Sunday Reflections

Aurora Borealis above Bear Lake,  Eileson Air Force Base, Alaska

United States Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Strang

Regulating Economic Inactivity

In earlier posts, I discussed the problematic individual mandate with Obamacare. In a recent column, George Will illustrates the logical extension of that mandate if it's ruled constitutional.  He poses these questions to Elena Kagan for her Supreme Court confirmation:

So, instead answer this harmless hypothetical: If Congress decides interstate commerce is substantially affected by the costs of obesity, may Congress require obese people to purchase participation in programs such as Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

• The government having decided that Chrysler's survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide Cash for Clunkers is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?

• If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?

• Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?

 As stated earlier, the individual mandate changes the social contract between the individual and the government. If the government can regulate economic inactivity, there's nothing they can't regulate.

Can Athesists Be Moral?

The answer is yes, non-believers can act morally. However, Assistant Village Idiot points out that the morality of hard-core atheistic-Darwinists is not grounded in any foundation since according to this view, human beings exist due to accidental and fortuitous circumstances. Thus, our morality is a by-product of our imperative to survive:

Do you begin to see why the nonbeliever’s insistence that they can be just as moral as the next guy is true, but it is a truth with no value? It helps the group to survive, but really, why should we care? It helps us to survive individually, but why should we care about that, either? It’s an opposable thumb, the loss of a tail, a purple flower. ..

This morality protects its young, but what would be the objection the morality which ate its young? By habit and training that feels very wrong to us, and nonbelievers are as quick as anyone to say it is simply wrong. They don’t do those things, and it is moral that they don’t. They can avoid those things as well as believers.

Perhaps this whole picture is correct, and all of morality simply a dorsal fin. But if so, then everything is permitted, just as Dostoevsky said. That the current crop of nonbelievers don’t eat their children should be a matter of great rejoicing. But what if next year’s crop slips into some other odd branch of this survival tool we call morality and develops post hoc reasoning why eating Junior is okay? It’s no good to even comment on whether that would be moral or immoral. Everything is permitted.

The Christian answer, as I have suggested, may be no truer than the others. It may be just one more variation of photosynthesis. I offer here no defense of that. Perhaps there is some other explanation outside of mankind – no, it would have to be outside of life itself – no wait, it would have to be outside of this accidental planet and even the accidental universe – that would make something in morality real, and true, and valuable. But absent any such, there isn’t anything that qualifies as morality – and there is simply no meaning beyond the masturbatory for a nonbeliever to give himself any credit for having one equal to the believer’s.

In other words, why is survival in and of itself of the group or individual of the most paramount value if there's no meaning to our existence in the universe? If we're just the sum of our parts, a bag of cells with no soul, why does maximizing survival for all individuals matter? What is the foundation to the non-believer's morality? The answer is there can be none; the logical extension of atheism eventually leads to the rationalization of taboo cultural restrictions.

The Aftermath of McChrystal

Obama hasn't done a clean sweep on the civilian side of the house, despite some astute foreign policy pundits calling for it.  Who in the administration is in charge of Afghanistan political policy? Is it Clinton? Holbrooke? Eikenberry? Jones?  Hard to say.  McClatchy just noted last week we have no long term political strategy in Afghanistan which in turn is hurting the military effort:

The failure to articulate what a post-American Afghanistan should look like and devise a political path for achieving it is a major obstacle to success for the U.S. military-led counter-insurgency campaign that's underway, these officials and experts said.

The result is "strategic confusion," said Ronald E. Neumann, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005-07.

 
Peter Feaver at Shadow Gov't has some perceptive observations on the implications of the replacing McChrystal with Petraus:

If President Obama's only problem was how to deal with a great fighter who cultivated a poor command climate and was careless in his media relations, then the problem is solved - and deftly so.

But operationally, I fear Obama's problems are greater and that the Petraeus-for-McChrystal swap is an insufficient step. Operationally, the problem is that McChrystal's intemperate statements about his colleagues were impolitic but accurate. [emphasis added.]  The occasion called for a more extensive housecleaning than Obama performed.  Obama punished the one guy caught on tape, not the others on the team that were underperforming.

Yes, Obama in his statement reaffirmed the importance of unity of effort.  Yes, Obama said he "won't tolerate division."  But so far as we know, nothing else was done to fix the other problems.  Petraeus may well prove a more deft and diplomatic bureaucratic operator than McChrystal, but Obama did not set him up for success with the clean sweep that was warranted.

And strategically, I worry that Obama has robbed Peter to pay Paul -- increased the risks in Iraq and Iran in order to reduce the risks in Afghanistan. As CENTCOM Commander, Petraeus was the senior military officer watching Iraq. Given the administration's rush to declare mission accomplished there, one might say that Petraeus was the only senior member of the Obama national security team who seemed to understand just how fragile was the hard-won progress in that critical country. Likewise, Petraeus' reputation probably bought us a non-trivial margin of credibility on the pressure track with Iran. Weakening the pressure track weakens our diplomatic leverage and hastens the day we will confront an Iranian nuclear weapon. Viewed this way, the appointment of Petraeus may be less important than the appointment of Petraeus' successor.

When Obama replaced McChrystal with Petraus, he announced his Afghan strategy would not change. His SecDef keeps saying the timetable is not a timetable, we delayed the Kandahar offensive, the Taliban are still refusing to negotiate, and Obama doesn't think his strategy needs adjustment, or that maybe he's not receiving the best advice from the civilians?  What a way to stay the course--until 2011.

Obama is more interested in transforming America domestically than in dealing with foreign policy.  He's perceives he's got plenty of "brights" on the civilian side of the house to handle that portfolio. He views Afghanistan as a problem to solve. One senses little moral imperative or conviction in why we should stay in Afghanistan. He seems to have no guiding principles on foreign policy, except that it shouldn't detract from his transformation projection. So it's not too much of a surprise our policy in Afghanistan is in trouble, particularly when one's adversaries senses the US President does not really feel invested in it.

