in Iran was far from free or open, and there is good reason to question its legitimacy. What is most important is not who the Iranian people choose, but that they are defending their right to make that choice.

Less obvious and yet more important to us is what the Iranian protests show us about the changing nature of political power and dissent in the modern world. An excellent piece on the blog Journal Squared compares the technologically-empowered ferocity of the Iranian movement with the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. The Seattle protests made headlines for activists' innovative and highly effective use of technology to organize and communicate. The world was shocked by their ability to outsmart and overpower better-funded, better-armed, and better-trained authorities.

This new form of "networked, anonymous and decentralized protest movement" quickly adapts and ends up overwhelming political leaders. The result is either the collapse of centralized leadership ability or frenzied overreaction by authorities -- either outcome is beneficial to the cause of the protesters.

The RAND Corporation, one of the foremost defense policy think tanks in the United States, called this technologically-enabled form of resistance "netwar", and identified it as among the greatest threats to modern governments. Short for "networked warfare", RAND says that this new style of conflict, "depends heavily on information and communications technology, nonhierarchical organization, and tactics that are distinctly different from previous forms of civil-society conflicts."

Compared to older forms of protest and resistance, netwar is vastly more effective at disrupting the mechanisms of state power and undermining the legitimacy of targeted organizations. Using simple technologies like mobile phones and social media (i.e. twitter, etc), protesters can quickly organize actions (demonstrations, riots, attacks on specific entities, etc), react to police movements, and build vast global support structures.

The Iranian election is demonstrating how greatly these tactics have advanced with the advancement and spread of communications technology. Before the election, few experts predicted any kind of sizeable reaction by the Iranian people. Then, beginning with the declaration of victory by Ahmadinejad, a massive resistance movement emerged with unprecedented speed and reach. Within hours of the results being announced, a global network of support began forming.

When the Iranian government attempted to cut communications and isolate the dissidents, thousands of people throughout the world began helping the effort: setting up proxies to circumvent government filters, attacking government websites, and keeping lines of communication open despite the best efforts of the Iranian state. Much like in open-source software development, the distributed and coordinated efforts of these people converged to form a highly effective product.

Iranian students and dissidents massed by the hundreds of thousands and more in cities throughout Iran with little advance notice, empowered by new communication technologies. Movements of pro-Ahmadinejad militias, police, and military forces were constantly relayed among protesters. International journalists were banned from covering the protests, and protesters filled the information gap in near real-time with thousands of pictures, videos, and text accounts of events on the ground.

According to Col. John Boyd, one of the foremost warfare theorists of our time, conflict is broadly explained by a cyclical process called the OODA loop. In this process, agents in a conflict (whether they are generals commanding armies or fighter pilots flying planes) first Observe, then Orient themselves, then Decide on a course of action, and then finally Act.

For example, a fighter pilot (the theory was originally devised to describe aerial combat) must first observe his surroundings, orient himself in relation to the enemy and other relevant considerations, decide on the best course of action (speed up, slow down, climb, dive, etc), and finally act on that decision. This action will produce a new set of circumstances to be observed, and the cycle begins again. Boyd said that the agent in a conflict who can most quickly cycle through this OODA loop will gain a decisive advantage over his enemy, since he will be able to seize the initiative and dictate the terms of the fight. This is often termed "getting inside" the enemy's OODA loop, since one can observe and act many times while the enemy completes only one observation-action cycle.

In Iran, protesters empowered by modern communications technology are able to "get inside" the OODA loop of state forces by virtue of their decentralized and well-connected nature. Government forces must wait while information travels up to superiors and decisions travel down the chain of command. However, "netwarriors" can individually assess the situation (using technologically-delivered information) and react quickly to changing circumstances. Furthermore, the sheer number of individuals involved in such a decentralized effort result in remarkably fast and creative problem-solving abilities.

Thus we see that the protests in Iran are really the next step in the development of a revolutionary new political reality. In this new reality, barriers to communication and organization are torn down. Like-minded individuals can quickly build powerful ad hoc organizations that span the globe. The sluggish structures of the government are overwhelmed by fast, agile, infinitely flexible networks.

In short, the most basic rules of political power and control are being undermined and replaced with a more open, decentralized model of cooperation. The technologies driving this trend toward decentralized empowerment are only becoming more potent and ubiquitous. No matter what ends up happening in Iran, netwar is here to stay.

First Thoughts on The Iranian Liberal Movement

2009-06-15T21:34:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days, we have learned a great deal about the nature of our technologically-connected world. The most interesting lessons learned do not depend on whether the Iranian election was rigged, or who ends up as President of Iran. What is most remarkable is the way in which new structures of communication and cooperation were quickly developed over vast distances to empower the Iranian liberal movement.

In 1994 the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, or EZLN, declared war against the Mexican government and took up the cause of southern Mexico's poor indigenous people. What made their "mini-revolution" so notable was their use of the internet to gain international exposure and support for their cause. Millions of people worldwide learned of the plight of these poverty-stricken people, and a mass support movement emerged. The EZLN's cause was heralded as the first information age revolution. Since then, countless political movements from Amnesty International to al Qaeda have utilized the internet to connect globally. Looking at recent events in Iran, it seems the technologically-primitive EZLN model of information-age revolution has been taken to astounding new levels.

Fifteen years later, the Iranian liberal movement's explosion onto the world stage shows us how far we have progressed. Anyone with internet access can receive real-time updates from scores of Iranian students and activists, including photos and videos. Despite the Iranian government's ban on foreign journalists, virtually every rally and riot from Tehran to Tabriz is videotaped and documented from multiple perspectives. Every student in Iran with a cell phone, computer, or camera can easily disseminate information to millions of people all over the globe, in an instant. Supporters of the liberal cause are setting up proxies by the hundreds or thousands, so Iranians can circumvent government bans and continue to communicate with the outside world. Efforts by the Iranian government to isolate Tehran by excluding the media and shutting down phone systems largely failed due to the resilience and inventiveness of those supporting the Iranian opposition's cause.

According to most mainstream media experts, the unrest in Iran has little chance of truly challenging Ahmadinejad's hold on power. Pre-election polls showed that despite strong support for reform candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi among urban residents and students, Ahmadinejad was more widely supported throughout the whole of Iran. You certainly wouldn't know this from the constant stream of news on twitter, which is decidedly anti-Ahmadinejad and often hyperbolic. Naturally, the tech-savvy, English-speaking students in Iran's cities dominate the narrative due to the silence of the rural, conservative supporters of Ahmadinejad. However, the movement has already exceeded all expectations in terms of size and intensity. The experts may very well be wrong.

What is most revolutionary about this convergence of technology and political action is that even if only a minority of Iranians really oppose Ahmadinejad, they have managed to set the world afire with their passionate and determined response to injustice. This whole phenomenon is no less remarkable -- and may actually be more remarkable -- if it is really the work of a well-connected minority of smart, resourceful Iranian students and urban liberals. There is no doubt that millions of Iranians have taken to the streets against Ahmadinejad, and that this unrest must be taken seriously. Whether it can challenge the very legitimacy of the Iranian government, on the other hand, is yet to be seen.

Iran Exploding?

2009-06-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

The official re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite massive voter turnout for the opposition candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi, has sparked massive riots and demonstrations in Iran. There are reports that Mousavi was arrested, and that Tehran is being isolated from the rest of Iran (no phone calls, etc).

While it is still early and therefore difficult to separate the truth from the rumors, it is clear that there are obvious irregularities in the voting. Iranians, including Mousavi, claim that the vote was clearly rigged in favor of Ahmadinejad, citing numerous exclusion tactics and outright fabrication of votes.

While I can't confirm the accuracy of these numbers, Tehran Bureau has some interesting analysis of the voting results. Apparently the official count of votes consistently maintained a certain balance, with Ahmadinejad receiving twice as many votes as Mousavi, to within 99.95 percent accuracy. This means that as millions of people voted, Ahmadinejad always maintained precisely twice as many votes as Mousavi. Clearly, the results of a real election would be much less orderly and predictable -- there should be substantial changes in the ratio of votes as results come in.

There are also many videos and pictures showing up on the internet of the riots. I found this one to be the most impressive in terms of sheer numbers. Of course the Iranian government is responding very forcefully, attempting to crush the dissenters. It is hard to predict how serious these demonstrations could get -- they are already the largest since the massive student demonstrations 10 years ago.

On Waterboarding

2009-04-30T23:10:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration's declassification last week of numerous internal memos dealing with interrogation and torture has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Written by Bush administration officials in the first years after the 9/11 attacks, the memos discuss the legal limits of "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation. These techniques were used by the CIA on "high value" terrorism suspects with the approval of top Bush administration officials.

The memos' authors seem quite concerned with justifying the legality of these "enhanced" techniques, especially waterboarding. In the end they conclude that waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture, and can therefore be used by CIA interrogators. However, waterboarding has become the most controversial technique used by the Bush administration. Amnesty International and other human rights groups consider waterboarding to be a form of torture, illegal under international law and binding U.S. treaties. Since the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding has been widely considered a form of torture. More than 60 years ago, Japanese soldiers were convicted and executed after WWII for using waterboarding on American prisoners.

The term "waterboarding" can actually refer to a number of similar techniques. In all forms of waterboarding, the victim is laid on his back, tightly bound and blindfolded, on a slightly-inclined board or table so that his head is below his chest. With this basic setup, there are three general methods of waterboarding:

In its simplest form, water can be poured directly over the victim's face. (This method was apparently not used by the CIA.)
A towel can be either wrapped over the victim's face or stuffed in the victim's mouth, and the water then poured over the towel. (This appears to be the method most commonly used by the CIA.)
Prior to pouring water over the victim's face, plastic wrap can be placed over the victim's face, covering his nose and mouth, with a hole cut in the wrap over the victim's mouth.

As water is poured over the victim's face, the towel becomes saturated and the victim's nose and mouth fill with water, immediately triggering the gag reflex. Due to the inclined position of the victim, it is impossible to simply hold one's breath to prevent water from entering through the nose and mouth. Usually within 10-15 seconds, enough water flows into the victim's lungs to trigger an uncontrollable and overwhelming wave of panic and terror.

It is at this point that those in the media who have undergone waterboarding were overwhelmed and compelled by sheer terror to immediately end the session. However, the CIA's waterboarding victims could of course not stop the process. If the process is continued longer than 15-20 seconds (the Bush administration approved up to 40 seconds) victims reported intense pain in their chest and lungs and rapidly intensifying panic.

It is often claimed in the media and by advocates of waterboarding that the technique "simulates" drowning. In fact, waterboarding is a process of slowly drowning the victim. The mechanics of the technique simply allow the flow of water into the victim's respiratory system to be more effectively controlled, prolonging the suffering of the victim. The mind responds to this seemingly imminent prospect of death on an instinctual level, with the most intense feeling of fear.

Contrary to popular belief, waterboarding is actually quite dangerous -- so dangerous that the CIA always kept a doctor present during sessions as a precaution against accidental death. U.S. military personnel who undergo training to resist torture -- as part of the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training program -- experience a relatively safe and controlled form of waterboarding, much different from that practiced by the CIA.

According to Malcolm W. Nance, a master SERE instructor and 20-year veteran of anti-terrorist intelligence operations, said, "It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it." Unlike the Bush administration lawyers and Republican pundits now defending waterboarding, Nance was himself waterboarded and witnessed numerous waterboarding sessions.

Relating the dangers of waterboarding, Nance continues: "Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells."

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, after being waterboarded once as part of an investigation for Vanity Fair magazine, said that even months after the experience he was haunted by recurring attacks of panic and intense fear. Any kind of strenuous activity leaving him short of breath would trigger intense fear and panic similar to that experienced during the waterboarding session. Hitchens also repeatedly awoke from sleep in a panic, feeling as if he was being smothered. Keep in mind that this was after being waterboarded once, in a highly controlled and unthreatening environment, where he was able to immediately stop the process as soon as he desired.

One can only imagine how much more horrific the experience would be at the hands of determined, hostile interrogators. The CIA's targets were generally spirited away quickly to secret prisons by masked agents. Once in these prisons, they were deprived of sleep for long periods of time and put in painful "stress positions". They were beaten, made to live in their own excrement, psychologically terrorized, and kept in constant fear of death. These factors alone could cause serious psychological damage. When combined with the horror of waterboarding, it is hard to even imagine the resulting effect on the victim.

Considering the real nature of waterboarding, it can only be honestly described as torture. In fact, it appears to be an especially cruel form of torture. Torturers have long sought the means to inflict the maximum amount of pain and suffering on their victims without leaving a mark. Waterboarding leaves no bruises or blood, so the uninformed public assumes that it cannot be that bad. That waterboarding is so widely regarded as too mild to be called torture merely demonstrates that it is an especially ingenious (and therefore dangerous) form of cruelty.

When considering such a horrific form of torture, the relevant point is not whether the victim is guilty of some crime or deserving of punishment. Neither should such abuse be rationalized by the possibility of "saving lives". The central question presented by waterboarding is whether such an extreme form of cruelty should ever be condoned under any circumstances. For those who understand the real nature of waterboarding, there should be no question that only a particularly brutal and twisted society would knowingly condone such a practice.

Pirate Crazy

2009-04-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

(Please forgive the snarky tone of this post. There is no way to approach this nonsense seriously.)

There is certainly no shortage of ideas being put forth for dealing with the growing problem of Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Since the Bainbridge incident in which an American captain was taken hostage by pirates and rescued by Navy SEALs, many commentators are no longer content with increasing naval patrols in the Gulf. Reactions varied across the ideological spectrum, but many of the proposed solutions share a common characteristic: They are extremely stupid.

Boston Herald editor Jules Crittenden is proposing the borderline-genocidal policy of destroying all ships and naval infrastructure on the Somali coast, or otherwise completely excluding Somalis from fishing in their own coastal waters. Crittenden apparently has no qualms with broadly condemning the people of Somalia to more horrific levels of starvation and death, because pirates are known to disguise themselves as Somali fishermen.

The usually-insightful military affairs blog Captain's Journal thinks public execution of all captured pirates is the answer: "Send in the Marines [...] onto the boats, shoot them with sniper fire, and kill all of the pirates. The ones who survive the ensuing fire fight are to be lined up at the rail and shot in the head, bodies dumped overboard. The whole event is to be taped and published to the world so that they will know how we deal with pirates."

Perhaps most puzzlingly, liberal writer Matthew Yglesias says that the United States must bring "some measure of stability and security to Somalia," as if such a task was rather simple. Of course Yglesias neglects to explain how this could be done without a full-scale invasion and nation-building program in Somalia.

For that matter, he fails to explain how it could be done even with an invasion. So all we have to do is bring stability to a country that has been mired in bloody chaos for 18 years? Well why didn't you say so earlier, Matt? He might as well recommend magically turning all the pirates' guns into kittens. That might actually be more practical than stabilizing Somalia. Yglesias also gets bonus stupid-points for referring longingly to the "stability" he says would have been ushered in by the murderous, deposed Islamic Courts Movement.

The origins of Somali piracy go back to shady European policies of dumping nuclear and other toxic waste in Somali waters, as well as depletion of aquatic life by European over-fishing in Somali territorial waters. This double-pronged assault on the lives and livelihood of Somali fishermen and coastal inhabitants combined disastrously with the already-chaotic and poor situation in the nation. The result is a huge number of starving, angry Somalis with nothing to lose.

Obviously, these wrongs do not justify the pirates' crimes. Nor should it be assumed that all pirates are responding to such predations -- many are plainly just thugs trying to get rich. However, knowing the relevant history is essential to finding a solution to the problem. By understanding the origins of the piracy boom we can, for example, understand why 70 percent of Somali citizens support the pirates' actions.

Since forcefully bringing prosperity and stability to Somalia would be unimaginably difficult -- requiring an investment far greater than in Iraq -- the only workable solution is an imperfect one. Naval forces from all over the world must increase their commitment to securing the Gulf, while doing all that is possible to dismantle the pirates' coastal bases and infrastructure. Commercial vessels must find ways to defend themselves. After all, most Somali pirates are little more than groups of men in modified fishing boats and dinghies with rifles and rocket launchers.

Yglesias is right about one thing: the problem of piracy will not go away until the situation in Somalia improves. Unfortunately, the United States is in no position to start another exercise in nation-building. Therefore, the world's navies and the targeted ships must step up to the challenge. These other suggestions of invasion, mass execution, or indiscriminate destruction are not only ridiculous and unhelpful, they are irresponsible.

Trouble Brewing in Anbar

2009-03-27T13:18:00.000-07:00

I've talked before on this blog about the tenuous nature of the security situation in Iraq. Contrary to the political triumphalism of some hawks in Washington who declared the surge a total success and the war essentially won, the military leaders on the ground have much more mixed feelings.

Yes, the surge played an important role in quelling violence in Baghdad. However, just as important (and possibly more important) were two lucky developments that helped decrease violence. In late 2007, Moqtada al-Sadr -- a popular cleric and leader of the largest Shiite militia in Iraq -- declared a unilateral ceasefire, ending attacks on American troops. Since Sadr's Madhi Army was responsible for much of the violence in Baghdad, and also provoked retaliatory Sunni attacks, the ceasefire immediately and drastically decreased the level of violence.

The other important development, which first appeared just as the idea of a surge was appearing in Washington, was a trend of Sunni militias turning against al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM). AQM was a partly foreign group, once commanded by the infamous Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which perpetrated the most heinous and bloody attacks against innocents in Iraq.

In 2005 and 2006, Sunni militias gradually turned against AQM, first targeting both AQM and American forces, and eventually stopping attacks on Americans altogether. American commanders jumped at this opportunity, offering the Sunni militias money to work with them and offering to incorporate them in the official Iraqi security apparatus. Termed the "Anbar Awakening" or the "Sunni Awakening", this move effectively stopped attacks on US forces by most Sunni militias. As a result, violence decreased even further, to the point that Iraq was seen as generally stable and secure.

This general stability continued throughout 2008, but is now being threatened. As a result of financial difficulties caused by a drop in oil prices, the Iraqi government was only able to give jobs in the Iraqi security force to 5,000 Awakening members. This left 95 percent of the total Sunni militia members in the program without a source of income. Since most of these militia members attacked US forces out of a need for income, and joined the Awakening for the same reason, this is a very troubling sign.

Combined with a general mistrust between the Shiite government and these Sunni Awakening members, this breakdown in the Awakening agreement has many Sunnis threatening to rejoin the insurgency. Some groups have already resigned from the Awakening Council, citing the lack of jobs and hostility from the Shiite government.

One Awakening leader remarked, "Until now, promises are all we’ve gotten. When the government does not even pay them enough to stay alive, Qaeda and armed groups are ready to pay them generously."

Experts on the situation in Iraq are concerned with these developments, but say that the situation is not yet out of control. Counterinsurgency expert Thomas Ricks commented that he was not yet "hitting the panic button," but said that the Sunni-populated area west of Baghdad could become "the emerging battleground between the Shiite-dominated central government and the Anbar tribes."

A breakdown in the Iraqi security situation could have serious effects on the Obama administration's withdrawal plans, as well as plans for stepping up efforts in Afghanistan. If the Iraqi government does not act quickly to address the concerns of these Awakening members, they risk seeing their nation spiral once more into violence and chaos.

Changing Financial Leaders

2009-03-27T09:52:00.001-07:00

The Financial Times has a must-see, interesting and informative interactive graph, which shows the world's biggest financial institutions and the countries in which they are based from 1999 to 2009.

If you move the slider at the bottom to the right, moving forward in time, you see American and British institutions falling quickly from the list, especially in recent years. Even more interesting is who is taking their place at the top: primarily institutions in China and Japan. It is no coincidence that these countries are the primary creditors to the US.

What we're seeing is the fall of America from global financial primacy, and its usurpation by more productive and financially responsible nations. America buried itself in debt -- both in the public and private sectors -- and exported its core productive industries. The result? Those who saved and produced while we were spending are reaping the rewards and rising to the top.

"Kabul is not Baghdad"

2009-03-27T09:28:00.000-07:00

As the Obama administration prepares to launch what is being called an "Afghanistan Surge", it is more important than ever to recognize the considerable differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, and how those differences will affect strategy. A valuable guide to this topic was provided by US general Eric Olsen in a Christian Science Monitor article titled "Rethink the Afghanistan surge - A US general explains why the Iraq model doesn't apply."

Olsen provides an excellent overview of the situation, and does so in probably the most succinct way possible considering the complexity of the issues. So I'll quote him at length in order to convey the whole picture:

"Iraq is like New York State: both feature mostly urban populations with dominant capitals. Pacify the Big Apple and you pacify the whole state; pacify Baghdad and you pacify Iraq. But Afghanistan is more like Alaska: both have rural populations with capital cities far removed from large, mountainous regions. Baghdad alone accounts for 7 million Iraqis – about one-quarter of the population. In Afghanistan, barely one-tenth of the population lives in the five largest cities. Because Baghdad is the political and socioeconomic center of the nation, the calming effect of the surge there reverberated across the country. But there is no such city in Afghanistan.

"Living with the people" in Afghanistan will require a completely different configuration. It would require small numbers of US soldiers living in countless small villages, where they'd be unable to support each other in emergencies. And since only about 20 percent of Afghanistan's roads are paved, quick-reaction forces would slow to a crawl, especially in the mountains and in bad weather.

If protecting the population is what's needed to reverse recent Taliban successes, then the best way to do so is through local, small-scale policing where the Taliban has been most successful: in small towns and villages. But the brigades at the heart of the coming surge are insufficient in number and they're not organized, trained, or equipped to do this kind of policing. The mission of the surge force needs to be rethought, with a primary focus on achieving the ability to build effective local security forces."

The surge in Iraq centered troop increases and operations very heavily on Baghdad. The capital city was long the center of insurgent violence, and US commanders knew well that if they could pacify Baghdad, it would have massive effects throughout the country.

As Olsen points out, Afghanistan is pretty much the opposite of Iraq in terms of population distribution. It also has a population of almost 33 million, compared to Iraq's 29 million. Therefore, the US military must find a way to protect a larger, much more dispersed population, with a fraction of the funding and manpower that was available in Iraq even before the surge.

Faced with such an ominous challenge, what does Olsen suggest?

"What has not been tried (because it has been judged too painstaking) is a systematic effort to address problems in the Pashtun areas on a village-by-village, tribe-by-tribe basis. The tools of such an approach are readily available. They include precisely planned and executed military operations to attack extremist networks without killing innocent civilians, microloans, and microgrants that go directly to meet the needs of local markets and small enterprises (which could avoid the corruption that besets the national governments), and reconciliation agreements that target the interests of small groups and recognize the pitfalls associated with applying broad labels ("Taliban," "militant," "drug cartel," and the like)."

This is in line with a recently-announced change in tactics, which will shift development efforts, discussion, and negotiation away from the national level and toward more local institutions. This is partly a response to the rampant corruption in Kabul, and partly a recognition that historically political power in Afghanistan has been decentralized to a large degree.

The approach presented by Olsen is essentially classic counterinsurgency warfare. The main efforts are concentrated on providing protection for the local population, building trust, and providing basic needs for civilians. These efforts are supported by "offensive" actions -- described by Olsen as "...precisely planned and executed military operations to attack extremist networks without killing innocent civilians." These operations apply pressure to the insurgency and attempt to seize the initiative by forcing insurgents into a defensive posture.

Relating this to the previously-mentioned debate between counterinsurgency (COIN) and counterterrorism (CT), the method proposed by Olsen is much more comprehensive than simple CT operations. In a conflict centered on CT strategies, the primary aim would be elimination of enemy soldiers, weapons, and support structures. Progress would likely be measured by the number of insurgents killed or a similar metric -- the infamous "body counts" of Vietnam and Iraq which were found to reveal virtually nothing about actual progress being made. Counterterrorism strips away most of the vital population-centric components of COIN, leaving only part of an effective strategy.

Thankfully it appears the Obama administration is leaning toward a more robust COIN model for Afghanistan. However, as General Olsen points out, there are more than a few unique challenges in Afghanistan not previously encountered by US forces. Just as important as troop levels and the correct choice of strategic approach will be the adaptability of US forces on the ground as they are continually presented with the new and unexpected.

h/t to Kings of War

Afghanistan Update

2009-03-26T22:21:00.000-07:00

I want to take a moment to update and clarify some points from my last post on Afghanistan. In that post, I talked about the ongoing debate in the White House whether counterterrorist (CT) or counterinsurgency (COIN) operations should form the basis of America's approach in Afghanistan.

