Clinton: "Don't worry Barry, I got it"

  

It was, to put it mildly, odd.

A sitting president calls in a former president to address a press gaggle at the White House. During this briefing the current president lets the whole world know that he's late for a Christmas party, so he heads out, leaving the press - and the country - in the hands of a former president.

After a few minutes, Obama seemed to conclude that he would be better served by being out of the picture than as a bystander. "I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off," he said.

Clinton responded, "Well, I - I don't want to make her mad. Please go."

One of the results was the awful visual above - an image of a president turning away from the podium during time of war and recession - a picture just this side of abdication.

Whomever came up with the idea for this press conference ought to hand in their resignation post haste. It was unprofessional and decidedly presidential. Really, you're the president, the party isn't going to start without you and surrendering your podium and your presidential seal in your press room in your White House sends a terrible signal.

Ironically, the deal that Obama negotiated with congress to extend the Bush tax cuts while cutting payroll tax and providing a default stimulus could be an outstanding political coup for the administration.  

 

 

At What Point Does Joe Biden Become a Liability?

There appears to be a bit of daylight emerging between the Joe Biden-Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama.

First, consider Michael Gerson's column from this morning's Washington Post:

But last week, Vice President Biden appeared at a fundraiser for one of the least responsible critics of the Afghanistan war, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) -- among a handful of House members who voted to defund the war entirely. "I encourage you, old buddy, to speak out," said Biden. "You're independent. Don't let anybody take that out of you." Is it possible to imagine Biden saying the same thing of a Democrat who is a leading climate-science skeptic? Or a Democrat who dismisses Obama's health reform as socialism? 

And this isn't the first example of dissonance between Biden and the president when it comes to Afghanistan. Consider Biden's quote from The Promise:

At the conclusion of an interview in his West Wing office, Biden was adamant. "In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it," Biden said as he wheeled to leave the room, late for lunch with the president. He turned at the door and said once more, "Bet. On. It."

Read Robert Naiman's piece.  There is a clear division emerging within the democratic party. Consider a much more serious senior democratic senator:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.), whose hawkish grounding has angered progressive in the past, likely facilitated that anger again, when she told "Fox News Sunday" that if General David Petraeus asked for more troops next summer, he should be granted them.

"I would say give it to him, absolutely," said the California Democrat. "Now, let's talk about the deadline. This is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal or a drawdown as Petraeus said in his transcript before the Armed Services [Committee]. And I think he has flexibility realistically. Ten years is a long time to fight a war, particularly with what happened before the 10 years. And so we need to understand that [we have] to get the military trained, get the government online, secure and stabilize, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban."

Between Feinstein's comments, Republican backing for continuing the war, Obama's appointment of General Petraeus, I'd say it's a good bet that the president is starting to rethink his "July 2011" draw down.

The good news for Barack Obama is that the "progressive" caucus in the House will only exist for a few more months, because after this November I expect we'll see Nancy Pelosi  - fresh off an electoral trouncing - crawl back under the rock from whence she came. Once the democrats lose the House, the heat is off and Obama will be free to command the war as Petraeus sees fit.

But there's a flip side to the good news. Once his midterm penance is finished Obama will have to return to the job of governing, and he'll have to do it with a vice president who is pretty clearly out of step with one of the key tenants of his foreign policy. From Biden's perspective, he'll know just what his boss actually thinks of him and everyone in town will know nothing Biden says carries any weight what-so-ever.

It seems that the best solution would be, after the mid terms, Biden and Obama should both to begin quietly hinting that the V.P. may be considering retirement in December of 2012. From there either elevate Hillary or go outside the box and appoint Petraeus.

*Update*

And this afternoon I see an op ed in the WSJ that supports my "dump Biden" meme.

Planning to Fail in Afghanistan, pt 5: Planning to Fail in Afghanistan the Movie

Here is my presentation from this year's "Capital University Symposium on Undergraduate Research". My presentation was entitled "Moral Warfare in Southwest Asia," and it was based on the paper I wrote this past winter by the same name.

In other news, I was also awarded the Kenneth J. Martin award for scholarship by a senior in political science. The award is a real honor because both the nominations and voting come from the department faculty, so I must have made a few fans in the last 4 years. I guess I can now call myself an award winning political scientist.

Planning to Fail in Afghanistan, pt 3

Mobile Blogging from here.

"I've seen the future, and it is murder."

--- Lenord Cohen

Is this story just another piece of idiot journalism from the NYT, or what?

I read this piece and I'm filled with a sense of both dejavu and a deep and unabiding sense of fear and loathing.

Suppose Obama is, indeed, planning to fail in Afghanistan. After he begins the pullout, then what? Does he go before the American people and just embrace defeat? After reading this article, reading Obama's nuclear posture review and seeing his circle jerk - er, "Nuclear Security Conference" - last week I'm wondering if there isn't an incredibly dumb yet surprsingly cohesive strategy in the whole thing: Barack Obama is going to win reelection by bombing Iran.

Sounds crazy, right?