Yes General McChrystal, It's Insubordination

Hotair has links to the latest scoop.  The entire article on Gen McChrystal's comments was published online in the Rolling Stone this morning.  Let me preface this with some thoughts:  I did not feel McChrystal's earlier comments in London were insubordination since he was frankly discussing his views on policy, although he pushed the limit somewhat in those remarks.  I'm tremendously sympathetic to the frustration that he must feel regarding whether the President is really engaged or focused on victory in Afghanistan.  The "deadline" announced with the troop surge undercuts its very rationale.  It's no surprise the Taliban aren't coming to the table if they assess they can wait us out and win it all back.   In a WaPo op-ed today, Richard Cohen defines quite clearly the lack of any moral component of Obama's foreign policy: 

It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama's foreign policy is no heart at all. It consists instead of a series of challenges -- of problems that need fixing, not wrongs that need to be righted. As Winston Churchill once said of a certain pudding, Obama's approach to foreign affairs lacks theme. So, it seems, does the man himself.

For instance, it's not clear that Obama is appalled by China's appalling human rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia. He treats the Israelis and their various enemies as pests of equal moral standing. The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much...

Foreign policy is the realm where a president comes closest to ruling by diktat. By command decision, the war in Afghanistan has been escalated, yet it seems to lack an urgent moral component. It has an apparent end date even though girls may not yet be able to attend school and the Taliban may rule again. In some respects, I agree -- the earlier out of Afghanistan, the better -- but if we are to stay even for a while, it has to be for reasons that have to do with principle...

Problems with Obama's foreign policy aside, a few observations on griping about the higher ups:  I'm just a mid-level field grader, but I'm not surprised by some of the comments that McChrystal and his aides would make privately to each other.  Some griping about someone higher up in the chain of command is a given in the military, especially in wartime.  Fielded units will often complain about the lack of understanding and insight from higher headquarters on issues of tactical necessity, just as the Rolling Stone article describes the soldiers' discussion with McChrystal on what they perceive as too restrictive rules of engagement.  In this sense, higher ranking officers are not immune to temptations to mutter something about the chain of command or civilian leadership occasionally.  People in the all volunteer force serve as a calling, and as such, they tend to be passionate in their views about what's best for the mission.  When general officers make eyebrow raising comments, it's usually off the cuff at informal settings, or behind closed doors.  Whatever one's private feelings, most officers avoid publicly airing these comments. 

Having said all that, when those type of comments spill out so publicly as they did in this article, it's a red alarm that frustration has reached critical mass, often due to serious deficiencies in leadership. I read the entire Rolling Stone article with incredulity; it read like a big middle finger to the administration.  And as empathetic as I am to McChrystal and his aides' frustrations, this sort of situation is never good for morale and never reflects well on the one who made the comments--no matter how justified you think they are in their statements.  When a situation like this occurs, everyone in the lower ranks tends just to watch stunned as Officer X makes disloyal comment about Higher Officer Y, and we just look at each other in disbelief asking, did he just say that publicly?  We start wondering about our own efforts in following Higher Officer Y.  What's worse is these comments weren't just about other military officers--they were about the President and Vice President, and the national security staff.

The article starts off right away with back-biting rhetoric.  This bit about McChrystal having to meet a French minister for dinner:

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn. 

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

The French are an easy target, but despite our complaints, they are our allies.  We should not publicly denigrate our allies' contributions.  From there, the article gets worse.  Some of the choicest quotes:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner. 

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

Or this one:

In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."

And it continues:

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

And about the President:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

When comments do not reflect well on the President or Vice-President, there's no other way to describe it except as downright disloyal.  When you swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, it means being loyal to its civilian leadership--no matter what you think of them.  As difficult as Afghanistan is right now, the President would be justified in cashiering McChrystal.  The fact many of the comments are from his aides is not an excuse--he clearly allowed this sort of atmosphere if they're speaking so brazenly to reporters.  Politico is reporting he saw the Rolling Stone article before it was published.  I have a hard time believing he's surprised over the stir this is causing, and am left half wondering if he wanted this to get out deliberately. Even if he gets fired, he will at least have achieved a debate over the larger Afghan strategy.  If it was never his intention to offend anyone, he sorely misjudged how its content would be perceived, and that doesn't reflect well on him, either. I think for the sake of the Afghanistan war, it's best he offer his resignation, and for the President to accept it.

For the Oil Spill, What Would America's Mayor Do?

Since folks to include your humble blogger brought up America's mayor as an example of leadership as opposed to Obama's fumbling of the oil spill clean up, what would Rudy Giuliani do? He tells us here on MSNBC's Morning Joe.




Via Real Clear Politics:

Mika Brzezinski asks Giuliani "What would you do?"

"I know exactly what I would have done. The first thing I would have done is to bring in outside experts who knew as much or more about this than BP because I wouldn't trust just BP to run it for me. I wouldn't want my fate, the fate of my people, the fate of the southern part of this country in the hands of BP. I would have gone and I'd have called up the people you're talking about, the people I talked about the other night. Are there people that are better than BP, I would have asked. The answer is "yes." Are there people that are far better than BP? Yes. Is BP good at this? No. Then give me the people that are the best. After all, I'm the President of the United States or the Mayor of New York City. You can get anything you want. Give me the people that are the best. I want them here-- He hasn't called any of these people. Not a single one. Go ask them. He has not talked to them, he doesn't like them, he doesn't trust them. He's gone to academics because that's what he trusts."

Sunday Reflections

Happy Father's Day.  Just my opinion, but manly virtue is at its most beautiful when it's in the role of fatherhood. This photo reminds me of all the sacrifices our fathers make for us. 

SAN DIEGO (March 28, 2007) - Gunnery Sgt. Octavio Gonzalez's son refuses to let go of his father's neck as he prepares to deploy with dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52). Pearl Harbor departed the San Diego area to participate in Partnership of the Americas (POA) 2007. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kathleen Gorby (RELEASED)

North Korea Turns Towards Private Markets

The WaPo is reporting that North Korea is turning towards private markets to stave off a food crisis, and has lifted all restrictions on them.  I blogged earlier on indicators that the regime's grip on its citizenry may be slipping, as large riots and civil disturbances ensued when they reversed market reforms last year.  So its seems the regime is indeed backing down:

In recent weeks, according to North Korea observers and defector groups with sources in the country, Kim Jong Il's government admitted its inability to solve the current food shortage and encouraged its people to rely on private markets for the purchase of goods. Though the policy reversal will not alter daily patterns -- North Koreans have depended on such markets for more than 15 years -- the latest order from Pyongyang abandons a key pillar of a central, planned economy.

