COIN-ecticut Yankee in Capitol Hill

Closing

2011-02-13T12:10:00.000-05:00

Just to let everyone know, I'm closing this down and going back to my old pad at nhdemocrat.blogspot.com. Now that I'm back in the private sector, I feel like getting back into writing. See you over there.

Really

2009-11-08T21:40:00.002-05:00

These are the 'Masters of the Universe'?

2009-11-08T14:34:00.002-05:00

WTF?

Worthwhile Link

2009-11-08T08:48:00.000-05:00

Bruce Bartlett has some great suggestions on how to structure a commission to deal with the national debt. What's interesting is that Bartlett is a solidly Republican economist (made his name under Reagan), he recognizes the need for current deficit spending. At the same time, he is gravely worried about the long-term debt troubles this nation will face. Planning for dealing with this debt should be a priority, even if near-term economic conditions argue for continued deficit spending.

Interesting developments in Pakistan

2009-09-20T11:35:00.000-04:00

The Pakistani government appear to have actually filed charges against the cleric at the head of the organization behind the Mumbai bombings. This sort of tacit admission of guilt is interesting, though I'd be really surprised if he was actually punished in a meaningful way. Still, some progress is better than nothing.

Good Cause

2009-09-20T11:28:00.000-04:00

So while I've spent the past couple of weeks trying to ease our new batch of interns into our office I have been remiss in my duties as a blogger. And, to make it up to you, I offer a link to a good cause. I'm trying to figure out what I have that might be worthwhile to add to the library but I figure it can't hurt to offer them some publicity, however small.

Go Watch 'Generation Kill'

2009-09-13T23:50:00.000-04:00

I'm determined to check out 'Hurt Locker' on dvd, but 'Generation Kill' is a great tv series and should count as meaningful 'art' regarding the Iraq war.

Shorter Version of What I Just Said

2009-09-13T20:23:00.002-04:00

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/john-boehner/boehner-says-democrats-health-care-plan-would-lead/

Damn liberal media with their biased fact-checking.

Not Entirely Accurate

2009-09-13T20:06:00.000-04:00

I spent some time last week looking into the issue of whether the proposed health care reform we've seen so far would, in fact, increase the amount of Federal funding going to pay for abortion and the best answer I can say is, it would but the increases are fairly minor and don't, in fact, represent much of a change from the status quo. Matthew Yglesias statement here elides a couple of things and isn't entirely accurate, at the same time, claims that tens of millions of new abortions will be caused by this isn't really borne out by any reasonable analysis either. There is not, in the legislation proposed so far, any major changes to Federal abortion policy (the Hyde amendment and other similar legislation are not touched). However, the increase in funding would come in two ways: 1. a public plan would likely provide recipients with coverage, in the same way individuals with Medicaid/Medicare would have access to coverage and 2. individuals receiving subsidies could use those subsidies to purchase plans that would cover abortions as well. There are not requirements that Catholic hospitals offer abortions on demand. Claims to the contrary are either misinformed or lying-period.

BaucusCare 09

2009-09-08T23:30:00.000-04:00

If you haven't checked out the framework Max Baucus dropped on the Gang of Six today, I suggest you do so. Not only does this appear to be the bulk of what will come out of Finance but Baucus appears to be deadly serious about starting a markup within the next two weeks. This means two things; one is that health care reform remains on track for passage this fall and two, Olympia Snowe will likely have almost final say in whatever bill goes through (as Ezra Klein details nicely here). The only other thing I would add is that Snowe may be MORE liberal on this than Baucus or Conrad, as she seems to prefer a 'triggered' public option. Since Ben Nelson (likely vote #59 in any moving bill) recently came out in support of this ploy, I'm starting to see a trend.

As to the framework itself, there are provisions for Kent Conrad's co-ops. Beyond that the bill is a significant improvement on our current system and while specifics may be dicey (the subsidies could be higher and the funding remains murky), it still is something Obama and the Democrats could be proud of if its the best they can move through Congress. Plugging some holes in reform is still far better than standing for the status quo.

By Way of Balloon Juice

2009-09-08T23:17:00.002-04:00

Failed Template Change

2009-09-07T20:31:00.002-04:00

So I tried to change templates on the blog and it was a horrible failure. I had to reload my blog list. If I'm missing your blog or you see a blog I used to have that is missing, please let me know.

The President's Spech to School Children

2009-09-07T15:43:00.001-04:00

Highlights personal responsibility. I'm torn between making a sarcastic remark and just asking people to read the text. If you can find something remotely objectionable, I'd be surprised.

This Won't End Well

2009-09-06T11:16:00.003-04:00

Securitizing senior's life insurance policies sounds a lot like having major financial institutions gamble on how long the elderly will live. It's clear though that government is the problem, not Wall Street. Down with Communazifascism!

Fair and Balanced my A**

2009-09-06T09:41:00.003-04:00

Fox News recently took time away from promoting birtherism, criticizing the President and promoting the just plain stupid to take some pot shots at Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. At a recent townhall, one of her constituents was escorted out by the police as he kept shouting down other constituents. Fox and Friends, operating on their well-established journalistic standards of rumor and batshit crazy, decided that this meant that the Congresswoman had ordered SEIU thugs to remove him from the building. Nope, it was the Manchester police acting on their own discretion. Even the Union Leader-normally my go-to standard for awful reporting- got this story right. Well played Fox, well played.

'Capitalism and Freedom'

2009-09-06T09:32:00.003-04:00

I recently finished John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Great Crash 1929" and decided I need some balance to my largely pro-Keynes literature. So I started reading Milton Friedman's signature work and, right off the bat, I received a reminder that this might make for interesting reading. In his 1982 release introduction, he talks about how there has been a significant cultural change since the initial release in 1965. He highlights this by mentioning how he and his wife were able to get a television show created around the book. The show aired on PBS. I don't know enough yet about Friedman's positions to say this is completely ironic, but based on what I've read so far, I think that's a safe bet. Pseudo-libertarians citing shows on PBS are funny.

Worth Reading

2009-09-05T23:12:00.003-04:00

Deficit financing versus attempts at pay-go.

The Bush library will be run by the right people.

Andrew Exum on Obama and Afghanistan

Become a fan of the US Navy Museums on Facebook (really, do it)

Lastly, Paul Krugman's excellent piece in the NYTimes on the state of economics

Alright, instead we'll end on something more amusing. I may or may not be in this...

Untitled from collin gately on Vimeo.

Poor Incentive Analysis

2009-09-05T23:00:00.003-04:00

Matthew Yglesias claims that Afghan warlords receive money through 1. what he refers to rather generously as 'aid' and 2. drugs. He uses this to argue that they have no incentive to end the conflict with the Taliban. While I don't think the warlords are great at achieving our goals (or what I think our goals are, they remain tenuous and fuzzy), they have no interest in risking the Taliban winning out. Unlike the Pakistani government, for whom the Taliban remains a viable alternative ally, the warlords were largely driven out of power or killed the last time the Taliban ruled Kabul. I doubt very much that they would take any action to prolong the Taliban's resistance, however, I'm going to go on a limb and guess that where the warlords actually have influence, the Taliban are unable to control. The problem is that there are places (largely Pashtun majority provinces) where this is not the case. The dream in 2002 was that Karzai would be able to secure the support of Pashtuns despite a government largely made up of various ethnic warlords. Clearly that hasn't been the case, but that still provides little support that the warlords are acting in ways that prolong the Taliban insurgency.