First, I want to clarify that the Obama administration should not be against CT operations. CT operations play an important role within the wider framework of COIN. What is important is that CT operations outside of the context of a broader COIN strategy are likely to alienate the Afghan population and aid the creation of a stronger insurgent Taliban/al-Qaeda force.

Also, I want to make it clear that although COIN operations are very demanding in terms of resources, manpower, and time, these shortcomings must be compared not to an ideal situation but to the available alternatives. While CT operations would require less manpower and less resources, this comes at the expense of effectiveness. Also, the idea that CT is "faster" is misleading. As mentioned above, adopting a CT strategy would likely lead to a worsening security situation in Afghanistan.

Therefore, the alternative to an extended COIN campaign is not a fast, successful CT campaign, but rather a CT campaign that is very likely to fail. How long a CT campaign would take would depend on how long America decided to continue with its failed endeavor. Depending on domestic opinion, an unstable and violent Afghanistan could lead to fast withdrawal or even a longer commitment than COIN operations.

Lastly Americans should keep in mind that even after years of dedicated, well-funded COIN efforts there is no guarantee of victory. Unfortunately, the record of large, conventional armies against insurgencies throughout history is not good at all. The U.S. military's brightest counterinsurgency theorists and practitioners -- John Nagl, David Kilcullen, Andrew Exum, Robert Kaplan, and Thomas Ricks, among others -- have clearly and repeatedly said that there is still a good chance we will lose the war.

Pundits and politicians who know virtually nothing about the military challenges of the war are fond of pointing to Iraq as proof that the US can win counterinsurgency wars. Within the military establishment, things are not seen as being so clear. While the switch to COIN doctrine by Gen Petraeus in Iraq in 2007 is credited with improving the security situation, America also got very lucky. Moqtada al-Sadr, the most powerful Shiite militia leader, declared a unilateral ceasefire. Sunni militias decided they had had enough with destructive foreign terrorists, and became willing to work with the Americans. These opportunities were exploited by smart, resourceful military leaders, who deserve some credit. However, they must be recognized as lucky opportunities.

In order to prevail in Afghanistan, we will need to utilize the lessons learned over years of recent counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as important, we need to remember that the alternative to difficult COIN operations is not easy CT operations, but ineffective CT operations. With enough hard work and a little bit of luck, there is still a chance the story of Afghanistan will have a happy ending.

COIN or CT?

2009-03-25T20:38:00.000-07:00

A new article in Slate by Fred Kaplan discusses a very important choice that will be made soon by the Obama administration. Before the NATO conference in Strasbourg, France taking place in a week, Obama and his top commanders must decide whether the war in Afghanistan will be conducted as a counterterrorist (CT) or counterinsurgency (COIN) conflict.

Although to most Americans these two approaches may sound alike, they are in fact very different. They reflect different priorities and objectives, and would have extremely different effects. CT operations emphasize direct "kinetic" (meaning combat) operations to kill or capture the enemy. On the other hand, COIN operations are all about winning the support of the population, in order to deny the enemy much-needed support among civilians. While active "terrorist hunting" still plays a role in COIN, it is conducted mostly to protect and win the support of the local population.

Look at Iraq, for example. For years, the American military concentrated on hunting down insurgent leaders, with most operations aimed at killing insurgents or destroying their bases and arms caches. This approach is a fair example of counter-terrorism. Of course, despite killing thousands of insurgents and achieving countless tactical victories, the insurgency continued to grow and become more deadly.

Then in 2007 there was a revolution of sorts, lead by General David Petraeus, with the goal of implementing counterinsurgency doctrine in Iraq. Petraeus authored a military manual on COIN, and started moving the troops out of large, isolated bases. Scattered among the Iraqi population in smaller bases, American forces were better able to protect the people and gain their trust. Combined with efforts to develop economic infrastructure and provide for the needs of the Iraqi people, this new COIN strategy turned the tide against the insurgents.

Now there are many in the Obama administration, led by Vice President Joe Biden, arguing that the same counterterrorist strategy which failed in Iraq should be implemented in Afghanistan. Biden argues that the primary goal of the US in Afghanistan is to destroy al Qaeda. Therefore, the military should concentrate on direct attacks against the insurgent forces that protect and associate with al Qaeda.

On the other side are those who seek to implement a counterinsurgency strategy. They argue that the only way to defeat the Taliban and secure Afghanistan against devolving back into a terrorist's paradise is to win over the Afghan population. They call for extensive development projects and a larger effort to protect Afghans from the Taliban. COIN proponents seek to take the general principles that proved effective in Iraq, and use them to conduct a smarter war in Afghanistan.

Counterinsurgency is not without its drawbacks. The more complex operations of COIN require more boots on the ground and more funding. COIN is also a slower process -- it could take a decade to achieve victory. Lastly, even the most vocal proponents of COIN say that it will be a difficult process. Victory is not assured, but could be achieved with sufficient dedication.

Despite these drawbacks, the Obama administration should resist the urge to go for the "quick and easy" option of the counterterrorism model. Experience shows that CT is largely ineffective against an insurgency with substantial local support. Simply killing more Taliban fighters won't work, since they are able to recruit members even faster. Even more importantly, most of the Taliban and al Qaeda's top-level leadership has fled across the border to Pakistan. Since the US cannot send troops into Pakistan without causing a massive international incident, CT operations could not touch these leaders.

COIN operations, on the other hand, would build up the Afghan population, making them stronger and more supportive of US efforts. Since Taliban and al Qaeda elements hiding in Pakistan cannot be directly attacked, the best option is to weaken their support and influence among Afghans through COIN.

In addition, the US is ultimately responsible for the fate of the people of Afghanistan. Even if CT operations managed to sufficiently cripple al Qaeda, without COIN there would be no foundation for building a stable nation. Ending the war after CT operations against al Qaeda would open the door to another Taliban conquest and a return to the 2001 status quo.

The Obama administration must disregard myopic political pressures and make the right choice for Afghanistan. If we cannot gain the support of the Afghan population and build a stable government capable of defending itself against the Taliban, our efforts since 2001 will have been for nothing. Fighting the war the right way in Afghanistan will not be easy, but we owe it to ourselves and the Afghan people to try our best.

Back to Afghanistan

2009-03-24T01:29:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration is beginning to unveil some details of its new Afghanistan strategy, and US military leaders are for the most part pleased with the changes being made.

First announced in February, Obama plans to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer to combat the Taliban insurgency. General David McKiernan, the top US commander in Afghanistan, requested in October of last year as many as four combat brigades, or about 30,000 additional troops. The Obama administration is signalling a new commitment to the war in Afghanistan by granting the request, which President Bush could not do due to deployments in Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan has long taken a back seat, in terms of funding and manpower, to the war in Iraq. Relative stability in Iraq and upcoming redeployment plans will free up manpower in a military establishment that has been stressed to the limit for years. Often called the "Forgotten War", Afghanistan suffered greatly from this lack of attention as the once-beaten insurgency staged a recent resurgence. In the words of counterinsurgency expert and Afghanistan veteran Craig Mullaney, "You get what you pay for, and we haven't paid for much over the past seven years."

Envoy Richard Holbrooke announced that US forces will discontinue efforts to stop opium production in Afghanistan. The failed counter-narcotics program cost $800 million since 2001 and, according to Holbrooke, "...is the most wasteful and ineffective program I have seen in 40 years." In addition to wasting much-needed funds, the program alienated countless Afghans when American troops destroyed the only source of income for many -- their poppy fields. As the program is discontinued, more funds will be used in developing alternative sources of income for struggling Afghan farmers.

The newfound commitment to Afghanistan by the US is causing some stress with NATO allies, who are reluctant to provide their own troop increases. US diplomats say that they expect their NATO allies to come through with more troops to show their dedication to achieving victory. Commentators are calling this a key moment and test for the 60-year-old alliance. Domestic pressures in many NATO countries limit their ability to contribute, and it appears the war will be substantially "re-Americanized" as Obama deploys more troops.

Two seemingly-contradictory positions on the war in Afghanistan were voiced in the past week. Echoing the sentiments of many US military officials, counterinsurgency experts, and observers, John Nagl said that the war in Afghanistan was not even halfway through. Those most familiar with the situation in Afghanistan agree that a long, hard fight lies ahead. American forces must not only launch attacks on Taliban forces, they must win over the Afghan population, support and improve the corrupt and incompetent national government, develop economic infrastructure, and mold a governing system that fits the unique social organization of the Afghan people.

In seeming contrast with this prediction was a statement by Barack Obama that the US must have an "exit strategy" in Afghanistan. "There's got to be a sense that this is not a perpetual drift," Obama said in an interview on 60 Minutes. Apparently Obama was referring to the need for concrete measures of progress and well-defined goals of US involvement. His choice of words, however, certainly contrasted with his recent decision to ramp up efforts in the troubled nation.

Lastly, there was the announcement by Richard Holbrooke that, "The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan." It is well-known among US forces in the region and experts that the future of Afghanistan will be primarily determined across the border in Pakistan. It is in Pakistan's northwestern territories, where the Pakistani government holds little power, that the Taliban recruits, trains, arms, and organizes their forces.

For years, the CIA has launched unmanned aerial attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan -- a practice continued and intensified by the Obama administration. However, relations with Pakistan make any cross-border operations by US troops impossible. America has had little choice but to hope the Pakistani government would control the Taliban, but the situation has gotten substantially worse since the loss of Pervez Musharraf as President of Pakistan.

Taliban attacks on American logistical lines in Pakistan increased markedly over the past year. Even more troubling, the overwhelmed Pakistani government recently conceded governing authority in the western Swat region (which borders Afghanistan) to the Taliban. With the Taliban in complete control of this border territory, attacks in Afghanistan can only increase.

Numerous experts on the war in Afghanistan predict that the war will be won or lost in Pakistan. Any US operations on Pakistani territory, however, risk causing a diplomatic crisis with the fragile, nuclear-armed nation. Figuring out how to destroy a powerful insurgency protected by an international border will be the greatest challenge of the war.

Digging Deep

2009-03-23T23:11:00.000-07:00

A new article in Commentary Magazine by John Steele Gordon points out an inherent contradiction in President Obama's economic plans. Obama partially justified the multi-trillion-dollar deficits created by his stimulus program and multiple corporate bailouts with the claim that economic growth following the recession will provide increased tax revenue to offset the deficits. To this effect, his economic forecasts assume economic growth as soon as 2011 to be more than 4 percent yearly.

Gordon points out the problem with such predictions: "Many of the policies Obama and his team are pursuing, cap-and-trade being the most obvious, are likely to interfere with growth in exactly the sectors in which the United States will need it."

Obama plans for a massive increase in the size and power of government to address global warming, to create a national healthcare system, and to expand classic welfare programs. Add to this the existing problem of funding Social Security and the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you have makings of a real crisis.

The problems presented by such a massive increase in the size of government are twofold. First, these programs must be funded with taxes, which automatically makes a large fraction of the American GDP unavailable for fueling economic investment and growth. Second, these regulations and taxes increase the costs of doing business in many vital sectors, significantly slowing growth.

As Gordon observes regarding the planned system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, "...cap-and-trade is, inescapably, a tax on virtually all economic activity, as fossil fuels are an input in nearly all economic outputs. Even a lawyer, after all, has to use electricity to have the lights on in his office and power his computer. And electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels, especially coal, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide."

Larger government will unavoidably drag down economic growth. This economic fact is widely recognized by those on the left and right. The political question has always been whether the programs being instituted are worth the costs, and the Democrats in control of Congress seem to think that national health care, global warming legislation, and other programs are worth the trillions they would cost.

However, the Obama administration is increasing the size of government so greatly and so quickly, we may find ourselves incapable of paying off the deficits we are creating. We already face multi-trillion-dollar deficits for more than a decade, and the foreign creditors who have kept our economy afloat are showing signs of nervousness.

Obama talks a great deal about fiscal responsibility, yet his unprecedented spending is creating a situation that could virtually bankrupt the United States. Hysteria over the financial crisis has the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars, driving inflation and weakening the dollar on international markets. As pointed out by Gordon, these programs are not only creating massive deficits but also stifling economic growth, making those deficits harder to pay off.

The only way to save the United States from an unprecedented crisis -- ushered in by crushing debts, rampant inflation and a stagnant economy -- is to immediately and drastically cut government spending and balance the budget. The Obama administration is frantically trying to spend their way out of the recession. In reality, they are digging a hole which the American people will be trying to escape for generations.

Time to End the Failed War

2009-03-17T01:15:00.001-07:00

Mexico is in the midst of a violent internal war which has claimed thousands of lives. A million American citizens are locked in jail every year for committing crimes that harmed no one. Civil liberties are under constant assault by increasingly-militarized police forces. Urban gang violence tears at our social fabric and destroys countless lives. What is the connection between these tragic, disparate facts? The War on Drugs, a policy so destructive to American society that estimating its true costs is nearly impossible.

When Richard Nixon announced the beginning of the War on Drugs in 1969, he could not have predicted that as a result of his program, the United States would eventually incarcerate a larger proportion of its population than any other nation on earth. When Congress penned the first drug prohibition laws, they were unaware that they were creating a multi-billion dollar black market that would hugely empower criminals and breed violence.

Those who started this War meant only to prevent addiction and abuse of the substances they viewed as dangerous to society. Unfortunately, the actual results of the War were much more far-reaching and far less benign.

Those who started the War greatly misunderstood the effects of most drugs, the nature of addiction, and the economic incentives they were creating. Marijuana was famously said to produce a state of violent psychosis which threatened the safety of respectable citizens. It was thought that addiction, a moral failing, would disappear if only the addict's favored drug was legally made unavailable. Most tragically, the War's instigators ignored the lessons of alcohol prohibition, which had greatly empowered the Mafia, and thought that they could overpower the economic incentives to supply drugs.

Modern urban gangs as we know them are entirely the product of the War on Drugs. Virtually every gang in the United States -- from the Bloods and Crips to the Hell's Angels -- is primarily in the business of drugs. Without the black market in drugs, the vast majority of gangs would go totally out of business, and those who survived would lose their primary source of income and power.

With even the most basic understanding of economics, it is easy to see that it is fundamentally impossible to eradicate the black market for drugs. Criminalization drastically increases the cost of drugs, and therefore the profits of drug dealing. As long as there are people willing to break the law to make large profits, the drug business will thrive. Since these profits are accompanied by great risk, and because drug transactions must necessarily take place outside the protection of the law, violent and criminally-inclined "entrepreneurs" naturally take over.

The common perception that drug dealers are violent criminals, while technically correct, is thus seen as somewhat backwards. In reality, illegal drugs do not make people violent. Violent people make (and sell) illegal drugs, simply because they are illegal. Similarly, drug users are driven to prostitution, theft, and other criminal behaviors by the inflated price of illegal drugs, not by the drugs themselves.

Police tout massive seizures of drugs as evidence that they are making progress in the War. In reality, those seizures have little effect on the availability of drugs. When they do have an effect, it is only to increase the price of drugs, which increases the incentive for dealers to supply more. For every drug dealer that is arrested, there are two others waiting anxiously for their chance to profit from the drug trade.

Ironically, the more police do to keep drugs off the streets, the more profitable the trade becomes and the greater the incentives. The result is a system in which police crackdowns, no matter how intense, are incapable of causing substantial harm to the drug trade as a whole. The evidence of this is clear -- after decades of police efforts and billions of dollars in funding, drugs are cheaper, easier to obtain, and stronger than ever before.

What the War on Drugs has achieved is a steady violation of our freedoms, as police forces come to view everyone as a potential criminal. Whereas police once primarily protected Americans from violent criminals, they now hunt down nonviolent, productive citizens whose only crime is eating, drinking, or smoking a prohibited substance in the privacy of their own home.

Right now, the most troubling unintended consequence of the War on Drugs is the plague of violence in Mexico. Empowered and enriched by the profits of the drug trade, massive Mexican cartels are fighting each other and the Mexican government in an all-out war. Amazingly, the cartels' soldiers, armed with military-grade weapons and numbering over 100,000, pose a serious threat to the existence of the Mexican government. That is to say, the criminalization of drugs has created a black market so massive and profitable that these drug suppliers may be able to defeat a national government.

The conflict in Mexico has predictably produced from Washington only calls to intensify the War on Drugs. Politicians point to the violence as evidence of the great evils of the drugs that they have criminalized. Of course, there are no tequila cartels threatening the Mexican government, nor are there cigarette suppliers storming police stations with rocket launchers. It is not the drugs that cause the violence, but the criminal black market created by prohibition.

If the War on Drugs was finally ended the benefits to society would be overwhelming. The entire black market in drugs that breeds violence and enriches criminals would disappear. From America's cities to Mexico and beyond, gangs would lose power and wealth. With no more drug-funded gangs and shady drug transactions, murder and assault rates would go down. Cheaper, safer drugs would mean less prostitution, less disease, and less theft.

Nonviolent drug offenders would no longer fill our jails, and the billions of dollars spent every year on drug enforcement could be put to good use elsewhere. The militarization of our police forces would become unnecessary, and our freedoms would be largely restored. Drug production could be regulated for safety and even taxed. Tax revenue from drugs could pay for rehabilitation and addiction treatment programs, drug education programs for youth, and more.

As the recession deepens and unemployment increases, crime will likely increase in America's cities. The epidemics of drug-related crime and gang violence seen in the 1970s and '80s could even reappear. We have a chance now to prevent much of this violence, to deal a serious blow to gangs and violent criminals, and to create a freer and safer society. The War on Drugs is a complete failure. It has created far more problems than it has solved, and hurt millions of people. It is time for us to let go of the silly notion that this War is protecting anyone, and learn from our mistakes. It is time to end the War.

Excusing Irresponsibility

2009-03-04T02:52:00.000-08:00

Liberal writer Matthew Yglesias recently wondered aloud on his blog who is really responsible for the wave of mortgage defaults sweeping the nation. His conclusion? Not those who took out the mortgages.

Yglesias argues that of the two parties involved in a mortgage agreement, one is typically a "teacher or a blogger or an electrician or a lawyer or a nurse..." and the other is "a guy who, for a living, as a professional, works in the 'deciding on what terms to offer people mortgages' business". Yglesias' argument is that the lender is the expert, and should be held responsible to a much greater degree than the borrower, who may know very little or nothing about mortgages.

He decides that only a "tiny fraction" of the blame can be assigned to the borrower, since the borrower trusted the financial experts (both the lender and the government regulators who oversee the lender). In a nutshell, Yglesias says that the average borrower cannot be expected to know whether or not they are making a wise financial decision, and therefore they cannot be held responsible when their decision turns out to be bad.

There are some big problems with this kind of thinking. The first is that, contrary to what Yglesias says, there were countless people who, given the same publicly-available information about housing markets, chose to pay a higher, fixed rate rather than trying to get a lower rate and gamble on the future with an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM). This suggests not only that an eventual drop in housing prices was somewhat forseeable, it also shows that many, many average borrowers are perfectly capable of managing risk in a responsible way.

Many commentators called the behavior of lenders during the housing bubble "greedy". Insofar as the lenders made unwise decisions out of a desire to make money, ignoring commonsense principles of finance, this could be a fair labeling. But why is it that Yglesias does not see the behavior of the borrowers, who were securing very low ARM rates in an attempt to maximize their savings, as greedy? The lender's greed in giving out questionable loans and the borrower's greed in exploiting suspiciously-low rates are merely two sides of the same coin.

Apparently Yglesias is of the opinion that the borrowers were clueless rather than greedy, and knew no better than to take the terms offered them by unscrupulous lenders. This brings us to another problem with Yglesias' thinking.

It is impossible to differentiate between those who might have been somehow duped into taking untenable loans, and those who knowingly took the loans on risky terms, hoping to cash in on the housing bubble. Since we cannot know this, Yglesias is basically proposing that everyone must be treated like children. They did not know what they were doing, he says. They are just victims.

Are we really to believe that these borrowers, who were in many cases building large homes obviously far beyond their means, were all (or even mostly) unwittingly manipulated by lenders? Even if the lenders were somewhat unscrupulous, is the borrower not obliged to actually understand the binding agreement they are signing?

According to Yglesias, American citizens have no such responsibility. If a lender puts a piece of paper in front of you and tells you it's a good deal, you cannot be blamed for signing it or held responsible for any problems that arise from signing it.

If we make this leap of logic and absolve these adults of their contractual obligations -- on the premise that they were basically too inept and irresponsible to enter into financial agreements in the first place -- we are undermining the most basic principles of responsibility upon which our society is based. It is hard to think of any greater moral hazard than this wholesale nullification of responsibility.

It is certainly regrettable that so many homes are facing foreclosure. However, is it really so horrible that these borrowers must give up the homes that they could never afford in the first place? Are we compelled to protect them from living in a smaller home or renting like the millions of Americans who acted responsibly? How does it help our suffering economy when we reward those who contributed to its collapse through their irresponsible actions?

There is no reason that these borrowers should be arbitrarily declared immune from the basic financial realities that face us all. The kind of infantilizing proposed by Yglesias would do little to help our nation's economy, while sending all the wrong messages at a time when financial responsibility is more important than ever. This kind of clumsy attempt by the government to shield people from responsibility for their mistakes does far more harm than good.

Wilkinson on the GOP

2009-02-13T05:01:00.000-08:00

Will Wilkinson has a good piece up at his blog in response to some recent theorizing by the National Review crowd. Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg and some others think that the stimulus debate will bring libertarians over to the Republican camp once and for all, ending the on-and-off alliances between libertarians and Democrats on some issues (cultural tolerance, civil liberties, militarism, etc). Wilkinson begs to differ:

"The stimulus bill vexes me not at all. It’s what you’d predict knowing the current extent of Democratic power, the opportunity that the perception of crisis creates, and the composition of the Democratic coalition. As a student of James M. Buchanan, I’m no romantic about democracy.
Moreover, what is it about the era of George W. Bush that makes Jonah think that conservatives and libertarians see eye to eye on the large questions of political economy? I understand it is now politically expedient for Republicans to oppose whatever Obama is trying to do. But, frankly, the recent performance of the Republicans in Congress has been pathetic, managing to do little more than fight to get a bit more for their constituencies and a bit less for the majority’s. I do not remember hearing a plausible, principled alternative powerfully articulated by the Congressional Republicans. Maybe that’s because the great success of the GOP over the last eight years has been to destroy the reputation of free markets and limited government by deploying its rhetoric and then doing the opposite. Partisan Republicans choke on the truth that the emerging shape of the Obama era is the aftemath of the GOP’s successful, if unwitting, campaign to destroy the political economy they proclaimed."

I couldn't agree more with Wilkinson. For eight years, the Republicans cynically used libertarian rhetoric while betraying every basic principle of libertarianism. They made it possible for Democrats to point to the Bush years and say, "That's what free markets and limited government look like." Republicans failed so completely and in so many ways that Americans are now turning to Obama's socialistic promises for hope. After all this, people like Jonah Goldberg think that libertarians should be proud of the Republicans for their mundane partisanship over the stimulus bill? Please.

The Hyperreal President

2009-02-08T03:26:00.000-08:00

As Barack Obama arrived on the national political scene, the ancien regime media looked at him with a sort of awe. Striding into the Oval Office with a Blackberry and a growing list of followers on Facebook, he was touted as a new, "connected", "21st century" kind of president. Just as many parents today marvel at the lightning-fast pace of their tech-savvy children's lives, the media and many others looked at Obama with starry-eyed wonder.

Obama talked of "staying connected" with the American people, as if he would spend each day browsing text messages from concerned citizens. We were expected to feel closer to him after becoming his "friend" on Facebook. However, everyone knows (or should know) that Obama's Blackberry and Facebook account will bring him no closer to the American people. It is all empty symbolism, yet it has taken on the weight of reality to an astounding degree. This sort of symbolic play, insignificant as it may seem, is a glimpse into the basic nature of Obama's appeal.

Here was a man who in only a few short years had gone from obscurity to unprecedented political celebrity. His historic, fairy tale ascent to the presidency captured the nation's imagination, and he came to embody the compelling and much-repeated idea of "change". During the final stretch of the disastrous Bush administration, Obama's campaign worked to transform the American peoples' angst and dissatisfaction into faith in the ability of one man to change everything. Without a doubt, they succeeded -- but how?