With November's currency revaluation, Kim wiped out his citizens' personal savings and struck a blow against the private food distribution system sustaining his country. The latest policy switch, though, stands as an acknowledgment that the currency move was a failure and that only capitalist-style trading can prevent widespread famine.

"The North Korean government has tried all possible ways [for a planned economy] and failed, and it now has to resort to the last option," said Koh Yu-hwan, professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University in Seoul. "There's been lots of back and forth in what the government has been willing to tolerate, and I cannot rule out the possibility of them trying to bring back restrictions on the markets. But it is hard for the government to reverse it now."

Because North Korea operates in secrecy and isolation, outside observers rely on informants and accounts from defectors. In this case, experts agree that the food shortage is dire. Several analysts who monitor and travel to North Korea said that in recent weeks, Pyongyang has abandoned almost all its rules about who can spend money and when. That would seem to indicate that Kim -- who once equated free-market trading with "egotism" and a collapse of social order -- now wants to rehabilitate the markets damaged in November.

There's evidence in scholarly research that shows authoritarian governments who open up too quickly to democratic reforms become destabilized.  North Korea may be trying to imitate the Chinese model of gradual economic reforms to harness some support and legitimacy of the regime while still keeping a clamp on any political reforms. The hermit kingdom can't stay isolated forever in the same manner of other small nations.  Korea is a divided country on a peninsula, and standing in stark contrast to North Korea's poverty is it's rich sibling of South Korea. Just as East and West Germany eventually reunited, I feel that history will eventually lead to reunification of the peninsula. Unless the North Korea regime, desperate to retain vestiges of legitimacy, provokes a war with South Korea.

Where Americans Are Moving

Forbes has an interactive map where you can click on any county to see migration in/out of that location during 2008.  AEI highlights some major trends:

Texas’s low-cost, liberty-loving atmosphere has become an attractive alternative to California’s oppressive public sector and dysfunctional policy environment. No amount of heart-melting vistas, celebrity sightings, or traipses through wine country can make up for what almost appears a strategic attempt by one of the nation’s largest states to drive businesses and productive people away....


If we look at Harris County, Texas, where Houston is located, we can practically hear a giant sucking sound as the state’s largest city pulls people southward from the northeast, the Midwest, and elsewhere. Most of the outmigration is regional, with some identifiable patterns to the upper northwest. You get a similar picture when you look at the migration patterns to Dallas and Austin.

 Now let’s look at California. Aside from the appeal of Los Angeles to people living in the high-cost northeast (you might as well have good beaches and sunny weather if you’re paying high taxes for bad services), it appears the city of angels is losing its heavenly radiance in a massive way. San Diego also looks very red. San Francisco (not included here) has a surprisingly black hue to it in defiance of that beautiful city’s high cost of living, but it has a noticeably lower volume than the other great California cities.

People vote with their feet. And they clearly are voting for states with low taxes that are friendly to businesses.

Socialists' New Target: Little League Soccer

 From the National Post

Via David Thompson. The National Post from Canada reports:

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.

The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

This rule affects over 3000 children ages 4-17.  As expected, some parents and players aren't thrilled by this new rule:

Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.

He said if anything, the league’s new rule will coddle sore losers.

“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” said Kevin, 17, who has played in the league for five years. “People grow in adversity, they don’t really get worse…. I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”

Kevin’s father, Bruce Cappon, called the rule ludicrous.

“I couldn’t find anywhere in the world, even in a communist country, where that rule is enforced,” he said.

 Of course it's not all about self-esteem.  As the club leader defends the rules, he points out:

Mr. Cale said the league’s 12-person board of directors is not trying to take the fun out of the game, they are simply trying to make it fair [emphasis added].

What happened to sports teaching kids how to overcome adversity in the face of tough odds? These kids will be in for a rude awakening when they find out that adults in real life are not focused on making their lives easier or fairer.  

Chart of the Day: The Moocher Index

Via International Liberty (H/T: Ace of Spades).  The chart below shows income redistribution to non-poor people. The researchers subtracted the poverty rate to compare states on income redistribution.

 

A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.

This chart helps in clarifying the distinction between altruistic redistribution (a help up) and egalitarian distribution (a hand-out) that I blogged about recently. 

Presidential Leadership and the Oil Spill

I've avoided blogging on the oil spill since I don't see what good it does to blame either Pres Obama and/or BP for the blowout itself.  I'm not discounting the environmental disaster and economic consequences for the Gulf Coast, but unless further investigations prove otherwise, the spill was rare accident. While many are eager to blame BP, it should be noted they lost 11 workers in the rig explosion.  Obama initially deferred to BP on capping the oil leak.  At the time, that was probably the correct move since BP has much more expertise than the government on these matters, and it's in the best interest of BP's bottom line to stop the leak quickly. 

As this crisis has dragged on though, the federal government's response to the clean up has been a big clusterfark.  Conservatives aren't too surprised by this; we expect that a government that tries to do everything does nothing well.  But what's striking about the federal government's response is not that the bureaucracies made poor decisions--that's to be expected.  The reason why vast majorities are disapproving of Obama's performance in the oil spill is because he has not displayed effective leadership in the clean up effort.  Can anyone imagine Rudy Giuliani leading the clean up in a similar manner?

During a crisis, bureaucracies often need authoritative guidance from the top in order to get one or two big things done quickly.  What's particularly troublesome and has become a trend for this President is that he regularly engages into the politics of demonization and deflection; when has the buck ever stopped with him on any negative political outcome?  He seems more preoccupied in political warfare with BP than in trying to figure out how to clean up the oil.  Last week the Justice Department  hinted it might seek an injunction to stop BP from paying dividends to his shareholders, and open up a criminal investigation.