No Comment

2009-09-05T18:11:00.003-04:00

On the whole President addressing school children absurdity; this shouldn't be a story and yet somehow is, man I'd hate to think if we didn't have a liberal media... However, I have noticed that Afghanistan seems to be drifting back into the news more lately. I think there will be a significant political fight over this, one that may need to be postponed until after health care has passed. Otherwise, the Democratic Party may tear itself apart and both health care reform and our efforts in Afghanistan will be jeopardized (this is because the President will get minimal support from Republicans not from Maine regardless of what he does on either issue).

Hoax?

2009-09-02T23:30:00.000-04:00

I sort of hope so, this looks dreadful...

I don't know how applicable this is to me now...

2009-09-01T20:38:00.002-04:00

but at various points in the past this is probably too true...

Just Because I haven't plugged it in awhile

2009-08-31T23:26:00.002-04:00

Mad Men is on AMC. This season has been excellent. Better, I'd argue, than last year's season. The show moves at a stately pace but the value is in the nuance; the slight pause, the tiny detail, the shot that lingers just a second longer than you'd expect. It's not for everyone, but I definitely recommend giving it a try.

Blah, blah, blah offensive blah

2009-08-31T23:03:00.001-04:00

Funny though (by way of Balloon-Juice)

Heritage or Development

2009-08-31T22:47:00.002-04:00

I'm not 100% sold on this either way, but my initial inclination, knowing nothing of the details, is that I'd rather preserve a battlefield where 29,000 soldiers died than build a Wal-Mart. If anyone knows details, please let me know. Otherwise, well, maybe we can put in a nice Starbucks on Little Round Top.

My Younger (little is no longer accurate) Brother Would be Proud

2009-08-31T22:35:00.000-04:00

Star Wars & COIN

Lockerbie Bomber Released for Oil

2009-08-31T08:03:00.002-04:00

Shocking, I know. It is pretty repulsive to see naked greed working like this.

'Psych'

2009-08-30T23:51:00.002-04:00

This show is clearly not going to blow anyone's mind, but, because it was a slow Sunday and I got a nasty sunburn, I ended up watching all four episodes so far this season. It's amusing. Plus it's always good to see West Wing alum doing well (Dule Hill, in this instance). Give it a look.

Scene from Psych on USA Network SEASON PREMIERE ...
by USANetwork

Ted Kenney RIP

2009-08-30T00:16:00.003-04:00

I was lucky enough to be able to attend the staff prayer session this afternoon for the late Senator Kennedy. We waited outside for about three hours before the motorcade drove up. The event itself was rather brief, Fr. McLaughlin said a short prayer, the assembled crowd sang 'America the Beautiful' and then Patrick Kennedy gave a short thank-you to Kennedy's actual staff (which was assembled at the base of the Senate stairs, several rows in front of where I stood). What happened next was spontaneous in that the staff and crowd sang 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' as the motorcade got ready to depart. It was very moving. There were hundreds of staff, from Kennedy's own offices and from other offices, and probably a couple thousand people standing in the East Lawn. It was, all in all, a fair testament for a very flawed, but very successful man.

Sen. Kennedy has, at least for the duration of my lifetime, been a lightning-rod for criticism of the Democratic Party, some of it brought on by his own very public failings and actions, some of it by sheer venom from those on the right. However, it is almost impossible to argue that he has not been a successful legislator. His involvement in the Civil Rights Act, the American's with Disabilities Act, the Medical and Family Leave Act, the flawed but successful No Child Left Behind and even the highly polarizing attempt at immigration reform are examples of legislative work where Kennedy partnered with Republicans to try to improve the lot of millions of Americans. His praises were sung by such prominent conservatives as Orrin Hatch and John McCain. His record amongst liberals is almost beyond reproach. Indeed, if he were involved with Sen. Max Baucus' current health care negotiations, he would have been one of the few people trusted enough to close a more controversial deal.

If a man's personal failings can be redeemed through public service, this would be the foremost example. It would have been easy for Ted to have left public life after the assassination of his brothers or his involvement in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne; the Kennedy's never lacked for means and he could have lived comfortably. He instead remained in public office and continued working for the people of Massachusetts. If there had been doubt before, it was made perfectly clear after 1980 that he would never be president. He remained in the Senate. He continued to work for the people of this country until almost his dying day. His accomplishments were legion and millions enjoy the benefits of his labor. In remembering Senator Kennedy, I really feel he should be held up as an example of redemption.

It's on my blogroll

2009-08-29T14:08:00.001-04:00

But I just want to flag for people the 'Aghan Lessons Learned for Soldiers' blog. If any of my readership are prepping to deploy, they have a lot of really interesting articles. As I have zero experience being in Afghanistan, I can't speak to the veracity of the work, but it seems to be pretty legit. Here's a great piece on IEDs.

OLIGARHY

2009-08-29T13:43:00.003-04:00

The threat is, apparently, that our government will become an oligarhy. I have $20 for anyone who can tell me what in God's name is an oligarhy. Does this man not have an editor? Does no one at Fox have the ability to spell check? I mean, on a blog you could sort of forgive this as a typo or something-but this was planned (clearly, someone had to put up the butcher paper and chalk board)! Oh who am I kidding, death panels!

Artist I'm listening to

2009-08-27T22:33:00.001-04:00

Here's the link to the website. I particularly like 'Same Person' and 'Hello There'.

What is driving the budget deficit?

2009-08-27T21:59:00.006-04:00

Just so that we're clear, the national debt is the sum of the deficits that we are running, the deficit is the annual shortfall of funds. It's normal for a government to run a debt that is around 20% of GDP, 40% is high but not abnormal and 60% would be above average. However, since it apparently has become cool to blame President Obama for the deficit, here is the breakdown on what turned a projected surplus (in 1999) into a deficit. Take a look.

'Is Counterinsurgency Stifling Debate'

2009-08-26T00:20:00.002-04:00

Over at Abu Muqawama, AM is continuing a recent trend of posting submissions as a means of encouraging debate. While his new topic (the title of this post) doesn't seem to be generating the heat that his previous query about Afghanistan did, it is still worth considering (though probably not for 600 words per my last attempt). I think the question is a bit off the mark: most of the COIN community really isn't interested in strategy and, somewhat intentionally, has avoided weighing in on Afghanistan's strategic worth since all major parties seem to agree that we should be there. In Iraq, where there was some debate, the COIN community generally was seen to be on the side of the 'Iraq war= mistake' strategic view (though the eventual implementation of their tactical suggestions may have salvaged the situation somewhat). The question really shouldn't be something taken up by blogs like AM (or Small Wars Journal for that matter) because that's not really their wheelhouse.

These blogs are about operations and tactics; the mechanics of a strategy. While their insight into the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of various techniques for conducting operations in low-intensity combat (COIN/stability ops/what have you) is useful in dictating one's approach to a situation, it still is not a strategy. Anyone who thinks that because we have COIN techniques that appear to be somewhat effective we can therefore 'win' Iraq or Afghanistan is just as daffy as anyone who was declaring victory on aircraft carriers. Tactics/operations are not a substitute for strategy.

A strategic debate would be what, one hopes, went on in the White House this winter, where the leadership argued out what the goals should be in Afghanistan and the best approach to achieve those goals. That the goals remain murky at best is an illustration of just how steep a hill our foreign policy team needs to climb (I am just finishing David Sanger's 'The Inheritance', which outlines this in pretty brutal detail). In any event, the strategy is, as best I can tell, to deny AQ/the Taliban control of Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions using an increase in forces to secure the Afghan side while prodding the Pakistani government to act in the border and, failing Pakistani action (or Pakistani action failing, the odds really aren't clear how the Pakistani counter-Taliban campaign will turn out long turn), to continue operations in Pakistan covertly. At the same time, again one hopes, the administration will continue to assist Pakistan in securing its nuclear arsenal and praying that it succeeds.