In 1985, French philosopher Jean Baudrillard's treatise Simulacra and Simulation theorized a transformation of our society, in which our world became so saturated with symbols, images, and signs that the reality on which these signs were based ceased to exist, or to be relevant to our lives. In explaining the idea of the simulacrum, Baudrillard related a fable by Jorge Luis Borges, in which a map was created of a great empire. Over time, the map became so detailed that it covered the whole territory of the empire, with every detail. Finally, when the empire collapsed, only the map remained, to take on a life of its own. The sign, the symbol, the simulation, had replaced the reality and become the simulacrum.

Today, our world is so saturated with the signs and symbols of the media, the endless deluge of information and propaganda from millions of sources, that Baudrillard's words seem more prescient than ever. From these myriad sources spring forth countless symbols and spectacles -- ideas lost in a sea of abstractions. What Obama is and what he actually does means little compared to what he is thought to be. Reality is irrelevant -- at least in politics.

While Obama is certainly not the first politician to be elected through the liberal use of vague and inspiring signs and symbols, his immersion in the simulacra is unmatched. He has constructed an image of a man with all the answers, an almost mythical hero capable of any feat, and he has convinced the American people that he is this man. What is more, he almost certainly believes himself to be that man.

The most unreal, or as Baudrillard would say, hyperreal part of his ascent to the presidency is that he convinced us of this without actually doing anything. He did not demonstrate courageous leadership, astounding expertise, or awe-inspiring abilities. However, the symbol of Barack Obama became great enough that the man -- the reality -- was ignored and lost entirely. Perhaps for the first time in history, the American people have elected a myth -- a modern, hyperreal fantasy mistaken for reality -- as their leader.

Intentionally or not, even Obama's rallying cries betray his utter unreality. "Yes we can!" is an empty affirmation of empowerment, without referent. It is left to the consumer to inject concrete meaning, according to their abstract desires. "Change we can believe in." is the faith that belief in the idea of Obama will create positive change -- that thought is reality.

As if to affirm the completely hyperreal nature of our modern world, Obama's election instantly transformed attitudes toward America throughout the world. The mere anticipation of his presidency was said to usher in a new era in American history. It did not matter that Obama had done nothing. Our world, so immersed in the simulacra of the internet, television, newspapers, and radio, made the unreal into the real.

Baudrillard said, "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none." That Obama had done nothing, shown no mastery that would allow him to solve all our ills, was irrelevant. This was not the truth. The truth, generally agreed upon, was that the idea of Obama had become more real than the reality, and that the world would act in accordance with this simulacrum. The myth of Obama was built on clouds, yet it proved that it can move mountains. Welcome to the hyperreal.

Mehserle Arrested

2009-01-14T13:02:00.000-08:00

I am extremely pleased to announce that I was wrong in my previous post, in which I predicted that Oakland transit police officer Johannes Mehserle -- who murdered a man in cold blood on January 1st -- would not be properly charged for his crime. It appears that Mehserle fled Oakland after the shooting, and was just apprehended in Nevada.

He resigned from the transit police shortly after the shooting, and while police conducted an investigation of the incident he fled the state. A fugitive warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was charged with homicide. Now of course the "justice" system is still very much slanted in his favor, and he could end up somehow walking free despite the huge amount of evidence against him. This has happened in countless police shooting cases. However, it is a good sign that his crime is being called homicide, rather than an "unjustified use of deadly force" or some other absurd police euphemism for the murders they commit.

Whether it is because Mehserle was a transit police officer, because he fled the state, because of the public outrage over the shootings, or because of the undeniable video evidence, it seems that in this case there is a good chance of justice being served. America still has a long way to go in reigning in its brutal, militarized police forces -- who assault, shoot, and kill innocent people on a regular basis -- but this is a step in the right direction.

Another Murder Unpunished

2009-01-08T14:07:00.000-08:00

On January 1st, Oakland, California resident Oscar Grant was fatally shot at point-blank range while laying face-down on the ground in a subway station. There were countless witnesses and videos of the incident, and the shooter's identity is known. The only reason this horrific act of violence is not being called murder is because the shooter is a police officer.

The shooter, transit officer Johannes Mehserle, had not given a statement to police more than five days after the shooting, nor has he been taken into custody by police. The family of Oscar Grant is filing a $25 million wrongful death lawsuit, yet there is no talk of Mehserle being arrested or tried for the cold-blooded murder. Unbelievably, it is even possible that he may be allowed to remain a police officer.

In a nation looking more like a police state every day, this kind of brutal murder by militarized, trigger-happy police is much more common than most Americans know. While most similar incidents merit little more than a headline in a local paper, one can find a disturbingly large collection of such state-funded murders and assaults on The Agitator blog, run by Reason Magazine editor Radley Balko.

Libertarians traditionally hold a wide range of views on the proper role of law enforcement. Regardless, such senseless acts of cowardly violence (shooting a man in the back as he lays helpless on the ground is unquestionably cowardly) should be universally denounced by all who value freedom. Just as importantly, the attitudes and processes that make the perpetrators of these acts virtually untouchable must be changed.

Disaster in Afghanistan

2008-10-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

The Small Wars Journal describes the growing violence in Afghanistan -- which is now more deadly to American troops than Iraq -- and the seemingly insurmountable problems facing an American military that is fighting two wars. Lost in a flurry of presidential campaign headlines and financial worries, the story of Afghanistan is not inspiring:

The next president of the United States will inherit a foreign policy nightmare: wars on two fronts, an overstretched military, a resurgent Taliban and a reconstituted Al Qaeda based far from America's reach.

“The next president will face a situation where, in the next year or two, he will have to make the decision that faced the Soviets in 1988--either to massively reinforce and to wage a war very aggressively, or to get out,” says Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. “That's the inheritance of the next president.”
But the next president's options in Afghanistan will be limited by a depleted military, with some units already on their fifth deployment. “The next president will be told: 'You need to spend more money on training troops. You need to recapitalize the military in equipment. And you might have to think about increasing the size of the military, especially ground forces,'” says Tom Ricks, author of Fiasco. “As one officer at the Pentagon put it to me: 'We're out of Schlitz. There are no extra troops left on the shelf. We're at our limit.'”
Even with more troops, any progress in Afghanistan will be hostage to developments just across the border. As long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are able to launch attacks from their sanctuaries in the lawless tribal areas of neighboring Pakistan, any policy is likely to fail. But cracking down on the insurgent safe havens in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas presents enormous challenges of its own.

The "Forgotten War" may well become central to America's foreign policy decisions in the near future, and will present a massive challenge to the incoming president. The stakes of this battle, as described above, are high -- nothing less than the reputation of the United States' military is at stake. A forced withdrawal from Afghanistan at the hands of the same Taliban forces that were defeated in the early stages of the war would be humiliating and encourage extremists all over the world.

"Rebranding" America

2008-10-25T18:52:00.000-07:00

The prospect of an Obama presidency, in the words of Colin Powell, is "electrifying" the world. From France to China, it seems Obama's celebrity status is sending a strong message to the world, about America and its role on the world stage. During the past 8 years, America has built an image as the world's bully; as an affluent and controlling overlord. According to recent polls -- and evidenced by Obama's rock star reception during his tour of Europe -- an Obama presidency could restore much of America's image as a land of opportunity and equality.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times relates an interesting conversation he had on this issue:

The other day I had a conversation with a Beijing friend and I mentioned that Barack Obama was leading in the presidential race:
She: Obama? But he’s the black man, isn’t he?
Me: Yes, exactly.
She: But surely a black man couldn’t become president of the United States?
Me: It looks as if he’ll be elected.
She: But president? That’s such an important job! In America, I thought blacks were janitors and laborers.
Me: No, blacks have all kinds of jobs.
She: What do white people think about that, about getting a black president? Are they upset? Are they angry?
Me: No, of course not! If Obama is elected, it’ll be because white people voted for him.
(Long pause.)
She: Really? Unbelievable! What an amazing country!

For foreign observers, who need not necessarily be concerned with the particulars of Obama's domestic policies, it is most remarkable that a black man could rise to such a position of prestige and power. Kristof says that this is most remarkable because it contradicts many established preconceptions about American society held abroad:

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the BBC poll, said that at a recent international conference he attended in Malaysia, many Muslims voiced astonishment at Mr. Obama’s rise because it was so much at odds with their assumptions about the United States. Remember that the one thing countless millions of people around the world “know” about the United States is that it is controlled by a cabal of white bankers and Jews who use police with fire hoses to repress blacks. To them, Mr. Obama’s rise triggers severe cognitive dissonance.

Kristof grants that "Mr. Obama's skin color is a bad reason to vote for him or against him. Substance should always trump symbolism." In this case, however, symbolism seems much more important on the international stage than substance. Whatever Obama's plans, the world is delighted at the prospect of a new face for America. This is as much a condemnation of Bush's legacy as it is an affirmation of Obama's image.

Thomas Barnett sums it up well in his comments on Kristof's article:

It's a neat trick to instantly rebrand ourselves from distant and harsh global authority figure to something much more in line with the frontier-integrating nature of our age--the self-made man who rises to incredible heights and beats the prevailing odds. The shift taps into a lot of things that the world has always loved about America.
The value of that shift, which would not occur with McCain whatsoever (and could possibly even backslide given his strong identification with punitive warfare) should not be underestimated.

Is that what Obama represents for America -- a "neat trick" that could gain us some measure of prestige and respect after the alienation of the Bush years? If so, we must seriously consider everything else that comes packaged with this "neat trick".

A McCain presidency would be inestimably harmful to America's image abroad -- no serious political observer denies this. It is just as sure that an Obama presidency would force the world to reconsider and reshape its idea of America. If an Obama presidency is truly inevitable -- as much of the media would have us believe -- we must begin considering the geopolitical and diplomatic ramifications of his ascent, both good and bad.

Fabius Maximus on the Economy

2008-10-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

Fabius Maximus, in a post titled "New recommendations to solve our financial crisis (and I admit that I was wrong)" reassesses the financial situation in light of recent developments. Fabius' thoughts on the economy are always valuable and thought-provoking, and his newest predictions (showing his willingness to admit he was wrong and reassess things) are the best analysis of the global economic situation I've seen so far. I definitely recommend the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

For deep theoretical reasons our financial system is collapsing. I have discussed some of the reasons in other posts (see below for links), but the causes are irrelevant now. Whatever the cause of a cardiac arrest, the paramedics’ job is not to advise dieting and exercise — but to restart the heart.

The US economy is sliding into deflation. Deflation trashed Japan’s high-savings economy for a decade; two decades after the crash it remains weak. Deflation is potentially lethal to a high-debt economy like America’s.

The evidence of the early stages of a deflationary contraction is all around us. Just to mention a few: collapsing commodity prices, the price of gold falling, the US dollar rising almost 20% since mid-July, and the collapse of yields on one-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). All are extraordinary. TIPS were priced for inflation a month ago.

Perhaps the global economy as well, in the downturn of the first global (or most global, ever) business cycle. The center is cracking (the US, the EU, and Japan). So are some nations on the fringes (e.g., Eastern Europe, Argentina, Pakistan). And points in between, also (e.g, Iceland, South Korea). This is a tear in the fabric of the global economy, which accelerates as it grows.

So far only the financial markets have felt its full force, but soon we will see the real world impacts on trade, employment, incomes, etc. Some leading indicators suggest the magnitude of the coming storm, such as the Baltic Freight Index down 90% from its peak on 20 May (to learn about it see Wikipedia, or this Slate article).
[...]

The result: By default the government becomes the primary economic actor. Its spending and investment decisions drive the economy. Not just immediately, but — as a result of the investments it makes — for many years after normal processes are restored. We saw this in Japan during the 1990’s. It borrowed and borrowed, but frittered the money away on largely unnecessary projects (e.g., bridges to nowhere, train stations in the middle of nowhere). This kept their economy rolling, but the debt remains and they have little to show for it.

Now we in a situation like Japan circa 1990. Interest rates must go to near-zero. Government spending programs must be rapidly initiated on a scale not seen since WWII. Government decisions will determine what America looks like for the next two decades (at least). Who gets loans, what kinds of infrastructure to build, what kind of training programs for young people and the older unemployed … it is a long list.

Slow Motion Crash

2008-10-09T16:47:00.000-07:00

Analysts are declaring a "slow crash" (MSNBC video) on Wall Street. Today, one year from the Dow Jones' record high of 14,164, the index dropped to 8,579 -- a drop of 5,000 points in a year. This decline represents an $8.3 trillion drop in value.

Many are wondering just how low markets can go at this point, as daily declines of over 5 percent steadily degrade market value. Some are calling this a buying point, hoping that prices can only go up, however many experts say that things could get substantially worse before they get better.

World Markets Hit by Crisis

2008-10-09T16:18:00.000-07:00

A very good comparison of how markets throughout the world are faring during the financial crisis can be found here. The Americas are the hardest hit, with Europe also suffering greatly. Although China and Japan are seeing notable declines, stocks in Hong Kong have actually been increasing substantially.

Hardest hit is the Russian MICEX, which has lost over 61 percent in the past year and 40 percent in the past month. Markets in Scandinavia and Belgium are also suffering, having lost more than 50 percent in the past year and around 25 percent in the past month. The Peruvian Lima General Index has also lost 57 percent on the year.

Iceland Going Bankrupt

2008-10-09T16:12:00.001-07:00

Of all the countries hard-hit by the financial crisis, Iceland is faring the worst. For those not following the fate of the small Atlantic nation (that is to say, most Americans), the Icelandic government yesterday shut down its stock market as the nation faced almost certain bankruptcy. The government also seized control of the last independent bank in the nation, while the Icelandic currency -- the krona -- was completely devalued.

Observers are saying that the only possible way for the Icelandic government to survive is through an IMF bailout. As quoted in the New York Times:

“Iceland is bankrupt,” said Arsaell Valfells, a professor at the University of Iceland. “The Icelandic krona is history. The I.M.F. has to come and rescue us.”

Dow Jones Slips Further

2008-10-09T15:18:00.000-07:00

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped another 7.33 percent today, losing just under 680 points during the trading day. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq saw similar declines, marking one of the worst days on Wall Street in history. Today's decline brought the Dow's 52-week loss to 39 percent, and the monthly loss to just under 24 percent.

These declines have occurred despite more than 10 major government bailouts and unprecedented moves by the Fed and Treasury Department to stabilize the economy. At this point, it is safe to say that the U.S. government is powerless to stop the global financial crisis. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today, "Americans should be confident that every effort is being taken to stabilize our markets." However, the fact that the government is doing everything it can, and failing utterly, should not inspire confidence. The federal government has employed every means available to it to stop the crisis, and has even invented new, questionable methods of shoring up credit markets. All of this has failed. We cannot know what will come next, but we can be sure that it won't be pretty.

More to come.

U.S. Markets Plunge, International Markets Mixed

2008-10-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq all dropped more than 5 percent today, reports the New York Times in a piece titled "Markets Plunge Despite Hint of Rate Cut". Clearly, the much-discussed bailout plan is still failing to halt the downward spiral in world markets. The Federal Reserve is still desperately trying to think of new schemes to bring markets under control, including interest rate cuts and more unconventional expansions of Fed authority to lend directly to financial institutions.

Excerpts:
**************

“Nobody trusts anybody right now,” said Ryan Detrick, an analyst at Schaeffer’s Investment Research. “No one’s lending to each other.”

In London, the FTSE 100 ended up 0.4 percent. The CAC-40 in Paris rose 0.6 percent, a day after losing more than 9 percent for its worst decline ever. The DAX in Frankfurt fell 1.1 percent on continuing concerns about the European economy.

Asian shares ended mixed, with the Nikkei stock average in Tokyo declining 3 percent. The benchmark index fell Tuesday below 10,000 points for the first time in five years, hit by worries about global growth prospects and the rapid surge in the yen. It recovered some of its losses after the move by the Australian central bank, but its closing level of 10,155.90 was the lowest since December 2003.

The Shanghai composite index slipped 0.7 percent, and stocks fell more sharply in Bangkok, Indonesia and Manila. But the S.& P./ASX 200 in Sydney posted a 1.7 percent gain after the Reserve Bank of Australia cut its main rate to 6 percent.

********************

More to come...

Oil Price Decline -- What it Means

2008-10-06T18:13:00.000-07:00

Amidst the continuing economic slowdown, the New York Times reports that oil has dropped from its July 11 peak of $147 a barrel to under $90 today. This decline in price can be understood as a natural market correction, reacting against soaring energy prices which forced both a slowdown in economic growth and a new emphasis on conservation and efficiency.

It is likely that oil prices will continue to decline in the short term, as world economies sink further into recession and depression, diminishing global demand. For nations dependent on oil revenues like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, this decrease in oil prices will compound the problems of the financial collapse by further shrinking government revenues.

We can expect oil prices to follow overall economic performance for the most part, since energy demand is dependent on the ability of companies to grow and use ever-larger amounts of oil. If companies are not expanding and individuals are cutting their use of expensive oil, a continuing decline in price is inevitable.

At this point, one of two things can happen. Either globally-shrinking economies will demand less and less oil, forcing a lasting decrease in the price of oil, or an economic rebound could cause a spike in demand that sends oil prices well over $100 a barrel once again. At this point, the sad state of the U.S. economy indicates that the former is more likely. (Although further discoveries regarding peak oil could also cause a spike in the value of oil.)

Unfortunately, oil prices will tend to limit economic growth, since any growth would necessitate greater energy demand, meaning higher oil prices. Until we can secure alternative sources of energy, the price of oil will remain a virtually insurmountable obstacle to sustainable economic growth. Do not be fooled by this decline in price -- it is the reflection of the world's dire situation, and it could very well signal an impending collapse that would dwarf those we have seen.

Bernanke Spreads the Blame

2008-09-30T23:57:00.001-07:00

During his appearance before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis that is wreaking havoc on global markets. He identified the collapse in housing prices as the root of the crisis, since this collapse effectively erased trillions of dollars' worth of value in mortgage-backed securities held by Wall Street institutions. This explanation, while partially correct, ignores the more fundamental basis of the crisis, which was the practices that led to an unsustainable housing bubble in the first place.

As housing prices continued to rise in the early-to-mid 2000s, lending institutions came to believe that the risk of lending to homebuyers was mitigated by the continually-rising value of houses. That is to say, they came to believe that the risk of default on these loans was minimized because a home could always be sold for more than the value of the mortgage.

In this environment, two dangerous things happened. First, credit institutions began giving out riskier mortgage loans, often without proof that the debtor was able to pay for the mortgage. Second, the risk associated with these loans was further disguised by trading in subprime (riskier) mortgage-backed securities. These securities -- essentially bundles of subprime mortgages -- were internationally traded by the original loaning banks, passing on the risk associated with the loan to others. This system created a moral hazard in which no one felt that they were assuming the risk of lending or borrowing. The problem was further exacerbated by the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the true value of these mortgage-backed securities.

There is no doubt that these events represent a massive failure in the market, but this is not the whole story. What is not being discussed is the role of the Federal Reserve in causing the housing bubble. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials are pointing fingers wildly -- at short sellers, mark to market practices, and countless other incidental factors in the crisis. The truth is that, coming out of the "dot-com" collapse, the Greenspan Fed's irresponsible policies held interest rates artificially low when the market needed higher, corrective rates. The cheap credit that this foolish policy created allowed the initial malinvestments that then exploded into the housing bubble.

Federal Reserve policies held down the price of borrowing money in a time when, according to basic economic principles, borrowing should have been more costly as a result of the dot-com bust. Seeing a deal, borrowers exploited this cheap credit by taking on huge amounts of debt in a way that ultimately proved unsustainable. Had interest rates more closely approximated natural market rates, there would have been no cheap credit that fueled the housing bubble. With no housing bubble, the moral hazards that further fueled the bubble would not have arisen, and there would have been no subsequent crash.

When Bernanke says that the housing crash is the cause of this crisis, he is telling the truth, but only a small part of the truth. As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to arbitrarily set interest rates, manipulate market tendencies, and create credit out of thin air through irresponsible money printing, we will continue to see unnatural booms and catastrophic busts.

Any attempt to fix our faltering economy must be based on an honest assessment of how things got so bad in the first place. Bernanke will no doubt continue to point fingers at everyone but those responsible, but it is our responsibility to tell the troubling truth -- that the biggest finger should point squarely at those now entrusted to save our economy.

Forgetting the "War on Drugs"

2008-09-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

An article in the Birmingham News titled "Police Shouldn't Profit from Drug Raids" details an unacceptable situation in which police departments are allowed to profit from drug raids:

" On the streets, where illegal drugs are still easy to get at affordable prices, Alabama's police chiefs are losing the decades-long drug war. Ironically, back in their precinct headquarters, many of these officers depend on drug raids to fatten their operating budgets.

While the drug trade still enriches the bad guys, police chiefs now get a piece of the action.

State and local police departments, working with U.S. agents, "federalize" money and property seized during local drug raids. The federal government gets at least 20 percent of the seized assets, but the feds give back up to 80 percent of the seizure - now exempt from state law - to state and local police agencies.

According to federal statistics, the share going to Alabama law enforcement agencies went from $1.8 million in 2000 to $8.5 million in 2007. Nationally, state and local agencies collected $416 million in 2007, up from $212 million in 2000. "

Although many states stipulate that assets seized in raids be used for education or other "nonpolice purposes", this type of legalized corruption is still allowed in many places. With a faltering economy, numerous threats abroad, and concerns over energy, important issues surrounding the War on Drugs have been largely forgotten. It is tragic that one of the most disastrous aspects of American society -- the hugely damaging effects of the failed "War on Drugs" -- has been completely ignored by Democrats and Republicans alike during this election season.

For most Americans, the "War on Drugs" is seen as a noble effort by police to keep dangerous drugs off America's streets. In the minds of Americans, this "war" conjures images of SWAT raids on filthy crackhouses and explosive meth labs, as well as efforts to keep gun-toting drug dealers off the streets. According to the narrative offered by the government, anti-drug enforcement programs were largely responsible for the nationwide decrease in crime in the 1990s, as most notably seen in New York City and Los Angeles. The War on Drugs is widely supported by Americans, and is generally viewed as a success.

This common view of the War on Drugs, however, is far from reality. As anyone who has taken the time to research the reality can tell you, this "war" is a costly and destructive failure. Contrary to the claims of the government, virtually all kinds of illegal drugs -- from marijuana to heroin -- are cheaper and more widely available than ever before. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars every year on interdiction, enforcement, incarceration, and education, there is no indication that drug use in the United States has decreased at all since the beginning of the War on Drugs.

The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971, and since that time the national program has ballooned into a $45.5 billion complex of thousands of laws, police programs, and international operations. Corruption and systematic abuse of police power increased drastically under the War on Drugs. Drug enforcement laws have dramatically expanded police powers, resulting in widespread searches, seizures, wiretapping, and other encroachments on civil liberties, with little regard for constitutional principles. Current "civil forfeiture" laws even allow police to permanently seize the assets of any "suspect" without proving that a crime was committed.

Drug enforcement provided the justification for widespread militarization of U.S. police forces that has led to an increase in police shootings and other forms of abuse. All too often, police forces armed to the teeth with military-grade weapons kill unarmed, nonviolent drug suspects and even wrongfully assault innocent citizens.

The above-mentioned Birmingham News article gives this example of how corruption and police abuse can combine with deadly results:

" Donald Scott owned a valuable, 200-acre ranch in Malibu, Calif. One October morning in 1992, 30 agents, led by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, conducted a raid based on faulty rumors that Scott was growing marijuana plants. During the raid, Scott was shot and killed by sheriff deputies.

A Ventura County district attorney's report on the raid concluded: "The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government ... Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, the sheriff's deputy obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. The search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant." "

Worst of all, the drug war profoundly harmed our civil liberties, and continues to undermine the foundational freedoms of American democracy. The war on drugs has flooded American prisons with non-violent drug offenders, making the United States the #1 jailer of its citizens -- both per capita and in absolute terms -- in the entire world. Since the escalation of the War on Drugs in the 1980s, the U.S. prison population has quadrupled despite substantial decreases in violent crime and property crime. This means that Americans are stealing less and harming each other less, and yet are being incarcerated in record numbers.

As of Februrary 2008, more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States was imprisoned. At the end of 2006, 2.2 million Americans were imprisoned, another 5 million people were either on parole, or on probation. To put this in context, the totalitarian government of communist China imprisons only 1.5 million of its citizens, out of a population over four times larger than that of the United States.