But consider that perhaps things have not really gotten much better in Afghanistan. Consider that Obama has basically acquiesced to ISI/Taliban control of everything outside of Kabul. Consider that Obama then will be branded as mister "cut and run" by his opponent in 2012. Consider that Rambo is telling Obama that he's going to have to "triangulate" by getting tough on something and Iran is an easy target.

The more I think about it, the more sense bombing Iran probably makes to the increasingly vainglorious and strategicly tone- deaf crew we have running the policy shop at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave right now. The target package is fairly straight forward, and with a combination if cruise missile and B2 strike, coupled with a lingering campaign conducted via drones, a war against Iran must look like quit a splendid little war that we are certain to win- or at least end- in a really short time horizon.

Of course by losing Afghanistan and bombing Iran Obama will have completely erased all strategic rationale for his presidency. We will be no better off than if McCain/Palin had won and Obama's entire first/last term will have been a complete waist.

And the American people won't fall for it. Iran will squeeze whatever assets we have left in Afghanistan and Iraq and they'll do everything they can to escalate the adiministration into some kind of naval confrontation in the Gulf. It'll become clear pretty quickly that the attack achieved nothing and will probably hasten Iran's desire for a quick shoot just to prove that they still have a nuclear capacity.

And then Romney is going to have one hell of a mess on his hands January 21st, 2013.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

This is what happens when you pal around with terrorists...

Everyone has seen this video, I'm sure. Everyone has also heard a lot of the bullshit emanating out of people like James Fallows, who is a serious journalist and should know better. He should never compare the acts of troops under fire to the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib.

This is what I see: Two journalists got a lead on a hot story - they were going to have the chance to hang out with a group of Mahdi Army guys. At that moment, these particular insurgents were involved in a battle with the 1-8th and 2-16th of the American 2nd Infantry Division. The ground pounders called in air support, which was delivered via an Apache helicopter, and the helicopter crew made a call - the best call they could possibly make given the information at their disposal - to engage a group of armed men operating in a region where the ground units were reporting fire. The insurgents were armed with AKs and RPGs, which can be clearly scene in the video. Later, a unmarked black van appears, several men pile out of the van and picked what appeared to be a wounded insurgent and also begin collecting weapons. The aircrew then requests, and is given, the green light to destroy the unmarked van.

I don't see anything in this video that violates any sort of Rules of Engagement or Rules of Land Warfare. The black van was not marked with a red cross or a red crescent. The journalists did not report their position  to the U.S. Army ahead of time. To the best knowledge of both the ground units and the aircrew, all of these men were insurgents setting up an ambush in the path on an American infantry unit.

Being a war correspondent is risky. I have a great deal of respect for the men who do the job, but correspondents know the risk. They know - especially in an insurgency where the combatants don't wear uniforms - that they could be mistaken for insurgents themselves. They know - or should - that air power, mortars and artillery are all inherently indiscriminate and if you are standing beside a target you might get killed. While its a tragedy that these two journalists were killed in combat, it is not a war crime, and the ultimate responsibility for their death rests, not with the U.S. military - which as the video demonstrates goes out of its way to confirm a target before engaging - but with the journalists themselves, who willingly put themselves in harms way in pursuit of a story. 

Me Run? You Betcha!

 H/T: Andrew Sullivan used this video when live blogging Palin - and I find it fitting as well. As an aside, this actress is too old to be Evita, as was Madonna. 25-26 max. I'd love to see Lea Michel or Jessica Lee Golden as Evita. But I'm way off topic....

Palin. Sarah. Barracuda. 

Yeah.

"I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country," Palin said, later adding: "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

I don't like it and I don't want it to happen. She's scary. She does not understand the gravity of the presidency.

Like her interview with Charlie Gibson, her views on foreign policy are just plain scary. "We win, they lose" or something.

I went to high school with Sarah Palin. Not Palin, per se, but a bunch of people who were just as dumb and just certain they were right. Fortunately for the world, most people that dumb and certain are swallowed whole by the mid-west or some small town in Alaska before they can do any real damage. Unfortunately, the McCain team was irresponsible enough to elevate this dangerous and unserious woman to a position where she could potentially do real damage.

From Sullivan: 

Do not under-estimate the appeal of a beautiful, big breasted, divinely chosen warrior-mother as a military leader in a global religious war. Bush at least had some inkling that we need a strategy to depolarize the Muslim world and bring moderates along with us to defeat the Islamists; in my view, he genuinely believed that what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong but couldn't break down his denial that he had authorized almost all of it (she wants more of it); his Washington Cathedral speech reflected statesmanship (Palin wants brazen projection of hard power everywhere and her election as president would represent a true crisis in any alliances that Obama has been able to rebuild).

If Palin can navigate the primary process - and if unemployment remains high - the White House is hers. The press will empower the Junta from Alaska - just as they acted as accessories after-the-fact to John Edwards pathetic charade for nearly half a decade - before they turn on her midway through her first term. By then she'll have launch codes. And if the description of Palin from Game Change is to be believed - and no credible source has yet to disputed Heilemann and Halperin's scenes - then Palin is more then just a dilettante - she is quit possibly mentally unstable.

