Interesting day for news in Afghanistan...
First up is Karzai's offer to protect Mullah Omar (whose head is worth $10 million as far as the US is concerned) so long as he agrees to hold talks with Kabul. If ISAF or anyone else has a problem, Karzai said they could remove him or leave Afghanistan - unappealing options for a coalition that is committed to an Afghanistan that is both stable and democratic. I doubt Omar trusts the Afghans to protect him that well, but if they could (and kept their word), it might put the US and its new President in an unenviable situation.
Another interesting development: Apparently, Gordon Brown floated the idea of placing Chinese troops in Afghanistan. Though there hasn't been much to substantiate this report, if true, could signal an interesting development in Chinese policy. One possibility is that the Chinese want to prove they're a responsible member of the international community, prepared to work with the west on common issues (after all, China has its own issues with Islamic militants in Xinjiang). Fighting in Afghanistan would give Chinese troops valuable counterinsurgency experience and allow them to observe the COIN tactics of other coalition members. The other possibility is that China might finally want to make the inroads into Central Asia commensurate with its status as a world power. Many analysts have speculated that China is preparing to get into Central Asia to secure its borders (by developing Xinjiang and Tibet through trade) and economic resources (energy, energy, energy).
From a realpolitik angle, building up a presence in Central Asia could provide China with access to resources the US cannot easily exclude. Despite a generally warm attitude and a vital trade relationship, China remains paranoid about its reliance on sea transport across the Indian Ocean for many of its raw material imports, since the US Navy patrols the Straits of Malacca. It's just one reason why the US cannot afford to shun free trade or economic integration with China if it wishes to avoid the pitfalls of multipolarity.
Medvedev changes his tune on Obama... Sort of. Given the combination of the missile movements and now this supposed overture, Medvedev may be putting on a bit of political theater to put the onus on Obama to make concessions even as he tries to embarrass or frustrate American goals. Such maneuvering would sour the strategic or domestic political climate to making those concessions, allowing Medvedev to sour Russian opinion about Obama by making it appear as if he is less reasonable or cooperative than otherwise believed. Given what occurred in Iran after the congratulatory letter incident, we may want to expect this sort of thing as more anti-Bush leaders attempt to shore up domestic credibility in the wake of Obama's victory.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Transitional Rumors, International Omens
The big buzz about Obama's foreign policy is that Hillary Clinton is going to be Obama's secretary of state. It seems like a brilliant political move - something you'd expect from a guy who's read Team of Rivals. However, I question the wisdom of such a decision.
Obama needs to be heading into the real world, 2009, not cleaning up old grudges from 2008. Of course Obama, as a politician, is going to want to consolidate his support and prevent an internal struggle that one would expect from a big-tent political party like the Democrats. However, American foreign policy is already losing attention to the economy and it cannot afford to lose any more attention to domestic political maneuvering. To be frank, Obama's foreign policy is not going to work itself out. Once the soft power buzz of his own election wears off (and it will not be long), the President will need to attempt to help keep old allies on board, warm relations with former friends, and carefully engage rivals and enemies. Thanks to American unipolarity, the last two administrations have relied on force and the absence of balancing rivals to assert American diplomatic objectives. America's economic stability contributed to these ambitious foreign policies. With a general decline in relative American power (due more to the rise of others ) and the potential for economic disaster at home, the US will have its work cut out for it abroad.
Managing the complex negotiations to come - and all their attendant trade-offs, treaties, and concessions - will require an exceptional secretary of state. While many foreign leaders respect and admire Obama, once they begin interacting with him at the negotiating table questions of national interest will take precedence. Hillary Clinton is not entirely unqualified to be secretary of state. But she is by far not the most qualified, and claims that her experience as first lady will offer some unique advantage are mostly irrelevant. Firstly, the US already has the soft power namedropping advantage - his name is Barack Obama. Secondly, the first lady functions in a PR role, not as a major negotiator and her friendliness with the leaders of the '90s is not pertinent to today's leadership. Whatever personal connections she formed then, many are with leaders out of office now, or who never had to have Mrs. Clinton tell them anything they didn't want to hear. Memories of the good times will quickly fade when those countries national security and economic concerns go on the line. These personal connections also fail to address the secretary of state's biggest challenge - working with states like Iran, Syria, and North Korea that the US has previously shunned diplomatically.
As for secretary of defense, word is that Robert Gates will be held on for the transition. It's a good call and I hope that those rumors are true. Gates has done a lot to turn around American defense strategy, and given that Obama will be more than busy enough during the transition, it would be good to keep a competent, relatively strategically compatible cabinet member managing things to minimize disruption to American defense policy and distraction from the economic agenda.
Elsewhere, I suspect the Obama administration is keeping a close eye on what's happening in the DRC and Rwanda. The situation is already ugly and may be spiralling further out of control, as neighboring countries volunteer deploying their own "peacekeeping" forces in a scene reminiscent of foreign interventions of previous decades. Obama (not to mention his staff) has said a lot about humanitarian intervention. Given that a humanitarian operation in the Congo is more plausible from an international perspective (no great power like China looming over, and stronger, broadly supported UN presence), it may be the site of this administration's first big humanitarian intervention rather than Darfur.
Other places to watch out for - North Korea. China is taking Kim's disappearing act very seriously, and regime change could drastically alter US plans for the region. From Pakistan, we have the usual bad news and then the (seemingly) unusual bad news. It's worth remembering that the Iranians dislike the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban about as much as we do, and cooperating in stabilizing the region could be one of the fruits of a truly grand (though by no means assured) bargain with Tehran.