Malcom Rifkind over at the Times Online points out the problem with this:

The American interference on dividend policy has very serious consequences — and not just for BP. The dividends that it pays are a significant component in the income of pension funds in both Britain and the United States. BP says that £1 in every £7 that pension funds receive from dividends from FTSE 100 companies comes from BP. Pension funds would find a severe gap in their income if no dividend were paid. No less than 18 million people in the United Kingdom either own BP shares or are beneficiaries from pension funds that hold BP shares.

Current White House rhetoric is not just a dangerous worry for British pensioners. No less than 40 per cent of BP shares are held in the United States. A suspension of dividends would deprive US savers of $4 billion per annum.

In addition there are 22,800 people employed by BP who live in the United States. There are, therefore, many American voters who will not thank President Obama if he jeopardises their income or their pensions by careless talk on BP.

So Obama's demonization has done nothing to help clean up the oil, and has harmed trans-Atlantic relations instead, not to mention the impact on BP pensioners and workers.  The Brits are so concerned with the ramifications of the administration's policy on BP that President had to tell the new British PM David Cameron this:

BARACK OBAMA yesterday told David Cameron that his aggressive stance towards BP over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was not motivated by anti-British prejudice [emphasis added.] The US president, whose grandfather was allegedly tortured by the British in colonial Kenya, has pointedly referred to the oil giant as “British Petroleum”, although it changed its name nine years ago. British politicians claimed he was exploiting BP’s origins to deflect attention from his failure to manage the crisis.

After yesterday’s 30-minute telephone conversation, No 10 issued a carefully worded statement to defuse the growing transatlantic tensions. It stated: “President Obama said to the prime minister that BP was a multinational global company and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity. The prime minister stressed the economic importance of BP to the UK, US and other countries. The president made it clear that he had no interest in undermining BP’s value.”

That last line should continue with, "unless it'll stop my own political hemorrhage in the polls."  It seems the administration is realizing the damage from their statements as they back pedal a bit. The Justice Dept has now said they are not currently seeking an injunction at this time.

One would think more than 60 days into this crisis, the President would have given some direction to the bureaucracy to give the Gulf Coast governors what they need to clean up the spill. That's what the federal government normally does in national emergencies; the bureaucrats are told to give the governors what they need to enable them to take action.  The federal government writes blank checks and figures out later how to better the process; getting mired in procedure confuses process with purpose, and often results in a great deal of inflexibility and inaction.  Yet as the spill drags on, the bureaucracy is still engaged in counterproductive behavior to new levels of absurdity.  ABCNEWS reports the Coast Guard stopped Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's crude sucking barges and prevented them from taking in more oil due to questions on how many fire extinguishers and life boats are on board.  Alabama Governor Riley also reported having problems with the Coast Guard:

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 "It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

Bureaucracies and committees dominate when there's a lack of leadership. That's why Obama's polls numbers are sinking as oil washes up on the Gulf shores; he's focused on the wrong tasks and avoiding responsibility for the clean up by trying to assign it to BP.  Thus, it's no surprise the result is a bunch of hapless bureaucrats are hindering the clean up. That's what this oil spill has revealed about Obama: he's got a long way to go to learn some core leadership principles.  Whether he learns to see the forest through the trees, only time will tell.

Sunday Reflections

From the WSJ:

 RESCUE AND PROTECT: Staff Sgt. Edward Rosa reads the Bible and extends a cigarette to Pfc. Jorge Rostra Obando, who was stunned by an explosion in Afghanistan’s Arghanab Valley. One comrade was killed and two injured in the blast. Pfc. Rostran asked the sergeant to read Psalm 91, a favorite from his childhood. (Ricardo Garcia Vilanova for The Wall Street Journal)

First Things gives us Psalm 91 from the King James version:

He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

A Change in the Administration's Strategy Towards Iran?

The WSJ reports the administration is shifting their strategy to support dissidents inside Iran by expanding their access to communications by providing them with hardware and software to get their message out over the internet. They're also trying to counter the regime's jamming of Voice of America. However, the administration is also cutting funding for democracy promotion:

As part of its revised strategy, however, the State Department is reversing course from the Bush administration and is no longer funding some aggressive institutions focused on crafting training programs for democracy activists or offering other services intended to aid Iran's opposition.

The U.S. has cut new funding for programs including a center established in New Haven, Conn., to catalog human-rights abuses in Iran; an Iranian journalist-training initiative and a social-networking program focused on promoting democracy and human rights inside Iran.

"Because Iranians seem willing to take risks, we should be willing to provide them help when requested," says Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Washington's Freedom House. The State Department last year declined to provide $3 million in funding to keep open a Freedom House online magazine in Farsi that focused on democracy promotion.
U.S. officials say many of the programs had little impact inside Iran, a charge disputed by their administrators.

U.S. officials say they haven't pared back support for Iranian democracy, stressing that they have increased it in the communications area.

I'm not so sure this is a shift in strategy as it is in tactics.  This is an attempt by the administration to garner more bargaining power in negotiations.  The administration still wants to find a diplomatic solution through negotiations, and is still avoiding more coercive measures.  This, in combination with recent leaks that the Saudis will allow the Israelis to use their airspace to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, are signals to the Iranians that it's in their best interest to enter into negotiations with the US.  Interestingly, it also tells Turkey the US and Israel has other options if they're going to throw their support behind Tehran. 

The recent UNSC sanctions are designed to specifically target the regime and its security guarantor, the IRGC, versus the broad-based petroleum refining sanctions that impact all of Iranian society.  STRATFOR notes the Russians came aboard because they want technological modernization and  investment in their economy, and want a quid pro quo from the US on this. They still have a few cards to play as the sanctions do not prevent them from selling the S-300 air defense system to Iran, nor have they abandoned the Bushehr nuclear reactor project.  STRATFOR points out the significance of these sanctions is not that the sanctions themselves are crippling, but the loss of Russia as an ally is unsettling to Iran:

Iran may be used to a lot of things, but it is having an exceptionally difficult time getting used to the idea of Russia — long considered Iran’s primary power patron — hanging Tehran out to dry. Iran made no secret of its displeasure with Moscow in the lead up to the sanctions vote, releasing statement after statement warning the Kremlin of the consequences of turning its back on Tehran. Now having received the sanctions slap in the face, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is showing his defiance by canceling his trip to the Russian and Chinese-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tashkent on June 11, while Iran’s oil minister has postponed a June 22 visit to Russia.