Palin did not understand WWI, WWII, the existence of two Koreas or even the name of her opponent in the vice presidential debate. Uninformed dose not begin to describe Palin.

She was prone to bouts of depression that left her near catatonic. She worried incessantly about her approval ratings in Alaska even as she was in the race of the lifetime that would have put her a heart beat away from the presidency. 

And then there's the weird story of her pregnancy - or - lack thereof? - with her youngest son. From today's Daily Dish:

Since I long ago committed to publishing any evidence I could find related to Palin's remarkable pregnancy stories (she steadfastly refuses to provide any), I post it below:

What dose this mean? Was Palin not pregnant? Not really in labor? This is just odd.

What I will say conclusively is this: Palin is a dangerous person. I fully support any T.V. network paying her as much money as possible so as to dissuade her from quiting her day job and running for president, but I fear this woman will have to be dragged from the national stage leaving claw marks all the way.

Hopefully, unemployment falls precipitously throughout the next two years and Obama will be virtually guaranteed a 2nd term. For whatever misgivings I have about the president - especially his penchant for not holding underlings accountable for failure - President Obama remains head and shoulders above Sarah Palin in terms of judgment and temperament. I wish the president a successful 2nd year. 


 

Book Review: The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, by Joel Kotkin

  In his new book The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, Joel Kotkin attempts to extrapolate current trends for forward 40 years to create a vision of exactly where and how the next hundred million Americans will live. I heard about this book in Tom Barnett's WPR column last week and immediately ordered it, looking forward to a nice bit of Utopian futurism. What I found was a somewhat meandering history of urban politics in America that is at once informative about the future of medium sized cities and uninformed about international politics and economics. The book is also long on description but short of prescription, preferring to say "this will happen" as opposed to "this is how things will happen".

   Kotkin begins his book by taking down a couple pieces of conventional wisdom about the United States - mainly that the U.S. is currently in a state of decline. Kotkin is especially rough on the notion that either China or India is poised to overtake the U.S. economically, pointing out that both countries still have a large percentage of their populations living in poverty and that China in particular is set to age rapidly, having over a third of their population over the age of 60 by the mid 2030s. Kotkin is certain that this rapid aging (which also impacts Japan and the E.U.) will bedevil most other major powers while the America's ability to integrate new immigrants will allow us to remain dynamic. Ultimately, Kotkin offers a vision for a healthier, wealthier, post-racial, post-ethnic America that will remain the global leader in innovation even in the mid 21st century.

What's Useful About this Book:

As a resident of Columbus, Ohio, I know that Kotkin's analysis of the folly of a medium sized mid-western city trying to become a "luxury city" is 100% accurate. Kotkin calls out Cleveland and Dayton specifically, but as I watch the local debate about whether or not to bail out the local NHL franchise (money looser - big time) I think his point is dead on. Kotkin's advice is that medium sized cities need to focus on what he call "vanilla" services, such as police, fire and local schools, as opposed to marque projects "downtown" which are designed to attract the "creative class" but typically wind up money pits in all but the largest and wealthiest cities. Kotkin compares the results of Potemkin luxury cities, like Cleveland, Philadelphia and Dayton, with vanilla cities like Austin and Phoenix, and suggests that the path of the latter is a better strategy for 21st century sustainability.

On the topic of sustainability, Kotkin is bullish on not only on America but the global environment as well, taking a very Lumborgesque "wealthier is healthier" outlook. And Kotkin is skeptical that the current environmental obsession with urban living, believing that Americans are unlikely to ever give up their preference for owning their own home and living in the suburbs. Kotkin believes that current Great Plains small towns in states such as Iowa and Nebraska will become the suburban boom towns of the next several decades.

Less Useful Sections of the Book: Unaddressed Issues:

1. Kotkin spends exactly zero time addressing the coming Medicare implosion. I think it's beyond remiss to write a book in 2010 about America in the year 2050 without seriously addressing the financial issues the U.S. government faces. 

2. Kotkin's read on international politics is, at best, short sighted. He seems to embrace the notion of America as an ever-evolving institution but quickly reverts to The Clash of Civilizations when discussing other world powers such as China and Russia. He takes the so-called Beijing Consensus way too seriously, seemingly ignoring the myriad of problems which plague China's political system - and which justify his belief that China will not surpass the U.S. - and suggests that China will develop a sort of Sino-Globalization opposed to the United States. Can't have it both ways guy - either China has a long way to go or they've discovered a longer lasting light bulb - can't be both. For what its worth, I'm a big supporter of his first proposition - China has a long way to go before they are truly strong and what we've seen in the last 3 decade basically amounts to China picking a lot of low hanging fruit.

Kotkin's read on Russia is even worse, bordering on silly even. He suggests that Russia will successfully embrace something called neo-Czarism. This supposition completely ignores the failure of the Russian economy in the wake of the financial crisis and also ignores Kotkin's earlier read on Russia's weakness.