Also, this bit of Hayden's assessment of al Qaeda is interesting. Osama is cut off from regular AQ operations and focused more on his own survival - good. But what this should tell us is that we should not prioritize killing or capturing him over the broader effort against al Qaeda. One of the reasons why terrorism cannot be treated purely as a law enforcement issue is that AQ's organizational structure is complex and flexible enough to endure disruptions to its leadership. If we have to go into Pakistan guns blazing to take out someone already out of the organizational loop, we are probably going to create a lot more anti-American Pakistanis without necessarily severely disrupting AQ's ability to conduct a retaliatory attack. This isn't to say getting OBL isn't important, it's just an example of how we need to balance political objectives in the wider strategic context. An attitude that sees killing OBL as the "game over" in the fight against AQ will be disappointing at best and counterproductive at worst.
On another note, congratulations to General Ann Dunwoody, America's first female four-star general.
Obama needs to be heading into the real world, 2009, not cleaning up old grudges from 2008. Of course Obama, as a politician, is going to want to consolidate his support and prevent an internal struggle that one would expect from a big-tent political party like the Democrats. However, American foreign policy is already losing attention to the economy and it cannot afford to lose any more attention to domestic political maneuvering. To be frank, Obama's foreign policy is not going to work itself out. Once the soft power buzz of his own election wears off (and it will not be long), the President will need to attempt to help keep old allies on board, warm relations with former friends, and carefully engage rivals and enemies. Thanks to American unipolarity, the last two administrations have relied on force and the absence of balancing rivals to assert American diplomatic objectives. America's economic stability contributed to these ambitious foreign policies. With a general decline in relative American power (due more to the rise of others ) and the potential for economic disaster at home, the US will have its work cut out for it abroad.
Managing the complex negotiations to come - and all their attendant trade-offs, treaties, and concessions - will require an exceptional secretary of state. While many foreign leaders respect and admire Obama, once they begin interacting with him at the negotiating table questions of national interest will take precedence. Hillary Clinton is not entirely unqualified to be secretary of state. But she is by far not the most qualified, and claims that her experience as first lady will offer some unique advantage are mostly irrelevant. Firstly, the US already has the soft power namedropping advantage - his name is Barack Obama. Secondly, the first lady functions in a PR role, not as a major negotiator and her friendliness with the leaders of the '90s is not pertinent to today's leadership. Whatever personal connections she formed then, many are with leaders out of office now, or who never had to have Mrs. Clinton tell them anything they didn't want to hear. Memories of the good times will quickly fade when those countries national security and economic concerns go on the line. These personal connections also fail to address the secretary of state's biggest challenge - working with states like Iran, Syria, and North Korea that the US has previously shunned diplomatically.
As for secretary of defense, word is that Robert Gates will be held on for the transition. It's a good call and I hope that those rumors are true. Gates has done a lot to turn around American defense strategy, and given that Obama will be more than busy enough during the transition, it would be good to keep a competent, relatively strategically compatible cabinet member managing things to minimize disruption to American defense policy and distraction from the economic agenda.
Elsewhere, I suspect the Obama administration is keeping a close eye on what's happening in the DRC and Rwanda. The situation is already ugly and may be spiralling further out of control, as neighboring countries volunteer deploying their own "peacekeeping" forces in a scene reminiscent of foreign interventions of previous decades. Obama (not to mention his staff) has said a lot about humanitarian intervention. Given that a humanitarian operation in the Congo is more plausible from an international perspective (no great power like China looming over, and stronger, broadly supported UN presence), it may be the site of this administration's first big humanitarian intervention rather than Darfur.
Other places to watch out for - North Korea. China is taking Kim's disappearing act very seriously, and regime change could drastically alter US plans for the region. From Pakistan, we have the usual bad news and then the (seemingly) unusual bad news. It's worth remembering that the Iranians dislike the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban about as much as we do, and cooperating in stabilizing the region could be one of the fruits of a truly grand (though by no means assured) bargain with Tehran.
Also, this bit of Hayden's assessment of al Qaeda is interesting. Osama is cut off from regular AQ operations and focused more on his own survival - good. But what this should tell us is that we should not prioritize killing or capturing him over the broader effort against al Qaeda. One of the reasons why terrorism cannot be treated purely as a law enforcement issue is that AQ's organizational structure is complex and flexible enough to endure disruptions to its leadership. If we have to go into Pakistan guns blazing to take out someone already out of the organizational loop, we are probably going to create a lot more anti-American Pakistanis without necessarily severely disrupting AQ's ability to conduct a retaliatory attack. This isn't to say getting OBL isn't important, it's just an example of how we need to balance political objectives in the wider strategic context. An attitude that sees killing OBL as the "game over" in the fight against AQ will be disappointing at best and counterproductive at worst.
On another note, congratulations to General Ann Dunwoody, America's first female four-star general.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The world isn't waiting
While Americans (and to some extent, everyone else) have a lot to be excited about, it sure hasn't taken long for the post-election euphoria to wear away. Obama's judgment and temperament helped him win the election, they will be among his best attributes going forward. However, Americans must remember that they are neither infallible nor may they necessarily lead to the policies we've come to expect.