This is by no means the first time Iran has been betrayed by its Russian ally. After all, Russia voted in the affirmative the previous six times the Security Council passed sanctions resolutions against Iran. Those previous sanctions were a symbolic show of force against Iran, and everyone, including Iran, knew they lacked real bite and suffered from the enforceability dilemma. This latest round of sanctions will face the same enforcement challenges and were careful to avoid touching Iran’s energy trade so as to get Russian and Chinese buy-in. That said, this did not end up being a fluff resolution.

The newest resolution expands travel and financial sanctions on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps entities — a preponderant force in the Iranian economy. The sanctions also go beyond inspections of Iranian air cargo to the seizure and disposal of Iranian contraband traveling by air or sea that could be used for military purposes. Instead of calling on states to exercise vigilance and restraint in the supply, transfer or sale of offensive weapons to Iran, the new resolution bans all of the above. Like previous resolutions, this one bars Iran from all enrichment-related activity, but now also emphasizes the construction of new nuclear sites. In short, this sanctions round expands the list of things Iran supposedly cannot do, while it allows action by interested states to interfere with a broader range of Iranian activities.

So is all the above enough to bring Iran to the table? Shadow Government is pessimistic:

And the Administration seems to have no strategy for what to do next. Sanctions aren't a strategy, they're a tool for achieving the strategic objective of preventing Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state. We're over-reliant on sanctions to deliver that weighty objective and need to be thinking much more creatively about how to impose costs on the Iranian government -- internationally and domestically -- for their choices.

When pressed to accede to his country being ruled by Macedonia, the Greek statesman Demosthenes refused, saying "I do not purchase regret at such a price." It could be that the Security Council Resolution will do the trick and Tehran will reconsider its current course. But I doubt it. It seems instead that we have purchased regret at the price of re-establishing Russian cooperation with Iran's nuclear and missile programs, demonstrating our inability to deliver both a NATO ally and an increasingly important rising power, and revealing that we have no cards to play except enfeebled sanctions.

The ball is in Iran's court now.  It's doubtful Iran will enter into negotiations without reminding the US its got a few levers of its own, namely, Hezbollah, and it's ability to prevent the formation of a functioning government in Iraq, which complicates the US exit strategy. Unless of course, the administration decides to pass much wider sanctions and fully support democracy promotion in Iran.  Then things will get really interesting.

Jewish Students Protest Turkey's Human Rights Hypocrisy

There's a movement among Jewish students to organize an aid flotilla to Turkey to protest their treatment of the Kurds. From the JPost:

Student Union chairman Boaz Torporovsky, who has been leading the reverse flotillacharge, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday, “Hundreds of people have volunteered for the flotilla, and many more are contacting us all the time for ways they can help.

“Our plan is to deliver much-needed humanitarian assistance to the Kurds of Turkey, who by the way outnumber Israelis and Palestinians combined,” he said.

“And to show that Turkey has its own issues when it comes to the treatment of its minorities, which they should consider before criticizing us.”

Torporovsky added that the National Student Union members had two separate flotilla ideas, both of which they hoped to embark on soon. The first was a flotilla of private yachts that would head out to sea if additional Gaza-bound flotillas entered Israeli waters.

“We would like to greet them at sea,” he said. “And explain to them, peacefully – we don’t want any violence – what it is that’s really going on here.

We’d like to show them the truth and help them understand that the reality here is not what they’ve been told.”

Torporovsky said that many yacht owners had already volunteered for that phase of the plan, and that he and his colleagues were preparing for the arrival of a number of Gaza-bound ships, of European or even Iranian origin.

The second phase of the National Student Union members’ flotilla plan would be the more ambitious journey to Turkey, though Torporovsky admitted they were hard-pressed when it came to funding it.

“We need three things to pull this part off,” he said.

“Money, logistical support and balls – and we’ve got the last two things covered. [emphasis added].

“But it’s here that we really get into the shameless hypocrisy of the Turks, because while they criticize us day and night, they are oppressing the Kurds and silencing the world when it comes to recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”

Good on 'em.

Funding Space Exploration

You may have missed it going into the Memorial Day weekend, but the space shuttle Atlantis completed what was probably her last flight. There are only 2 shuttle flights left until the shuttle program is retired this year.  Then we'll be dependent on Russia to get to the international space station (ISS) until commercial technology can get us there, potentially like this successful launch a few days ago of Space-X's Falcon 9 rocket. 

Obama's initial NASA budget called for canceling the Constellation program, and a focus on funding commercial space technologies.  Constellation was envisioned by Bush to do multiple things: be a replacement for the shuttle, enable us to get back to the moon to set up a permanent station there, and use it as a springboard to eventually get us to Mars.  

After much criticism from Congress, Obama decided to put an asteroid mission as well as Mars back on the table, and kept the Orion capsule from Constellation as a rescue pod for the ISS.  Many are still skeptical of his plan though, particularly former high profile astronauts like Neil Armstrong.  I'm no expert in space exploration and the experts are going back and forth on this, so I'll limit this to a few observations.  I question the wisdom of putting our manned space program into Russian hands, even if it's only temporarily.  No matter how NASA wants to sugar coat it, we're ceding our capabilities of human space flight to Russia in the interim.  While I like the idea of developing commercial space technologies to spark innovation, if the goal for NASA is to focus on solar system exploration with eventual missions to an asteroid and then Mars, there doesn't seem much of blue print on how to achieve those goals.  Without a plan, those stated goals seem designed as political assurances that some day, we'll get there.  So while Congress wrangles with the administration over the space program and potential job losses in their home states, I'll just share a few photos and one inspirational video.