3. Perhaps the biggest weakness of Kotkin's book has to do with point #1. Kotkin makes a series of vague suggestions for policies but offers no way to pay for them. He writes vaguely about energy policy and industrial policy but doesn't explain how America can square the circle, so-to-speak, with regard to the increasing share of overall government spending going to entitlement spending and the need, if we are to pay for Kotkin's policies, to increase discretionary programs.

In conclusion, The Next Hundred Million offers a welcome dose of optimism but is long on assertions and short of policy national policy suggestions. On the other hand, Kotkin's observations about housing patterns could be very useful to students or practitioners of state and local politics. In fact, I recommend Columbus mayor Micheal Colman read this book ASAP.  Beyond local politics, however, Kotkin's theories could use a bit of fleshing out, and I might recommend he look into writing a follow up which examines what type of economic policies would best empower state and local governments to follow his policies.

I give this book 3 out of 5 stars.

Obamacare, creating a nation of Californias, pt. 2

It seems that Ben Nelson is now opposed to the special bribe deal he received in exchange for voting for the health care bill.

The Democrat wouldn't say who he has spoken to regarding the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" but that he would see to it that Nebraska doesn't get a special deal.

"At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will be available to all states," Nelson said during a conference call with reporters.

Nelson provided the crucial 60th vote that brought the reform bill to the full Senate after winning concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges. Among other things, he was promised federal funding to cover Nebraska's entire cost of a Medicaid expansion included in the bill. Other states will have to begin picking up a portion of the added expanse beginning in 2017.

Nelson has said he didn't ask for special treatment for his state.

Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.

Nelson said Thursday that if he can't secure a similar deal for every state, he wants states to be freed from paying the cost of Medicaid expansion. That could mean eliminating the provision, finding another way to pay for it or allowing states to opt out.

Allowing states an opt out seems an odd way of expanding coverage, and sense that is ostensibly one of the primary goals of Obamacare it seems counter productive to allow it. More sensible - if the goal is to cover everyone - is to pay for as much of the expansion as possible at the federal - as opposed to the state - level.

Of course, that still doesn't address how the new federal spending will be paid for, but at least this change would mitigate some of the damage Obamacare could do to cash-strapped state governments.

Let's see if house and senate leaders call Nelson's bluff take him up on his offer.

Madame Secretary, resign pt. 2

Perhaps I was a bit hasty when I called for the resignation of the secretary of DHS.

Thinking back, I now wish I had called for the resignation of the director and all deputy directors of the CIA as well whomever is directly in charge of the foreign service.

And the secretary of DHS.

Here is why:

ABC ferreted out the truth behind news reports that Umar Abdulmutallab's father alerted the U.S. Embassy about his concern that his son had gotten involved with radicals. The way such reports were worded conveyed the idea that the CIA didn't have a smoking gun to work with. Actually, the CIA had a smoking cannon handed to them.

ABC learned that what really happened is that Umar phoned his father to say he was calling for the last time because the people he was with in Yemen were going to destroy his SIM card. That would make his phone unusable. And that was as much telling his father he was entering the final phase of training for a terrorist suicide mission.

His father immediately alerted Nigerian intelligence officials that he was afraid his son was preparing for a terrorist mission in Yemen. The officials then brought him directly into the presence of the CIA station chief in Abuja on November 19.

So it's not as if some worried father wandered in off the street to unburden himself to a clerk at a U.S. embassy. And note that the Nigerian intelligence officials didn't run the risk of getting trapped in voice mail hell or hearing, 'I'm sorry your email got lost in the shuffle.' They made Double Dutch sure the station chief heard the father's statement and understood its import and urgency.

What happened after the station chief took in the father's account? Report, file, and forget:

The next day the embassy sent out a thin report to U.S. embassies around the world warning Adbulmutallab may be associating with extremists in Yemen. The CIA official compiled two more robust reports following the meeting with the suspect's father. One was sent back to CIA's Langley, VA [headquarters]; the other remained in draft form in Nigeria and was not circulated until after the attempted attack on Christmas Day, according to a U.S. official.[...]

The White House better be on notice, because if something goes bump in the night in the near future a quick impeachment is sure to follow. I realize there will be a political cost - short term, in my opinion - for a major house cleaning in a mid-term election year, but the Dems are toast in November anyway, and I think the American people would give the president a lot of credit for - shock! - holding the people responsible for our safety responsible for this lapse.

 

Obamacare, creating a nation of Californias

It appears as though Obamacare is going to pass the Senate, thanks to senator Ben Nelson.

The deal was sealed Friday night at about 10:30 with a handshake between Sens. Nelson and Reid, ending 13 hours of negotiations. Mr. Reid later called President Barack Obama, who was flying back from the global climate summit in Copenhagen on Air Force One, to inform him the stalemate was resolved.

"Inaction is not an option," Mr. Reid said Saturday.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Obama hailed what he called a "major step forward for the American people."