That a system so glaringly unjust, corrupt, and harmful to freedom is allowed to survive unchallenged by those aspiring to the presidency indicates a profound failure in American politics. The American people deserve better from their leaders.

Sources:
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1221380253174560.xml&coll=2
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
http://www.theagitator.com/
http://www.militantlibertarian.blogspot.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

Offshore Drilling

2008-09-17T02:44:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. The bill, which was proposed by Democrats, was strongly opposed by House Republicans and could be vetoed by President Bush if it is passed by the Senate in similar form. A Senate version of the bill is expected to be even more restrictive and more strongly opposed by Republicans.

Democrats claim that the bill provides for sufficient development, clearing the way for drilling in "319 million to 404 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts," which they consider a fair compromise. The important issue, however, is not the number of acres opened to development, but whether the areas opened are likely to yield substantial amounts of oil.

Republicans are unhappy with the bill for a number of reasons, including the lack of a revenue sharing plan that would provide an incentive to states to encourage development. Another complaint is that the bill only allows drilling to take place at least 50 miles from the coast -- a stipulation that excludes many possible drilling sites closer to the coast.

While Republicans are correct in asserting that this bill seriously limits opportunities for offshore drilling, their statements do beg the question of how useful such drilling would be as a solution to America's energy needs. Experts are agreed that even the most extensive offshore drilling would not yield results for at least another decade. Furthermore, the reserves off America's coasts are not large enough to cause much change in global oil prices if they are exploited. At most, extensive offshore drilling could replace some of the decrease in U.S. production that is expected in the near future.

The unfortunate reality is that even with unlimited offshore drilling, the U.S. does not have sufficient oil resources to meet anything but a small fraction of the nation's current demand. John McCain has made energy independence a central issue of his campaign, but it is misleading for him to imply that any amount of drilling in the U.S. -- either offshore or in Alaska -- can satisfy America's energy needs.

There is simply not enough oil left in the U.S. or off its coasts to make much of a difference in global supply and pricing. Though this is not necessarily an argument against offshore drilling, it does mean that other solutions to America's energy needs must be found.

Offshore drilling can contribute -- even if only in a small way -- to stabilizing America's energy supply. Offshore drilling would also decrease the share of American dollars going to petro-dictatorships and extremist kingdoms in the Middle East. Also, given the potential instability of global markets, it is never a bad idea to maximize domestic production of oil. There are a number of reasons to allow offshore drilling. However, we should not think that doing so will magically bring us lower gas prices or energy independence.

A New Cold War Emerging?

2008-08-28T05:46:00.000-07:00

A number of troubling developments arose in the past few days concerning Russian relations with the West and the aftermath of the war in Georgia.

1) In defiance of calls by Europe and the United States to respect the internationally-recognized borders of Georgia, Russia officially recognized the independence of the breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia called the move a blatant territorial grab in violation of the recent ceasefire.

2) Russia announced that it is halting military cooperation with NATO, and warned that it is prepared to cut all ties with the alliance. Even before the Georgian conflict erupted, Russian-NATO ties were strained over NATO moves toward installing ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as the possibility of Georgia and Ukraine becoming NATO members.

This will have serious repercussions for the NATO forces in Afghanistan, who rely on logistical lines through Russia. Instability in Pakistan, worsened by the recent resignation of pro-US President Pervez Musharraf, endangered another of NATO's primary logistical connections leading into landlocked Afghanistan.

3) The European Union is considering sanctions against Russia in response to its recognition of indepedence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. EU leaders discussed sanctions as well as various other means of punishing Moscow for undermining Georgian sovereignty. The EU's moves were echoed by the "Group of Seven States" economic organization (G7) -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the US -- who talked of serious repercussions for Russia.

4) The presence of nine NATO warships in the Black Sea delivering humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia could prove explosive amid tense US-Russian relations. There are reportedly nine more ships en route to the Black Sea, where Russia has just returned its flagship cruiser 'Moskva', where it will reportedly perform weapons tests. Russia has already complained about the NATO ships near the Georgian coast.

Having numerous warships in close proximity to each other during a time of such enormous tensions -- especially with one side conducting "weapons tests" in the area -- is very worrisome. There are countless ways in which miscommunications, malfunctions, or small mishaps between the tense forces could escalate out of control. If tensions do accidentally or unnecessarily boil over into some sort of altercation, the consequences could threaten the entire world.

Statements by numerous diplomats, analysts, and pundits warn of an emerging "Second Cold War", even as the world hopes the situation does not escalate into a more dangerous "hot" war.

Humanitarian Crisis in Georgia

2008-08-17T02:03:00.000-07:00

From The Independent:

Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis continued to grow, with more than 115,000 people fleeing the conflict. Ossetian, Cossack and Chechen militias which had come in behind the Russian troops had been on a spree of killings, looting and burning in the villages around Gori, and dead bodies had been left piled up in the heat, leading to fears of an outbreak of disease.
In Tbilisi, refugees from Georgian villages in South Ossetia crammed into makeshift centres with few facilities. Around 500 people had taken up residence in a former governmental building without even basic amenities.
The stench of body odour hung in the air, as growing numbers of destitute Georgians arrived. Most slept on the hard, dirty floors, and had no possessions with them, save for the clothes they were wearing when they fled. Phone calls to those left behind in their villages brought only bad news – Ossetian militias were looting and torching their houses, making sure they could never return.
Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the war. The Independent was the first Western media organisation to reach Tskhinvali, the capital of breakaway South Ossetia. They found a city in ruins following the initial pulverising Georgian bombardment and the ferocious Russian counter-attack. Homeless people, many of them injured, were seeking sanctuary. Stray dogs, according to local inhabitants, were chewing the flesh from human bodies.
In a sign of the ferocious sectarian divisions, the South Ossetian paramilitaries who held the Independent reporters at gunpoint repeatedly threatened to kill their Georgian driver, Merabi Chrikishilli, and vowed retribution on all Georgians when the Russians crossed the border.
This threat was carried out – with devastating effect on civilians – as the Georgian army panicked and fled from Gori, its main base in the region, amid streams of refugees fleeing the violence. The victims were mainly the old and infirm, unable to undertake the arduous journey to safety.
Merabi Chrikishilli's elderly relatives are among many people now hiding in cellars, with little food and water, while armed gangs roam through the villages. Some refugees who had fled from Georgian enclaves, under attack in South Ossetia, have now found themselves trapped in the Russian-controlled zones at the mercy of the militias.
Dr Georgia Abramishvili, a 28-year-old surgeon who had treated those injured when the Russians carried out their first bombing of Gori, died in the final strikes, when an air-to-ground missile smashed into the grounds of the hospital, despite a Red Cross flag flying on the roof to deter any such attack.
Russian officers in Georgia denied that their forces had carried out attacks on civilians. Some admitted, however, that atrocities were being carried out by the militias. Major General Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Borisov, the commander in charge of Gori, said: "Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians. This is a problem and we are trying to deal with it. I have ordered my men to arrest anyone carrying out looting and other criminal acts."
In Tskhinvali yesterday, the South Ossetians paraded around 40 haggard and frightened-looking Georgian civilian captives through the city. Most were elderly men, many with cuts and bruises on their faces, walking with their shoulders slumped. A militiaman hit one of the men on the head as he walked by.
[...]
The Georgian President is now a beleaguered figure, engaged in increasingly erratic public acts. The day after his army panicked and fled from the strategic city of Gori, he held a victory rally in Tbilisi. And even after his army fled Gori without the Russians even firing a shot, he led a patriotic rally in central Tbilisi promising never to surrender.
On Friday, after five hours of negotiations, Ms Rice persuaded Mr Saakashvili to sign up to the ceasefire, promising a package of economic aid but making very clear there would be no military help. Nor did she say what would happen if the Russians did not sign up to the ceasefire.
But the Secretary of State then stood stony-faced as the Georgian President appeared to lose control at the press conference, repeatedly calling the Russians "barbarians" who were raping his country. Local analysts say that opposition to Mr Saakashvili has been muted during the conflict, but may grow afterwards, making his position untenable.
Even the ceasefire, to which Russia has now agreed, contains ambiguities that Moscow is likely to exploit to keep up the pressure on Mr Saakashvili, whom it detests, and to maximise the embarrassment for Mr Bush. Only after "additional security measures" are in place would Russia withdraw its forces from the conflict zone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, said yesterday, claiming this proviso formed part of the ceasefire signed by President Dmitry Medvedev.

Mixed Signals in Georgia

2008-08-17T01:52:00.000-07:00

Moscow continues to send mixed signals about its intentions in Georgia. While Russia and Georgia have signed a ceasefire agreement, there is apparently some debate between the two sides as to what the ceasefire actually says, and what it requires of the two nations. After the agreement was signed, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev officially called for a halt to operations in Georgia. Despite this, Russian troops continue to consolidate their positions, and there are reports that some Russian forces have advanced beyond Gori to within 25 miles of the Georgian capital.

Russian officials claimed that their recent maneuvers closer to Tbilisi (and into positions toward the flanks of the capital) were to create a corridor for Russian forces to withdraw. It is questionable why such maneuvers would be necessary in order for Russia to pull back. This raises the question of whether they are feinting toward Tbilisi as a final show of defiance prior to withdrawal, or if they might actually attempt a brazen advance on the capital.

It is clear that Russia is taking its time to establish itself in Georgia, sending the message that they can do whatever they want there, and that they will be the ones to dictate the way the war ends. It is impossible to tell at this point whether Russia intends to maintain a military presence throughout Georgia, seemingly in violation of the ceasefire agreement, or if they are just sending a message prior to their withdrawal.

Russia's failure to immediately withdraw back to South Ossetia and Abkhazia is increasing tensions with the United States, and Russia is also sending a message to Washington. President Bush is in no position to force Russia to do anything, and everyone knows it. Considering recent tensions between Russia and the US over missile defense systems in Poland and other forms of NATO encroachment, it is likely that Russia is demonstrating its ability and willingness to respond to what it perceives as threats on its borders.

The longer Russia holds their positions in Georgia, a number of things will happen.
1) Tensions with the US and Europe will increase.
2) Oil transports through Georgia will remain frozen (this increases pressure on Europe and demonstrates Western vulnerability).
3) Russia will demonstrate its power over the defeated Georgia.
4) The humanitarian situation in Georgia will get worse, with more people fleeing, resources stretching thin, and lawlessness getting worse.

It is most likely that Russia is now merely trying to send a message to Georgia and the West, and things will probably not escalate much further as long as this is the case. If Russia overtly attempts to oust Saakashvili's government, launches further sizable offensives into Georgian territory, or continues to bleed Georgia for too long by holding their positions, things could escalate again and get out of hand quickly.

What Really Happened In South Ossetia

2008-08-15T16:07:00.000-07:00

A quick (though necessarily incomplete) background of the situation in South Ossetia and the complex history of the region is necessary to understand the roots of the conflict. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- both populated by groups ethnically, culturally, and linguistically different from Georgians -- rebelled against the government in Tbilisi, seeking independence. The Georgian government was able to prevent all-out secession by the two provinces, but could not bring the regions totally under its control.

In 1992, a ceasefire was declared and a peacekeeping force of Russians, Ossetians, and Georgians was assembled under a legal agreement between the parties, to prevent further outbreaks of violence. For more than a decade after the ceasefire, things were relatively quiet in South Ossetia. Tensions between Russia and Georgia began to increase in the past few years, however, as Georgia became more aligned with NATO and the United States, and more opposed to Russian influence. Russia responded by increasing support for the separatist groups in the breakaway provinces, offering Russian citizenship to Ossetians, and taking a hard line against the pro-Western Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashvili.

After the 1992 ceasefire, South Ossetia received little support from the Georgian government, and became a de facto protectorate and beneficiary of Russia. Most South Ossetians hold Russian passports, receive government benefits from the Russian government, and are highly integrated into the Russian economy. In many ways, the people of South Ossetia are as much a part of Russia as their relatives across the border in the Russian province of North Ossetia.

Something like 99 percent of South Ossetians -- who share more in common with Iranians linguistically, ethnically, and culturally than they do with Georgians -- want independence from Georgia. South Ossetia is part of Georgia (and not Russia) largely by historical accident, and Ossetians share little in common with the rest of the Georgian nation.

The situation in Ossetia is in many ways comparable to that in Kosovo, with an ethnically and linguistically distinct group seeking independence from a larger nation. When NATO backed Kosovo's moves for independence, Russia warned that dangerous precedents were being set. We are now seeing how true that is, as Russia supports its own "Kosovo" as it seeks independence and self-determination.

The standard media narrative surrounding the South Ossetian conflict is something along these lines: Russia invades Georgia, Russia kills civilians, little Georgia is generally victimized by big, evil Russia. It seems that the Western press is so used to vilifying Russia that they cannot see the much more complicated reality. This reality is that, while Russia's motives in South Ossetia are not entirely selfless or humanitarian, the war and its tragedies are largely the fault of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili.

There are no "good guys" in this war. By launching a massive assault on Tskhinvali on August 7, Georgia breached a long-standing, legally-established ceasefire and attacked legitimately-placed Russian peacekeepers. The assault on Tskhinvali, which was launched immediately after Saakashvili deceptively agreed to a ceasefire with the South Ossetian separatists, included massive, indiscriminate bombardment of the entire city with artillery and rockets. The civilian casualties caused by the initial Georgian attack did not receive nearly as much coverage as the Russian response (largely because the international media did not yet have a significant presence in Ossetia), but the Georgian attack was at least as devastating in terms of civilian suffering as the Russian response.

After the initial assault on Tskhinvali, Russian reinforcements quickly regained control of the city and pushed the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia. A series of Russian air attacks took out military airfields, bases, communications infrastructure, factories, and other military assets in the central city of Gori, the port city of Poti, and elsewhere in Georgia. Unfortunately, the media focused on the few cases in which Russian airstrikes missed their targets and hit civilians. This is somewhat ironic coming from the same media establishment that totally disregards civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan as unavoidable and insignificant "collateral damage".

In attacking South Ossetia, it seems Saakashvili sought to improve his political situation by restoring Georgian authority in the breakaway province, but he ended up overplaying his hand horribly. He underestimated the Russian response and overestimated Western support once shots were fired. The initial bombardment of Tskhinvali killed civilians in an indiscriminate manner, and may fit the definition of a war crime. From a political standpoint, Russia had little choice but to respond forcefully.

The Western press seems obsessed with accusing the Russian military with acting in a "disproportionate" manner, especially for attacking Georgian military assets on the Black Sea coast and elsewhere outside of South Ossetia. If the media knew anything about the fundamentals of warfare, they would know that there is no "proportion" in war. The objective in war is always the complete destruction of the enemy's warmaking capability. This may sound harsh, but it is in reality necessary, since failure to seek this ultimate objective can result in long, protracted, and ultimately more damaging wars in which neither side can gain a decisive advantage.

Targeting of non-combatants and non-military targets should always be prohibited, but this is not a matter of "proportion", it is a matter of limiting attacks to military targets. In truth, Russia's fast and decisive response likely spared further bloodshed, since any half-way "proportionate" response would have left the Georgian military intact and allowed fighting to continue much longer. This talk of Russian excess seems even more strange in light of the fact that the Georgian forces (numbering at least 40,000) have outnumbered the Russian forces (numbering 30,000 at most) all throughout the conflict.

It should also be noted that mere hours after the Georgian military began bombarding Tskhinvali, Russia brought the issue before an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, seeking an immediate ceasefire and end to the fighting. The United States and Britain blocked the resolution, objecting to language in the declaration that would condemn the "use of military force" by either side, leaving Russia with little option but to respond to the Georgian attack. In essence, Russia tried to end the war before it became a war, and Georgia's allies in the UN rejected the peace proposal.

The main motives and goals of each side (in no particular order) going into the conflict were as follows:

Georgia:
Secure the separatist province that has been a thorn in Saakashvili's side for some time.
Remove Russian influence from South Ossetia by ousting the Moscow-backed separatist authority.
Show the US and NATO that Georgia is capable of controlling its own territory. (Georgia is seeking NATO membership.)

In the end, Saakashvili was pushed out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, his military is in ruins, and his political position suffered greatly. He sought to flex his muscles against Russian influence, regain control of Ossetia, and show himself a strong leader. He accomplished much the opposite.

Russia:
Respond to Georgian aggression against peacekeepers in South Ossetia.
Defend Ossetians (who hold Russian citizenship) and restore the legally-established status quo.
Send a message regarding aggressive NATO encroachment on Russia's borders.
Assert Russia's dominant role in the region.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev responded quickly and decisively to the Georgian attack, defended Russian citizens, and made clear that Russia would not tolerate attacks against its troops and citizens. The Russian response quickly routed the numerically-superior Georgian forces, destroyed Georgian military infrastructure, and secured Russian influence in both Ossetia and Abkhazia. Notwithstanding the West's demonization of Russia's every move, Russia turned the war to their advantage quite adeptly.

Tensions Explode In Georgia

2008-08-08T17:20:00.000-07:00

(Note: this is a very rough outline of what is going on, intended to present a general picture of the situation as it evolves. I will follow up with more specific, detailed, and coherent analysis.)

The world geopolitical scene has heated up considerably today as tensions between Russia and its former Soviet satellite state, Georgia, have exploded into an all-out military conflict. Relations between the two countries have been deteriorating for some time, as Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili pursued pro-Western policies that challenged Russia's influence in the region, even signaling hopes of joining NATO. Russia has responded by militarily and economically supporting anti-government separatist groups in Georgia's northern provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Here's how things have escalated so far:

Georgian president Saakashvili launched a large offensive into the separatist province of South Ossetia, which borders Russia. Georgian forces took control of the city of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capitol, before being overwhelmed by responding Russian forces. Early reports indicate that 10 Russian "peacekeepers" (in reality Russian forces supporting separatist groups in the province) were killed in the initial Georgian assault, as well as an undetermined number of Russian nationals.

According to reports by the Stratfor intelligence service, it is estimated that Russia has now moved at least 600 tanks and 2,000 armored vehicles (8 motor rifle regiments, 2 tank regiments, 2 airborne regiments, and 2-3 artillery regiments) into the fight against Georgia. The Russian Air Force is also utilizing its massive air power -- consisting of MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, Su-24 fighter/bombers, Su-25 close air support (CAS) attack aircraft, and Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships -- to overwhelm Georgian forces.

The main Russian advance southward into Georgia is through the Roki Tunnel, which cuts through mountainous terrain and connects the Russian province of North Ossetia with Georgian South Ossetia. You can see a satellite view of the location of the conflict, with a couple important landmarks, on Google Maps here.

The situation has the potential to escalate from a regional squabble between Russia and Georgia into a much wider global conflict. The conflict between the pro-Western, pro-American Georgia and a Russian leadership that is attempting to reassert its primacy in the region reflects a wider conflict between the interests of Russia and its allies, and an expanding Anglo-American-European NATO organization that is encroaching on Russia's "near abroad."

The Washington Post has already published an editorial saying that "The US and its allies must unite against Moscow's war on Georgia." While the US military is relatively well-placed in the region for a reaction (with large logistical bases in Turkey, Iraq capable of supporting limited military reaction in the area), it is already stretched to limit with commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. More importantly, the ramifications of military action in support of the Georgian government could be horrific.

Washington's reaction to this outbreak will signal America's willingness to support strategic eastern- and central-European allies against aggression by rival powers. The conflict in Georgia is therefore symbolic of wider tensions in global politics, and has the potential to grow much more. American and European interest in the vast oil transport infrastructure in the region will also no doubt play a role in the determination of Washington's reaction, as it has no doubt influenced Moscow's decision to attack the recalcitrant Georgian republic.

Confused Liberals

2008-06-12T00:57:00.001-07:00

On the leftist Think Progress's "Wonk Room" blog, we see a typical misinterpretation of libertarianism by those on the left, that betrays a common inconsistency in the left's attitude toward government. The issue at hand is the debate between different variations of cap-and-trade programs -- whether a "cap-and-auction" program like the one recently proposed by Senators Lieberman and Warner, or a more libertarian "cap-and-rebate" (or "cap-and-recycle", as economist Peter Barnes calls it) program.

In all cap-and-trade programs, the government would auction off carbon-emission rights to companies, granting them the right to a certain amount of carbon emissions. The "cap" in this is the overall industry-wide limit on carbon emissions, and the "trade" is the ability of companies to trade the emissions "credits" between themselves. For example, if Company A's carbon emissions are less than its quota, it can sell the remaining credits to Company B, whose emissions would exceed its initial quota. The idea is that those with lower emissions will make money by trading unused credits and those with higher emissions will have to buy credits from greener companies. This provides incentives for lower emissions, and allows flexibility within industries by allowing some companies to emit more and some to emit less, as needed.

In the variation of this program proposed by Lieberman and Warner, the government would keep all proceeds of the initial auction (in which emission rights were first sold). The issue is that the funds are not reserved for any specific program. This raises the question: what would the government likely do with this substantial influx of funds?

The more libertarian version of this program, as put forth by Peter Barnes, is the same in its fundamentals, except that the proceeds of the initial auctioning would be returned to Americans in the form of rebates. The logic behind this is that, 1) these rebates would help Americans in our struggling economy, 2) Americans would best know how to spend this money for their benefit, as opposed to the government, and 3) the government does not "own" the emissions rights that it is auctioning off, so why should it keep the proceeds? As Barnes puts it, "If you assume the atmosphere belongs to government, then cap-and-auction is your choice. If you assume the atmosphere is a gift to everyone, then cap-and-recycle follows."

Since the proceeds from auctioning these emission credits would likely be on the order of trillions of dollars over the next 40 or so years, the question of where the funds should go is certainly an important one. Libertarians like Barnes realize that if the government keeps the proceeds, they are likely to be spent irresponsibly. Senator Bob Corker called the question of what to do with the funds "the mother and father of all earmarks", referring to the likelihood that the funds would go to legislators' pet projects. Most likely, lobbyists from various industries and special interest groups would determine where most of the funds went.

The leftists at Think Progress find Barnes' ideas to be extremely offensive. They say that Barnes' idea is "founded on the libertarian belief that government shouldn't be trusted with any money." They go further, characterizing Barnes' ideas as "corrosive" and "anti-American" since they imply that the government would not necessarily spend the funds in ways that best benefited the American people.

Coming from the same political group that, upon gaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2004, spoke passionately of the need to fight corruption, earmarks, special interests, and lobbyists' influence, this is truly unbelievable. When Republicans were the ones wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on bridges to nowhere and giving handouts to their favorite corporate lobbyist groups, Democrats rightly cried foul. Apparently, now that Democrats are in power, any implication that the government is wasteful or serves special interests is "corrosive" and "anti-American".

The truth of the matter is that our government is extremely wasteful and very frequently does not represent the interests of the American people. Liberals know this, conservatives know this, and anyone feigning outrage at such a suggestion should not be taken seriously. Obviously, Think Progress just doesn't like libertarians, and was desperate for a way to dismiss Barnes' suggestions.

No doubt they see these funds as the key to establishing one utopian socialist program or another. They also doubtless want the government to keep these funds, because in reality they don't trust Americans to do what is best for themselves. They believe that the best way to help Americans is to give lots of money to politicians and then let these "representatives", in their infinite wisdom, tell Americans what to do.

If this is an unfair assessment of these liberals' ideas, why would they be so hostile to the idea of giving Americans these funds so that they can help themselves? What ever happened to liberal mistrust of government? Do these liberals honestly think that the government wouldn't use the funds, at least to some extent, to support corporate and other special interests? This issue should be one where liberals and libertarians agree with each other, yet these liberals seem so enamored with their vision of the savior-state that they have become wilfully blind to the reality. The reality is that government is wasteful and beholden to special interests. The reality is that Americans know better than Washington politicians and bureaucrats how to help themselves.

Lessons from the "Axis of Evil"

2008-06-08T02:09:00.000-07:00

Since President Bush first declared the existence of an "Axis of Evil" comprised of Iran, Iraq and North Korea in early 2002, the world has changed immensely. The American approach to these nations in the intervening years has been vastly different in each case, with the means employed ranging from careful diplomacy to aggressive war. What has happened to this "Axis" in these 6 years, and what can we learn from the results?

Saddam Hussein is no more, hanged amidst gleeful cheers by those he once tortured and killed by the thousands. The seemingly endless war in Iraq has claimed the lives of over 4,000 Americans, and estimates of Iraqi civilians killed range widely, from 100,000 to well over 1 million. It is impossible to estimate how many young men throughout the world were inspired by the war in Iraq to take up AK-47s, RPGs, or suicide belts against America. What is sure is that the insurgency has experienced no shortage of willing "martyrs", and "al-Qaedism" -- an ideology of radical Islamist terrorism -- is now more popular than ever throughout the world.