Counterinsurgency is the tool being used to execute this strategy in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan, though my guess is the PA will require a few more experiences in the joy of hill fighting to realize that conventional ops won't work). It is not stifling the debate any more than budget discussions or health care stifle the debate (actually, given the amount of ink going into health care, that issue probably does deserve some blame).

Because this blog has lacked video for some time

2009-08-25T23:49:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Fox News: The New Liberals

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

Oh, also, in case someone noticed

2009-08-25T23:46:00.003-04:00

Our socialist/communist president, who is hell bent on destroying this great nation, just reappointed a conservative Republican as head of the most powerful financial body in the country. Just remember that the next time some idiot starts ranting about socialism and how Barack Obama hates America. Conservative. Republican. Fed Chair. That is all.

Incredible Circular Logic

2009-08-25T22:48:00.005-04:00

I was watching Bill Maher's show tonight and Jeremy Scahill was discussing Blackwater and the criminal actions conducted by that organization and their handlers. Chuck Todd, esteemed legal mind, proceeded to deem it 'political cat nip' and said that it would get bogged down in the weeds. Thus it really didn't merit coverage by the media. Left unsaid was why this would happen: it would happen because Todd and his msm colleagues can't conceive of covering anything remotely political in an objective manner. Instead, there is the Democratic side and the Republican side, no matter the actual veracity of either sides claims. Hence weeks spent discussing 'death panels' that exist in the fevered minds of Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, but reviewing why contractors operating in the name of our nation gunned down 17 civilians is useless. The ironclad rigidity of the circle of stupidity that this sort of inanity consists of is astounding. Basically Todd is saying because we won't do our job properly it would be foolish to try to do our job properly. Here's some video of the exchange. Idiocy.

Sobering thought

2009-08-25T21:35:00.003-04:00

I realize people may have divergent political views from Bob Hebert (in fact, I tend to think that there's more justification for continued action in Afghanistan than he presents), but this column is well worth reading. It is a useful reminder that there is an increasing fracture between the general population of the country and the population fighting abroad. The burden of combat is borne by a smaller and smaller fraction of our country. Rightly or wrongly, this skews our will change our perceptions on what justifies the use of force in a given situation. It also requires a fair degree of hypocrisy where by we praise soldiers while persuading our young ones to avoid the profession of soldiering. I don't claim to have any expertise in this, but this bifurcation of society into those who fight and those who do not cannot be healthy.

Health Care Chart

2009-08-24T12:31:00.002-04:00

This is the best explanation of what the health care system under the proposed reforms would look like.

The story is starting to get more coverage

2009-08-24T12:18:00.002-04:00

but health care, death panels and the United States turning into Russia seem to be dominating the debate. So long as Afghanistan slides below the radar, the better, to my mind. Regrettably the two arguments that seem to be coming out involve either effectively abandoning counterinsurgency efforts for either a straight counter-terror campaign or committing something on the order of 100,000+ troops. I don't think that the campaign there has reached a point where either extreme is the best outcome. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the debate over health care, we don't do nuanced issue analysis well in this country.

Amusing link

2009-08-24T12:16:00.002-04:00

My friend Meghan has posted a pretty witty email that I'm happy to link to.

Russia is not going to occupy Venezuela

2009-08-17T22:16:00.002-04:00

Nor is Venezuela going to fight Columbia. Also, never mentioned in the article is the concept that fighting a literal war on drug lords really probably isn't the best use of our manpower nor do we particularly want to get into the absurdities inherent in our overall drug policy. On the other hand, it is worth noting that nations will try to find ways to advance their interests and we should be particularly cognizant that when we mess around in other nations perceived spheres of influence, they are likely to mess in ours. However, this is still worth reading.

New NY Times Blog

2009-08-17T22:13:00.003-04:00

The new blog on the NY Times site 'At War' seems like it might be worth following. I just got Dexter Filkin's book "Forever War" and it looks to be good. I'm hoping the blog lives up to the papers regular quality standards. Also, while on the subject of books that I bought. Amazon+credit cards+alcohol= way too many damn books.

Why We’re Fighting in the Graveyard of Empires

2009-08-16T11:57:00.001-04:00

I'm going to try to keep this under the six hundred word limit imposed by Abu Muqawama on his blog (these words don't count)…

The United States invaded Afghanistan in early October of 2001. Using Special Forces, local warlords and massive doses of air power, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies were rapidly driven from power and chased into the mountainous regions bordering Pakistan. The Taliban were eventually replaced by a somewhat democratic government headed by Hamid Karzai. However, in the years following the initial end of combat operations, the United States and its allies failed to take advantage of this lull by providing sufficient resources and support to rebuild Afghanistan into a functioning nation-state. As the focus of the Bush administration shifted to Iraq, Afghanistan became the forgotten war and the Taliban slowly regained control of much of the country.

Now the Obama administration is finally moving to focus on Afghanistan. It is worth keeping in mind that in the almost eight years we have been in Afghanistan, it has almost always been under-resourced and neglected. The possibility of a stable, vaguely democratic state forming in Afghanistan is a real one. Given that, it is well-worth seeing if we are capable of providing security for Afghanis and beginning the process of reconstruction and stabilization. There should be a recognition that conceding failure in Afghanistan without having ever seriously committed resources and attention to the region represents abandoning a population that has suffered a great deal, not just from the Taliban and warlords of the past decades, but also from our own combat operations. We invaded Afghanistan in order as a justifiable response to an attack on our homeland. We are responsible for occupying Afghanistan and should make a serious effort to see if an outcome acceptable to the people of Afghanistan and America's national interests can be realized.

In addition, the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda affiliates are now threatening to cause serious unrest in Pakistan, a state with active nuclear weapons. This is the first instance of organized extremist Takfiri organizations operating in a state with a recognized nuclear arsenal. While the point is easily made that we cannot fight a counterinsurgency operation in Pakistan, it is worth noting that we are capable of a considerable amount of CT operations largely due to our presence in Afghanistan. We have a much greater degree of operational flexibility in conducting drone strikes, pressuring the Pakistani government and responding to attempts by the Taliban to use the border as a safe-haven. We have a vested interest in making sure extremists are not given safe havens for planning and, more importantly, are not able to gain access to nuclear technology. It has been argued that our operations merely shift more pressure on to Pakistan, I am of the belief that this is offset by the capacity to intervene in an effective and limited manner.

This is not to say I propose unthinking support for continued operations in Afghanistan. I simply would like to see what the result is when these operations are adequately resourced and sufficient manpower is on the ground. In a similar manner, I am hesitant to authorize further commitment of men or material absent the opportunity to examine what impact the previous set of reinforcements had upon the situation. Our forces in Afghanistan deserve the opportunity to succeed, something the lack of men, material and funds made difficult during the last eight years. We have clear interests in Afghanistan, both a moral obligation to the people whose land we have invaded and a clear need to support Pakistan in combating Takfiri extremists.

I'm Beginning to Think Kagan is actually Irish for 'Send More Troops'

2009-08-16T10:10:00.003-04:00

The article isn't awful like his previous "It's always sunny in Baquba" pieces on Iraq. However, I really would like to know a situation he doesn't feel requires more American combat troops. My own views on our likely fortunes on Af-Pak are mixed at best. I definitely would hold-off on greenlighting anything above 68,000 troops until we see the results of the current increase. That also would give us time to continue drawing down on Iraq and hopefully ease up some of the deployment strain on our military. I'm still not convinced a full country rebuild is practical in Afghanistan but I'm also skeptical about a straight CT style campaign without a pretty substantive commitment of forces.