This is a horrible bill and Ben Nelson has been allowed to make a horrible, short-sited deal to accomplish it. Nebraska will never have to pay their share of increased Medicaid costs associated with the new bill.  And neither will several other Democratically controlled states:

Nelson’s might be the most blatant – a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade.

But another Democratic holdout, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took credit for $10 billion in new funding for community health centers, while denying it was a “sweetheart deal.” He was clearly more enthusiastic about a bill he said he couldn’t support just three days ago.

Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) carved out an exemption for non-profit insurers in their states from a hefty excise tax. Similar insurers in the other 48 states will pay the tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts were given additional Medicaid funding, another plus for

Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.

All of this came on top of a $300 million increase for Medicaid in Louisiana, designed to win the vote of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

This bill will create a nation of Californias, meaning it will create a situation where many other states are forced to follow California's lead into virtual bankruptcy. This is because many of the currently uninsured will be pushed onto the roles of Medicaid, which is paid for largely by state governments. So even if Obama claims that he has kept his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000 per year, this bill will force states to spend more money on the formerly uninsured which will force the states to cut services or raise fees and taxes in other areas to make up the difference.

From Obama's perspective, this is a bill is ok because the tax increases will have to come long after he has run for reelection and because the tax increases will be at the state, rather than the Federal, level so must people will blame their governors and state legislators.

But from the perspective of the American people, this is horrible bill. It is ultimately a wholesale effort to buy political points in the near term by leveraging future earnings. The cheaper health care gets, the more people will consume. And bringing 30 million uninsured onto the insurance roles will just cause those people to consume more healthcare, thus raising the cost, and it will also create a permanent bi-partisan constituency that will reliably support increasing the amount of money spent on public healthcare at every opportunity. 

Considering "Climategate"

I'm opposed to the Waxman-Markey bill. Not because I don't "believe" that human actions can cause changes in the climate, but because I think the W-M bill makes way too many assumptions about exactly how much humans impact the climate and in our ability to reverse that impact. My skepticism is rooted in the work of Bjorn Lomborg and his more conservative outlook on climate change and on the importance of resilience versus assuming we can turn some huge dial and make global temperatures go in the directions we wish.

So now that I've found out that there are numerous questions about the validity of current climate change models I am less than surprised:

The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.  These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.

That is a big problem.  The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming.  If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless.

Again, none of this means that "global warming" isn't "real" or "true". All this means is that our ability to gather and interpret data is hamstrung by human frailty. We are - all of us - eternally dealing with scarce resources, be it time, money or knowledge. To me, that is a reason to take a measured, cautious approach to constructing public policies which we intend to affect extremely complex issues. In the case of climate change, this is a good reason not to pass either a so-called "cap and trade" system or even a carbon tax, because we simply do not have enough data to construct a sensible policy response to this situation.    

Petreaus 2012? Doubtfull....

One of the most interesting things I've read about the debate between advocates of leaving Afghanistan to the T&T (Terminators and Taliban) and those who advocate a COIN strategy was a short passage in a NYT article about general Petreaus's role in the debate:

General Petraeus’s aides now privately call him “Dave the Dull,” and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general’s ambitions in particular.

The general’s aides requested anonymity to talk more candidly about his relationship with the White House.

“General Petraeus has not hinted to anyone that he is interested in political life, and in fact has said on many occasions that he’s not,” said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University who was the executive officer to General Petraeus when he was the top American commander in Iraq.

“It is other people who are looking at his popularity and saying that he would be a good presidential candidate, and I think rightly that makes the administration a little suspicious of him.”

And, later in the article:

By then the general had been talked about as a potential presidential candidate himself, which still worries some political aides at the White House.

Is it possible that this whole hubbub about McChrystal and the debate over increasing troops in Afghanistan is really the White House projecting its fears that they'll face Patreaus/Jindal in 2012? Could the White House intentionally be trying to weaken the reputation of certain generals that they see as potential revivals for Obama?

It sounds pretty far fetched, and I wouldn't suggest that the president himself is thinking along these lines, but its entirely possible there are various political operatives within the White House who are both Lefties and hoping that there will be no one left to challenge Obama when the Taliban comes rolling back into Kabul.

Dick Morris - not the single most reliable source, I acknowledge - has often said that the Clinton administration spent the better part of 1994 and 1995 living in perpetual fear that Colin Powell was about to announce his presidential run and that that would be the end of Clinton's presidency.

Obama - or his administration - should put their minds at ease. I think it is highly unlikely that a general is going to take off his uniform and show up in Iowa and be considered a serious candidate. Petreaus would show up for the first primary and want to talk about his extremely complex and nuisance understanding of American foreign policy and national security but pretty soon he'd realize everyone in the room just wanted to know whether he was for or against abortion. Career politicians are used to the knucklehead issues the average slack-jawed yokel cares about, and would be well prepared to navigate the waters; a 4 star is not used to having his agenda dictated to him by dilettantes. Running for president is a process that takes years; decades sometimes, and you have to build a lrge base of domestic support. You have to have people who know you (meaning they know you will bring home the bacon) well enough to go door to door and make phone calls on your behalf. So any career officer (this is for 2012 - not 2016) will be at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to every aspect of campaigning, especially fund raising and a "get out the vote" effort.