Image of the solar transit of the International Space Station (ISS) and Space Shuttle Atlantis 50 minutes before docking, taken from the area of Madrid (Spain) on May 16th 2010 at 13h 28min 55s UT. Atlantis has just begun the "R-bar pitch maneuver": the shuttle performs a backflip that exposes its heat-shield to the crew of the ISS that makes photographs of it; since its approach trajectory is between the ISS and the Earth, this means that we are seeing Atlantis essentially from above, with the payload bay door opened. Photographed by Thierry Legault  (H/T: David Thompson).

Liftoff of the inaugural SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle carrying a Dragon spacecraft qualification unit. Launch occurred on Friday 4 June, 2010 at 2:45 Eastern / 18:45 UTC from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. Photo Credit: Chris Thompson / SpaceX.


 

TED: Physicist Brian Cox on Why We Need Explorers

The Longest Hatred: Anti-Semitism

The WH should marginalize Helen Thomas for her awful anti-Semitic remarks (see below).  Her apology is not adequate and does not make up for her remarks.  Whatever one thinks of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, it does not justify hateful anti-Semitism.  While bigots have the right to free speech like everyone else, failure to marginalize such views will only encourage the anti-Semities to disrupt a more rational discussion on Israeli policy, and US relations towards Israel.






Anti-semitism is the one of the oldest prejudices around, and as the Optimistic Conservative points out, based on the victim narrative.  This narrative basically states all our problems are the Jews' fault, whether they are a minority or the state of Israel. Another popular variant that is often invoked domestically involves the conspiratorial claim that powerful Jewish lobbyists are controlling our foreign policy (for an excellent refutation of the Israel Lobby myth, see former Secretary of State George P. Shultz).  Some of the rhetoric coming out of the MidEast is no different than Nazi Germany's propaganda against the Jews during WWII.  Worldwide, anti-Semitism has grown into a worrisome trend, and morally bankrupt politicians excuse this rhetoric and worse, violence against Jews since, they claim, look at Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. This is akin to the logic that well, she had a mini-skirt on so she can't blame her attacker from raping her. We see this same logic from those on the far Left who believe that America had it coming on 9-11 due to our foreign policy.  To question the victim's judgement is one thing, but to shrug your shoulders and imply she deserved the attack shifts blame to the victim and exculpates the attacker from his crime.  This is what anti-Semitism does; it encourages the metaphorical raping of Israel and Jews in general.

Recent anti-Semities have learned to hide their bigotry through one-sided criticism of Israeli policies while nary a word on Palestinian terrorism or genocidal rhetoric against Jews.  That does not mean criticism of Israeli policies itself is anti-Semitic, but those who want an honest critique of Israeli policies to be part of our political discourse should agree that anti-Semities should not be invited to that discussion since there's no way for rationality to prevail when its permeated with bigotry.  It's difficult to tell at first who the anti-Semities are, but they always reveal themselves in time.  Helen Thomas can continue to squawk and write about other issues, but regarding Israel, the WH Press Secretary should refuse to take any questions from her.  For when she discusses Israel, we know where her views come from, just as we tune out Pat Buchnanan when he discusses Jews (or come to think of it, any minorities).  As the Corner over at NRO pointed out, this incident brings to mind Andrew Klavan's newest video when he asks "You know what's great about anti-Semitism? It lets you know exactly who the dirtbags are."


The WH should not give any journalist, no matter how distinguished, a platform to spew bigotry.  For if the WH doesn't push back on this type of rhetoric, expect the anti-Semities to be emboldened. Their cacophony will doom any honest or rational discussion of US-Israeli relations.

Update: Helen Thomas just announced her retirement. One of the better recent decisions she has made; it's in the best interest for everyone to include Thomas. Any shred of credibility she had as a journalist is gone.

Sunday Reflections

Summertime

1868

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Alte Nationalgalerie in Berlin 

Turkey: Our New Frenemy

Finally.  The DC establishment is waking up to the implications of a Turkey who sidelines its secular traditions in favor of an Islamist one.  In an editorial, the WaPo writes:

WESTERN GOVERNMENTS have been right to be concerned about Israel's poor judgment and botched execution in the raid against the Free Gaza flotilla. But they ought to be at least as worried about the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which since Monday has shown a sympathy toward Islamic militants and a penchant for grotesque demagoguery toward Israel that ought to be unacceptable for a member of NATO...

Mr. Erdogan's crude attempt to exploit the incident comes only a couple of weeks after he joined Brazil's president in linking arms with Mr. Ahmadinejad, whom he is assisting in an effort to block new U.N. sanctions. What's remarkable about his turn toward extremism is that it comes after more than a year of assiduous courting by the Obama administration, which, among other things, has overlooked his antidemocratic behavior at home, helped him combat the Kurdish PKK and catered to Turkish sensitivities about the Armenian genocide. Israel is suffering the consequences of its misjudgments and disregard of U.S. interests. Will Mr. Erdogan's behavior be without cost?

In Foreign Policy mag post titled, "How Do You Say "Frenemy" in Turkish?" Steve Cook writes:

For the first time in its history, Ankara has chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding that Israel take steps to ease the blockade of Gaza or risk unspecified "consequences." Well before the recent crisis, the Turks had positioned themselves as thinly veiled advocates for Hamas, which has long been on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In public statements, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared Turkey's Islamists and Hamas. Implicit in these declarations is a parallel to Erdogan's own Justice and Development Party, whose predecessors were repeatedly banned from politics.

This parallel is rather odd. Turkey's Islamists always sought to process their grievances peacefully, while the Islamic Resistance Movement -- Hamas's actual name -- has a history of violence. Ankara's warm embrace of Hamas has not only angered the Israelis, but other U.S. regional allies including Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia.

Cook plays down the Islamist resurgence in Turkey by pointing out Turkey's foreign minister is not an Islamist, but there's no denying these changes surrounding Turkey's foreign policy came about after Erdogran's solidification of control over the government after he purged dissent from the secular Turkish military. Greg Sheridan notes the changes in Turkish society since the AKP has gained power:

But Turkish society was not immune to the currents of Islamisation and extremism running through the Muslim world. In 2002 it elected a seemingly moderate Islamist government, led by Recep Erdogan.