People wonder why Democrats are portrayed as 'weak'

2009-08-16T10:03:00.002-04:00

I don't think that stereotype can accurately be attributed to just policies (as evidenced by the health care 'debate', policies really don't matter much in terms of what people discuss). A lot of it has to do with the impression that, when push comes to shove, we'll give, even when we know we're right. So it is that end of life advisement-a perfectly good idea originally pushed by CONSERVATIVES- will be pulled from the Finance Committee's health care bill. Beyond giving into crazy talking points, it makes it look as though end of life advisement might actually be considered a death panel. So we Democrats get to look like they were 1.lying and 2. that they're scared of people screaming crazy things-and really, the idea of death panels is crazy. Anyone who thinks that is actually in the other health care bills does not deserve to be considered part of a serious debate on health care-period.

New Blog on the list

2009-08-14T23:27:00.001-04:00

It's worth reading. It would have gotten the link anyways, but this is priceless...

Leeeeeroyyyyy JENKINS!

2009-08-14T23:01:00.003-04:00

Somehow this type of reference ends up in "Danger Room". The article is interesting (I'm guessing the Lawrence of Arabia caution is probably a better point of comparison for advisors) though I'm wondering about the real utility of a MMORPG like WOW for army operations. I've never played (really, no, I haven't) but it seems like there might be significant limits there.

If you pay attention to the video, relatives of TAB are visible with President Obama

2009-08-14T22:59:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

I guarantee it wasn't my mother with the whole winking thing. Though the reaction may have been similar had it been...

Counterinsurgency is still an interest of mine

2009-08-14T22:51:00.002-04:00

I swear. I really need to apologize for the near mono-maniacal fixation on health care on this blog lately. I didn't intend to write about health care this much but, given my work, it tends to dominate a lot of what I do. Other alternatives based on what I'm reading at work include railroad access issues OR the market for over the counter derivatives and its impact on the volatility of the price of commodities, specifically oil. Given the alternatives, health care probably is more likely to be interesting though if someone can explain to me the logic of letting OTC derivatives be exchanged with nary a whiff of regulation when 1/2 the justification of the entire construct is price discovery (sort of hard to do if transactions are private), that would be swell.

Don't Tell John Murtha

2009-08-14T22:45:00.001-04:00

Defense appropriations really need to be reformed. Possibly the best thing done thus far by Obama's administration has been giving support to SecDef Gates in pushing through military budgets that actually meet real needs. (By way of Army of Dude)

Idiocracy isn't a great movie

2009-08-14T20:08:00.001-04:00

But this reference is great. In the future, the world faces famine because we water plants with the functional equivalent of Gatorade (because Brawndo has the nutrients that plants love). Caving to this sort of idiot fear-mongering is the height of absurdity.

Based on the ARRA, this clearly won't work

2009-08-14T20:05:00.003-04:00

U.S. Advisors Lay Groundwork for Iraqi Internet Revolution

Because, based upon extensive research and Arthur Laffer drawing on the back of the napkin, this will clearly fail and the market should be allowed to work.

Interesting Article

2009-08-13T17:38:00.001-04:00

I'm pretty sure I disagree with his proposals (I don't see the insurance industry effectively disappearing from the US, nor do I really have the stomach for letting people who fail to manage their finances suffer from lack of care), but this is well worth reading.

On a lighter note

2009-08-12T22:40:00.001-04:00

This blog is explaining the proposed health care/health insurance reforms with drawings on the back of a napkin in an oddly easy to understand manner. It's a pro-reform napkin, just to disclose bias if people are interested.

I give up

2009-08-12T22:02:00.006-04:00

I really wanted to like Megan McCardle's blog, honest I did. I have considerable social libertarian leanings and she was supposed to be good on econ issues and she's a reasonably good writer and... oh who am I kidding? This is ridiculous. The one pseudo-point she might have been able to legitimately make is that much of the above was done under the Bush administration rather than Krugman's stated "people who don't hate government". Beyond that, her point makes no sense at all unless one were to define 'big government' into something completely meaningless. The logic would appear to be as follows...

Government spent/injected trillions of dollars into the private marketplace to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
The government cannot continue to spend trillions of dollars to support the economy.
Therefore, the government intervention did not work.

or maybe...

Government spent/injected trillions of dollars into the private marketplace to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
Some economists recommended spending more.
Therefore, this was not big government.

Either way the logic is extremely sloppy. Conceding that we're clearly not on a guaranteed path to recovery, it is still clear that the absolute outcomes of this downturn could have been far, far worse were it not for government interventions in the market. In most economic circles, the government guaranteeing trillions in dollars in debt, injecting trillions of dollars into financial institutions, bailing out failing manufacturing institutions and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to support state government/stimulate growth would be considered 'Big Government'. I don't know what else would have to be done, nationalizing banks (we bought out enough stock where that could have been done pretty easily) maybe? However, none of this is apparently sufficient for McCardle to dub it 'Big Government".

The latter part of the post is even more puzzling, as she states that this is not sustainable. To which the easy reply is "Do you understand the concept of an economic stimulus?" Clearly, the government can't keep pumping hundreds of billions into the economy (though so far the debt markets have taken in all our sales with nary a bump in interest rates) as a long-term economic strategy. Seven year olds or possibly Karl Rove might think that deficits don't matter, but they do. However, the idea of a stimulus is to substitute government economic output for private economic output pending a resumption of economic activity by the private sector. As banks resume investing and normal economic activity resumes, the government should cut back expenditures and pay down the debt. This is what happened during the Clinton administration; the Bush administration paid no heed to this fact and blew out the budget on tax cuts, doubled down on the idea by extending them during war time and then throwing on a domestic boondoggle for the prescription drug industry just for good measure. Needless to say, that generated huge, huge deficits even during an economic expansion. Now, the current administration at least is concerned with reining these things in (though, admittedly, that has yet to happen and, as we still experienced a contraction in GDP this quarter, continued deficit spending is entirely appropriate in the short-term).

In any event, if the economy begins its recovery from here, interventionist economic policy will have clearly proven to be effective in preventing an even worse downturn. That means government intervention in the marketplace can work. Which, per McCardle's illogical Randian panacea, is completely wrong. So rather than accept the ample evidence before her, she'd rather just offer lame arguments that involve making the concept of big government so expansive as to be meaningless.

Health Care is Not a 'Normal' Good

2009-08-12T19:37:00.003-04:00

So since I don't want to type seven more comments on to the message board of Cincinnatus over at ThermopylaeUSA, my rejoinder to his comments on health care reform is going to be here. I will say, despite our frequent disagreement, he is a great writer and I strongly recommend keeping up with his blog. Now on to the comments...

A: I don't think that the two studies (of the three) I was able to read actually address the issue of our health care systems performance. Beyond alleging that we, apparently, live an unnaturally unhealthy lifestyle, there are a number of areas for contention.

The AEI study starts off by mentioning that health care is a 'normal' good, as in the demand for health care is correlated with income. This might be true regarding various elective surgeries, but by and large, one of the reasons health care is such a difficult issue is that health care is NOT a 'normal' good. Nobody gets a raise and decides to get diabetes and cancer really doesn't care if you get laid off. The correlation between most necessary health care expenses and income is extremely weak. If they don't understand that concept, and their financial models all operate off of the premise that health care is 'normal' than they are going to come to erroneous conclusions.

The third study is somewhat more compelling in that it adjusts for our propensity for obesity and smoking (without providing supporting data) and other environmental causes (ie our high homicide rate) and we come out instead of middle of the pack for all countries, in the top tier of OECD countries. The thing is that we still don't come in as the best even in these adjusted metrics. In a couple of cherry picked single year demographics we're first; other than that we bounce between 1st and 9th. When you take into account that we spend 33% more than any other developed nation and are, supposedly, home of all that is good for innovation and ingenuity, it's clear that, even under these numbers we're not doing well. I'm also certain that if you adjusted expenses for the age of the population we'd do even worse as most European nations have an overall older population which then needs more medical care. So at best, we're getting terrible bang for our buck and at worst, our system is not capable of handling our health care needs.