On fiscal matters, the money for Obama's healthcare and other spending plans is gone - spent in the Paulson bailout plan. At least Paulson is moving towards the Dodd plan equity stake strategy rather than directly purchasing toxic assets, but the plan is (as we must expect) far from perfect. However, the fact remains that our financial sector is too vital to collapse - it is the engine of growth for our economy, especially in the long term. Eliminating or rolling back the bailout plan would be disastrous - not just for the immediate impact on the market, but for creating a climate of uncertainty hostile to investment. Nor will Obama's tax plans help very much. During a recession, increasing taxes on the very wealthiest and capital gains will have diminishing marginal returns - recessions, especially centered in the financial sector, will disproportionately reduce the incomes of wealthy investors (even if they suffer far less than ordinary Americans in absolute terms).
Though we should not foolishly cling to the impossibility of balancing the budget, we must spend wisely. So when the Big Three begin requesting billions in their own bailouts, we should not be so eager to appease them. While the auto industry and media will naturally claim that these companies, like the banks, are "too big to fail," the reality is that finance and manufacturing play vastly different roles in the American economy. Without solvent banks, simple but incredibly vital economic functions - saving and loaning money, for example, come into peril. Allowing for massive amounts of bank failures deprives the market of liquidity, crippling economic growth and innovation (starting a new company requires investment, after all). Car companies simply cannot claim to be this vital to the American economy, however important they are. Though undoubtedly the Big Three will get some form of bailout (Obama wouldn't want someone like Mitt Romney taking the industrial Midwest in 2012), it is likely this money could be better spent elsewhere. The jobs lost by these major companies will be highly visible - but not the jobs that will be lost in other companies due to the difference in allocation of resources. Even if someone were to point out this unemployment, the natural response would be, "good thing we bailed out those automakers, or they'd have gone under too!"
America cannot afford to constantly prop up every industry whose management and labor organizations legislate themselves into stagnation. We have bailed out the Big Three in better times - why do we think doing it now will help them finally achieve the magical recovery they've wanted? Even if we did stipulate the management be sacked and some new visionary team be put in place, can we really expect them to fix when even successful automakers are facing a hard year? Eventually, Washington will have to realize that doing the best thing for the workers will mean spending more money on new industries and trade adjustment assistance. This is the economic equivalent of "Weekend at Bernie's," and at some point we may have to stop waiting for the miracle that makes Detroit great again.
How far Obama deviates from his original platform is still unknown, but we should not be too shocked when - not if - he does. We can only hope that the deviations he does make will be positive - like promoting global cooperation on recovery by affirming free trade.
As for foreign policy, goodwill has failed to erase many of the expected dilemmas. On election day, Russia forced Obama to take Eastern Europe's side of the missile defense dispute by deploying missiles to Kaliningrad. This, combined with his preference for Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership, will make Russian cooperation on Iran more difficult. Speaking of Iran, don't hold your breath for a great breakthrough there, either. Within days of the election, the mood of the BBC went from this to this. As for Pakistan, the economic crisis has only made intervening in the country more dangerous, while the recent calls for mediating the Kashmir dispute have the potential to harm our interests in the region even more. Germany, not just Britain, seems to be growing more skeptical about committing to Afghanistan - if this is indicative of a greater trend among ISAF members, we have a problem:
And it isn't even January, yet.
On fiscal matters, the money for Obama's healthcare and other spending plans is gone - spent in the Paulson bailout plan. At least Paulson is moving towards the Dodd plan equity stake strategy rather than directly purchasing toxic assets, but the plan is (as we must expect) far from perfect. However, the fact remains that our financial sector is too vital to collapse - it is the engine of growth for our economy, especially in the long term. Eliminating or rolling back the bailout plan would be disastrous - not just for the immediate impact on the market, but for creating a climate of uncertainty hostile to investment. Nor will Obama's tax plans help very much. During a recession, increasing taxes on the very wealthiest and capital gains will have diminishing marginal returns - recessions, especially centered in the financial sector, will disproportionately reduce the incomes of wealthy investors (even if they suffer far less than ordinary Americans in absolute terms).
Though we should not foolishly cling to the impossibility of balancing the budget, we must spend wisely. So when the Big Three begin requesting billions in their own bailouts, we should not be so eager to appease them. While the auto industry and media will naturally claim that these companies, like the banks, are "too big to fail," the reality is that finance and manufacturing play vastly different roles in the American economy. Without solvent banks, simple but incredibly vital economic functions - saving and loaning money, for example, come into peril. Allowing for massive amounts of bank failures deprives the market of liquidity, crippling economic growth and innovation (starting a new company requires investment, after all). Car companies simply cannot claim to be this vital to the American economy, however important they are. Though undoubtedly the Big Three will get some form of bailout (Obama wouldn't want someone like Mitt Romney taking the industrial Midwest in 2012), it is likely this money could be better spent elsewhere. The jobs lost by these major companies will be highly visible - but not the jobs that will be lost in other companies due to the difference in allocation of resources. Even if someone were to point out this unemployment, the natural response would be, "good thing we bailed out those automakers, or they'd have gone under too!"
America cannot afford to constantly prop up every industry whose management and labor organizations legislate themselves into stagnation. We have bailed out the Big Three in better times - why do we think doing it now will help them finally achieve the magical recovery they've wanted? Even if we did stipulate the management be sacked and some new visionary team be put in place, can we really expect them to fix when even successful automakers are facing a hard year? Eventually, Washington will have to realize that doing the best thing for the workers will mean spending more money on new industries and trade adjustment assistance. This is the economic equivalent of "Weekend at Bernie's," and at some point we may have to stop waiting for the miracle that makes Detroit great again.