Still, if Petreaus - or McChrystal, were to resign over a difference of opinion with the White House (I'm not sure that's something that's really in the cards, either) I would expect a number of polls to show either man beating Obama by 10-12%. I would also expect those poll numbers to drop precipitately as both the administration and Mitt Romney trained their fire on the potential future rival.  

Eyeballing the Link Between Unemployment and Reelection..

All stats from this website.

Weird. Hmm. I would have expected a much clearer correlation between the unemployment rate and presidential reelection.

I started looking at these numbers wondering what Obama's chances of reelection are if unemployment remains high and from a historical perspective things may not be quit as bleak as they appear. I would say unemployment has to be trending down by, oh, say January of 2012 for Obama to have a decent shot at a second term, and obviously if the numbers are still trending up by then both Obama but the whole country will be in a lot of trouble. But as Reagan proved, unemployment does not necessarily have to be low by 2012, it just has to be trending down. And as both Bush 41 and Carter show, trending down after the spring of the election year seems to be too late, so January 2012 will probably be the moment of truth for Obama to make or break his second term.

Are there really 47 million uninsured Americans?

I'm wondering how solid these numbers are:

On the 47 million people without health insurance point, that too is a statistic where there is less than meets the eye. First, health insurance does not equal health care (there are not just emergency rooms but cash-based clinics, and conversely, a lot of people with insurance don’t get good health care). Second, of that 47 million, 14 million are already eligible for existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, SCHIP) yet have not enrolled, 9.7 million are not citizens, 9.1 million have household incomes over $75,000 and could but choose not to purchase insurance, and somewhere between 3 and 5 million are uninsured briefly

If we are going to shoot for massive healthcare reform, the first step should not be the drafting of legislation. The first step should be a transparent and comprehensive national study to figure out exactly who does not have access to health insurance. The answer to that question will tell us everything we need to know about constructing some sort of fix. If the numbers I quoted are correct, for example, then we do not need major reform or expensive plans to cover the uninsured.

In any case it strikes me that we are flying blind with regard to healthcare. We have numbers bandied about by the innumerate media and repeated by innumerate politicians and those numbers could potentially be used to reconstruct ~20% of America's GDP.

Polemics != Science

Once upon a time, Paul Krugman was serious economist. He did serious research in the area of international trade and eventually won a Noble Prize.

But those days are long past. Paul Krugman has abandoned his roots as a serious social scientist and has devolved into the intellectual equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

Social Scientists attempt to use basic scientific principals to gain greater understanding of human behavior, be it in the psychological, social, economic or political spheres. A social scientist strives to make testable, positive observations about the phenomena he is studying. For example, in his 2007 book The Conciseness of a Liberal Krugman makes positive claims about the impact of Republican economic policy on the wages of the average worker - specifically, he claims that the so called "Treaty of Detroit" between the UAW and auto manufacturers led to a steady growth in wages of the average worker.

Now, as it happens, Krugman is probably wrong about his claim.

However, social science is a process that is not always only about being "right" or "wrong" - everyone makes mistakes in their conclusions occasionally, but what is important is that the claims must be positive and testable.

Krugman has moved way beyond the bounds of science. Today he makes wild claims about whatever he saw on CNN the night before.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

The problem with trying to link the work of one crazy person with some sort of supposed "movement" afoot is that crazy people do crazy things whenever they feel like it. Because if a Democrat in the White House "caused" a "crazy right winger" - whatever that mean - to go crazy then how would that explain the murder or a Jewish radio host named Alan Berg during the Reagan administration?

Furthermore, how would that explain a shooting at the White House during the Bush administration?

Beyond the acts of lone gunman, all this recent focus on "Right Wing Terrorism" is nonsense anyway. While acts of "Right Wing Terrorism" seem to spark all sorts of comments from the likes of Paul Krugman there is little concern about the ongoing resource based insurgency going on within our inner cities.

I wrote about one such insurgency in my chapter in the upcoming 5th Generation Warfare Handbook, and occasionally the media reports on it in bits and pieces, but rarely do we get the full story.

Anyone who was truly concerned about "domestic terrorism" and actually knew anything would ignore both the words of idiots like Glen Beck and actions of crazy lone gunman and would instead focus on the need for a concerted grand strategy for Urban COIN in America.

Obama's Middle East Endgame: Part I - Israel, Iran and Nukes

Tom Barnett, the eternal optimist, is less than sanguine about the possibility of avoiding an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program. In a blistering piece in Esquire, Tom looks at three possible scenarios for the near term relationship between Israel, American, the Sunni Arab countries and Tehran. Here is his "ugly" scenario:

Israel decides to act on its own by launching massive (even if they're dubbed "surgical") air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities sometime before the end of the year. Israel and its (re-)new(ed) prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are clearly not feeling the usual love from the Obama White House, as evidenced by how all the media coverage of their first summit centered on "who had the upper hand?" (Obama on freezing settlements, or Netanyahu on striking Iran?)