These studies also don't deal with projections of increased cost. Our health care costs are increasing far above the rate of inflation, they impose an onerous burden on businesses (particularly small businesses) that hurts their ability to compete on an international level and they wreck havoc with entrepreneurs who may not be able to leave current jobs for fear of our absolutely deplorable private insurance market. Also, most estimates indicate that about 22,000 people die annually from lack of insurance. Our system needs reform.

B: The explanation given of what is required of business owners by the editorial that you're citing is biased to the point of being misleading. The idea here is that if a company is purporting to insure someone, that there be actual substance to the coverage. So you don't run into things like a $20,000 bill for pregnancy, or loss of coverage when you get sick and they discover a non-related pre-existing condition. This may require some plans to change, others will likely already meet government regulations. The author of the editorial leaves this possibility alone. CBO scoring indicates that while the specifics of the plans may shift, this will not result in 'dumping' of tens of millions of individuals into a public option. The CBO scoring sees increased employer provided insurance by 3 million individuals in five years and only 11 million people on a public option. The author also implies that when insurance changes, individuals will somehow instantly end up on a public plan when that also is not the case. The exchange would allow them to select the plan they would prefer from available options in the state. The CBO also doesn't seem to view this as being a considerable cost of the reform. It does, however, mean that people will no longer be under-insured. There are also conditions in the bill providing assistance for small businesses trying to provide insurance, something that does not exist at the moment.

C: The President proposed something similar and the CBO views that outcome favorably. I don't think people will be able to shop around for health coverage in the same way that they would for, say, a car, but I do think that making people aware of the cost of health care is an important part in any outcome. In that sense, the first part of Krauthammer's proposal makes some sense. Max Baucus and the Finance committee actually are considering a variant of this in terms of generating funding. As to tort reform, a number of individual states have enacted considerable tort reform and the results have been negligible. Also, Obama has indicated being open to including some level of tort reform in the bills. I don't know if that would end up in any real savings (again, the example of states as disparate as Texas and California don't support this), but it certainly should be considered.

D: If 60-80% of the population doesn't meet your level of a 'mandate', I don't know what does. 72% of the population backed the Iraq War in March of 2003. If that's justification for spending over a trillion dollars on a war in Iraq, I think similar numbers in support of a public option that actually reduces the government's cost of health care would be a no-brainer.

E: Most people don't have a clear idea what's in the bills (hence 'death panels' or people alleging government run health care or socialism or confusing single-payer with socialism or anything else coming out of most of the town hall protests or the persistent belief that this is 'Obama's bill'). I can't find the site so I won't make the claim that people support the plan when properly explained. I'll simply state that the polling on this remains murky and that a secure majority voted for Democrats to do health care reform in the poll that actually matters. That's an issue Obama ran on, an issue Senators ran on and an issue Congressmen and women ran on and voters gave them sizeable majorities. They continue to trust Democrats more than Republicans on health care. Also, the major demographic opposed to health care reform are senior citizens which is funny because they already have government run health care. They're worried that the reform will muck up the good thing that they have going. If that doesn't undercut a lot of criticism of government involvement in health care, I don't know what does.

F: Most of the cost savings will come from some combination of reducing waste in Medicare/Medicaid, increased comparative effectiveness research and disseminating the results of said research, and, hopefully, from preventative medicine. There are also attempts being made to begin to increase competition through a public plan and the creation of an insurance exchange. The CBO has been skeptical of the benefits of preventative medicine when it comes to cost, as well it should, but there are other cost reduction methods in the various plans. If anything the creation of exchanges with a public plan would increase competition to try to drive down costs (one of the reasons the CBO scores plans with a public option as being less expensive than those without). If you're concerned about the CBO's cost, you should support a public option.

G: You haven't established any reason to believe that the public option would have 'a huge advantage'. It would be started with government funding, but beyond that, it would have to compete with other plans in a market-place to succeed. If government health care is so terrible, it won't succeed. The Netherlands had a public plan in a tightly regulated marketplace up until a few years back but the private insurance was more popular. In France, as another example, 92% of the population also buys private insurance as a supplement to public insurance. There are lots of examples of systems that are more cost efficient and provide universal coverage without being government run. Given the massive opposition evidenced by the current debate, I really believe that people who want this to be a stalking horse for single-payer are out of their minds. Our system doesn't do government run as a default. As to Obama's statements, I don't know his mind on this but it doesn't change the political calculus that, to my mind, makes single-payer basically a political impossibility in this country.

H: I agree, all options should be on the table. I don't think that your points really address the fundamental issues being pushed for by these reform bills. These are the big reforms that aren't really addressed in anything that we've argued about. All of the various bills feature these outcomes. For those of you too lazy to click on the link, these are the eight major features of this reform...

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions

Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care

Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination

Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults

Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

This isn't the single-payer bill or government health care alleged by the opposition. This maintains the private insurance market. It subjects it to more regulation, but regulation in a market where demand is fairly constant does not remove the ability to make profits. It might reduce margins, but profits can still be had. It just insures that the system will work for more people, both in terms of covering the uninsured and improving the lot of the under-insured. It also has features that should work to reduce costs, such as increased competition (particularly with a public option) through the creation of insurance exchanges, increasing funding and dissemination of competitive effectiveness research and relief for small businesses.

There are certainly things to be ironed out in the details, but this represents a solid step forward in improving our health care system in measurable, meaningful ways.

Sarah Palin- teh stupid continues

2009-08-10T21:36:00.002-04:00

It turns out the infamous 'death panels' that would condemn Steven Hawking and baby Trig are actually the pet project of Johnny Isakson, who's a solidly Republican Senator from Georgia. Ezra Klein, as a rebuttal to the massive craziness found in Palin's facebook message, actually goes to the trouble of interviewing Sen. Isakson and the results are surprisingly unlike what is alleged by the former governor of Alaska. Also, I'm not sure where her quote about "productive member of society" comes from, as that too remains something completely missing from the legislation in question.

John Stewart

2009-08-10T21:08:00.002-04:00

This generation's version of Edward R. Murrow. I honestly think Stewart is better at producing honest to God news from interviews than pretty much any other talking head. The amazing thing is his formula (actually report on the facts of a situation, not the insipid 'On the one hand, on the other hand' phrasing used by the MSM, discussing issues openly and with nuance) really isn't that complicated. Sure, not everyone can be as funny as he is, but Fareed Zakaria manages to do something similar (albeit far less amusing) on GPS. This isn't rocket science.

oh teh stupid, it hurts...

2009-08-10T21:00:00.001-04:00

So much stupid, so little time...

Actual COIN material

2009-08-10T20:31:00.001-04:00

From Abu Muqawama, we have a great piece in Le Figaro on Nagl and Petreaus AND the beginning of a really noteworthy series discussing the strategic justification for continued operations in Afghanistan. Take a look.

Oh, FYI, the piece on Nagl & Petreaus is in French.

Now for something completely different

2009-08-09T20:02:00.002-04:00

TNC over at 'The Atlantic' has a great piece up on one dynamic that I think is common in 'nice guys'. Self-selecting as someone in that demographic (please don't correct me if I'm wrong). I think this sort of thinking happens and you don't even realize how shallow the statement is. I just feel like his identification of the issue is spot-on.

Other cost savings thoughts

2009-08-09T18:40:00.003-04:00

and these are purely speculative...