How far Obama deviates from his original platform is still unknown, but we should not be too shocked when - not if - he does. We can only hope that the deviations he does make will be positive - like promoting global cooperation on recovery by affirming free trade.
As for foreign policy, goodwill has failed to erase many of the expected dilemmas. On election day, Russia forced Obama to take Eastern Europe's side of the missile defense dispute by deploying missiles to Kaliningrad. This, combined with his preference for Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership, will make Russian cooperation on Iran more difficult. Speaking of Iran, don't hold your breath for a great breakthrough there, either. Within days of the election, the mood of the BBC went from this to this. As for Pakistan, the economic crisis has only made intervening in the country more dangerous, while the recent calls for mediating the Kashmir dispute have the potential to harm our interests in the region even more. Germany, not just Britain, seems to be growing more skeptical about committing to Afghanistan - if this is indicative of a greater trend among ISAF members, we have a problem:
A new strategy would only work if Western countries openly discussed their
objectives in Afghanistan. They would have to admit that they cannot establish a
democracy, equal rights for women, or a welfare state in Afghanistan. Shifting
the focus from nation building to simply combating al-Qaida terrorists would
presumably be the only basis for Europeans and Obama to formulate a joint
policy.
And it isn't even January, yet.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Denial is a River in the Hindu Kush
Obama continues to ignore the ramifications of his Pakistan policy. Osama bin Laden is killing Americans now. Pakistan is unable and unwilling to clear out the FATA and NWFP now. We likely have intelligence to put the heat on a lot of AQ and Taliban members now. By his standards, we should be lighting up the Pakistani frontier. This isn't a hypothetical, this is a reality. Either he is willing to resume raids in Pakistan or he isn't, and if he is he needs to acknowledge that attacking Pakistan is going to be just as damaging to support for the war on terror as supporting Musharraf in Pakistan. They were shooting at us. This isn't an academic question for point-scoring - this is a real policy decision, and Obama needs to tone down the rhetoric or prepare for a conflict that will be nowhere near as clear-cut as he would have us believe. Pakistan made a truce with the Taliban because they were tired of killing their soldiers and their citizens and because in counterinsurgency, sometimes you have to deal with the devil. Letting us smack around Pakistanis and tribal kinsmen is only going to create more attacks on the Pakistani government. We too will have to make deals with those tribes if we want to stabilize Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, McCain's Afghan policy continues to buy into the fantasy that another "surge" will save Afghanistan. It won't, unless you want a larger surge (let's talk 3-4x larger), and a replication of one of the pre-surge reductions in violence - an Anbar awakening. That means allying with some of the fundamentalist tribes that used to harbor or support al Qaeda, not hunting down and destroying every formerly anti-American tribe in Afghanistan (or, Senator Obama, the NWFP or FATA). We essentially have two options to stabilize Afghanistan without a massive long-term presence that will last generations - installing a less-than-democratic central government that has made peace with some of the belligerents and delegated to the tribes, or a new Iron Amir with dictatorial powers. America wants stability, democracy, and withdrawal within a few years - it will get two if it is lucky.
McCain had a stronger performance than his last debate, and seemed to tackle the real long-run issue for the "American empire" - domestic expenditures - more directly than Obama did. Both, however, were mum on Medicare, the biggest and faster growing of the American entitlement programs. Both made legitimate points on their own healthcare proposals, but ultimately as far as the "elephants in the room" are concerned, nobody really knows what to do about the immediate problems of global financial meltdown (especially since this will increasingly require linking foreign and domestic policies), and nobody really wants to talk about how many planks of their platforms will have to be torn out in January.
I haven't needed to wait long for the geopolitical hysteria over the financial crisis to start. Iceland, unable to bail out its financial institutions without compromising its fiscal solvency, hoped the EU would be able to bail it out. No such luck. Now Russia may offer the capital injection, and already some observers think it may be part of a Russian attempt to subvert NATO (and perhaps even establish a security presence in the North Atlantic!).
As usual, everything in the Middle East is going swimmingly.
Meanwhile, McCain's Afghan policy continues to buy into the fantasy that another "surge" will save Afghanistan. It won't, unless you want a larger surge (let's talk 3-4x larger), and a replication of one of the pre-surge reductions in violence - an Anbar awakening. That means allying with some of the fundamentalist tribes that used to harbor or support al Qaeda, not hunting down and destroying every formerly anti-American tribe in Afghanistan (or, Senator Obama, the NWFP or FATA). We essentially have two options to stabilize Afghanistan without a massive long-term presence that will last generations - installing a less-than-democratic central government that has made peace with some of the belligerents and delegated to the tribes, or a new Iron Amir with dictatorial powers. America wants stability, democracy, and withdrawal within a few years - it will get two if it is lucky.
McCain had a stronger performance than his last debate, and seemed to tackle the real long-run issue for the "American empire" - domestic expenditures - more directly than Obama did. Both, however, were mum on Medicare, the biggest and faster growing of the American entitlement programs. Both made legitimate points on their own healthcare proposals, but ultimately as far as the "elephants in the room" are concerned, nobody really knows what to do about the immediate problems of global financial meltdown (especially since this will increasingly require linking foreign and domestic policies), and nobody really wants to talk about how many planks of their platforms will have to be torn out in January.