North Korea continues its nuclear games, most recently testing a nuclear device and test-launching a long-range Taepodong-2 missile in 2006 (both tests were seen as failures). In yet another surprising reversal, North Korea then returned to the negotiating table and indicated possible willingness to abandon its nuclear programs. Only time will tell whether this apparent turn toward peace by the unpredictable nation is sincere.

The most significant change in these 6 years occurred in Iran, due in large part to unintended consequences of America's policies in Iraq. This time has seen significant growth in Iranian power and influence in the region. American conquest of Iraq removed Iran's greatest enemy and rival, elevating the Persian nation to regional primacy with only U.S.-backed Israel remaining to effectively counter the mullahs. Furthermore, Iraq's government is now controlled not by Iran-hating Baathist Sunnis, but by Shiites who are not only friendly to Shiite Iran, but see the neighboring nation as their greatest ally and the most important contributor to Iraq's future.

As Iran's regional position strengthened, America's military is tied up in the mountains of Afghanistan and cities of Iraq, both vulnerable to Iranian retaliation and incapable of presenting a credible deterrent threat. Iran was quick to recognize their favorable position. The mullahs are demonstrating an attitude of defiance regarding their nuclear programs and openly financing Hezbollah and other militant groups throughout the region.

It is hard to tell exactly to what extent rising oil prices are directly attributable to American actions in Iraq. What is sure is that regional instability and greatly reduced oil exports from the warn-torn country no doubt played a significant role in rising prices. Between 2002 and 2008, oil prices skyrocketed from around $20 to almost $120 per barrel, and Iraq's oil-exporting capacity disappeared almost overnight. The resultant windfall in Iranian coffers helped ensure stability for the economically-troubled regime and emboldened the nation's hawkish leaders, especially in their hostility to Israel. Recognizing the dependence of the West on cheap Middle Eastern oil, Iran leveraged its position as the world's second-largest oil exporter to deter its foes.

In the 6 years since President Bush saw fit to identify Iran as among the world's greatest threats, its position has improved greatly. President Ahmadinejad openly derides the United States, threatens the destruction of Israel, hosts Holocaust-denier conferences, aggressively defends his country's nuclear programs, and openly meddles in Iraqi politics. Much of what he says and does seems intended specifically to antagonize America and its allies. That which isn't merely nose-thumbing can be explained as open and shameless pursuit of Iran's ambition to be the foremost power between Cairo and Kabul, if not further.

The reason Iran has assumed this attitude is because they see themselves as virtually untouchable. Any act of aggression by America or U.S.-backed Israel, for example against Iran's nuclear facilities, would likely be met with a crippling barrage of retaliatory measures. The Straits of Hormuz could be mined, bringing worldwide oil shipments -- and much of the world economy with them -- to a grinding halt. Iran could simply cease oil exports, which would send oil prices soaring (some analysts estimate this could cause worldwide oil prices to double).

If we consider more aggressive military measures, Iran could do even more damage. Ahmadinejad could instruct Hezbollah to rain down Katyusha rockets on Israeli cities, sparking a renewal of the 2006 Lebanon War which claimed hundreds of Israeli lives. Iran could inject new life into the Iraqi insurgency with advanced weapons and training. More directly, they could deploy experienced and well-trained Revolutionary Guards to Iraq to direct attacks on U.S. forces. Either means of involvement in Iraq would result in a notable spike in U.S. casualties, which would not be well-received by the war-weary American public.

The ramifications of American policies in the Middle East are most commonly measured with hard numbers and direct results. We consider the number of casualties and the monetary costs, but neglect the wider and more important unintended consequences of U.S. actions. One of the most important and least understood consequences of the war in Iraq -- the geopolitical empowerment of Iran -- will have profound effects on world politics far into the future.

We cannot know if Iran will develop nuclear weapons, attack Israel, or act on any of its other numerous recent threats. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we must recognize the role American decisions have played in the creation the Iranian threat. As the saying goes, if we do not recognize the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.

A Clash of Civilizations?

2008-06-05T23:55:00.001-07:00

The future belongs to Islam. This sentence -- the title of a 2006 article by controversial Canadian writer Mark Steyn -- sums up the greatest fear of a large and growing number of conservatives. Most "Westerners" agree that Osama bin Laden's brand of jihadist extremism presents a serious threat. What sets Steyn and his ideological fellow-travelers apart is that they see Islam itself, and the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, as even more dangerous to freedom, democracy, and the whole of Western civilization.

Steyn claims that due to demographic trends, political folly, economic stagnation, and cultural weakness, the West is in the midst of a terminal decline. In most of the "first world" from Europe to Japan, birthrates have dropped below replacement levels and there is a marked shortage of young workers. In order to prop up their lagging economies and feed their vast social welfare systems, elderly European nations have taken in huge numbers of young Muslim immigrants. These claims are not all too controversial, though some would no doubt challenge his view that socialist programs have killed Europe's economies and produced a culturally self-destructive mentality.

What makes Steyn controversial is that he argues that the result of these trends will be nothing less than the conquest of Europe (and eventually all of Western civilization) by barbaric and fanatical Muslims. He claims that virtually all Muslim immigrants are hostile to the nations they adopt, and that decadent modern Europe lacks the will to defend itself against Muslim attack. He claims that using a combination of political pressure, intimidation, and violence Muslims are working to dismantle Western democratic institutions and destroy Western culture from the inside.

In support of his theory, Steyn points to hostile statements by fundamentalist Muslim leaders, the violence surrounding the Danish Muhammad-cartoon controversy and the French riots of 2005 (many of the rioters were young Muslims), and what he sees as pervasive extremist attitudes in the majority of Muslims. Those with ideas similar to Steyn's are also known for unearthing every crime, instance of political pressure, or controversial statement by Muslims -- no matter how minor and inconsequential -- and touting them as evidence of Muslims' barbarism and basic hostility.

Most disturbing are the measures proposed to deal with this "Muslim threat". One popular writer on the "Gates of Vienna" blog (the blog's name references the Muslim siege of Vienna in 1683, which they believe is continuing today) proposed what amounted to the criminalization of Islam:

"We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. [...] Do not allow Islamic public calls to prayer as this is offensive to other faiths. [...] The veil should be banned in public institutions [...] Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities."

Ironically, these supposed defenders of freedom and democracy are so caught up in their hostility to Muslims that they frequently propose the wholesale violation of fundamental religious and free speech rights. They of course see no contradiction here, since the conflict they theorize is an existential battle -- it is not only justifiable but totally necessary to use all means necessary to destroy the Muslim threat.

To be sure, the above-mentioned demographic and economic trends, and violent incidents do point to a pattern of friction between the West and Muslims. What Steyn seems to be missing is that such friction has always existed and exists between many different groups in our changing and unstable world. The world is becoming ever more interconnected, and people of vastly different cultural and religious backgrounds are rubbing shoulders more than ever.

The rise of politically-minded Islam, caused largely by the decline of socialism and pan-Arabism toward the end of the 20th century, has in a number of places led to conflicts with facets of secular democracy. Extremist and fundamentalist ideologies have indeed gained a worrisome amount of traction among disaffected Muslim youth throughout the world. There are no doubt significant tensions surrounding the Muslim immigrant populations of Europe, as large-scale immigration always brings tension. These tensions have furthermore been exacerbated in many places by unemployment, poverty, and discrimination.

No reasonable person would deny that there are many such issues that must be addressed, but paranoid theories of Muslim invasion and conquest do nothing to help the situation. In fact, the inflammatory rhetoric of these anti-Muslim conservatives mirrors the hostile pronouncements of their extremist foes.

Among those who view Muslims with such suspicion and hostility, the term "Islamophobia" is widely derided as foolish, meaningless, or nothing but a means to stifle criticism of Islam and Muslims. Their denial that any such thing as Islamophobia exists is more than a little bit ironic. Where else could this fantastical belief -- that virtually all Muslims are hostile to democracy and freedom, and that they are hell-bent on the subjugation of all non-Muslims -- come from, if not a deep-seated and ignorant fear of Islam and Muslims?

Subprime Shenanigans

2008-06-03T00:03:00.000-07:00

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis in a Nutshell

Starting in 2001, housing prices in the U.S. increased substantially and without interruption for years, leading to the creation of a "housing bubble" of unrealistically high valuations. This created the false impression that housing prices would keep rising indefinitely. As housing prices continued to rise, financial institutions extended credit to riskier "subprime" mortgage seekers (i.e. those without good credit, those with lower income) through adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) on the assumption that, as long as housing prices continued to climb, the risk would be largely mitigated. Wall Street institutions then began selling securities on international markets which were backed by the expected future payments from bundles of such subprime mortgages.

When the bubble finally popped in 2006, the precipitous collapse of housing prices resulted in mass-scale mortgage defaults and foreclosures as millions of Americans found themselves unable to afford their suddenly-high mortgage rates (since they had adjustable rate mortgages). Just as millions of Americans were losing their homes due to inability to make mortgage payments, international markets took a massive hit as well, since subprime-backed securities had circulated all throughout global markets. The subprime-backed securities that had been sold on international markets quickly lost their value, and trillions of dollars were lost by those who had bought the securities.

The reason the crisis has been so immense is due to the way these subprime mortgages were treated as financial assets. Subprime mortgage-backed securities were sold without any guarantees -- a common practice with "prime" mortgages, which are less risky and more likely to yield returns. In this case, however, the mortgages were much riskier and those buying the securities were taking on substantial risk, the extent of which they weren't always fully aware due to over-rating of the securities' values. The whole process served to dilute financial incentives to ensure creditworthiness, since those giving out the loans could pass on the risk to those who bought the securities.

Shabby Media Coverage

The problem with the coverage this crisis has gotten in the media is that most commentators seem to lack even the most basic knowledge of the economics behind subprime mortgages. This ignorance has led to a slew of contradictory and irrational expressions of outrage at Wall Street's conduct. For example, a recent article in the Washington Post by Kathleen Day claims the following:

1. Banks not offering mortgages in low-income (and often minority-populated) areas, known as "redlining", is unfair.
2. Offering subprime mortgages with higher interest rates in low-income areas is "predatory lending" and is unfair.
3. Those who signed up for mortgages that they couldn't afford unless the housing boom continued forever have been "victimized" by creditors.

The first point is not necessarily an unreasonable claim by itself, but when combined with the second claim it becomes very contradictory. Banks often do not offer mortgages or loans to those with low income or bad credit because doing so is very risky. Credit ratings exist so that banks can assess the likelihood of a given person defaulting on a loan, and banks have no obligation to give loans to those who probably won't pay them back. This should be common sense.

The only way to offer loans to those with low income or bad credit without going out of business is to charge a higher interest rate on the riskier loans. By charging more interest, the bank is able to offset the risk of default. The idea is that, on average, they will make more in higher interest payments than they will lose on defaulted loans. In this sense, the interest on a loan is an estimation of the monetary value of the risk taken on by the lender.

Day and many other commentators on the left claim that not giving out high-risk loans is discriminatory, and that giving out those loans with the necessarily higher interest rates is "predatory" and somehow taking advantage of the poor. What they are missing is the fact that banks have no choice but to either charge higher interest rates or abstain from giving out risky loans altogether. If they don't do one or the other, they will go out of business and no one will be able to get loans.

The reality behind Day's third point is a little more complicated. It does appear that many mortgage applicants were told that the housing boom would continue, and that the rates on the ARMs were unlikely to rise as long as house values kept going up. It is also true that these assurances were often given because creditors knew they could pass on the risks of the loans, and had little incentive to properly ensure that applicants could handle the debt.

On the other hand, there were just as many mortgage-seekers who correctly assessed the risks and opted for more expensive fixed-rate mortgages. Those who opted for adjustable rate mortgages did so because they chose taking on the risk of higher future rates in order to secure lower initial rates. Despite any failure by creditors to adequately ensure creditworthiness, those who made a risky decision to get cheap initial rates should not be absolved of responsibility for their choices. It does not take an economist to realize that home values cannot go up forever, and those who did not plan for the inevitable showed poor financial judgment.

That being said, there are no doubt cases in which people were flat-out swindled by greedy and unethical creditors. The point is that many people were simply taking advantage of the market in an attempt to live beyond their means. That is, after all, the nature of economic bubbles -- everyone knows it's too good to be true, but no one can pass up the chance to get something for nothing.

As the media continues assigning blame for this crisis and the suffering of so many Americans, they should consider holding everyone responsible for their actions, not just their favorite punching bags on Wall Street.

McCain and Clinton are Stupid

2008-04-29T20:56:00.000-07:00

John McCain and Hillary Clinton have found a way to simultaneously show their complete inability to come up with real solutions to the substantial problems facing the nation, and shamelessly pander to clueless voters. McCain and Clinton recently came out in favor of a summer-long suspension of the 18 cent-per-gallon federal gas tax, which would save most Americans a whopping $30 over the course of the summer.

As David Weigel at Reason Magazine put it, the entire thing is nothing but "phony populism in the service of a 'tax cut' that would fund one meal for two at Applebees, which may or may not include dessert." When the libertarians at Reason come out against a tax break, you know it has to be completely worthless.

The "tax break" looks even sillier when one considers that gas prices throughout most of America have risen by almost double this 18 cent amount in the past 2 weeks, and look to continue rising.

To his credit, Barack Obama opposes the measure as feckless, and pointed out that the suspension would deprive states of funds for road repairs, raise demand for imported gas, and do nothing to address the broader issues of rising energy costs and dependence on foreign oil.

To top it all off, Clinton accused Obama of being "out of touch" with middle-class Americans because he doesn't support the measure. Clinton's cynical manipulation and complete lack of principle are at this point virtually beyond parody. She is a walking, sniper-fire-dodging caricature of a lying, amoral, power-hungry politician.

As for McCain, this just seems like a sad attempt to bolster his conservative credentials by "lowering taxes". Whatever his faults, Obama gets credit for largely avoiding this sort of deceitful nonsense.

Politics at its finest.

Jeremiah Wright: Fool and Egotist

2008-04-29T16:42:00.000-07:00

If it was not already clear before his speech before the National Press Club on Monday, it is now undeniably obvious that Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- Barack Obama's pastor -- is not only a quite fanatical character, he is also a self-aggrandizing egotist of the worst kind. His speech, which merely reiterated his most hateful and demagogic sentiments in a disgustingly self-congratulatory manner, was truly cringe-inducing.

There is no way Wright could have been unaware that this speech would be greatly harmful to Obama's candidacy, which begs the question: is Wright unhappy with Obama because of his previous comments distancing himself from the pastor? Was this display some sort of revenge against Obama's moderate stances? Alternatively, is Wright just so totally self-absorbed and small-minded that he has no qualms sabotaging the first viable black presidential candidacy in American history in order to elevate himself to some mediocre level of celebrity along the lines of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan?

I have to admit that, although I had previously acquainted myself with Wright's beliefs, his speech on Monday was the first time I saw him televised, and was thus the first chance I had to witness his shocking level of self-love. It is difficult to explain his demeanor, with its combination of unreasoning ignorance and total, foolish assuredness. It seemed he was going down a checklist of wild assertions -- for example, that the U.S. government invented HIV as a method of genocide against African Americans -- solely for the purpose of maximizing shock value. Wright struck me as a sort of Methodist Howard Stern, nearly devoid of thought and concerned only with making a spectacle of himself.

After all this, Wright astoundingly claimed that his thoughts were representative of the "black church", whatever that is supposed to mean. If Wright meant that he spoke for all church-going African Americans, he is not only totally self-absorbed, he is totally deluded as well. To suggest that all African Americans share his unthinking, paranoid beliefs is truly insulting to millions of intelligent, educated African Americans who no doubt cringed at his speech.

Before witnessing this recent speech, I viewed Wright as being on par with the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the nation. While Wright shares their unthinking, delusional, and offensively close-minded nature, he stands apart from them in his audacious extension of these attributes to the most extreme level.

I will leave it to others to determine exactly how close Obama is or was to Reverend Wright, and the degree to which Obama shares the Reverend's views, if he shares them at all -- I claim possession of no special information on the matter. It is remarkable, however, that Obama was ever drawn to Wright, and that he ever spent Sundays listening to the "wisdom" of a man so totally beneath him.

Excerpts of Wright's speech can be seen here, and Obama's denunciation of Wright following the speech can be read here.

A Tyrant by Any Other Name

2008-04-17T01:48:00.000-07:00

Since his election as president of Venezuela in 1999, Hugo Chavez has drawn fierce criticism from many American conservatives, primarily because of his anti-American agitation and friendly relations with virtually all of America's "enemies" abroad. Chavez cultivated close relationships with Syria, Iran, Cuba and North Korea, among others -- all states viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility by the Bush administration.

So great has been the reaction against him by conservatives, televangelist and pundit Pat Robertson even suggested that the U.S. government should send agents to assassinate Chavez -- "take him out" in Robertson's words.

Chavez is an extremely charismatic leader, and has built a strong, dedicated following among many Venezuelans. His supporters even adopted his name as their political identity, calling themselves "chavistas". Chavez managed to win over much of the American left with his talk of "anti-imperialism" and "democratic socialism", but the reality of his presidency and policies should be much more worrisome to both liberals and conservatives than this rhetoric would suggest.

Chavez's populist message centers around his interpretation of Bolivarianism. Bolivarianism is based on the ideas of Simon Bolivar, the 18th-century leader and namesake of Bolivia known as "El Libertador" for his role in the liberation of numerous South American countries from Spanish colonialism.

In theory, Chavez's philosophy emphasizes economic and political independence, patriotism, government transparency, and socio-economic equality through "humanist" socialism. In practice, however, Chavez's government is hostile to dissent, democracy, and civil liberties.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented numerous human rights violations by Chavez's administration, including the killing of 14 demonstrators and the wounding of an additional 200 during an anti-Chavez rally in early 2004.

During political upheaval in 2002, the Chavez government forced all broadcast media to cease regular reports and air pro-Chavez propaganda, though Chavez supporters have pointed to possible involvement of the media in a coup attempt as justification for this suppression of free speech.

Under Chavez, Venezuela dropped to a dismal ranking of 115th out of 168 in the press organization Reporters Without Borders' worldwide press freedom rankings. Furthermore, organizations such as the International Press Institute and Human Rights Watch condemned Chavez for strictly limiting press freedom and censoring criticism of the government. In 2007, Chavez refused to renew the operating license of Venezuela's second largest TV channel, forcefully closing the station down, because of their criticisms of his administration.

During his entire presidency, Chavez has worked to secure virtually unchecked executive power for himself. According to Amnesty International, he significantly eroded the independence of the judiciary and placed himself in control of the body that supervises elections. In an attempt to circumvent the presidential term limit of 6 years, Chavez put forth a referendum for a constitutional amendment -- which was only narrowly defeated -- that would amend almost 70 articles of the constitution and do away with term limits.

Chavez's record on civil liberties is equally appalling. According to numerous human rights organizations, he has jailed and tortured political opponents and encouraged voter intimidation. Through various means, he succeeded in gaining control of any government institutions that would provide a counter to these abuses.

Even in his attempts to transform Venezuela into an equitable socialist state, Chavez has failed quite miserably. Chavez portrays himself as a champion of the poor and a strong proponent of progressive policies, accounting in large part for his popularity among American liberals. Despite this, rampant corruption has prevented enormous state oil-income from being translated into anything but very limited gains for the nation's poor.

It should thus be clear that Chavez's high-sounding rhetoric and appeals to popular liberal sentiment amount to little more than demagogy, and that he in reality personifies the most extreme excesses of authoritarian government. More important than his fraternization with the "Axis of Evil" is his willingness to violate the most basic of civil and human rights. The cult of personality that surrounds Chavez and his seemingly endless appetite for power should be truly troubling for Americans of all political persuasions.

This self-styled champion of democracy is in fact quite the opposite. For all Chavez's talk of democracy and anti-fascism, it is striking how closely his perverse populism, cynical demagogy, executive excesses, and outright hostility to freedom resemble the worst totalitarian and fascist regimes of the past century.

Obama: "Left-Libertarian"?

2008-04-08T02:55:00.000-07:00

Until very recently, I had assessed Barack Obama as an essentially Keynesian, Bill Clinton-style moderate-liberal on economic questions. Without a doubt, his statements do echo many of the core themes of the "Third Way" popularized in the 90s by Clinton. This view sees free markets as fundamentally good, and as essential to prosperity and progress. However, it also sees an active government as necessary to "tame" capitalism by increasing fairness, stability, and general welfare. I still think this captures much of what Obama has said about economics, but it seems Obama's economics may also have a more original, libertarian side than the moderate-Democratic "Third Way".

On the one hand, Obama has made statements praising classic New Deal welfare programs that are fundamentally hostile to free markets and economic liberty (for example, see this Obama speech at Cooper Union). On the other hand, a number of libertarians seem to be pleasantly surprised with Obama's voluntarist and laissez-faire leanings. For example, Obama and his lead economic advisor Austin Goolsbee have come up with some interesting and quite libertarian approaches to questions such as income equality that have usually been answered with the heavy hand of un-libertarian state programs. Among these are Goolsbee/Obama's emphasis on access to higher education as a means of decreasing poverty, and their embrace of economic globalization.

While Obama is still more a Democrat than a libertarian, his economic views are very refreshing when viewed next to those of Hillary Clinton. It seems Clinton makes a point of always championing the least libertarian means of achieving any goal. For example, she has used misinterpretations of the work of economist Paul Samuelson to justify isolationist criticisms of international trade, outsourcing, and other hallmarks of globalizing economic progress. She even went so far as to question the validity of comparative advantage -- one of the most basic economic principles stating that countries can benefit from trade by specializing in certain areas of production -- relying on a shamefully ignorant view of economics. Clinton's silly economic views have already gotten her in trouble with European nations who fear her economic isolationism could hurt both American and European economies.

There is some disagreement among libertarians regarding Obama's libertarian credentials, but blogger Nick Bradley summed up the issue quite well:

"Obama does offer a few market-friendly programs, such as increased child care and education tax credits (which Paul also supports), exempt payroll taxes from the first $6,500 of earned income, exempt seniors making under $50,000 from income taxes, supports clean coal (most democrats despise hydrocarbon energy production in general), supports carbon sequestration (more market-friendly than carbon regulation), limits agricultural subsidies to farms earning under $250,000 a year, will reinstate PAYGO, has pledged to get all troops out of Iraq within 16 months, opposes war with Iran, and supports the Genocide Intervention Network, which uses private money and nonstate social action to stymie genocide. [...]

In the grand scheme of things, Obama is far less statist than Hillary (socialism at home, hegemony abroad) and McCain (fascism at home, endless warfare abroad)."

It will be very interesting to see how other libertarians compare Obama and McCain as the elections draw near. For now, I'll leave you with Obama's own summation of his economic views, from the speech at Cooper Union referenced above:

"I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock on an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth, by demanding transparency, and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. Our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic unforgiving capitalism."

Bacevich on Iraq

2007-05-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-28T05:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-26T05:40:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-26T04:27:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-25T02:59:00.001-07:00

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...

2007-05-25T02:36:00.001-07:00

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

2007-05-25T01:28:00.001-07:00

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

2007-05-24T06:14:00.001-07:00

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

2007-05-23T17:14:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-22T22:52:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-01T22:49:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-01T21:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Slaying the Hydra

2007-04-29T07:18:00.000-07:00

As president Bush's new "surge" security plan for Iraq moves forward and Americans anxiously await signs of real progress in the violence-wracked nation, the question on everyone's mind is: Can the war in Iraq be won? Republican and Democratic partisans, as a rule, eschew any reasoned analysis of the situation in favor of talking-point recitations that support their political interests. Similarly, media opinion makers and televised talking heads seem more interested in political jockeying than clear, truthful analysis.

Even those who honestly set about the task of analyzing the current situation in Iraq find it surprisingly difficult to describe or define the chaotic interplay of sects, ideologies, and cynical political interests that characterizes a region that has been comically -- and quite accurately -- termed "Mess-o-potamia".