Comparative effectiveness research has been really, really, really demonized in the current debate but, anyone with a whit of statistical background will be amazed to know that there's really minimal research done regarding the relative efficacy of treatments for particular condition. Most of the research that IS done is used by insurance companies or drug/equipment companies meaning either the information is denied to the consumer and the "rationing" is done by their insurance provider (we will cover x, but not y) or doctors are given information on treatment efficacy from a highly biased source. Even if the government weren't to incorporate CER into decision-making for Medicare/Medicaid (which is such a market behemoth it would likely have a significant impact) just providing information and resources to physicians would undoubtedly lead to cost savings. Dartmouth's Atlas project has some really interesting material indicating that regional costs on similar conditions vary by as much as 30% and that the health outcomes associated aren't statistically different. CER should help rein in costs by giving doctors the ability to offer the treatment that's actually best for a condition, rather than the newest drug being pushed by pharma.

While we're discussing pharma, one really useful regulatory change would be to reintroduce the ban on advertising to consumers for prescription medication that existed up until the 1990s. As mentioned above, there is a major information disparity between what a physician knows and what patients/consumers know. These ads prey on that disparity, and the insecurity that accompanies people's awareness that they have no idea if their doctor is good or not, to drive sales of products that individuals may not even need. I don't know of any studies done on this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there has probably been little to no actual health benefit to allowing pharma to advertise products directly to consumers in the intervening 12 years. I do know that there is considerable evidence that pharmaceutical companies spend far, far more money on advertising than they do on R & D, because apparently advertising relates to the fabled 'innovation' people are always crowing about. If someone can convince me I'm wrong on this, I'd be glad to listen, but I see no reason not to return to the pre-1997 status quo.

Worth Reading

2009-08-09T18:35:00.002-04:00

Ezra Klein, one of the top two health care bloggers/wonks that I go to, has an interview with Lindsay Graham on his blog at the WaPo. One interesting thing about this health care discussion, and you see some of it here, is the statement that we can't do health care reform because of the rising costs. The problem is that the costs of delivering care really can't be affected that much because, as Klein points out, health care does not lend itself easily to comparison shopping. There's a massive information imbalance, typically a sense of urgency and about forty-five different behavioral reflexes that drive you to get 1. the best care possible and 2. not worry about costs until after the fact. I really don't think moving people away from employer-provided coverage into the private market, the solution offered by Graham, will work, largely because the individual health care market is awful. Costs are far higher, satisfaction is much lower and the insurance companies go to torturous extents to reduce their "medical losses" (ie actual health care done on subscribers). Absent extensive reform of the private insurance market, that won't do anything but make things worse. Anyways, take a look.

Cash for Clunkers

2009-08-04T21:30:00.002-04:00

What he said... also, not a bad way to improve gas efficiency, saving people money on fuel in the future and reducing carbon output...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Master Rebators - The Crank Cycle

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

This was on the Front Page of the print WaPo Yesterday

2009-08-02T15:00:00.000-04:00

This won't end well.

How we should frame the health care debate...

2009-07-25T15:25:00.002-04:00

Is this sad, funny or accurate?

2009-07-25T15:15:00.001-04:00

I really don't know.

Addendum: Iowa, for voting Katie Couric as most trusted reporter, you need to retire your first in the nation caucus immediately.

Seconding John Cole

2009-07-25T15:09:00.003-04:00

This activity is normally considered fraudulent and, since that appears to be too polite to get through to everyone that's a longer word for 'stealing'. But there's no need for strict financial regulation or even a consumer protection agency because... because... oh to hell with it, I can't even think of a suitably sarcastic answer. Long story short, the financial industry in the United States is now a protected industry in the same sense that the industrial sector was given favor in Communist regimes. Leaders in this field can do no wrong, are exempt from criminal prosecution and will be assisted by the government (under either party) should they run into financial difficulty. This is why Goldman's is now even more leveraged on a daily basis than it was before the crash. Matt Taibbi is currently the only financial reporter making a shred of sense.

Health Care

2009-07-24T14:00:00.002-04:00

I know nobody comes to this blog looking for my opinions on health care, to which I say-tough. I just finished 'Sick' by Jonathan Cohn and I highly recommend it, particularly if you want to become terribly depressed about the state of health care in this country. My one problem with the book was that the basic format (each chapter revolves around the story of a person or family affected by the slipshod structure of the market for health care in this country, a larger explanation of how the particular flaw in question came to be and a description of the larger implications of said flaw) tends to be a bit redundant. By the third chapter you understand what's going to happen (person or family in question will suffer devastating/needless tragedy) and find yourself wondering when he's going to put together a counter narrative (ie what needs to happen). That really never comes in a satisfactory manner. So, by the end of the book, you realize something needs to be done but what, exactly, that is appears to be unclear.

My own thoughts on this are unclear because, unlike, say, financial regulation (where everyone tells you its too complicated but the basics-requiring companies to be less leveraged, limiting the amount of shorting/speculating and breaking down larger financial institutions to the point where they aren't "too big to fail"-really aren't particularly complex, just anathema to a variety of wealthy institutions which is why they won't be enacted), the current system for financing and delivering health care is enormously complicated and ridiculously inefficient.

Single payer sounds nice, but I don't think that's a pragmatic response to a situation where the majority of Americans 1. have decent health insurance and 2. are resistant to the idea of government control of health insurance. I also have concerns about the effects of a government monopoly on innovation.

The status quo should also be unacceptable. We spend far more than most developed nations on health care and the results are pedestrian, at best. 40-50 million Americans lack health insurance at any given time (about 80+ million will spend some period this year without insurance), even more don't have adequate coverage. The market for health insurance, as it is currently structured, rewards those companies that are most aggressive in denying coverage. The cost of coverage spirals ever upwards and, while profits by pharmaceuticals and insurance providers remain high, this places an increasing burden on businesses trying to provide coverage to employees. This, in turn, hurts our competitiveness in the global marketplace because companies here have to deal with the burden of health insurance.

The proposed convservative solution, as best I can tell, consists of talking points(the House GOP put out a four page paper that lacked useful things like numbers or mechanisms). These talking points hump the idea of 'improving the market' by making insurance competitive across state lines and creating an exchange for individual coverage. The rest of it involves a tax cut and vouchers to a painfully small segment of the population that (I think) already would be eligible for Medicaid or one of the state-run CHIP programs. The only idea with merit here is the concept of an insurance exchange to possibly reduce prices in the individual market or, at least, make it easier for people in the individual market to find coverage. The 'increased competition' is complete hokum as, lacking regulation, markets tend towards aggregation. Already, with current regulation, most individual states have one or two dominant providers. This has not reduced costs. In a national market, over time, buyouts and mergers would create a handful of dominant providers that might be able to create cost savings but would, in all likelihood, just make even more profits. The tax cut and vouchers would be ground up fairly quickly when discussing a market where it is not unusual to see double-digit price increases annually. Individuals, when facing health decisions aren't "rational actors"; you don't shop around for the best heart surgeon, you go to the best one you can find. Similarly, the information disparity between a medical professional and a consumer is massive and makes it even less likely that price will be the prime motivator for health decisions.

The solutions being bounced around the House and Senate are pretty tough to assess either way. It's hard to tell if the attempts to appease most everybody are going to create a big unwieldy bill that doesn't do anything or actually allow substantive improvements to sneak through. In any event, after this last week, I'm decidedly pessimistic.

NCAA Football 10

2009-07-19T16:29:00.002-04:00

You have no idea how annoying it is that the current iteration of EA games is '10' rather than 2010. Seems somewhat presumptuous, no? In any event, the annual repackaging was pretty successful and I have to say I'm enjoying the normal craziness that is a college football video game (option plays, Wildcat formations, etc.). It definitely has me looking forward to Madden coming out next month.