In his speech today, Obama slung some loaded words toward Tehran: "My country is ready to move forward," and "we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve," and "we have reached a decisive point."

If that means America isn't going to wait and see about anything when it comes to this increasingly tense triangle of love and hate, we may be reaching that big decision. And pursuing the Saudi-first scenario, however reticent Abdullah now may be to stepping outside the line of the Arab League (they want Israel to make the next concession on settlements), may just be Obama's best chance to beat both Tel Aviv and Tehran to their prospective punches. I mean, whatever Abdullah demands in return, the price will likely be worth it.

Here's why: If Netanyahu were to pull the trigger, Tehran would retaliate with both barrels — as in Hamas and Hezbollah. That would kill any two-state solution right there for Obama's entire first term, something Netanyahu would likely welcome as a two-birds-with-one-stone bonus. Stipulating that any direct kinetic response out of Iran against Israel would be a serious wild card, the more prosaic fall-out (pun intended) would be this: Iran would radically speed up its pursuit of nuclear weaponry, as would both Turkey and Saudi Arabia (who logically are colluding on this goal already). Toss in Egypt and the UAE as likely follow-ups.

In that scary pathway, the Saudis could well choose to reignite a proxy war (Saudi-backed Sunni vs. Iranian-backed Shia) within Iraq as a way of tying down Tehran somewhat (along with a generous buyout of wavering Iranian ally Syria). In this scenario, it really wouldn't matter whether or not Ahmadinejad won re-election next week, because a "righteously" angered Iran would be forced to ratchet up its anti-American efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, shredding Obama wind-down goals in the process and setting him up for a tough re-election battle in 2012 (He didn't end any wars like he promised!).

You know, when you add it all up, The Ugly scenario seems like such a win-win-win for Netanyahu (bomb Iran, screw the two-state solution, pin down the untrustworthy Obama elsewhere) that it gets hard to see what could really happen in the short term to prevent its unfolding — other than moderate Iranians voting early and often!

Ugly is right. The Center for Strategic and Internarional Studies recently released a report on a possible Israeli strike on Iran and their analysis details what a nasty thing such an attack would be. Highlights include:

1. It would be nearly impossible for Israel to reach the nuclear sights with conventional aircraft, so they would most likely use Jericho III ballistic missiles.
2. The fallout would almost certainly kill thousands in the short term, and possibly cause contamination hundreds of miles downwind - including within the Gulf States, that could cause health problems for years to come.
3. Despite all of that, they would probably only set the program back a few years.

It seems that Israel wants it both ways. They want the the U.S. to sign off on their strike package while they build their settlements and kick the can down the road on making peace with their Sunni neighbors. On the other hand, the Israelis fail to realize that the Sunni Arab regiems are at least as afraid of Iran as the Israelis are.

Interestingly, Jeffery Goldberg suggests that Obama may be attempting an end run around Netanyahu's government to force a new coalition that would be willing to strike a deal with the U.S. and the Sunni Arab regimes.

The end game in all of this is to put Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel on the same side of a security framework to resist Iran.

Sotomayor Pt.2: Destroying the Bill of Rights One Decision At a Time

In a previous post, I explained that Judge Sotomayor is a statist who does not believe in the existence of individual or natural rights.

Today in the Atlantic we find more evidence that Sotomayor is in favor of, not states' rights, but the States's Rights - meaning the right of government to repress dissent.

For example, Sotomayor opposes people speaking out against corrupt government officials or speaking in favor of opposition candidates. She also favors abusive police tactics, presumably so long as they do not disenfranchise any politically correct interest groups.

A very smart young senator once gave a powerful speech opposing the appointment of a justice who used "formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

The senator's point is good one; we should be weary of those who seem to consitstently back the strong against the weak. For example, we should be weary of a judge who opposes both the 1st and 2nd amendments, sides with corrupt school administrators and favors police officers who beat up on stranded motorists.

It's too bad that that idealistic young senator didn't hold such a high standard when it came time for him to make an appointment to the bench.

Sotomayor: Voted Change, Got More of Same.....

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe that Judge Sotomayor is a racist.

I also do not believe she is an impressive pick by Obama.

Barrack Obama was elected to bring Change. Sotomayor does not represent Change - she represents more of the same statist, center-left identity politics that we've been dealing with in America for the past 60 years.

Like most center-left statists*, Sotomayor does not believe in individual rights. In Sotomayor's America, rights belong to politically constructed groups rather than to individuals. Had Obama wished to bring about Change, he would have nominated a justice who believed that the law should treat each person as an individual, as opposed to viewing each person only as a cog in the wheel of a politically correct interest group. For example, had Obama wished to create Change, he might have done what George W. Bush did - appoint a justice who believes that the Constitution protects the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority and the caprice of oppressive local governments.