I haven't needed to wait long for the geopolitical hysteria over the financial crisis to start. Iceland, unable to bail out its financial institutions without compromising its fiscal solvency, hoped the EU would be able to bail it out. No such luck. Now Russia may offer the capital injection, and already some observers think it may be part of a Russian attempt to subvert NATO (and perhaps even establish a security presence in the North Atlantic!).
As usual, everything in the Middle East is going swimmingly.
Going long on dollars and bullets
Recent rumors from Saudi Arabia, while very much overstating the militant-AQ split, are emblematic of the uncomfortable choices Americans may be forced to make in the future. If the United States is concerned about more than a manhunt, then we must accept some previously politically unacceptable things. Unfortunately, those American politicians who might otherwise support "talking to our enemies" are more concerned with the manhunt than winning the war. Going, guns blazing, into "where Osama lives" will, at best, severely undermine our ability to effectively deal with the Pashtun tribes, and at worst, start a war of truly catastrophic proportions.
More bad news for "the long war" - Congress seems set to choose pork-laden weapons systems over manpower expansion. Despite the fact that the military is already overworked and will be facing personnel strains in the near future, there's simply little politico-economic incentive to support military expansion when fighter planes with parts made in 48 out of 50 states might have to be chopped. One of John McCain's few good points during the last debate was that the government has to curtail wasteful defense spending. Given the economic constraints facing the next President (well, let's be frank -Obama), he will need to take on Congress if he wants a military ready for a future of counterinsurgency. Or we can just keep laying down firepower from standoff positions, aircraft and provincial capitals until OBL dies or we get tired of dealing with Afghanistan. I guess the realistic question is - which comes first?
On the subject of catastrophe, the American bailout has not done much to shore up confidence in the European economy. The inability of European governments to effectively cooperate to deal with bank failures that individual member states can no longer handle. As previously noted, European banks are often more ponderous than their American counterparts, at least proportional to the countries they reside in. Like the Georgia crisis, the coming weeks may be another test and indicator of the strength and cohesiveness of the EU.
Of course, things are going pretty poorly in the US too. As for the debate - expectations are low. The economic issues are too complex for reasonable political discourse and perhaps too global for a single government to effectively cope. Anyone who claims the next four years are going to be great is probably lying, at least as far as the economy is concerned. But what we should really all be worried about, with the "American" crisis clearly taking a global dimension, are the consequences of globalization "failing" - if history is any lesson, they will not be easy to ignore.
Global chaos aside, we can at least comfortably predict the outcome of the election (and so I invite the world to prove me wrong).
More bad news for "the long war" - Congress seems set to choose pork-laden weapons systems over manpower expansion. Despite the fact that the military is already overworked and will be facing personnel strains in the near future, there's simply little politico-economic incentive to support military expansion when fighter planes with parts made in 48 out of 50 states might have to be chopped. One of John McCain's few good points during the last debate was that the government has to curtail wasteful defense spending. Given the economic constraints facing the next President (well, let's be frank -Obama), he will need to take on Congress if he wants a military ready for a future of counterinsurgency. Or we can just keep laying down firepower from standoff positions, aircraft and provincial capitals until OBL dies or we get tired of dealing with Afghanistan. I guess the realistic question is - which comes first?
On the subject of catastrophe, the American bailout has not done much to shore up confidence in the European economy. The inability of European governments to effectively cooperate to deal with bank failures that individual member states can no longer handle. As previously noted, European banks are often more ponderous than their American counterparts, at least proportional to the countries they reside in. Like the Georgia crisis, the coming weeks may be another test and indicator of the strength and cohesiveness of the EU.
Of course, things are going pretty poorly in the US too. As for the debate - expectations are low. The economic issues are too complex for reasonable political discourse and perhaps too global for a single government to effectively cope. Anyone who claims the next four years are going to be great is probably lying, at least as far as the economy is concerned. But what we should really all be worried about, with the "American" crisis clearly taking a global dimension, are the consequences of globalization "failing" - if history is any lesson, they will not be easy to ignore.
Global chaos aside, we can at least comfortably predict the outcome of the election (and so I invite the world to prove me wrong).
Thursday, October 2, 2008
On Nonsense - Liveblogging the VP debate
2100: I now have money riding on this.
2102: Biden - the failure of the government to respond to the economic crisis proves that the market has failed. Everyone who opposes Biden is a rabid laissez faire capitalist, even though both campaigns support the bailout.
2105: Palin thinks that John McCain is responsible for the probable success of the bailout bill and future oversight.
2107: Palin - McCain not wrong on the economy being sound because American workers are "the best" and saying the economy isn't doing well makes them feel bad.
2109: Palin - "Darn right it was the predator lenders." Wall Street is corrupt, also evil. Good to hear that Palin is on board with the 'fix the economy by putting people in jail' plan. I'm also glad to know that we're thinking of putting usury back on the list of threats to society.
2110: Biden is pulling out the old deregulatory trope and blaming it on George Bush. Never mind that the '90s were a massive period of deregulation, or that that regulatory expenditure expanded massively under George W. Bush.
2114: Oh God. Is Palin listing her record as Mayor as a qualification to be President and manage the American economy? She is right about McCain wanting to regulate whatever tickles his fancy, though.
2115: Biden reinforces the real issue of this debate - massive run on sentences. Corporations are not part of America now, too.
2116: Palin thinks patriotism is refusing to be regulated or taxed. Do either of these people know what patriotism is? Also - Palin makes a legitimate point about healthcare regulation across state lines.