A few years ago I spent some time in Turkey and, like most new visitors, was entranced by the beauty of Istanbul, the vigorous diversity of Turkish society and its robust democratic debate.

But many of the secular Turks I met in Istanbul were deeply worried about the long-term intentions of their government, which they believed wanted to Islamise Turkish society but was moving cautiously and slowly because of the power of the military.

In the past year or so more than 200 Turkish military officers have been jailed on the most preposterous conspiracy charges, allegedly for plotting a coup. Like many Muslim societies, Turkey is always rife with conspiracy theories. When I was in Turkey the bestselling novel there was called Metal Firtina and concerned a US military invasion of Turkey. Many of the secular Turks who denounced their own government to me also told me they thought the Firtina scenario quite plausible, even realistic.

Similarly, I visited several city campuses in Istanbul, where smart young people, the sons and daughters of affluence and secularism, formed the student body. But the virulence of the anti-Israel propaganda was astonishing. On one campus there was a display explaining how Israeli tanks, when they entered Palestinian towns, strapped Palestinian children on to the front of the tanks so Palestinian fighters would not fire on them. Needless to say, this is completely nuts.

Robert Pollock has also relayed this exchange with the Turkish PM, who refused to condemn the popular movies in Turkey showing Americans killing Iraqis for organ harvesting.  The rise in anti-Americanism and anti-semitism in Turkish society is very worrying. Also noteworthy, is the reports that the Turkish government backed the NGO known as Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (it's Turkish acronym is IHH), whose ties to terrorist groups are currently under scrutiny.


Turkey is a NATO ally to the US and increasingly assertive power in the region.  It provides a natural check to Iranian hegemonic ambitions, has good relations with other Arab nations, and can be an important facilitator in MidEast peace talks.  We need to maintain good relations with Turkey, but we must also to the extent possible, conduct relations in a way that does not empower Islamic extremism. We can start by no longer remaining silent on Turkey's human rights hypocrisy. 

Survey: Liberals Are the Least "Economically Enlightened"

In a red meat nugget for this weekend, No Oil for Pacifists links to a study published in this month's Econ Journal Watch.  Zeljka Buturovic, research associate with Zogby International, and Daniel B. Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University, surveyed over 4800 American adults to gauge their "economic enlightenment." One of the variables they looked at was political ideology. From the study:

In the tables that follow, using the two-point scale, we report on the percentage of response that are INCORRECT. Thus, in the tables that follow, high numbers are bad. We focus on incorrect responses to highlight the problem of “people knowing what ain’t so.” Table 1 again shows that, for people inclined to participate in such a survey, going to college is not correlated with economic enlightenment. With the large sample size, all but the smallest of differences are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 

The line at the bottom reports for each ideological group the average number of incorrect answers. Adults self-identifying “very conservative” and “libertarian” perform the best, followed closely by “conservative.” Trailing far behind are “moderate,” then with another step down to “liberal,” and a final step to “progressive,” who, on average, get wrong 5.26 questions out of eight.

Here again we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions, and that had some such questions been included, the measured economic-enlightenment means by ideological groups may well have been somewhat different.

Nonetheless, we think that the measurement as-is captures something real. At least since the days of Frédéric Bastiat, many have said that people of the left often trail behind in incorporating basic economic insight into their aesthetics, morals, and politics. We put much stock in Hayek’s theory (Hayek 1978, 1979, 1988) that the social-democratic ethos is an atavistic reassertion of the ethos and mentality of the primordial paleolithic band, a mentality resistant to ideas of spontaneous order and disjointed knowledge. Our findings support such a claim, all the caveats notwithstanding. Several of the questions would seem to be fairly neutral with respect to partisan politics, particularly the questions on licensing, the standard of living, monopoly, and free trade. None of those questions challenge policies that are particularly leftwing or rationalized on the basis of equity. Yet even on such neutral questions the “progressives” and “liberals” do much worse than the “conservatives” and “libertarians.”

MaxedOutMama points out the demographics of the sample size are not representative:

It is very skewed toward the male, it is very skewed toward higher education, it is hugely skewed toward voters, etc. 

She also notes: 

It is weirdly fascinating in some awful ways. Note particularly the better performance among Walmart shoppers as opposed to non-Walmart shoppers, wealthier households as opposed to poorer households, high-frequency religious service attenders as opposed to non-service-going, and atheist/realist/humanists/Christians as opposed to Jewish/Muslims. The last two are driving me to the data; the dataset might be hugely skewed on the smaller groups.

Some other interesting things the survey found:

• College education is not correlated to economic enlightenment, although this contradicts findings from some other studies 
• McCain voters did better than Obama voters, non-union members fared better than union members, married better than singles, folks who answered whether they were considered a resident of "America" did better than those that considered themselves citizens "of planet earth," military members did better than non-military members, NASCAR fans did better than non-fans, and males outscored females.

Update: If you had trouble viewing Table 1, here it is:

Here are the questions:

The statements of the eight questions used are the following: 

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. 

• Unenlightened: Disagree

2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services. 

• Unenlightened: Disagree 

3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

• Unenlightened: Disagree 

4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.

• Unenlightened: Disagree 

5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.

• Unenlightened: Agree

6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.

• Unenlightened: Agree

7. Free trade leads to unemployment.

• Unenlightened: Agree

8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

•  Unenlightened: Disagree

A Peace Opportunity?

Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, thinks there may be an opportunity in the fallout of the flotilla raid in today's Time:

To test this proposition, Obama should adopt a three-pronged strategy. He should encourage the negotiation, by an Arab or European mediator, of a package deal between Hamas and Israel. The key ingredients are commitments by Hamas to prevent all violent attacks on Israel and stop smuggling weapons into Gaza. In return, Israel should lift its siege, allowing goods to flow in and out of Gaza with appropriate inspections. If Hamas breaks its commitments, which Israel has the ability to monitor, then the borders can be closed again — with Hamas rather than Israel bearing the blame. And in this context, a prisoner swap should be concluded so that Gilad Shalit, the kidnapped Israeli soldier, can be freed.