'The Bear Went Over the Mountain'

2009-07-12T11:35:00.002-04:00

I've been slowly, dutifully slogging through this book for about a month now, alternating between it and Jonathan Cohn's 'Sick' (because I know as much about health care as a tree stump and yet have to research comparative effectiveness for work, go figure...). I'd just say that 'TBWOM' is definitely worth reading for anyone deploying to OEF. It's a nice combination of narrative/summary and analysis, not just by the original editor, but with followup for the newer (last in print in 1996) edition. I don't think I'll necessarily ever need to know how the Soviets cleared a valley, but it offers a pretty step-by-step explanation of what they do, and the analysis tends to take apart where their activities were lacking.

Songs in my head

2009-07-12T11:23:00.002-04:00

'It's Not Your Fault' by New Found Glory

Also, after living in DC since January 26th, I finally have a mattress for my bed. I might get out of bed today... possibly.

Criminality in the Bush administration?

2009-07-12T11:20:00.001-04:00

Nahhh... who'd a thunk? Because it's perfectly legal to run surveillance programs out of the CIA that the Congress knows nothing about.

Reason No. 372 why the Globe's sports section sucks

2009-07-05T13:23:00.002-04:00

Poorly argued articles attacking players to stay in good with management. Without Rondo, the Celtics lose in Round 1 this year-period. He rebounds, passes and scores well (generally he actually is too selfless, as the team does far better when he is scoring and passing than when he limits himself as a pass-first/only PG). His defense, while hardly world class, is good and his speed allows him to harass opponents up and down the court (when Doc lets him). He's the only Celtic who is arguably an All-Star talent and not on the downside of his career. Trading him away in some wierd pursuit of additional cagey veterany goodness would make no sense at all. Just don't tell the Glob

Federer- Roddick

2009-07-05T12:25:00.002-04:00

This is one heckuva tennis match. They both just keep going back and forth. Great serves, great volleys. Nobody seems to be able to break the other's serve, though they frequently come close. Whoever wins will most definitely deserve it.

Happy 4th

2009-07-04T21:09:00.000-04:00

Happy Fourth of July Everyone!

Uhmmm, Wages?

2009-07-04T10:34:00.003-04:00

Matthew Yglesias arguing, somewhat vainly, that the current labor market is too large and was due for some sort of correction. I disagree as household income has not increased anywhere as dramatically as the number of workers would indicate due to stagnant or falling individual wages. This graph also ignores underemployment. I'd argue that should there be stabilization at a significantly lower level, the result would be deeply harmful to the country and economy, as social services at the state and federal level would be severely overstretched.

Nuns living outside the Church

2009-07-04T10:27:00.002-04:00

Clearly a major threat to the hierarchy and worth investigating pre-emptively. People wonder why I generally refer to myself as a lapsed Catholic. I really don't like associating myself with an organization that is more eager to conduct witch hunts on nuns with the audacity to engage with the world outside a convent than it is to actually hold accountable people who helped keep child molesting priests moving from parish to parish. For those of you who say that was in the past, just look at Cardinal Law who resigned his way into a post in Rome instead of actually facing punishment.

So you want a what?

2009-06-27T20:55:00.002-04:00

The revolution in Iran appears to be moving into a new phase. The mullahs/clerics/ayatollahs (pick the word you feel best represents Sh'ia demagogues who control the armed services in Iran and run with it, I'll be using all three) seem to have maintained a tenuous hand on the state. However, the threat of further protests appears to hover over the land and we'll have to give it some time to see what happens. I'm doubtful we will see any meaningful change within the next couple of months. It will be very interesting to see how President Obama attempts to finesse the need to remain disengaged with his stated deadline of ending Iran's nuclear program this year.

Still there?

2009-06-26T18:33:00.001-04:00

Errr, yeah, so it has been awhile. Interns got here and things have been hectic. Also, the foot thing put a damper on my normal habit of lugging the laptop out to somewhere nice on the weekends. Blogging should pick back up this weekend.

Female readers of this blog can send hatemail to nhdemocrat@gmail.com

2009-06-07T17:07:00.003-04:00

So since I broke my toe, I took about two weeks off of going to the gym. I resumed going early last week and finally got around to weighing myself today. Prior to my injury, I was working out 4-5 times a week and weighed between 161 and 163 pounds. For whatever reason, when I don't go to the gym, I lose weight. But it was only two weeks off, so I didn't think it would be all that much. Nope, I checked today- 155. Now I have to build all that back and that takes time. Annoying as all hell.

Hit or Miss

2009-06-07T16:51:00.003-04:00

Tom Ricks blog has had some shaky sections (dwelling far too long on the idea of closing down the academies, as a for instance) lately, but it still is worth reading. Today, he has an interesting post up comparing post-Petreaus Mosul to post-Petreaus Iraq. I don't know if the comparison is that apt (I'm no expert, again), but I would say it is worth considering. I also think it points to the larger problem that, absent serious political reconciliation and the state becoming the only legitimate entity capable of using violence, the best US forces in Iraq can do is try to walk an extremely narrow wire that placates all parties with a constantly changing variety of incentives and disincentives. As the status quo changes, our forces have to constantly adapt their techniques.

That, inevitably, our best efforts may miss the mark doesn't represent some condemnation of our forces or 'defeatism', but a recognition of the situation as it stands. The strategy in Iraq remains poorly defined (though at least we're moving towards minimizing our commitment there) which makes this balancing act even more difficult. Clearly, the past couple of months (as casualties have inched back up) there appears to be evidence that our previously concocted mix of carrots and sticks will likely need to be adjusted again.

Now, one could easily ask why I support a drawdown in Iraq and appear to have at least luke-warm support for ramping up forces in Afghanistan, an arguably even more complex and ambiguous strategic situation. I guess my position on this would be as follows; even if we do everything right in Iraq, we've spent about $1 trillion dollars to turn Iraq into Lebanon. That's not a really great rate of return. However, in Afghanistan, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda active and influential, there is a strategic imperative to stabilizing the region. There's also the issue of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Success by the Taliban (and by extension, Al Qaeda) in Afghanistan would offer support to the Pakistani variant and further increase the possibility that nuclear arms end up in extremist hands. These are all things that are worth blood and treasure to avoid. Taking a beaten and contained dictatorship and turning it into a psuedo-democracy/series of armed camps bordering some of our best allies in the region doesn't seem, to me, to be something we should be deeply invested in propping up.

We're a rising great power that should be respected!

2009-06-07T16:31:00.003-04:00

So don't pull Mickey-Mouse crap like this.

I can understand the Beijing regime's censorship practices in terms of holding power (something that's worked admirably well despite continued movement towards a free-market economy. Market utopians everywhere should stop with the whole 'markets inevitably lead to democracy' meme sometime soon.), but jacked plain clothes police officers wielding umbrellas on a sunny day? It makes China look like some two-bit African dictatorship. After all the effort they went to pull off a pretty flawless Olympics, this looks ridiculous. Seriously, either go to the trouble of just banning the camera crews or let them film. This reeks of insecurity. Stop acting like a third-world nation and maybe you'll be able to shed the backward image. Good grief.