Unlike the clearly-defined conflicts of the past (such as World War II), the war in Iraq is a complex tangle of actors and interests with the most elusive of motivations. Even those segments of society most commonly referenced as cohesive groups, such as Iraqi Sunnis, are in fact highly disorganized and dynamic. Regarding Iraqi Sunnis, there are countless divisions between religious moderates and extremists, political collaborators and rejectionists, power-hungry opposing militias, and even al-Qaeda sympathizers.

Iraqi Shiites are no less divided, with various militias and ad hoc political alliances, Iranian connections, compromisers and virulently anti-Sunni groups, and self-interested political elites. Add to this the extensive foreign involvement, from Saudi and Pakistani jihadis to Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents to al-Qaeda elements, and it becomes clear that American forces are fighting not a single enemy or even a handful of enemies, but rather a decentralized jumble of forces that one expert has termed a "bazaar of violence".

One of the primary failures of the Bush administration in executing the war has been an apparent inability to grasp these complexities and their ramifications. Since the U.S. is fighting a totally decentralized, self propagating, constantly growing movement with countless economic, religious, and political dimensions, no number of "decapitation" attacks against insurgent leaders or neighborhood round-ups can halt the growing violence. Even the new counterinsurgency program of General Petraeus, which seeks to integrate political reconciliation with a larger and more aggressive military presence, will be hard-pressed to achieve substantial gains as long as the sources of destabilization and radicalization remain untouched.

Gen. Petraeus has openly stated that there is no military solution to the war in Iraq -- meaning the basis of stability and reconciliation must necessarily spring from political compromise -- however this observation does nothing to make such reconciliation more likely in the face of long-standing historical animosities and intractable political problems.

Since the belligerent parties in Iraq lack the unity and cohesion of more traditional forces, there is little basis for broad, effective political compromise. Even if Sunni and Shiite politicians in Baghdad managed to work out compromises to the country's most pressing political problems, it is unlikely most belligerents would accept these compromises. Since most insurgents in Iraq (with the exception of militias headed by government officials) are not centrally commanded and do not share the ideological and political views of the Iraqi government, Iraqi leaders are utterly incapable of influencing most of the fighting in the territory they nominally rule.

The result of all this is, unsurprisingly, a total lack of trust in an Iraqi government that cannot provide even the most basic security services. The new "surge" plan seeks to address this lack of legitimacy by decreasing violence in the capitol, so that progress can be made toward building effective, trusted Iraqi military and police forces. Once these forces are established, the currently-impotent leaders in the Green Zone will presumably gain legitimacy.

The problem with this plan is that, in a nation as divided as Iraq, the legitimacy-power relation becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem -- without legitimacy, the government cannot muster reliable, strong forces, and without these forces they cannot gain legitimacy. The surge plan aims to supplant American forces for Iraqi forces in order to build a foundation of legitimacy, but the decentralized insurgent hydra has proven resilient even against American firepower.

Saddam Hussein solved the legitimacy-power riddle, and thereby secured power, by substituting fear for legitimacy -- his iron-fisted, bloody policies made his power unquestionable, and thus won him unquestionable power. Obviously, such a strategy is incompatible with the primary goal of the U.S. in Iraq -- the establishment a democratic government. Because of this, American forces and the fledgling Iraqi state have set off into uncharted waters, and are yet to see if the divided, hostile society in Iraq can be bound by democratic institutions.

Thus far, the same fragmentation of the Iraqi populace (into countless warring factions and hostile sects) that hinders analysis has proven insurmountable to Iraqi and American politicians and military forces. Whether or not reconciliation in Baghdad proves attainable in the end, the declarations of politicians from the Green Zone may be incapable of affecting meaningful change. Unfortunately, while the situation in Iraq has no military solution, it also seems to lack a clear political solution.

Responsibility and Infantilizing Society

2007-04-25T00:48:00.000-07:00

Anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin, in his work "Law and Authority", wrote the following regarding society's tendency to demand legislative action in place of real action:

In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers." [..] If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights." In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.

In short, instead of taking responsibility for our freedom, security, and economic well-being, we call for empty laws that often do nothing to solve the problems we are presented with. Wherever the world is imperfect in our eyes, we delude ourselves into thinking that government action can make everything better.

In the aftermath of the recent mass shooting at Virginia Tech, many Americans are calling for tougher gun laws or other legal responses to the tragedy. In fact, this shooting should have revealed that the state is largely incapable of preventing such violence or responding to it in an effective, timely manner. Of course, the police are now combing through all of the shooter's belongings and records, trying to piece together his motivation. Their investigations, however, do nothing to protect the people or prevent future massacres.

Is it not tragic that the police -- who proudly proclaim their motto as "to serve and protect" -- totally failed to protect these people? This is not to say that the police should have known the shooting would happen, or that our society should be so saturated with police that one is always present in the event of such an attack. The most obvious lesson of this tragedy -- and sadly, one that few seem to be recognizing -- is that by empowering the government at the expense of the people (through gun laws and similar measures) we actually make ourselves less safe, even as we make ourselves less free. There is a constant process of militarization occurring throughout the country, where SWAT teams and heavily-armed police forces blur the line between military and civil defense. Behind cover of the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", our government is coming to view the American population more and more as the enemy -- a process that Americans largely accept because they believe they benefit somehow from this "security".

The constantly-parroted conventional wisdom of the "trade-off" between freedom and security cannot stand up to the realities of the world presented by this and other tragic events. If Americans would open their eyes, they would see that many Americans are held hostage by violence in this same way, where gang violence prevails and innocent people are barred from protecting themselves and their families.

The actions of our government are transforming our society into a population of victims, and yet Americans are still surprised when they are victimized. A person who puts their faith in government can be nothing other than a victim -- whether it is the state that fails them or criminals and murderers who prey on them, a person who has given up responsibility for themselves and their well-being should expect nothing but hardship.

Somewhere along the line, Americans stopped being responsible for themselves and ceded to the state all their political power and social responsibility. Unsurprisingly, the result of this has been the infantilization of our people, who stand up to no intrusion by government, and remain helplessly exposed to the predations of criminals, terrorists, and psychopaths. The proper reaction to a tragedy like that at Virginia Tech is not to demand action by the government or the establishment of new ineffectual laws; it is to begin reversing the trend that has left us so vulnerable in the first place. This means asserting ourselves against the state and empowering ourselves as individuals. This is not only right but necessary, since it is only as empowered individuals, not as subservients of the state, that we can secure our own safety and liberty -- a fact that was made shockingly clear last week at Virginia Tech.

Social Security & Medicare Collapse

2007-04-24T00:07:00.000-07:00

Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds announced Monday that the two programs would run out of money in 2041 and 2019, respectively. The trustees also reported that by 2017, the Social Security program will be giving out more money than it is taking in, resulting in a steadily-increasing deficit that could exhaust the program entirely in less than 35 years. The problems with funding of Medicare are much more serious and immediate, due to increasing health care costs for aging Americans.

The funding problems for the two programs, caused by the impending retirement of about 78 million "baby boomers" born between 1946 and 1964, have been a long time coming, as the government has used excess tax revenues for other projects, rather than saving them in anticipation of future costs.

It is plainly unacceptable that the federal government has cast aside all economic logic and chosen to spend excess revenues that have accumulated for years, rather than saving them in anticipation of future rising costs. Unsurprisingly, the state has once again blithely broken its promise to the American people that their tax money would be used responsibly and for the benefit of the American people. As a result of this total failure of the government, Americans now must choose between depriving baby boomers of the services they believed they were paying for through years of Social Security and Medicare taxes, or the government must substantially raise taxes to make up the lost revenue. Either way, the American people and economy will pay the price for government incompetence.

If a bank took all the funds deposited by its customers and spent them elsewhere, it would of course be incapable of giving these funds back when its customers attempted to withdraw them. Similarly, if an insurance company foolishly spent all of its income from fees, it would be in deep trouble when its customers attempted to file claims. What the government has done in this situation is basically no different from either of these examples -- it has taken money that it promised would be available for one purpose, and spent it elsewhere. Since, unlike corporations and banks, the government is completely unaccountable for its actions, it will simply take more money from the American people to cover up its total failure, or tell them that they simply don't get what they have earned through years of payments.

If a private company attempted to pull a stunt like this, every one of its executives would likely (and rightly) end up in jail. This is a willful violation of contract, plain and simple, but since one party to the contract is the state, the agreement is void simply because the state says it is. Once again, we see that the state is fundamentally criminal and negligent, and that there is no way to hold it responsible for its predations. It is a mystery how anyone claims that the state is a responsible or effective provider of essential services -- whether entitlement programs or even security -- in light of this, and similar, constant failings of the government.

Add this to the list of blatant, massive thefts by the government, maybe right after the trillions of dollars that so conveniently have gone "missing". I'm sure there's no way all this money has made it into the pockets of our beloved "civil servants" in Washington.

Sarkozy vs. Royal

2007-04-23T22:28:00.000-07:00

The upcoming French presidential election, which will pit Socialist candidate Segolene Royal against Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, is shaping up to be a very interesting contest between the socialist status quo (as defended by Royal) and the more right-wing neoliberal reformism of Sarkozy. Unlike the last French presidential election, in which two right-wing candidates (Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen) made it to the last round, this year's election results could swing the troubled nation in two very different directions.

Arguably the two primary issues in the election involve France's economic and social situation. France's economy has been stagnant for some time now, with high unemployment and slow growth. Sarkozy claims that these economic problems are caused by France's extensive socialist economic programs, such as the 35-hour work week, high minimum wage laws, welfare-state programs, and strong unions. Sarkozy aims to liberalize the French economy and spur economic growth by removing restrictions on labor, lowering taxes and decreasing state economic interventionism.

On the other hand, Royal seeks essentially to maintain and expand the current pro-labor, pro-regulation and socialist programs that Sarkozy claims are weighing down the economy. Royal's proposed reforms include attempts to stimulate demand through minimum wage increases and expansion of government assistance programs.

Closely tied to these economic issues is the volatile social situation in France, which has turned explosive more than once in the recent past. The nation's poverty-stricken banlieues -- poor, largely immigrant-populated suburbs of major French cities -- are home to high unemployment, high crime rates, social and religious tension, and a number of other modern urban social and economic plagues. Royal, who is largely pro-immigrant, would seek to pacify these neighborhoods with the above-mentioned economic reforms, and has emphasized tolerance along with the need for law and order.

Sarkozy, on the other hand, has taken a much harder line against immigration, and has promised a strong response to the "scum" of the banlieues. He seeks to economically eliminate the unemployment and poverty that produces delinquency and criminal behavior through free-market reforms, while concurrently emphasizing strong police action and forceful response to criminality and rioting.

Generally speaking, the choice being presented to the French people is not unlike that so common in American elections -- it is between the paternal and maternal systems of government. In another sense, however, the picture is opposite that in America, where liberal Democrats have struggled to win support for more socialist programs. In France, vast socialist programs and high tax rates are the norm, while conservative reformers are struggling to dismantle this system, which they view as a weight on the economy. As has been noted by other commentators, Royal (as the defender of the existing system) is the real "conservative" in this race, while Sarkozy presents a new alternative to the established leftist systems.

While Sarkozy's economic programs are certainly preferable to any libertarian, his paternalism and tough-guy stance could mean trouble for civil rights and be dangerous in the foreign policy arena. Furthermore, Sarkozy's anti-immigrant rhetoric -- which has appealed to supporters of far-right Le Pen -- could be troubling to some libertarians. Sadly, neither candidate has shown a strong commitment to liberty. Whether it is Sarkozy's militarism and police-statism or Royal's mommy-knows-best socialism, the French people are left without a truly pro-freedom candidate. Furthermore, Sarkozy's promises to shrink government and lower taxes should be taken with a grain of salt -- such promises are rarely kept, and the state is notoriously hard to shrink.

Once again, this unfortunate lack of representation of libertarian ideas -- and the limited choice between welfare and warfare statism -- should be recognizable to American libertarians.

Wolfowitz at the World Bank

2007-04-23T19:24:00.000-07:00

Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush-appointed World Bank president and former architect of the invasion of Iraq, is in trouble at the World Bank over dealings surrounding his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. When Wolfowitz became president at the Bank, conflicts of interest forced Riza to leave, however Wolfowitz secured for her a cushy State Department job making over $190,000 a year -- more than the Secretary of State.

In an already-unfriendly environment -- Wolfowitz's involvement with the invasion of Iraq and his political ties earned him more than a few enemies in the Bank -- this apparently unethical behavior has led to an explosion of criticism from Bank employees, with some even openly jeering Wolfowitz at the World Bank. It seems increasingly likely that Wolfowitz may fall prey to his own hard-line stance of "zero tolerance" for corruption among Bank employees -- a policy which has already led to the forced resignations of a number of Bank employees over conflict-of-interest charges.

Wolfowitz's critics claim that his actions have undermined confidence in the Bank and have endangered its reputation. Critics have also called Wolfowitz intellectually arrogant, and have expressed unease at his unwillingness to accept the expertise of others in the institution when it runs afoul of his own estimations. Considering Wolfowitz's wildly inaccurate predictions regarding the Iraq war (Iraqi oil would totally finance the war, the war would be quick and easy, etc), which he stated as incontestable fact in the lead-up to the war, this would not be the first time Wolfowitz's honesty and intellectual capacity were called into question.

More at FinancialExpress.com

Gonzales' Lies and Possible Criminal Coverup?

2007-04-18T01:08:00.000-07:00

Politburo Diktat has an excellent series of blog posts on the increasingly suspicious revelations surrounding Attorney General Gonzales and his role in the U.S. Attorney firing debacle.

There's a lot there, and I don't think there's much I can add. In summary, the longer this goes on, the more evidence seems to indicate that: 1) Gonzales has lied on many occasions about his role in the firings. 2) Most of the firings were very much politically motivated, and had nothing to do with performance issues. 3) While there is no hard evidence that illegal activity occurred (i.e. that the attorneys were fired because they didn't attack Democrats, or the attorneys were pressured by White House officials to attack Democrats), there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction, so the issue merits closer investigation.

Here are the links (most recent at bottom):

DOJ Document Dump
Kyle Sampson's Testimony
Hitting The Panic Button
Report: Domenici Talked To Bush About Iglesias
Battle Contradicts Gonzales' Testimony
The Priorities of The New U.S. Attorneys
Gonzales Contradicts His Own Testimony

Jose Padilla's Mental Health

2007-04-18T00:48:00.000-07:00

Apparently Jose Padilla, the American citizen who was detained by the Bush administration for more than 3 years without being charged with a crime or having access to courts, is suffering from some serious mental health problems that resulted from his prolonged detention. A psychiatrist that analyzed Padilla said that he was anxious, sweating, had facial tics, and had dilated pupils. Padilla was also exhibiting symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, a condition usually exhibited by hostages in which captives defend their captors.

It is notable that those seemingly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome have usually been exposed to very harsh treatment, possibly including torture. Padilla's lawyers claim that he was "subjected to sleep deprivation, extreme heat and cold, threats of execution, exposure to noxious fumes, and was forced to wear a hood and stand in one position for extended periods of time." They also claim that he was given either PCP or LSD in the form of a "truth serum". These highly stressful and physically harsh conditions, along with the alleged drugging with strong psychedelics -- could go a long way in explaining his current mental problems.

Of course apologists for Bush's illegal detention program will claim that Padilla's mental problems are fabricated or have nothing to do with his treatment while in detention. It should be evident to any honest observer that this sort of illegal detention is prohibited precisely because of the horrors that a person can endure while deprived of all legal rights in the way Padilla was.

It is also quite revealing that the charges eventually brought against Padilla -- "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons outside the United States" -- flatly contradicts the initial justification for his detention. When he was first detained, the Bush administration claimed that they had solid evidence that he was part of a plot to detonate a "dirty" radiological bomb within the U.S. Now, their story has completely changed.

Besides exhibiting again precisely why a person should never be detained without being charged with a specific crime, this total change in allegation is extremely suspicious. What happened to this "evidence" of the dirty bomb plot? What reason do we have to believe that the current charges aren't completely fabricated, just like the initial charge appears to have been? This is the most shocking display of government abuse and illegality in quite a while, and the fact that it isn't getting more press or causing more outrage in the U.S. is very sad and worrisome.

What a Waste...

2007-04-13T22:54:00.000-07:00

Over at the Mises Economics Blog, Anthony Gregory wishes (as I'm sure we all do) that the U.S. government, instead of wasting so much money on the failed/destructive welfare-warfare state, had invested all its tax revenues into... making a dragon. A real, living, breathing dragon. Not only is he right, he is now officially a genius:

My friend, not exactly a libertarian but not a socialist (pro-market, anti-war, anti-cop) — okay, pretty libertarian, actually — thinks that if the US government, for the last 40 years, had spent nothing on war or welfare or anything else, but retained the same tax schedules, it would have been able to fund the creation of a dragon.
Yes, a dragon. As in a large flying nearly reptilian beast that breathes fire.

Aside from some limits of socialist calculation, he has a point. Maybe even with government inefficiency taken for granted, he might be onto something.

The genetic and mechanical engineering and research could have been advanced if, starting with the moon landing, the feds ditched all other endeavors and focused on creating a dragon.

What do you think? For trillions of bucks in today's dollars, could we have a dragon? I think so.

Would it be a more libertarian expenditure than most things the government spends money on? Surely.

Would it be a _cooler_ thing to spend money on than what the government has spent money on instead? Most certainly.

My friend, I believe, has stumbled upon a brilliant insight that would make Bastiat proud. For all this welfare-warfare spending, the feds could have made a dragon by now. The unseen cost of socialism and militarism in the American experience has been a dragon.

With a dragon, no country would mess with us, because we have a dragon.

We would again be the envy of the world.

I think the Islamo-fascists would have to agree, even, that there must be something to the American way of life that we could produce a dragon whereas all their jihadist war prayers and theocratic socialism continue to yield nothing so spectacular.

Iraqi Parliament Bombed

2007-04-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

A group of militant Islamists affiliated with al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Iraqi parliament cafeteria within the Baghdad Green Zone. While initial reports indicated 8 killed and 23 wounded, it appears now that only one Iraqi PM has been confirmed killed, with 22 others wounded..

In terms of the number of casualties, this attack was relatively small compared to other recent bombings, however the New York Times article linked above captures the effect this attack will likely have on the Iraqi people:

At a time when Iraqis are increasingly questioning the government’s ability to protect them, the bombing raised the troubling possibility that it could not even fully protect itself, although the zone is at the wellspring of American and Iraqi military power in the city.

This serious breach of security will likely call into question the effectiveness of the new "surge" security plan in the minds of Iraqis. This reality underscores the difficult position U.S. forces and the Iraqi government are in -- no matter what gains they may make in securing areas of Iraq, it is virtually impossible to stop all attacks, and in many cases, one strategic suicide bombing can seem to undo weeks of hard work. It is of course much harder to maintain peace than it is to foment violence and chaos, and this is exactly how Iraqi insurgents have managed to halt progress throughout the country.

While such an attack was in a sense bound to happen eventually, that doesn't change the symbolic value it could have as a representation of the failure of the Iraqi government to provide the most basic service of security for Iraqis. Just as the attack symbolizes the broader failures of the Iraqi government, it also shows how politically savvy the terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq have become.

Anarchist Common Property

2007-04-12T23:06:00.000-07:00

I just stumbled upon an excellent essay at Anti-State.com by Carlton Hobbs, titled Common Property in Free Market Anarchism, which puts together a conception of the treatment of property which is neither state property (as is usually meant by "public" or "common" property) nor strictly private property. This addresses the issue of objects, resources, or land which are used by a number of people and not owned by any of them privately. By extension, this deals with the "Tragedy of the Commons" and the reality that things often do not cleanly fall into the category of "private" or "public" property.

The conception arrived at by Hobbs is that, rather than the common categories of "private" and "public" property, there should be three categories: "unowned", "excludable", and "unexcludable". The idea behind this is that with something like a path, which is used by a number of people, no single user of the path can claim exclusive rights of access, and so ownership of the path is, in a sense, shared by all those who use the path. Therefore it would be illegitimate for one person to claim the path as his own and attempt to exclude other people from using it or crossing it.

If someone did want to block the path, claim a section of it as their own, or otherwise compromise its usefulness, they could not treat the property as "unowned" -- they would have to secure the consent of the community that uses it. At the same time, the path is not "excludable" -- it can be used by a number of people, which differentiates it from "private" property in the conventional sense, which is "excludable". In this sense, each person who uses it partially owns the path, and no single person has the right to transfer ownership of it or exercise any of the rights that one can with "excludable" property.

Hobbs goes into much more detail, and considers situations where scarcity becomes an issue, how pollution would be treated in this system, and many other details. All in all, the essay is very good and provides a good start to a commonsense theory of how various kinds of property could be treated in an anarchist society.

A final note: I found it very interesting how Hobbs' application of the idea of use-as-ownership worked out so naturally. This of course is very similar to Proudhon's "mutualist" idea of property being defined by occupancy and use. The way Proudhon's relatively "leftist" conception of property (which I have always found interesting and largely valid) and Hobbs' free market conception seem to converge is especially interesting.

For those not familiar with Proudhon's ideas of property and possession, you can check out his Wikipedia page or his most important work on the subject, What Is Property?.

Immigration Economics

2007-04-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

In an article for National Review Online, editor Rich Lowry recites a popular anti-immigration talking point, claiming that the influx of immigrants into the U.S. hurts "native" workers by depressing wages. While the idea that an increase in the supply of labor will decrease wages is sound economically, this application of the idea by immigration opponents is odd, and fails to account for many other effects of immigration.

The problem with this talking point is that economists widely agree that the continued growth of the American economy (as opposed to the stagnation seen in Europe) is in large part due to population growth driven by immigration. Where European countries are seeing population declines and are suffering from low economic growth, the American economy has fared rather well in comparison.

If the wishes of these immigration opponents were realized and immigration was severely restricted, a number of essential industries (service, construction, etc) would be very hard hit, and the economy as a whole would suffer. As I said above, it is true that increases in labor supply lead to wage decreases. What is being ignored by these anti-immigration pundits is that the short-term wage decrease following population influx is overwhelmed by a number of positive effects.

Such influxes of labor and temporary wage decreases result in more (and more efficient) production, an increase in the standard of living for everyone, and the strengthening of the economy as a whole. Furthermore, as these industries grow, more jobs are produced and wages actually increase again. The long-term effect of this is that more people have jobs, more services and products are available (for less cost) for everyone, and the American economy remains competitive internationally, unlike so many European economies who are suffering.

Since labor behaves economically in the same manner as other resources, the situation can be understood more fully by substituting another resource for labor. Imagine that Mexico had far more candy bars than they could use, and the U.S. didn't have enough candy bars but had a huge number of people who wanted candy bars. It would of course improve everyone's standard of living if the candy bars were able to freely move across the border to meet the demand of the people in the U.S. This would also help the Mexicans since they could trade their candy bars that they didn't need for things that they needed more.

In the same sense, the oversupply of labor in Mexico and the demand for labor in the U.S. could be reconciled by allowing freer movement of job seekers across the border. The result of this would be mutually beneficial -- Americans could make use of needed Mexican manpower, while Mexican workers could work and improve their standard of living, instead of remaining poor and unemployed in Mexico.

This is exactly why so many industries are lobbying against strict immigration controls. Keeping Mexican workers out of the country hurts the U.S. economy just as it hurts un- or under-employed Mexican workers. Restricting movement of people from place to place serves only to create economic inequalities, prevent economic growth, and increase suffering. The influx of immigrants into the U.S. is a natural economic process -- there are more jobs in the U.S. than in Mexico, so people naturally move to resolve this inequality.

The shallow economic observations of Lowry and anti-immigration pundits willfully neglect to recognize the overwhelming benefits of free movement of labor. Exactly why they so quickly cast aside their usual support of laissez-faire markets is anyone's guess, but they seem more than willing to twist the truth to justify their opposition to any non-European immigration. The next time you hear the classic nativist arguments that immigrants are "taking our jobs" or "lowering our wages", feel free to educate them regarding the great economic benefits of immigration.

Oh, Let the Drug Users Die

2007-04-05T23:43:00.000-07:00

New Mexico just passed a law granting immunity from drug charges for those who seek medical help for overdoses. This law -- the first of its kind in the nation -- was passed amidst an "epidemic" of drug fatalities in New Mexico.

While this is certainly a move in the right direction, it is both astounding and morally reprehensible that every other state in the U.S. actually does prosecute people seeking such help. To be clear, these people have deprived no one of anything, have violated no one's rights, and are being scared away from seeking much-needed help simply because the state has deemed in unacceptable for them to consume certain chemicals. No doubt there have been more than a few people who have died alone and afraid for fear of being locked up with murderers and rapists if they sought help.