2118: Biden argues that redistributing wealth is just "fairness," while demanding that the government not tax the wealthy's healthcare to pay for healthcare for the poor. Tyler Cowen is right - Americans really, really, really don't like means testing.
2120: Biden says that he will cut John McCain's tax cuts from his administration's future programs to counterbalance Barack Obama's spending. Unfortunately, budgetary credit may not transfer across alternate universes where Obama and McCain are simultaneously President. Hiring foreigners is now "unpatriotic" too.
2122: More oil company tax break football. She refuses to take anything off the table, simultaneously leave Americans alone while eliminating greed and passing a massive financial bailout bill.
2125: Great. They all agree on the windfall profits oil tax as a solution to our economic woes. Lowest common denominator politics at their finest.
2126: Please. Stop. Saying. Corruption. And. Greed. Does the term "market failure" mean anything to you?
2128: Palin always has to answer her last topic before addressing the current one. Someone's finally matched Biden in blowhardiness. She's also passed the essential political test of blaming foreign people and their filthy foreign oil for our economic problems.
2130: Being from "our nation's only Arctic state" qualifies her on environmental issues, too. "Real changes are goin' on in our climate." "Effect the impacts." Also, switching to domestic oil apparently will reduce warming, since, as we all know, everything foreign is more dirty.
2132: Biden really shouldn't be criticizing McCain for coming out against biofuels.
2133: Palin is proud of hosting the country's most expensive pipeline? I guess they're only wasteful earmarks when Alaskans don't like them. She also pronounces nuclear the "folksy" way.
2136: Same old conservative gay marriage trope. But she's tolerant and her family is diverse, so it's OK. Of course, nor does Biden support redefining marriage. Can these two agree on a good idea?
2139: More adulation for Petraeus. Why don't we let this guy be President?
2141: Barack and Joe think it's time for the Iraqis to start fixing their own stupid country. Since when is it our responsibility to take care of countries that we destroy?
2142: Palin - SURRENDER! THE SURGE! THE SURGE! THE SUUUURRRRRRGGGGE! More backhanded compliments to Biden on opposing all of Obama's votes.
2143: Biden argues that McCain was incorrect in arguing Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction, yet argues exactly this position now.
2145: Time to roll out the Pakistani disaster bandwagon. Biden thinks Pakistan is going to nuke Israel? I wasn't aware Pakistan gave a damn about that part of the Middle East. Biden wants to support the Pakistani democracy by illegally violating its borders whenever we feel like it.
2146: Palin - Petraeus thinks the central front of the war on terror is in Iraq, so it is. Always and forever.
2150: There really is no point to discussing diplomacy as a contrast issue without "nuance," is there?
2151: "Never again" applies to both Israel and... American homeowners. Took until now for Palin to apply it to the former, though.
2152: Joe Biden needs to stop referring to Joe Biden in the third person.
2153: Barack Obama and Biden are against ill-advised wars against Muslim countries unless they're Pakistan or... Lebanon? Do any Americans really think putting troops into Lebanon again is a good idea? Why is this a talking point now?
2154: "I'm so encouraged to know we both love Israel."
2155: Biden wants to know how John McCain's position differs from Bush's on Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq - increasingly, McCain differs by not moving toward's Obama's positions, for better or worse.
2156: Palin wants to implement the "surge principles" in Afghanistan... Without mentioning what exactly those are.
2158: For all Biden's bluster about arms control, he needs to explain how this is going to be possible when we go after Osama in Pakistan.
2159: Palin knows McClellan's name! Too bad she's about 150 years off.
2200: Biden thinks the American public has the stomach for success. Biden is against wars that aren't his idea. Good to know.
2202: Yes, Sarah Palin, it is very obvious you're a Washington outsider. But we can't blame you for trying to fit in with that flip-flopping speech.
2204: Biden think he can revoke the sovereignty of other countries and then invade them - that makes it OK.
2205: John McCain, on the other hand, knows how to win wars on his own.
2210: "Joe Biden's Neighborhood" sounds like it has potential as a CSPAN children's show.
2211: Shout out to 3rd graders. Is this a first?
2208: Palin winked again. What does it all mean?
2214: I WIN PALIN BINGO. A great day for all Americans who are me.
2218: "America is a nation of exceptionalism." Exceptional something, I'll give you that. Wait. Did she just misattribute "City on a hill?"
2224: Biden brings up the one court case Palin still knows.
2228: It's almost over. Thank God, it's almost over. Please let this never happen again. These are by far two of the most - "national security freedoms?" What?
2230: Joe Biden makes one last gasp attempt to show he hates CEOs more than Sarah Palin. Anyway, please let these two never appear in tandem for an extended period ever, ever again.
2102: Biden - the failure of the government to respond to the economic crisis proves that the market has failed. Everyone who opposes Biden is a rabid laissez faire capitalist, even though both campaigns support the bailout.
2105: Palin thinks that John McCain is responsible for the probable success of the bailout bill and future oversight.
2107: Palin - McCain not wrong on the economy being sound because American workers are "the best" and saying the economy isn't doing well makes them feel bad.
2109: Palin - "Darn right it was the predator lenders." Wall Street is corrupt, also evil. Good to hear that Palin is on board with the 'fix the economy by putting people in jail' plan. I'm also glad to know that we're thinking of putting usury back on the list of threats to society.
2110: Biden is pulling out the old deregulatory trope and blaming it on George Bush. Never mind that the '90s were a massive period of deregulation, or that that regulatory expenditure expanded massively under George W. Bush.