The Cairo Speech

2009-06-07T16:26:00.003-04:00

I should probably comment on this, if for no other reason than the fact that everyone else under the sun seems to be analyzing it. I'd just say this wasn't anything surprising. Obama does what he always does; he delivered a sober, balanced speech that sought to open up middle ground for people to come together in. I think the Arab world is probably right in saying they'd like to see what tangible actions come of this, be it in halting Israelis settlements or pushing despotic regimes (ie Egypt) to open up a bit. If I'm Israel, I should know by now that there's a new sheriff in the White House and that activity that is unnecessarily detrimental to the long-term necessity of a two-state solution won't be acceptable. (However, you'll notice that this past winter Obama was reticent to condemn offensive action in Gaza. My guess is that he's willing to accept give and take in terms of tactical action, such as limited operations in Gaza, but will take a harder line on something that makes negotiating land distribution, one of the key's of a long-term solution, even more difficult.) In any event, I didn't think anything earth-shaking came of it. Actions, as always, will speak louder than words.

D-Day

2009-06-06T16:07:00.002-04:00

Today, for anyone not paying attention, is the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion of France. Despite the recent dust-up over whether or not the Queen of England should be invited (my opinion is she should go; the French government shouldn't be able to deny the one head of state who actually served in the conflict from showing up), the focus for today should be on the sacrifice by men and women from across the world in one of the most significant battles of the 20th century. D-Day helped open the long-awaited second front that would spell Germany's death knell. In addition to inflicting a major military defeat upon Nazi Germany, the Allied advance from the West would help prevent Soviet domination of Europe in the postwar period.

Let's be clear about what the first wave of men going into Normandy faced. The beaches were open, the Germans had pre-sighted fields of fire and reasonable warning of their approach. The pre-invasion bombardment was almost entirely ineffective. The Americans going into Omaha beach actually were attacking during exercises by a German unit, adding to the opposition. The casualties of the first wave were appalling, whole boats were wiped out (some with such ferocity that we don't actually have an explanation as to how they were killed). As much as the numbers make an operation like Overlord look inevitable, the individual men landing at H-hour still had to succeed if all of the vast resources at sea were to be deployed. That they pressed on and met their objectives is a testament to their training, their character and their determination.

Beyond the geopolitics and the service, D-Day is worth remembering because of the scope and scale of the operation. If amateurs do tactics and professionals do logistics, organizing D-Day represented one of the finest feats of military organization. Right now, our military is laboring with roughly 240,000 soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In Overlord, almost 350,000 America, British and Canadian personnel were deployed in an operation against Normandy. The scale was simply staggering.

So, while we enjoy the nice weather (for a change), let's keep in mind the incredible achievements and sacrifice of the soldiers in those first boats that stormed ashore so many years ago.

Pictures of Saddam's Palace

2009-05-31T20:54:00.002-04:00

By way of Andrew Sullivan, interesting article and photospread.

Counterinsurgency goes Hollywood

2009-05-30T10:10:00.002-04:00

Small Wars Journal is in Rolling Stones 'Hot' list? Somehow I'm having trouble getting from Lady Gaga to understanding social networks in a combat environment. That particular visual out of the way, this is probably a good thing in that what's going to determine our success in Afghanistan (and any future foreign endeavors involving force in the near future), is how well we can structure our armed forces to handle counterinsurgency and stability ops while maintaining our effectiveness as a deterrent to conventional challenges.

While COIN seems to be enjoying a moment in the sun, there remains both a concern as to the depth of change within the military (the upcoming budget battle will be a major indication of how well the military has incorporated COIN into its structure) and whether there is a legitimate risk of going too far. Critics, such as Col. Gien Gentile, rightly point out that remain possible threats that will require conventional force. China is playing a long game looking to challenge us as we move further into this century. It would be folly to put all our defense eggs into the COIN basket when longterm (as much as I dislike the F-22) there will be a demand for air superiority assurance, there will be a need for power projection and there may be a need for conventional, high-intensity operations on a large-scale. SMJ is a great site not just because it has been a powerful tool for COIN advocates to make and hone arguments, but also because it willingly publishes and grapples with COIN critics as well. Hopefully this sort of open discussion can make its way into the halls of civilian policy-makers as this is the group that will decide these difficult questions. Appearing in Rolling Stones can't hurt in promoting this discussion to that target audience (unless Matt Taibbi disagrees-he's not someone you want opposing you).

Reasons why the Soviets lost...

2009-05-25T21:48:00.001-04:00

(By way of Danger Room & Cracked)

North Korean Nukes

2009-05-25T21:14:00.002-04:00

Now that we've moved past the rote condemnation by the global community, let's see what the tangible results are of today's nuclear test. I'm going to guess that hands will be wrung and the six party talks will lumber on, probably with no real sanctions coming on North Korea. To be completely honest, the pace of any movement here is going to be dictated by China and Russia as, short of pre-emptive military strikes (which would be a horrible, horrible idea), there really aren't many options available to the US. Hopefully this will inspire the Chinese leadership, already beset with economic issues, to reappraise their approach of 'See no evil, hear no evil'. A nuclear armed Korea that is ignored, and turns to exporting said nuclear technology, would be impetus for some pretty massive destabilization.

Liberal Cat Blogging

2009-05-25T20:54:00.002-04:00

I'm a convert... This is Sydney.

David Ortiz = Parrot

2009-05-25T17:12:00.002-04:00

I'm as sad to say this as anyone, but Big Papi is done.

Great piece on Memorial Day

2009-05-25T16:36:00.001-04:00

by David Kurtz over at TPM.

Puzzled

2009-05-25T16:21:00.001-04:00

Still trying to figure out the concept of honoring people who fought rebelling against the nation, but I guess this works as a solution.

Great points, albeit some rather vulgar language

2009-05-25T10:01:00.002-04:00

But one question, how do you base a navy with global responsibilities around small, coastal vessels? If you can figure that out, I'm sure some folks in the USN would love to talk to you.

Who you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?

2009-05-25T09:36:00.002-04:00

Pakistan is apparently having success in clearing out the Taliban. Given the massive disparity in the size of the forces at work, this should be expected. Previous incursions by the Pakistani military against the militants were, for whatever reason (oh, ISI support for the militants, ambiguity in government policy, etc.) less than a full effort. Now that the Pakistani public and military appear to be suitably aroused to do something, we're seeing some more tangible results. Now, as I've noted previously, without adequate followup the Pashtuns will rise again (I don't think its necessarily only Pashtuns involved in this, but I liked the way that sounded). Real stability ops will be necessary otherwise we'll just see a repeat of this same play in another year or so.

Memorial Day

2009-05-25T09:24:00.003-04:00

Thank you to all those who have given their life in defense of this beautiful nation of ours. There is, to my mind, few greater things a person can do than to give their live in defense of others. So many of this nation's best and brightest have given their lives in our defense that it is indeed fitting that we take a day to commemorate their sacrifice. They deserve our unending respect and gratitude.

More cat-blogging

2009-05-24T09:29:00.003-04:00

This is starting to get worrisome. It's everywhere.

Liberal Cat-Blogging

2009-05-22T23:17:00.001-04:00

Am I missing something? Kevin Drum (who is excellent as far as econ blogs go) and John Cole are both doing cat-blogging. Is this some sort of liberal blogger requirement? Damn, the only pictures of my cat (back in NH) are, actual, non-digital photos!

I certainly didn't find this

2009-05-22T23:01:00.002-04:00

Lord knows I wouldn't find this on my own, but PBS has what appears to be an excellent project going on Pakistan. Great in-depth stuff on some of the leaders of the TTP, great multimedia stuff. Check it out. Big Bird's packing.

Shorter Russ Douthat

2009-05-22T22:51:00.003-04:00

This is a gag I picked up from John Cole & 'Sadly, No', where you shorten one crazy piece of wingnuttery into a one sentence explanation. Today's entry, Russ Douthat's op-ed/review of 'Angels & Demons'.

"Catholics who read Dan Brown can't speak at Notre Dame's graduation."