It is far past time for the American people to overcome their ignorant, uninformed hyper-intolerance of drugs and drug users. The pathetic "War on Drugs" has filled our jails with nonviolent drug "offenders" who have harmed no one; it has led to massive corruption and overreach in government; it has wasted unimaginable amounts of our taxpayer dollars; it has spawned horrific crime and gang violence in our cities; it has turned every law-abiding American into a "suspect".

And for all this, drugs are cheaper and more readily available than ever before. This "war" is nothing more than the empty moral posing of politicians and the sadistic intolerance of the people. It achieves nothing and hurts innocent people -- it is flat-out stupid. The good news is that more and more Americans are realizing the utter failure of this "war", and are calling for more freedom. Let's hope this is only the beginning of a much greater trend.

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming

2007-04-05T18:01:00.000-07:00

In the past here, I have written of many widespread criticisms of global warming by non-scientists, which I view as largely unhelpful and illegitimate. While I maintain that the uninformed opinions of so many pundits and politically-motivated, self-styled "experts" do not contribute to the debate over global warming, I do not want to give the impression that I do not take reasoned, useful criticisms seriously.

In this spirit, here are some well-thought, reasonable, and scientifically sound criticisms of the prevailing conception of global warming, by renowned physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson. While Dyson is not primarily a climatologist, his extensive knowledge of physics and other scientific disciplines that contribute to climatology make his thoughts particularly relevant (from Wikipedia):

Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local observations. He considers this view to be "heretical", along with his views on the PhD system.

The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.^[14]

While he acknowledges climate change may be in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels, he regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer:

As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because 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. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.^[15]

Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.^[16]

These thoughts, especially those regarding the distribution of the the effects of global warming and the limitations of our climate modeling capabilities, are very relevant to our efforts to understand our world. Furthermore, Dyson's points show that global warming is, like all scientific predictions and possibly to a greater extent than most, far from being a well-established and definite phenomenon.

Dyson does not close-mindedly deny that climate changes are occurring within our world, and that these changes could have widespread effects. What he does do, however, is approach the task of understanding of these changes with a healthy regard for both the strengths and limitations of our current knowledge. Let Dyson serve as a model for those who seek to approach this issue fairly, rationally, and with regard for the truth rather than political convenience.

British-Iranian Tensions Ease

2007-04-04T00:34:00.000-07:00

Almost 2 weeks after the capture of 15 British sailors by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, tensions between the two countries appear to be lessening. Still, while British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for “peaceful and calm negotiation”, he has also warned that if a quick diplomatic solution is not forthcoming, Britain would “take an increasingly tougher position”.

In response to a suggestion by Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani of bilateral talks, Blair said that “the door is open” to a diplomatic solution. Larijani also told a British news service that the Iranian government had decided that “there is no need for any trial” – a reversal of earlier statements by Iran expressing an intention to try the British sailors for espionage.

Given the already-tense situation between the West and Iran – with the U.S. pushing for more severe treatment over the Iranian nuclear programs and allegations by Washington that the Iranian government is supporting the insurgency in Iraq – it appears both British and Iranian leaders are looking to defuse a potentially dangerous situation.

Across the Atlantic, however, the Bush administration has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. While only time will tell whether American or Israeli forces will risk an attack on Iran, at least for the short term peace seems likely to prevail.

Insurgency In Somalia and the Iraqi Breeding Ground

2007-04-03T02:22:00.000-07:00

The vast majority of the time, I have nothing good to say about David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, however I just came across a pretty good analysis there of the increasingly violent situation in Somalia by Steve Schippert.

Reading this article, I was struck by a few similarities between the situation in Iraq and the growing violence in Mogadishu. While the two conflicts are obviously different in many ways, the tactics adopted by the al-Qaeda backed Islamic Courts Union (ICU) are very similar to those used by insurgents in Iraq. Among these tactics are the use of suicide car bombers and scattered attacks on government forces. In keeping with asymmetric warfare doctrine, the ICU is launching attacks throughout Mogadishu and the surrounding area in a relatively random fashion, which heightens perceptions of the violence as omnipresent.

Schippert also points out that the ICU is making use of expertise brought by "...seasoned and well-trained al-Qaeda terrorists from Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere." While not surprising on a hawkish site like FrontPageMag.com, the exclusion of Iraq as a source of "seasoned and well-trained" insurgents is definitely notable. Bush supporters have no difficulty recognizing that every other similar conflict throughout the globe provides an excellent means for terrorists to improve their tactics, technology, expertise, and recruitment. When it comes to Iraq, however, they all seem to be in denial of the important role played by the war in the development of militant Islamic extremism throughout the globe.

As I have said in the past, the conflict in Iraq not only draws terrorists from all over the world to fight against American forces (as recognized by proponents of the war), it also serves as a proving ground, networking hub and launching point for terrorist activities both in Iraq and throughout the world. In this respect Iraq is very similar to the conflict in Afghanistan (in the 1980s) between invading Soviet forces and U.S.-backed Islamist mujahideen, the predecessors and founders of al-Qaeda.

Both the Bush administration and countless war supporters have said that the conflict in Iraq lessens the chances of an attack on American soil because it occupies terrorists abroad and also kills many of those who would attack American civilians. While it is certainly true that many violent extremists are killed in Iraq, it is equally important to recognize that the war very likely results in a net increase in extremists -- extremists who are among the most experienced, dedicated, and skilled in the world.

More Nonsense at Captain's Quarters

2007-04-01T00:40:00.000-07:00

Ed Morrissey is at it again over at Captain's Quarters, talking about the Democrats' intention to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide as, well, a genocide. Whether because he realized how stupid his earlier points were, or simply in an attempt to make the Democrats look even worse, Morrissey has decided to grossly distort the issue this time around.

Morrissey claims that the Democrats are inaccurately condemning Turkey for the genocide, since the genocide occurred under the Ottoman Empire, before the formation of the nation of Turkey. He goes on to say that this blaming of Turkey shows "historical illiteracy". First it should be noted that the genocide was carried out mostly by the Young Turks -- the ideological and political predecessors of the Turkish nationalist movement. Even if we assume that the modern state of Turkey had no hand in the genocide, the problem with this claim is that no one is saying that Turkey did anything. The only thing the Democrats are voting on is the recognition of the event as a genocide; Turkey has decided to take offense only because the Turkish government denies that a genocide ever occurred, not because the Democrats are blaming them.

His continued push to suppress this recognition of the genocide, despite his statement that he personally believes that what occurred was a genocide, betrays an exceptionally shallow, cynical political opportunism. It seems Morrissey saw an opportunity to smear Democrats and decided to ignore the moral imperative to recognize the crime that occurred in the genocide. Even if Morrissey was not motivated by a desire to smear Democrats, it is pretty sad that he would choose to silence those seeking to recognize the genocide simply to avoid making Turkey angry. Just as denial of the Holocaust is indefensible under any circumstances, political expediency is no excuse for suppressing the truth of what happened in the Armenian Genocide.

UPDATE: I do realize that in my last post on the topic I said that Turkey was responsible for the genocide. This was somewhat lazy and inaccurate on my part, as Turkey did not exist as an independent nation at the time. What I meant was that the government and people of that same region -- the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks -- were responsible, but the way I said it was not entirely accurate.

My failure to be more clear, however, does not change the fact that the Democrats' proposed bill does not blame Turkey, but merely recognizes the slaughter as a historical fact and (rightfully) labels it as a genocide. There is nothing in the bill specifically claiming that the Turkish government was responsible, so Morrissey's label of the Democrats as "historically illiterate" is still baseless. While I in no way identify myself with the Democratic party, nor do I support a lot of their ideas, I have no problem recognizing when they do a good thing. If only Morrissey and other pundits like him were capable of similar honesty...

Unbearable Irony at Captain's Quarters

2007-03-31T21:02:00.000-07:00

How Can He Write That With A Straight Face?

In an unbelievably hypocritical and painfully ironic post over at Captain's Quarters titled "A Bad Time To Pick A Fight", we are told that since the U.S. is in such a tense military situation throughout the globe, Washington should be careful in "picking fights":

"The US is in the middle of a fight to secure Iraq, drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and end Islamist terrorism. Iran won't stop developing nuclear weapons, Syria assists them in funding and supplying Hezbollah, and Lebanon can't keep control over the sub-Litani region to keep Iranian proxies from antagonizing Israel. We have few allies in the region that supplies most of the world's industrial energy.
[...]
Under those circumstances, one would presume that the US would choose its fights carefully..."

This certainly seems to be a wise stance to take in light of the current vulnerability of U.S. forces. Certainly such a repudiation of the White House's current aggressive brinkmanship with Iran should be applauded. Except for one thing... the "fight" we are being urged not to pick here has nothing to do with Iran. In fact, the folks at Captain's Quarters have been very consistent in urging a militant stance (including possible attacks) toward Iran -- in short, they have advocated "picking a fight".

The fight in question here -- which allegedly threatens to harm the U.S. much more than provoking military conflict with Iran -- is a vote by Congress to recognize the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government between 1915 and 1917. To this day, the government of Turkey denies that any systematic killing by Turks occurred, in spite of massive amounts of virtually incontrovertible evidence. What has the folks at Captain's Quarters all worked up is that U.S. relations with Turkey could be soured by this recognition.

The laughable position of these people is this -- Starting war with Iran: Good. Possibly pissing off Turkey over a well-established historical fact: Bad. While it would be unquestionably disastrous to make Turkey angry, we should continue to ignore the mass of evidence that provoking conflict with Iran would lead to hugely harmful economic disturbances, horrific bloodshed in Iraq, an increase of terrorist violence throughout the world, and the final and complete obliteration of America's reputation in the world. I don't even know how a person could think, let alone write such a backwards thing without exploding from cognitive dissonance or irony or sheer stupidity.

In addition to being stupid on an epic scale, this whole argument is morally indefensible and sickening. To recap, the same conservatives who constantly remind us of how evil it is for Iranian and other Arab leaders to deny the Holocaust are now saying that, in the name of convenience, we should effectively deny the horrific genocide committed by Turkey that, as the first systematic slaughter of its kind, paved the way for the Nazi atrocities of World War II. All this in order to curry favor with a regime that has consistently mocked and belittled the victims of this atrocity for almost a century by denying that it even happened.

Authoritarian Stupidity at Captain's Quarters

2007-03-31T01:42:00.000-07:00

In a post titled Now They Complain of Overcrowding, the folks over at Captain's Quarters are stupidly claiming that war opponents are somehow being inconsistent in both opposing the surge and in opposing the detention of Iraqis -- many or most of whom are innocent -- in overcrowded jails.

Not only do they applaud cruelly packing 705 people (including women and children) in a room meant to hold 75, these willfully-blind types are also claiming that the new tactics being employed by American and Iraqi forces -- which amount to basically arresting everything that moves in targeted "troubled neighborhoods" -- automatically means that huge numbers of insurgents are being jailed. Never mind the fact that most of the insurgents have long-since departed these areas, since they were given ample warning of the targeted locations of the surge and the new tactics -- the pro-Bush crowd is sure that this absurd waste of time and resources is going to help America win the war.

What this tactic will actually accomplish will be turning many more innocent Iraqis against the coalition forces and the Iraqi government, since people tend to despise being treated like cattle, being held in extremely unhealthy and unsafe conditions (with their children, in some cases), and being detained for long periods of time when they did absolutely nothing wrong.

When people like the guys at Captain's Quarters applaud this kind of tactic, which should be recognized as obviously stupid by any reasonable person, it really makes one wonder if these mass roundups don't simply appeal to a latent authoritarian fetish in these people. Every time the Bush administration does something that radically violates freedom or shows a complete disregard for civil liberties or human rights, whether in Iraq or in the U.S., it seems like the same conservative sycophants are there to cheer on the totalitarian fun. I guess with their well-established love of militarism and penchant for solving every problem with massive, overwhelming military force, none of this should really be surprising, but it sure is disturbing.

Climate Change and The Right

2007-03-29T21:16:00.000-07:00

It is long past due for rational proponents of limited government to start pointing out the silliness of so many arguments, arising from conservative distaste for government intervention, that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is in some way "pseudoscience" or is not supported by facts. It is fairly obvious that the reason conservatives and free-market types reject the idea of climate change caused by man is because of a preconceived notion that admitting the existence of such would mean consenting to intrusive government regulations. This is not only totally unreasonable, it can be very counterproductive and result in free marketers seeming anti-science and out of touch with the truth.

The most popular recent "criticism" of anthropogenic climate change is that its reality is based only on "consensus" among scientists, and not on factual accuracy. It is alleged that, despite being dedicated to rationalism and the scientific method in every other pursuit, scientists eschew reason and subscribe to the theory of ACC out of "political correctness" or some similar political pressure. It is never explained why a vast majority of all specialists in the relevant scientific disciplines would go against their ethics and risk their reputations merely to "fit in".

Once the widespread support by experts of ACC is cast aside as merely an irrational popular movement, it is then reasonable to paint critics of the theory as brave proponents of truth fighting the corrupt establishment. This is an idea that has proved all too popular among those already skeptical of the established truth on many issues of the day.

On the right-wing Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid blog, this common sentiment is expressed in contrasting economics and ACC, saying that while "99 percent" of modern economists support free markets, this "consensus" is disregarded by many of those who tout the consensus on ACC. The key to this argument is presented when the writer says (speaking of economics): "Consensus and policy are both consequences of compelling evidence and experience. Policy is not derived from consensus."

The idea here is that, while support for free markets has empirical backing and is thus supported by a legitimate consensus, the consensus in support of ACC lacks such empirical evidence and is therefore illegitimate. This principle is sound enough in theory, except the problem arises when one considers that those claiming a lack of empirical evidence supporting ACC are almost invariably not experts in the field, and are often those who tout their lack of professional expertise as an asset, allowing them to "think outside the box" and question the "dogma" of "establishment science".

While an outside perspective can be valuable in certain situations, it is most certainly not appropriate to the study of extremely complex and scientifically precise ideas like climate change. Not only do these critics lack "indoctrination", they lack all relevant knowledge of the field that would allow them to make reasonable, logical inferences from the data at hand. People do not spend years and years studying climate change simply because they feel like wasting time; it is absolutely necessary to commit this time in order to understand the fundamentals that underlie the theory. Just as a plumber cannot read Einstein's theory of relativity once and, without any real knowledge of physics, prove it to be totally illegitimate, neither can these critics undermine real scientific evidence by throwing around misinterpreted data and pretending to be experts in a field of which they are totally ignorant.

The lesson of all this is that self-described critics lacking all relevant expertise in a field cannot (at least the vast majority of the time) legitimately jump into the discussion and make coherent arguments while lacking the training and knowledge necessary to understand the concepts at hand. Furthermore, proponents of free markets should not so easily let their preconceived notions -- that ACC equates with big government -- lead them to reject good science in favor of bad science. Even if the truth appears to be politically inconvenient, there is much more to gain by confronting it and seeking political alternatives than there is in denying it.

UPDATE: It should also be noted that the idea of consensus is not at all antithetical to science -- scientific theories gain prominence and legitimacy through the independent analysis and experimentation of many people. The verification of a theory by many scientists, which leads to an empirically-based consensus, is central to the scientific method. As noted above, the central criticism of ACC is that this consensus is not empirically-based, however the basis for this criticism is very questionable, since those who interpret the data to arrive at contradictory interpretations are rarely experts in the field. The consensus of the scientific community (of qualified scientists) should hold weight, since it indicates that the theory has survived much critical consideration. While consensus among experts does not guarantee the truth of any theory, it is the best method we have of determining truth -- much better than the alternate theorizing of those with a shallow, incomplete understanding of the theories in question.

VDH's World

2007-03-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

In yet another article for National Review Online -- practically indistinguishable from all his past war-praising, grand sounding rhetoric -- Victor Davis Hanson informs us all that the war in Iraq is part of a larger, global war against radical Islam. Of course no one denies this -- not even the most anti-war of Americans. One would have to be in the deepest denial to not see the multitudinous terrorist incidents taking place throughout the world, and recognize the status of Iraq as a central hub for the development of terrorism. This, of course, does not mean that Iraq was a terrorist hot spot before the invasion in 2003, nor does it mean that fighting in Iraq is necessarily an effective means of waging the global conflict against terrorism.

Then again, Hanson does not persuasively argue that anything of consequence is being accomplished in Iraq, but rather relies on describing the fearful state of affairs that would result from a withdrawal of American forces. What Hanson does argue is that, since extremism existed in Iraq and the Middle East prior to the invasion (the radical mullahs in Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi-funded extremism, etc), American efforts there are somehow necessarily beneficial. Responding to the charge that America's presence is "bringing terrorists to Iraq", Hanson notes that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other extremists were in Iraq prior to the invasion. This name-dropping does nothing to justify the transformation -- which resulted from the initiation of war in Iraq -- of Zarqawi from a relatively minor extremist figure into a hugely influential terrorist leader responsible for massive slaughter in Iraq. As is usually the case among glorifiers of war like Hanson, the power of war to transform evil people into hugely powerful evil people is totally ignored.

Similarly, Hanson ignores the instability and escalating violence that have wracked the region since the initiation of war by the U.S. -- conditions that serve as catalysts to terrorist growth better than most anything else. The things that the war has brought us -- an increased determination by Iran to secure nuclear weapons, an increase in the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, new hordes of battle-hardened extremists and a perfect extremist 'sandbox' in which methods and technologies of terrorism are constantly perfected -- are hardly worth mentioning to Hanson. After all, these deadly serious consequences are little more than a bump on the road to glorious freedom, democracy, and moderation in the Middle East. One of these days, says Hanson, everything will be gloriously transformed and we will find peace and stability where violence has prevailed.

As the crowning point in his demonstration of the horrors that would follow an American pull-out in Iraq, Hanson says the following:

Should a peace candidate win the American presidency in 2008, prompting the U.S. to pull out of Iraq before the democracy there is stabilized, in the short term we will save lives and money. But as the larger war continues after we withdraw, jihadists will still flock to the Sunni Triangle. Hamas and Hezbollah will still rocket Israel. Syria will still kill Lebanese reformers. Iran will still try to cheat its way to a nuclear bomb. Ayman al- Zawahiri will still broadcast his al Qaeda threats from safety in nuclear Pakistan. The oil-rich, illegitimate Gulf sheikdoms will still make secret concessions and bribe increasingly confident terrorists to leave them alone. And jihadists will still try to sneak into the United States to kill us.

This "nightmare scenario" describes exactly how things are now, and fails to show how fighting it out in Iraq could bring even the most remote chance of righting all these wrongs. As we see here, Hanson's irrational faith that everything will somehow turn out great in Iraq if we just keep feeding it men and money combines with an equally absurd faith that success in Iraq will utterly transform the Middle East for the better, eliminating virtually all our problems in one fell swoop. Even if he took the time to explain how such miraculous things could arise from the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, we would likely be left in awe at the vast difference between our world and Hanson's.

In Hanson's world, glorious war is not only the solution to all problems, it blesses the faithful warmonger with a magical power to right all wrongs, with no regard for the complexities of reality. It is from this faith in war that arose the idea that Iraq would be easily democratized, that the Iraqi people would "greet us as liberators", that the war would pay for itself, that the insurgency was in its "last throes", and so on with the parade of laughable claims made by these modern priests of Mars in their glorification of bloodshed. Now, from these same self-styled prophets of progress comes the claim that success in Iraq is attainable and will bring about a glorious new age in the Middle East. Forgive me for my skepticism.

Lancet Study: 655,000 'Excess' Iraqi Deaths

2007-03-28T01:40:00.000-07:00

Newly-released documents from the British government have added a new twist to the story of the previously-rejected Lancet study of Iraqi casualties since the invasion in 2003. The report, which was called "not credible" by President Bush and also rejected by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, used a "careful door-to-door methodology" and estimated that 655,000 Iraqis -- almost 3 percent of the country's population -- died as a result of the war between March of 2003 and June 2006.

It seems that the prior rejection of the study by Bush and Blair was purely political posturing, as British internal documents have revealed that numerous high-level British officials considered the study to be "robust", "close to best practice" and "a tried and tested method of measuring mortality in conflict zones". This means that the numbers suggested by the U.S. and British governments -- when they even acknowledge civilian casualties -- are absurdly low, and the Lancet estimate of 655,000 is probably very close to the actual number of civilian deaths caused by the war.

Now, in addition to the more than 3,200 American troops and 258 other coalition troops that have been killed, as well as the more than 23,000 American troops wounded, the war has resulted in a staggering number of more than half a million civilian deaths. It is hard to imagine how those who still support the war can justify this utterly shocking loss of life as "worth it". In a mere 3 years, the war that Bush started has managed to kill almost 2/3 the number that Saddam Hussein killed in 24 years of brutal dictatorship. The war has been more than five times as deadly as living under Saddam's rule, yet amazingly some Bush supporters still claim that Iraqis are "better off" than they were.

What Is Islamophobia?

2007-03-27T23:14:00.000-07:00

The term "Islamophobia" has recently gained currency among bloggers, journalists and pundits, especially those on the left. Like all politically-charged terms, the term has been used in good faith, in attempts to identify an actual attitude toward Islam, and has also been used as a cheap political brick to be thrown at one's opponents. The key to understanding what exactly "Islamophobia" is lies in the difference between these two usages of the term.

Those who apply the term to anyone voicing criticism of Islam, the traditions surrounding Islam, or extremist versions of Islam are doing so merely to gain cheap political points. Such criticisms of Islam are entirely valid so long as they are reasonable and factually based. Those who assert that Islam and Muslim societies are not to be criticized (or those who label any such critics as "bigots") achieve nothing but the neutering of essential discourse that is very relevant to our times.

Christopher Hitchens, the prominent conservative-leaning (at least on foreign policy issues) writer, has repeatedly denigrated the term Islamophobia, calling it a "stupid neologism" and characterizing it as nothing but a cheap means of stifling debate. Based on his impression of the term, it seems that Hitchens has only encountered the above-described illegitimate use of the term, and has concluded that it serves only this illegitimate purpose.

If one delves into the vast space of internet discussion forums, blogs, and reader comments (both on blogs and news sites), however, it is disturbingly easy to identify instances of real Islamophobia. To identify such instances, we must determine, if reasonable criticism of Islam and Muslim society are legitimate, where does one draw the line? Where does such criticism turn into Islamophobia?

Despite the widespread confusion over the meaning of the term, Islamophobic remarks are remarkably easy to identify: they are simply statements that, ignoring established facts and utilizing hyperbole or outright fabrications, seek to portray all Muslims (or sometimes a majority of Muslims) as extremist, violent, dangerous, ignorant, or any number of other unsupported, hateful characterizations. What sets these statements apart from legitimate criticisms is that they are almost always meant to support a preconceived notion that is unsupported by fact and that serves only to denigrate Muslims.

An example of an Islamophobic argument, which I encountered in an online discussion forum, is the following: The claim was made that, since the Quran contains passages which appear to sanction violence against non-Muslims, one must conclude that Muslims are generally violent and dangerous.

It is perfectly legitimate for this person to point out that certain passages in the Quran could be taken by Muslims as a justification for violence against non-Muslims. However their comments became Islamophobic when they made the illogical, unsupported assertion that, because of this, all Muslims are violent and dangerous. The existence of violence-sanctioning passages in the Quran does not in any way lead to the conclusion that all Muslims are violent, just as the Old Testament passage which says to kill homosexuals does not mean that all Christians or Jews kill homosexuals. This person was unwavering in their certitude that the existence of these passages was irrefutable proof of the violence of all Muslims, even when the flawed logic of their argument was pointed out.

Similarly, it is relatively common for people to point to the widespread violence following the Danish cartoon controversy, and to claim that this supports the conclusion that all Muslims are violent and fanatical. This conclusion is Islamophobic because it ignores the fact that, even though the violence was widespread, only a small fraction of Muslims took part in any kind of violence. As in the above example, this argument serves only as a thin cover for the illogical, preconceived notion that Muslims are violent, which is based in an illogical fear and dislike of Muslims.