At the same time, Obama should try to shift attention to the West Bank, making sure that the "proximity talks" proceed. There is a quick fix available that would do much to improve Israel's image while strengthening the Palestinian leadership there. It involves the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from the West Bank territories they reoccupied during the intifadeh. The Palestinian security forces have demonstrated that they can prevent terrorism and maintain order in these areas, including during this crisis. Extending that control to all the areas ceded to Palestinian rule in the Oslo agreements would enable the Palestinian Authority to claim it had "liberated" Palestinian territory, not through violence but through peace negotiations with Israel.

Finally, Obama should try to patch things up between Turkey and Israel by refocusing them on the effort to promote an Israeli-Syrian peace. With the previous Israeli government, Turkey had played a key role as mediator with Syria. This gave Erdogan, with his intense interest in promoting Turkey's regional role, a stake in maintaining a relationship of trust with Israel. Although hurt feelings on both sides are bound to complicate this effort, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to find a way to rebuild Israel's strategically important relationship with Turkey, and Obama needs to bring Syria into his peacemaking effort.

It may be worth a shot once tempers calm down. Even Indyk admits success is unlikely, though.

So...What's the Gaza Blockade For?

Over at the Atlantic, Megan McArdle points out:

Many of my commenters seem to think that the point of the Gaza blockade is simply to keep war materiel from reaching insurgents in Gaza.  That is not the reason for the Gaza blockade, though it may be one goal.  But the strategy is much farther reaching than that:  it is to topple Hamas by immiserating the people who elected them.  Check out some of the war materiel being blockaded:

She shows this image:

And she concludes:

You cannot understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if you are determined to believe that every single thing one of the two sides does is the brilliant and imminently necessary exigency of an existential conflict, the brilliance undone only by the perfidy of a biased media that refuses to tell the true story. People, especially large groups of them, are more complicated than that. And both sides in this conflict are attempting to play a long game. To my mind, at this point both of them are playing extraordinarily badly. But that's a blog post for a different day.

Yes, it's more complicated than often presented, and this is one of those policies I think in the long term is counterproductive for the Israelis. On the other hand, I think she's being a bit glib on playing down the existential threat to Israel.  One only needs to look at MEMRI to see what the Imans tell their followers about Israel, and what's on Palestinian TV to see Palestinian children indoctrinated to think of Jews as less than human.  Still, Israel needs to accept political reality, or as Jeffrey Goldberg, a pro-Israeli blogger states:

The problem with Gelb's argument is not moral, but practical: We all understand the reality that Israel will be judged more harshly than other nations -- it has always been so, though only recently has this been true on the Atlantic website. Israel is not big enough -- and the world's fourteen million Jews are not strong enough -- to reshape this particular reality. So we have to learn to live within the reality created by others. This doesn't mean that Israel must go and commit suicide, as much of the world (including the Turkish humanitarians) would like it to do. But it means -- and I repeat myself here -- that Israel should approach its problems with elegance and subtlety. 

His original reference is to the actions that Israel took in stopping the flotilla, but it applies to the Gaza blockade as well.

Update: The comments over at Megan's blog are well worth reading. One noteworthy one:

I choose the side that wasn't laughing and dancing in the streets on 911 (and then tried to lie about the fact, even threatening those who provided the proof).

Chart of the Day: National Debt Exceeds $13 Trillion

From CBS news:

$13 trillion equates to nearly 90% of the US GDP.  When do we need to start worrying?  Right about now, according to Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University who chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under Pres. George H.W. Bush:

Ken Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of Maryland have studied the impact of high levels of national debt on economic growth in the U.S. and around the world in the last two centuries. In a study presented last month at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association in Atlanta, they conclude that, so long as the gross debt-GDP ratio is relatively modest, 30%-90% of GDP, the negative growth impact of higher debt is likely to be modest as well.

But as it gets to 90% of GDP, there is a dramatic slowing of economic growth by at least one percentage point a year. The likely causes are expectations of much higher taxes, uncertainty over resolution of the unsustainable deficits, and higher interest rates curtailing capital investment.

The Obama budget takes the publicly held debt to 73% and the gross debt to 103% of GDP by 2015, over this precipice. The president’s economists peg long-run growth potential at 2.5% per year, implying per capita growth of 1.7%. A decline of one percentage point would cut this annual growth rate by over half. That’s eventually the difference between a strong economy that can project global power and a stagnant, ossified society.

A Potential Way Out of the Gaza Blockade?

Bruce Ridel over at the Brookings Institution is offering up a potential solution to the Gaza blockade:

Secretary Clinton called the situation in Gaza “unsustainable” this week. She is right, but U.S. policy is also unsustainable. We need to find a way to get humanitarian aid to Gaza while ensuring Hamas can not smuggle in more rockets to attack Israeli cities and that prevents al Qaeda and other extremists from smuggling in "volunteers" who want to wage jihad.

Fortunately there is precedent for an international regime to monitor shipping in the region. In the 1990s the United Nations created a special regime to inspect cargo going to Iraq, then under UN sanctions, through the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The U.N. hired Lloyds of London to provide inspectors who examined each cargo to ensure Iraq was not importing banned material, especially weapons or technology for weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi people got aid but Saddam could not get WMD.

A regime like that needs to be established urgently to defuse Gaza. NATO could help provide inspectors; it already has a counter terrorism naval presence in the Mediterranean called Operation Active Endeavour created immediately after 9/11. If Hamas refuses to accept such a regime, the onus for any suffering in Gaza would clearly be on it. If it does, then the world can start rebuilding Gaza. 

Israel will not likely agree to if believes the inspectors are bound to be incompetent or passive such as UN forces in Lebanon who could not stop Hezbollah from smuggling in rockets and arms.  However, if it's a force with a bit more credibility like NATO, with a military commander who will work with both Israeli and Hamas officials, it may be a way out of an increasingly untenable situation.