2114: Oh God. Is Palin listing her record as Mayor as a qualification to be President and manage the American economy? She is right about McCain wanting to regulate whatever tickles his fancy, though.
2115: Biden reinforces the real issue of this debate - massive run on sentences. Corporations are not part of America now, too.
2116: Palin thinks patriotism is refusing to be regulated or taxed. Do either of these people know what patriotism is? Also - Palin makes a legitimate point about healthcare regulation across state lines.
2118: Biden argues that redistributing wealth is just "fairness," while demanding that the government not tax the wealthy's healthcare to pay for healthcare for the poor. Tyler Cowen is right - Americans really, really, really don't like means testing.
2120: Biden says that he will cut John McCain's tax cuts from his administration's future programs to counterbalance Barack Obama's spending. Unfortunately, budgetary credit may not transfer across alternate universes where Obama and McCain are simultaneously President. Hiring foreigners is now "unpatriotic" too.
2122: More oil company tax break football. She refuses to take anything off the table, simultaneously leave Americans alone while eliminating greed and passing a massive financial bailout bill.
2125: Great. They all agree on the windfall profits oil tax as a solution to our economic woes. Lowest common denominator politics at their finest.
2126: Please. Stop. Saying. Corruption. And. Greed. Does the term "market failure" mean anything to you?
2128: Palin always has to answer her last topic before addressing the current one. Someone's finally matched Biden in blowhardiness. She's also passed the essential political test of blaming foreign people and their filthy foreign oil for our economic problems.
2130: Being from "our nation's only Arctic state" qualifies her on environmental issues, too. "Real changes are goin' on in our climate." "Effect the impacts." Also, switching to domestic oil apparently will reduce warming, since, as we all know, everything foreign is more dirty.
2132: Biden really shouldn't be criticizing McCain for coming out against biofuels.
2133: Palin is proud of hosting the country's most expensive pipeline? I guess they're only wasteful earmarks when Alaskans don't like them. She also pronounces nuclear the "folksy" way.
2136: Same old conservative gay marriage trope. But she's tolerant and her family is diverse, so it's OK. Of course, nor does Biden support redefining marriage. Can these two agree on a good idea?
2139: More adulation for Petraeus. Why don't we let this guy be President?
2141: Barack and Joe think it's time for the Iraqis to start fixing their own stupid country. Since when is it our responsibility to take care of countries that we destroy?
2142: Palin - SURRENDER! THE SURGE! THE SURGE! THE SUUUURRRRRRGGGGE! More backhanded compliments to Biden on opposing all of Obama's votes.
2143: Biden argues that McCain was incorrect in arguing Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction, yet argues exactly this position now.
2145: Time to roll out the Pakistani disaster bandwagon. Biden thinks Pakistan is going to nuke Israel? I wasn't aware Pakistan gave a damn about that part of the Middle East. Biden wants to support the Pakistani democracy by illegally violating its borders whenever we feel like it.
2146: Palin - Petraeus thinks the central front of the war on terror is in Iraq, so it is. Always and forever.
2150: There really is no point to discussing diplomacy as a contrast issue without "nuance," is there?
2151: "Never again" applies to both Israel and... American homeowners. Took until now for Palin to apply it to the former, though.
2152: Joe Biden needs to stop referring to Joe Biden in the third person.
2153: Barack Obama and Biden are against ill-advised wars against Muslim countries unless they're Pakistan or... Lebanon? Do any Americans really think putting troops into Lebanon again is a good idea? Why is this a talking point now?
2154: "I'm so encouraged to know we both love Israel."
2155: Biden wants to know how John McCain's position differs from Bush's on Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq - increasingly, McCain differs by not moving toward's Obama's positions, for better or worse.
2156: Palin wants to implement the "surge principles" in Afghanistan... Without mentioning what exactly those are.
2158: For all Biden's bluster about arms control, he needs to explain how this is going to be possible when we go after Osama in Pakistan.
2159: Palin knows McClellan's name! Too bad she's about 150 years off.
2200: Biden thinks the American public has the stomach for success. Biden is against wars that aren't his idea. Good to know.
2202: Yes, Sarah Palin, it is very obvious you're a Washington outsider. But we can't blame you for trying to fit in with that flip-flopping speech.
2204: Biden think he can revoke the sovereignty of other countries and then invade them - that makes it OK.
2205: John McCain, on the other hand, knows how to win wars on his own.
2210: "Joe Biden's Neighborhood" sounds like it has potential as a CSPAN children's show.
2211: Shout out to 3rd graders. Is this a first?
2208: Palin winked again. What does it all mean?
2214: I WIN PALIN BINGO. A great day for all Americans who are me.
2218: "America is a nation of exceptionalism." Exceptional something, I'll give you that. Wait. Did she just misattribute "City on a hill?"
2224: Biden brings up the one court case Palin still knows.
2228: It's almost over. Thank God, it's almost over. Please let this never happen again. These are by far two of the most - "national security freedoms?" What?
2230: Joe Biden makes one last gasp attempt to show he hates CEOs more than Sarah Palin. Anyway, please let these two never appear in tandem for an extended period ever, ever again.
A Good Fight?
If there's one thing Americans appear to agree on, it's Afghanistan - the war is winnable, but it needs more troops. Untainted by the stigma of preemption or unilateralism, Afghanistan is the "good war" that everybody can get behind. However, we should not confuse righteousness with feasibility.