Sadly, it seems that many people willfully fail to distinguish between these two types of criticism, so as to legitimize their irrational, Islamophobic remarks or those of others. While it does not appear that this is the case with Hitchens, it is certainly the case with a number of prominent writers, especially among those who seek to justify belief in a global "clash of civilizations" or a concerted effort by Muslims to destroy Western society. If political writers, bloggers and readers can keep in mind the distinction between legitimate criticisms and bigoted Islamophobia, reasoned debate will progress greatly and all-too-prevalent bigotry can be rejected as it should be.

Bill of Rights? What Bill of Rights?

2007-03-27T00:54:00.000-07:00

Since Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was first arrested in May of 2002 in a Chicago airport, I have been following his case, like many others, with a combination of astonishment, disgust and outrage. Those who have read my past writings about him will recall that he was detained in a military brig from 2002 until January 2006 and denied all of his constitutional rights (due process, habeas corpus, etc) without being charged with any crime. Government officials first claimed to have evidence that he was involved in a plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" on American soil, but to this day have presented no evidence supporting that charge.

After being illegally detained and interrogated for years, Padilla was transferred from military custody and charged with terrorism-related crimes unrelated to the initial alleged "dirty bomb" plot -- a tacit admission by the Bush administration that the initial charge was a total fabrication. Since Padilla was charged, his case has been progressing through the courts until March 23 of this year, when Judge Marcia Cooke denied a motion by Padilla to dismiss the case, a motion filed on the grounds that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

From the time when he was detained (May 2002) to the time his trial will begin (April 16 2007), Padilla was detained in blatant violation of numerous constitutional rights for almost 5 years, however Judge Cooke determined that Padilla had in fact not been denied his right to a speedy trial because that right did not exist until he was charged with a crime in January 2006. In the disgusting, outrageous reasoning of this feeble-minded judge, the illegal detention of an American citizen without charge for almost 4 years is not only acceptable, it actually excuses the further violation of that person's right to a speedy trial.

To help this pathetic atrocity of a human being and sad excuse for a judge understand the stupidity of her decision, I will remind her of the following excerpts from the highest law of the land, the constitution, which binds absolutely every action of the government:

First, there is the right, explicitly spelled out in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, that anyone held by the government has an inviolable right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." This means that the government is legally required to charge someone with a crime in order to detain them. There is no question that the Bush administration willfully failed to charge Padilla with a crime, and thus violated this right.

Also from the Sixth Amendment, there is explicitly stated the inviolable right that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." This means, of course, that a person cannot be held without the presentation of evidence in a court of law for an unreasonable amount of time. There is absolutely no question that the years Padilla was held without trial amount to a grievous violation of this right.

Since both our tyrannical President and our utterly worthless courts seem not only unwilling to protect our fundamental rights but intent on actively violating them, one can only hope the American people will begin to awaken to the danger posed by such out-of-control government. For virtually every day this "War on Terror" continues there is a new assault on our basic freedoms, and it seems the American people are either too apathetic or too ignorant of what is happening to demand a halt to such tyranny. Sooner or later, people will realize what they have allowed to grow around them -- hopefully that realization will come before every freedom we hold dear has been wrenched from us.

This is Not "Your" Country

2007-03-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

For those not caught up in the scared anti-immigration frenzy gripping a sizable segment of the population, the entire culture surrounding the anti-immigration movement (with its Minutemen, fears of Mexican conquest, and demonization of virtually all non-European immigrants) can be bewildering. Why is it, exactly, that so many people feel so threatened by anyone entering the country without the intent to completely abandon their heritage and cede the superiority of white, Christian, European traditions? Whether the immigrants in question are Hispanic, Arab, Muslim, or Asian, the fear seems to be the same -- that these people are intent on conquering and subverting white Western civilization in one way or another.

With Muslims and Arabs, the alleged plot always involves the establishment of a totalitarian Muslim theocracy, most likely using terrorism; with Hispanics, it is the (re)conquest of the Southwest and the imposition of the Spanish language on all Americans. In addition to these large-scale conspiracy theories, there are always a handful of more mundane libels: Mexicans are criminally-inclined, they leech off social programs, or they steal American jobs; Muslims are hostile to democracy and/or sympathetic to America's enemies abroad. That there is no evidence supporting these grand accusations is of no concern to those who are so obviously motivated by fear -- of the unknown, of change, or of any number of other things.

Although we can understand the hysteria of these people (on some level) in the context of this fear, we should not make the mistake of excusing the absurd ideas that comprise their paranoid, irrational subculture. I have neither the time nor the will to debunk every silly, ignorant stereotype or theory put forth by the anti-immigration community, however there is one subject -- one central to the community's thinking -- that can and should be addressed. This is the sentiment, expressed over and over again in hundreds of different ways, that immigrants are imposing on a culture, society, and nation that is "theirs."

It is hard to read a single page of anti-immigration (anti-immigrant?) writing without coming across the phrase "This is our country", "This is my country", or something similar. This idea constitutes the entire basis for the anti-immigration crowd's grievances against their imagined foes: it is the real Americans (Christian Americans of European descent) who have the right to determine what language should be spoken, what laws should be written, what should be taught in schools, and so on with every aspect of society. If this is not what they thought, there would be no objection to the influences of immigrants and their cultures. Of course they never say so in such a direct manner, but what else could they mean, when their stated goal is the defense of "their" America against the illegitimate influence of others?

Throughout America's history, it has in fact been the case that this majority group did dominate American society in all these ways. The anti-immigration community is simply claiming the right to continue this dominance. Because of this, in their minds, anyone who even indirectly challenges the power of their class of people over everyone else is trying to destroy America, plain and simple.

What scares these people is the idea that their beloved majoritarianism, which has served them so well throughout history in ensuring their privilege above all other groups in society, could be turned against them if they were somehow to become (gasp!) a minority. The cute fiction that their "American values" are about anything other than the rule of the largest group over and against all others is torn to shreds by the fear generated by even the possibility of such a change. Although the anti-immigration crowd is far from admitting it, it is this realization -- that they are vulnerable and could suffer the same fate as those they dominate -- that scares them.

Imagine the horrors, they think, of having some other group of a different race, a different religion, or a different culture ruling over you. Such a fate is unimaginable to the average white anti-immigration American -- hence the scramble for massive walls and mass deportations. Everything was fine and good as long as "we" were doing the imposing and dominating, but immigration threatens this arrangement. Beneath all the outlandish conspiracies and ignorant stereotyping, these Americans are deathly afraid of losing their hold on power. This is our country, they say, and we will keep it that way however we can, even if it means systematically dehumanizing, excluding and outlawing everyone who refuses to kowtow to "real" American values.

If this all sounds rather sad and disturbing, that's because it is. Luckily, there are more than a few Americans who want to see our country rise above this crude politics of domination. These people must realize the seriousness of the situation and see the threat to freedom that it represents. When the frantic cries of the anti-immigration movement are seen in this light, it becomes even more important to work against their xenophobia, and to affirm the value and dignity of every person, not just a favored few.

Deepak Chopra and New Age Nonsense

2007-03-20T22:39:00.000-07:00

In response to noted atheist Richard Dawkins' new book "The God Delusion," Deepak Chopra has penned a series of responses at the Huffington Post, in an attempt to rebut Dawkins' main points regarding religion. In reading through some of these essays, I was once again reminded of exactly why I have come to loathe the kind of pseudo-scientific, mystical nonsense that characterizes virtually all writings on New Age "spirituality," especially Chopra's.

One of the central ideas in Chopra's writings is that human consciousness cannot be described or adequately quantified in material terms (i.e. by science), and that this leads to the realization that the universe itself is (or is permeated by) some sort of "God" -- although one that is decidedly different from those of the major religions. What annoys me about Chopra's ideas has nothing to do with the fact that he posits the existence of a God of some sort, but rather that he dresses up his beliefs, which are unquestionably not materialistic or rational, with catchy, scientific-sounding words in an attempt to sound like he's creating some great fusion between "arrogant" materialist "skeptics" on the one hand, and "fundamentalists" (meaning followers of the major religions) on the other.

As an introductory example of his style of pseudo-scientific blather that is, in the most literal sense, completely meaningless, take this gem of mystic insight:

"...why should God be what Dawkins imagines--a superhuman Creator making life the way a watchmaker makes a watch? Let's say God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe. Let's say that this field keeps creating new forms within itself. These forms swirl and mix with each other, finding more combinations and complexities as time unfolds. Such a God couldn't be imagined because a field is infinite, and there's nowhere it isn't."

At first glance this may seem like a somewhat valid and interesting idea. Chopra seems to be proposing a "middle path" of sorts between hard materialism and traditional conceptions of God. The trouble arises if you actually think about what Chopra is saying, and attempt to extract some sort of real meaning from his words.

Chopra says, "God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe." This invokes a mental image, most likely of some sort of ephemeral connective element that extends through space. Chopra's choice of words -- "a field" that "pervades the universe" -- is obviously meant to invoke the concept of a field (as in a magnetic field, a gravitational field) from mathematics and physics. The problem arises when you look at how Chopra tries to throw together completely unrelated concepts in a manner that quite simply cannot have any meaning.

On a basic level, a gravitational field is a representation of the distribution of forces throughout space caused by the presence of mass. Vector fields in general, of which gravitational fields are a type, associate a value in the form of a vector with every point in a given space. There are other types of fields, more basic and more complex, but they all work according to this same basic principle. Consciousness, on the other hand, is "a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment." (Wikipedia)

One of the most basic concepts of modern philosophy (and logic) is that words serve as references to objects (whether concrete or abstract) and that often these references can be combined in ways that sound and seem meaningful at first glance, yet have no possible meaning. An example of such a combination would be if someone talked of an "invisible apple." Since an apple is defined by a number of characteristics which include visibility and having some color (though an apple could be many different colors), the very idea of an "invisible apple" is nonsensical and logically absurd. While it may seem that one could imagine an apple that cannot be seen, if it was truly invisible there would be no way to identify it as an apple, since an apple cannot be identified without reference to its visual characteristics. Thus it would not truly be an apple at all.

Now, is there any conceivable way that these two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" could be combined to refer to something meaningful? It turns out that, just like the invisible apple, the idea of a "field of consciousness" is inherently contradictory since consciousness is not something that could possibly comprise a field, any more than you could fill a bucket with intelligence. The two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" simply cannot be combined to form anything meaningful.

So we are left with the conclusion that Chopra is simply using scientific-sounding terminology in order to construct "ideas" that are meaningless on the most basic level. Some may counter that Chopra was simply using those terms to suggest an idea, an did not mean the words literally. However, if this was the case, Chopra's beliefs would be essentially the same as anyone else who believes in God, except he would be guilty of attempting to legitimize his beliefs with pseudo-scientific jargon, while drawing false distinctions between his allegedly more advanced beliefs and those of other religious people.

Chopra contrasts himself and his beliefs with "fundamentalists" who believe that humans have spirits, that there is a creator God, etc. In reality, the only difference between Chopra's "God" and that of Christians, Jews and others is that, unlike Chopra, other believers honestly state that their belief in God is a matter of faith. Chopra, on the other hand, concocts fancy, scientific-sounding phrases -- about "swirling, mixing forms" of a "field of consciousness" -- that are completely devoid of meaning.

Essentially, Chopra's ideas, and his attempt to differentiate himself from traditional religion as if his beliefs were somehow more valid than them, are comparable to someone who mocks those who pray for healing while touting the "healing energies" of some New Age gem or trinket. A thin veil of nonsensical scientific-sounding jargon (and a need to deny that his beliefs are based on faith, not reason) are all that separates Chopra's beliefs from the traditional religions he seems to denigrate.

Feeding the Terrorist Machine

2007-03-20T19:58:00.000-07:00

A new post by Tom Bowler at Libertarian Leanings points to the apparent "early success" of the new "surge" security plan in Iraq, and also recites a meme that has become very common among supporters of the war. Bowler first quotes a NY Post article, written by retired army officer Gordon Cucullu, which speaks of what seems to be newfound hope in Iraq. According to Cucullu, the recent decline in violence has been accompanied by a notable increase in faith in the Iraqi government, with more Iraqis joining police and army forces while dropping support for militias and insurgent groups.

While this is certainly good news, only time will tell if these developments can stand in the face of evolving insurgent tactics. After only 5 weeks of the new security plan, it is hard to tell if a new, stable atmosphere is emerging or if insurgents are merely transitioning and reacting to the new American tactics. Whatever the case, temporary gains -- in stability, in government legitimacy, in popular sentiment -- will only be truly valuable if they can be both expanded throughout the nation and sustained in the long term; these gains must survive the inevitable insurgent reactions and offensives not just in Baghdad, but throughout Iraq.

Moving on to the common meme among war supporters, Bowler says,

"It seems to be lost on the Democratic majority in congress that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We are in a war on terror, and our soldiers are fighting our terrorist enemies every day. Al Qaeda is the group responsible for bringing down the twin towers in lower Manhattan. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and they're fighting them in Iraq."

While what he says is certainly true (we are fighting elements of al Qaeda and similar organizations in Iraq), and there are without question certain benefits to fighting them "there" and not "here," Bowler fails to recognize (as many war-supporters do) that there are definite, serious negative consequences to this situation as well.

Students of the origins of al Qaeda will recall that the organization first emerged from the ashes of the failed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That is to say, the interpersonal connections, honing of skills and exchange of expertise necessary to effectively form a transnational terrorist organization were forged in the conflict with the USSR. This process drew individuals, skills, financial assets, and ideologies together in a way that made possible the formation of the unique beast that is al Qaeda.

In the same sense, the conflict in Iraq draws jihadis, along with their skills and assets, together in a way not possible outside the context of a massive asymmetric (guerrilla, insurgent) conflict. Thus we see that, although it is good that many of those willing to kill and die in the name of extremist ideologies are being "dealt with" by U.S. forces in Iraq, the conflict itself provides the context for extensive development and proliferation of jihadi ideology and guerrilla skills -- a development that has repercussions far beyond the borders of Iraq. This process has been seen in action throughout the world: the evolution of improvised explosive devices in Iraq from simple, primitive devices to advanced and more effective ones; the spread of violent extremist Islam into Western cultures, which has centered around the war in Iraq; sophisticated international networking between extremist "cells" based on ties going back to the conflict in Iraq.

Given all this, the pertinent question is whether the war in Iraq is making more terrorists than coalition forces can kill, and the answer seems to be yes. The spread of terrorist violence throughout the world since the invasion of Iraq -- in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere -- as well as the seemingly endless supply of willing suicide bombers and insurgents, suggests that (as General Petraeus has said) there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. If this is so, and only political reconciliation can pave the way for peace in the war-torn country, the same is true for the wider issue of how global terrorism is fed by the conflict in Iraq.

As long as Iraq remains a weak, divided nation and an exceptional training ground for terrorists, there will always be more terrorists. While many supporters of the war imagine Iraq becoming a terrorist haven if America were to pull out, in reality the continuing conflict may be even more effective in forging a strong terrorist movement, precisely because it is not safe, and because it provides a proving and development ground for terrorists and their tactics.

The war in Iraq, despite the opportunity it provides for eliminating some terrorists, remains an open sore which will fester and breed further global infection as long as violence prevails. Contrary to those who tout the importance of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," the truth is that the violence overseas spreads into our backyards precisely because it is birthed and strengthened by America's presence in Iraq.

Surging in Iraq

2007-03-13T00:11:00.000-07:00

As the new "surge" security plan in Baghdad and Anbar province continues, it remains unclear whether the additional forces are yet gaining significant ground. While death squad activity has dropped "dramatically" in Baghdad, the daily bombings continue unabated. Also, violence has increased in other areas, most significantly by 30 percent in the northeastern province of Diyala, where the American commander recently requested reinforcements to deal with the influx of insurgents who are relocating outside the area targeted by the "surge."

Coalition forces are also targeting Sadr City, the Baghdad slum and stronghold of Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who has apparently gone into hiding in Iran. The operations in Sadr City have thus far taken the form of limited raids -- which some have characterized as mere harassment -- and may be escalated in the future, although such an escalation in the Shiite neighborhood could further endanger the nation's fragile political processes. Coalition forces and the Iraqi government are also increasing efforts to divide Sadr's Madhi Army while he is away in Iran by holding talks with his top commanders.

While most observers insist it is too early to judge the success or failure of the new plan, Robert Kagan and Juan Cole have weighed in with their (opposite) interpretations of recent developments. Kagan, in an article for the Washington Post, cites the observations of Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, who say that "early signs are encouraging," and that the new plan is having a positive psychological impact. Kagan also says that a compromise on oil revenue sharing appears to be "on its way to approval," and is hopeful that further political compromises will follow.

Juan Cole, in an article for Salon, asks, "Is the Bush surge already failing?" Cole says that Sunni insurgents are adapting their tactics, and points to the downing of 8 U.S. helicopters in the past 2 months as an indication. Cole also posits that the continued bombings in Tikrit, Ramadi, and the rest of Anbar province (as well as the spike in violence in previously-quiet areas such as Diyala and Ninevah) show that insurgents are not stepping down. Lastly, Cole thinks that, with the continued killings of Shiite pilgrims -- who had been protected by the now-suppressed Madhi Army in previous years -- recent attacks have, "shaken to the core the confidence of the Iraqi people in the new security plan."

General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq and champion of the new surge, emphasized on Thursday that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. He is certainly right that the military measures will only be effective if they can spark significant political progress and sectarian reconciliation. Whether or not such reconciliation is possible at this point with all the blood that has been shed, and whether Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis can find enough common ground to forge a workable political consensus, will only be revealed with time.

Ultimately, the success or failure of the new plan depends on the Iraqi people and their reaction to the situation on the ground throughout the country. If the new plan can convince Iraqis that the government is worth supporting (and sacrificing for), things could begin to head in a different direction. If, on the other hand, Iraqis perceive the new effort as ineffective, or if the divisions that have plagued the government thus far continue to stand in the way, no number of dead insurgents can bring stability to Iraq.

Second Amendment Victory in D.C.

2007-03-11T05:18:00.000-07:00

After decades of suppression by both legislatures and courts throughout the country, the Second Amendment finally appears to be on the rise. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down portions of a D.C. law prohibiting citizens from possessing handguns. More importantly, the court embraced an individual-rights view of the Second Amendment, contesting the prevailing view that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.

The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was decided by a 2-1 vote, upholding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that had been previously rejected by nine federal appeals courts. The decision will almost certainly be appealed, meaning the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where a final decision would have nationwide repercussions. Likewise, if the Supreme Court denies appeal, the lower court's decision will be established as precedent much as if the Supreme Court had concurred.

As Eugene Volokh points out, the 2001 Fifth Circuit decision United States v. Emerson upheld this same interpretation, however despite asserting the individual right to bear arms, the decision actually upheld the contested gun-control law as an acceptable limitation on that right. In this sense, Friday's Parker decision has much further-reaching repercussions, as it could challenge gun control laws throughout the U.S. if upheld.

Interestingly, Parker was strongly opposed by the NRA, which mounted numerous attempts to co-opt and derail the case for fear that it would make it to the Supreme Court only to lose, thus establishing a strong precedent against individual gun rights.

The mayor of Washington D.C. has come out strongly against the ruling, saying that it would lead to an explosion of violence in the already crime-infested city. An editorial in the Washington Post similarly decried the ruling, which it called "radical" and "dangerous."

More from Volokh, (more), Radley Balko, and Reason's Hit & Run blog.

Ann Coulter: Still Worthless.

2007-03-09T02:17:00.000-08:00

As you probably know by now, Ann Coulter dropped yet another bomb at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Conference (pretty much the most important conservative conference in the U.S.), calling Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards a "faggot." Although Coulter has been making a fool of herself like this for years, this may mark a new low.

Of course virtually every conservative at the event, in the media, and in the blogosphere has disowned her comments and assured everyone that her words were not indicative of average Republican/conservative views. It also goes without saying that none of these conservatives have addressed the fact that the comment was met with lots of laughter, applause and cheers at the conference. Defending herself, Coulter later said that, despite what we may think, the word faggot isn't offensive to gay people.

Most interestingly, after her appearance last year at the CPAC where she called Arabs "ragheads," she was actually invited back this year to spew ignorant bile yet again. But that wouldn't be because they like the kind of filth she spews or agree with her at all...

Among Coulter's greatest hits were her claim that "profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan" and her genius idea that (speaking about Arab Muslims), "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." It is literally impossible to overstate the total stupidity and worthlessness of this woman. If she died tomorrow, beautiful flowers would sprout and bloom all over the world, such would be the benefit to all existence.

In short: Ann Coulter is a completely worthless, idiotic bigot, and she looks like an emaciated man. Now lets stop paying attention to her.

"Sudden Jihad Syndrome"

2007-03-06T20:44:00.000-08:00

While looking through the archives at the well-known conservative writer Daniel Pipes' website, I came across one of his more famous articles, in which he coins the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," which, he claims, motivates normal Muslims to quickly turn to violent, extremist Islam. This "syndrome" is characterized by a sudden change in which peaceful, law-abiding, reasonable Muslims spontaneously become inspired to perpetrate acts of horrific violence -- in short, they become terrorists overnight.

In support of this idea, Pipes cites descriptions of many 9/11 hijackers, as well as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the college student in North Carolina who went on a rampage with his SUV, injuring 9 people. In all these cases, neighbors and friends described the future terrorists as reasonable, quiet, and peaceful. Building on these descriptions, Pipes claims that it is often virtually impossible to distinguish between normal, moderate Muslims and violent extremist Muslims, since the latter usually appear as wolves in sheeps' clothing.

While Pipes' phrase is certainly catchy and seems at first glance to offer an insight into the nature of terrorism, upon further consideration one is left with the question: what exactly is his point? What would Pipes expect these people to act like, if they were not peaceful and quiet? Does he think they would parade around shouting "Death to America!," have a record of prior terrorist acts, or be notoriously irrational and violent to their friends and neighbors? Almost everyone in the world would be described by friends and neighbors in exactly the same terms -- can you imagine describing any of your friends as violent, irrational, or dangerous? There is nothing in this "theory" that is unique to Islam or even terrorism -- virtually every serial killer and other perpetrator of large-scale violence has been described similarly, as quiet and peaceful up to their discovery as sociopaths.

What this phrase and idea does do, however, is brand all Muslims as potentially violent terrorists. In Pipes' words: "It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims." If Pipes' idea is therefore essentially empty except for its function as an excuse for discrimination against Muslims, then either Pipes' has expended substantial energy stating the obvious -- that violent sociopaths are often not seen as such until they commit a violent act -- or all his phrasing and psychological theorizing is there solely to justify the preconceived notion that Muslims are to be viewed as dangerous.

Rather than seeking to justify prejudice against Muslims, it would be more rational to draw from these stories the lesson that terrorism appears in the most unlikely places, among the most unlikely people. The idea that all Muslims are to be viewed with suspicion unavoidably results in discrimination against those seen as most "obviously Muslim," such as dark-skinned Arabs and other West Asian people. Oddly enough, the real lesson of these stories suggests that those most likely to be viewed as suspicious by Pipes and his ilk may not be the most likely suspects. The appearance of countless "home-grown" terrorist cells -- made up of "local-looking" types rather than "foreigners" -- throughout Europe and North America supports this conclusion, and shows that the simple prejudice proposed by Pipes is often not only ineffective, but counterproductive.

Even if the prejudice resulting from these ideas were constrained strictly to one's religion, the "Muslims are suspect" idea is plainly unhelpful. As we saw with the 9/11 hijackers and countless other terrorists, those most likely to commit terrorist acts are those who go out of their way to act as if they were not Muslim. Terrorists are very simply not stupid enough to act the part of the stereotypical radical Arab Muslim. Judging from real experience with terrorists, drinking, sexual exploits, and drug use would serve as better indicators of terrorist potential than Muslim piety.

Concluding Pipes' article is yet another plainly ridiculous conservative talking point which is encountered endlessly in political discussion. While Westerners can help by viewing Muslims with suspicion, Pipes says, Muslims can do their part "...by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of 'infidels.'" Despite the undeniable mass of evidence to the contrary, Pipes and numerous others continue to imply, through statements such as this, that Muslims have not developed a responsible, non-violent Islam that rejects radicalism and subordination of "infidels." In reality, on display for all who care to see, is the obvious truth that the vast majority of Muslims practice and preach exactly this kind of Islam, while explicitly rejecting violent extremism. Pipes and his ideological brethren are, for some reason, hell-bent on denying this truth and insisting that Muslims as a whole are responsible for the violence of a tiny minority of apostates. The only end this can possibly serve is to further demonize Muslims, a goal that seems to be somewhat of a recurring theme in Pipes' work.