Unsurprising, Sotomayor does not care when citizens have their rights violated by the state, so long as it is done in a politically correct manner - which is to say so long as the status quo which has existed since the Johnson administration is preserved.

Also, had Obama wished to bring about Change, he might have considered someone who holds 21st century views on affirmative action. After all, the President has professed a belief in a 21st century view of affirmative action:

In an interview last May on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, he was asked whether his own daughters should someday receive preferences in college admissions. His response was unexpected: "I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged." He added, "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

But rather than go for Change, Obama decided to pick someone who holds a very mid 20th century view of affirmative action. I would imagine that Sotomayor types her opinions on an electric typewriter rather than using MS Office, because all her other beliefs and habits appear to be stuck somewhere around 1965.

The unfortunate reality is that Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate. Crazy justices were just one of the reasons that I qualified my endorsement of Obama for president by recommending people vote for Republicans in the House and Senate. I continue to hope we get a divided government soon. In the meantime, I endorse Charles Krauthammer's suggestion that:

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

* Sotomayor is NOT a liberal. To be liberal is to believe in liberty - Sotomayor does NOT believe in liberty - she believes in the preservation of status quo that has existed since the 1960s.

Russia, boy I don't know...

The scene above is from the 3rd season of the West Wing. In the clip, Bartlett tell Richie that a Secrete Service Agent was just killed in a robbery. Richie responds by saying "Crime, boy I don't know."

Tonight Sarah Palin had a similar moment, except hers was televised and her answer can be better summarized as "Nuclear holocaust, boy I don't know".

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

Yes. Of course. That's why it's so important that we not allow a country with a ONGOING conflict into NATO. Whoever started the trouble in Georgia (Russia's hands aren't clean; but neither are Saakashvili's), it would be ludicrous to allow a country that currently has hostile forces stationed within its borders into NATO.

Saakashvili does not get to declare war between the two largest nuclear stockpiles in the world.

Somebody get Sarah Palin a copy of The Guns of August.

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow

I don't know how many times she used the word "democratic".

"Democracy, boy I don't know."

But that's not what worries me. She doesn't understand the function of NATO. If a State, be it Georgia, the Ukraine or France, becomes a NATO member we are automatically obligated to protect them if they are invaded. We don't have options, we don't proceed with sanctions (when have sanctions ever worked?) we go strait to the beach, so to speak (On the Beach, good movie; bad grand strategy).

A hair trigger "red line" with a short time delay is deterrence. That is what kept West Berlin free for 45 years and what stopped the U.S. from intervening in Hungary or Checezlovakia. The red line can be a powerful tool, but must be applied judiciously. Should a NATO country be invaded and we respond with sanctions or diplomacy that's the ball game. We get to pack up our military units, say bydy-bye to the international system we worked so hard to create since 1945 and just wait for the Humongous to take over.

On the other hand, it makes no sense to go to war with Russia over two breakaway regions of Georgia.

A black and white, democracy versus Putin narrative does not work here. Complexity is not a vice.



She takes being disengaged to new heights. When I first saw that McCain had picked Palin it struck me that there was nothing in her academic or professional background that demonstrated any sort of curiosity about international relations, national security or diplomacy. This interview confirms my worst fears. She's a .22 caliber mind in a .45 ACP world. This nation, at this moment, has to expect more from our leaders.

We need a heavyweight.

My thesis topic has been approved!

Do informed voters hold different views on foreign policy than less well informed voters?


Research Questions:

In the population of all Americans, is there a difference between the foreign policy
views of informed voters and less well informed voters? What is the relationship between political IQ and foreign policy preference?


Research design:
I will survey a minimum of 25 subjects asking them questions from a political IQ test consisting of objective questions related to civic and political knowledge (i.e. How many justice sit on the supreme court? ect). I will then examine the results to see if there is a relationship between the subject’s political IQ and the subject’s answers to foreign policy questions.


Hypothesis:
H1: There will be no correlation, indicating that America policy preference towards foreign policy is independent of their political IQ.

H2: There will be a correlation between a person’s political IQ and their answers to the foreign policy preference questions.


Section 1:
I will begin by reviewing the literature about and establishing the parameters for the Enlightened Policy Preference model. I will then construct a political IQ test using questions from both political IQ test examples from the literature and questions from the American Civic Literacy Quiz. I will then construct a foreign policy opinion test with one section made up of broad questions on globalization and one section made up of more questions about policy preference regarding specific questions of U.S. foreign policy. The globalization questions will focus on attitudes towards the “4 flows” of globalization: Money, Energy, Security and People. The more specific questions on U.S. foreign policy preference will be based on current controversies from major media sources which could include major newspapers and national polling organizations.


Section 2: I will analyze the results of the survey.

Section 3: I will attempt to place the results of the survey and the answers to the research questions in the context of American grand strategy for the 21st century. What do the results portend for building a sustainable foreign policy for the 21st century? Should we make civic and geo-political education part of any public diplomacy campaign?