There is no mistake that Afghanistan has been shortchanged since the beginning of the conflict. The effort to rectify this, however, is much larger than many imagine. Afghanistan, were it to have a level of military presence proportional to successful counterinsurgency campaigns, would likely require 400,000 troops for stability. Counting current NATO deployments and the Afghan security forces, that is twice the number of troops we have in Afghanistan today. Neither candidate has proposed sending anywhere near 200,000 troops to Afghanistan, nor could they feasibly be expected to do so. Nor is it likely that the United Kingdom, France, Canada or Germany will be willing to commit thousands more of their soldiers. Indeed, the British ambassador to Afghanistan has allegedly written off the Afghan campaign as futile, with a dictatorship that holds the country together as the optimal outcome - a new Iron Amir.
Of course, one might retort that a "surge" in Afghanistan could work as well as the one in Iraq did. However, this is far less likely to work out in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has dozens of millions of people, just like Iraq, and far more difficult terrain - a brigade in Afghanistan simply isn't as helpful as a brigade in Iraq. The surge in Iraq was also accompanied and preceded by significant changes in tactics that are far less likely to occur in Afghanistan. The Pashtun tribes that harbor al Qaeda and the Taliban are far less likely to switch sides, and in many cases al Qaeda is too deeply integrated with tribes to make such a strategy effective. Nor would the assassination campaign that JSOC conducted in Iraq work effectively in Afghanistan - enemy leaders are less accessible, and crossing the border into Pakistan is only making us more enemies on the other side of the border.
A strategy to stabilize Afghanistan would likely require rebuilding the tribal structure, perhaps even at the expense of the "national" level strategy, and placing more troops in harm's way. While Americans might have the stomach for such a war, European reactions to attacks indicate they may not, while the effects of the Anbar Awakening in Iraq should remind us that empowering tribes may create friction with the central government. We would also need to establish a long-term political, military, and economic commitment to Afghanistan. But with billions of dollars in bailouts down the pipe and an American public that will be clamoring for relief in the months to come (perhaps in Europe, too), NATO members will have a tough time convincing their people that Afghanistan is worth it. Success in Afghanistan is not likely to occur within the next four years. Perhaps not even within the next eight. Should we add a war in Pakistan into the mix, it may not be won at all. There is nothing wrong with believing Afghanistan is a just war. But if it is just, and we wish to win it, we're going to have to commit enormous resources to it. Something Americans should keep in mind as they throw all besides the economy to the wind.
Elsewhere, the Somali pirate drama has spotlighted a more disturbing trend - the looming escalation of the conflict between the Sudanese government and southern (ie, not Darfuri) separatists. Simultaneously, skepticism about AFRICOM does not bode well for American response capability or a "revolutionized" military policy in Africa.
There is no mistake that Afghanistan has been shortchanged since the beginning of the conflict. The effort to rectify this, however, is much larger than many imagine. Afghanistan, were it to have a level of military presence proportional to successful counterinsurgency campaigns, would likely require 400,000 troops for stability. Counting current NATO deployments and the Afghan security forces, that is twice the number of troops we have in Afghanistan today. Neither candidate has proposed sending anywhere near 200,000 troops to Afghanistan, nor could they feasibly be expected to do so. Nor is it likely that the United Kingdom, France, Canada or Germany will be willing to commit thousands more of their soldiers. Indeed, the British ambassador to Afghanistan has allegedly written off the Afghan campaign as futile, with a dictatorship that holds the country together as the optimal outcome - a new Iron Amir.
Of course, one might retort that a "surge" in Afghanistan could work as well as the one in Iraq did. However, this is far less likely to work out in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has dozens of millions of people, just like Iraq, and far more difficult terrain - a brigade in Afghanistan simply isn't as helpful as a brigade in Iraq. The surge in Iraq was also accompanied and preceded by significant changes in tactics that are far less likely to occur in Afghanistan. The Pashtun tribes that harbor al Qaeda and the Taliban are far less likely to switch sides, and in many cases al Qaeda is too deeply integrated with tribes to make such a strategy effective. Nor would the assassination campaign that JSOC conducted in Iraq work effectively in Afghanistan - enemy leaders are less accessible, and crossing the border into Pakistan is only making us more enemies on the other side of the border.
A strategy to stabilize Afghanistan would likely require rebuilding the tribal structure, perhaps even at the expense of the "national" level strategy, and placing more troops in harm's way. While Americans might have the stomach for such a war, European reactions to attacks indicate they may not, while the effects of the Anbar Awakening in Iraq should remind us that empowering tribes may create friction with the central government. We would also need to establish a long-term political, military, and economic commitment to Afghanistan. But with billions of dollars in bailouts down the pipe and an American public that will be clamoring for relief in the months to come (perhaps in Europe, too), NATO members will have a tough time convincing their people that Afghanistan is worth it. Success in Afghanistan is not likely to occur within the next four years. Perhaps not even within the next eight. Should we add a war in Pakistan into the mix, it may not be won at all. There is nothing wrong with believing Afghanistan is a just war. But if it is just, and we wish to win it, we're going to have to commit enormous resources to it. Something Americans should keep in mind as they throw all besides the economy to the wind.
Elsewhere, the Somali pirate drama has spotlighted a more disturbing trend - the looming escalation of the conflict between the Sudanese government and southern (ie, not Darfuri) separatists. Simultaneously, skepticism about AFRICOM does not bode well for American response capability or a "revolutionized" military policy in Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)