For being quite well known and respected Ricks seems to write a lot of things that I find off the mark if not entirely wrong and in some cases just flat out dumb - he also tends to be a bit of an Obama apologist, although the post that prompted the response below was ostensibly meant to take Obama to task. I only repeat this 'cause I liked my jab at Obama's books - childish of me I suppose. Indeed.

"On Iran, I think, he has done pretty well-trends are certainly pointing toward a multilateral containment effort."

Where in the hell do you get that from? There's absolutely nothing that has happened to suggest that statement is true in any way. It is not in the interests of the oligarchies governing Iran, China and Russia to comply with what we want - so by containment I guess you mean the de facto condoning of nuclear proliferation amongst 'rogue' nations while hapless Western leaders make various aggrieved gestures and Obama climbs yet another stage to intone 'well, you see, this just isn't right - did these people not read my books?'.

And as far as Obama and Afghanistan are concerned you reporters completely missed the story here: Obama embraced the war as part of a political calculation to get elected and now he wants it to go away and he wants McChrystal to tell him how to make it go away but McChrystal is not telling him what he wants to hear and so he's stuck with a war he needed by didn't want. The 'dithering' you so lightly, almost harmlessly label him with is actually the result of a serious miscalculation that caused him to commit to a war he didn't understand and has now backed him into a corner: retreat and he'll look weak and America's reputation in the region will be further damaged no doubt leading to dire consequences; advance out of fear of losing and there's a good chance Afghanistan becomes his Vietnam.

News that doesn't surprise at all - Russian official closely linked to Putin says world should just relax a little when it comes to Iran etc etc etc. Of course - didn't see that one coming. This thought though: resisting sanctions benefits Russia and China both as regards economics and strategic influence, but one can also see how limited sanctions, sanctions that hurt but not enough to move Iran off its course, can also serve the interests of Russia and China in much the same way by making Iran more dependent on their good graces and bringing it more explicitly into their spheres of influence. It's really hard to see a scenario here that fits Obama's agenda of engagement that doesn't rely on China, Russia and Iran behaving in entirely unexpected ways, ways that seem quite at odds with their evidenced natures and reported histories.

Should we call Obama et al naive then? Blindly idealistic? Or left to the mercy of events by their proclivities and unfounded assumptions?

[you shouldn't just simply ignore that China is playing a tricky game here seeing as how it's still very much dependent on the US economy - trying to undermine the extent of American power without adversely impacting the economic component may prove a strategy with a limited future - and so probably the key question to ask is: does China's desire to maintain the autocratic status quo politically while continuing to exploit a blended, top down, state sponsored genus of capitalism, does that make China less or more likely to take unwise chances or make bad calculations viz its provisionally anti-American strategy? Dunno - but certainly a decision to hedge American power with a nuclear Iran would open itself up to concerns about whether their actions are myopically reactionary or seriously flawed in some other way and lead one to wonder that if China is so concerned about American power that it is willing to condone WMD proliferation amongst dubious nations - let's not forget N Korea - then what does that say about the long term viability of the current relationship between the two behemoths?]

No sooner do I mention how imprudent it is for 'pundits' to dismiss out of hand the logic of a US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities than I read on STRATFOR's site an essay making my very point [well, not my very point but one similar to others I've made] to wit, if Israel concludes sanctions are not viable and that Obama, out of weakness, cannot be trusted to take their concerns seriously, they may very well feel they have no choice but to act themselves - in which case it would be best for the US to do it for them as a means to both improve the chances for success and mitigate the dire fallout. STRATFOR also agrees with me in believing the only way Russia and China support sanctions is if either the sanctions are toothless or they've been promised something significant in return.

Of course, the problem of a military strike on Iran, no matter who does it, is that unless it leads to fundamental political change all you get is a delay to their nuclear program, not an end to it - and unfortunately the most likely scenario is that a strike will enhance the influence of the hardliners, of the Republican Guard, of the religious fanatics, not diminish it - Russia would rush to support them with new arms, new defense systems - America would be forced to commit to more raids to interdict attempts to rebuild capacity otherwise the whole strategy doesn't make much sense - sympathetic Iraqi Shiites would become restive - things would escalate...

On the other hand, you don't stop Iran from getting the bomb you send a pretty clear message to any other troublesome powers who might be thinking about it - not to mention that such a thing would generate a conflicted miasmic wave of Muslim enthusiasm and fear and send it flooding through Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah's Lebannon and Hamas' Gaza Strip, Egypt's embittered jihadists, stirring up demons and setting in motion events that conceivably conjure forth a worse scenario than that imagined for the military strike...

So, what are you saying? That the best option is to allow Iran the bomb and then hope to crush it with economic sanctions that no reasonable person can believe will ever be thoroughly enforced? Ah... well... the best option is to invade the country and destroy it, but assuming that won't be on the table I'm gonna go with, thinking long term, mind you... the least bad option is a military strike... I think. Best guess.

Anonymous WH sources confirm that release of Iran second site intel was not a 'brilliant negotiating ploy' but rather the ad lib I thought it was - but regardless, some are still opining that this plays right into Obama's hands - I don't see that - of course there is a scenario where that could prove true, but much more likely as far as I'm concerned is that this revelation forces Obama into a very tight spot and raises some troubling question viz his 'ingratiating' approach to the Iran problem - I'm not at all convinced that striding to the podium yesterday with France and England to call Iran out was a good idea, not if you're unwilling or unable to back up tough talk with tough actions - but I imagine they felt they had to do it in order preempt Iran's attempts to frame the context of the upcoming negotiations - that troubles me, that indicates to me that they're risking way too much on the negotiations being successful.

Related: every story reports on how getting Russia and China to cooperate is key to getting a deal done but then they don't delve into why Russia and China might be unwilling to play along - the why would tell them that the odds of the outliers cooperating are not good and even if they do cooperate it will undoubtedly be because the sanctions have been watered down to the point of being effectively useless or because they've been promised something that very likely will come back to haunt further on down the road.

Unfortunately, our President shares in Gordon Brown's delusion by wasting time and resources discussing this supposed nuclear free world. I think I may disagree with Gordon Brown regarding what statesmanship and brinkmanship is in this situation though, because negotiations with an end of stopping nuclear weapons development by either North Korea or Iran is neither statesmanship or brinkmanship, because neither country is willing to give up the capability.

North Korea has the bomb, and Iran will have the bomb. If Gordon Brown and Barack Obama want to know what is required to stop Iran from getting the bomb, all they need to do is look at how George Bush dealt with Iraq on WMD. Nothing short of that type of effort stops Iran, so if another Gulf War isn't an appealing option, learn to accept the idea of an Iranian bomb. All this political happy talk of "tough/smart/strong/cunning" negotiations is about as intellectually convincing as the militant threat of air attack by Israel. Neither will be successful, unless Israel nukes the Persians. ID Navy blog.

Well, finally someone who shares my disdain for Obama's 'no nukes' rhetoric. The question I'm interested in here is, since if Iran wants the bomb and has the ability to make the bomb they will have the bomb, what is the point of negotiations aimed at convincing them to do otherwise? If the leadership have decided they want the bomb then nothing short of a compete and unrelenting embargo of the country or, as the above points out, an Iraq-like invasion is gonna stop them - and of those two, probably only the latter [because Russia and China will balk at the former] has much chance of succeeding. So why the charade of negotiations? I have trouble believing anyone actually thinks the negotiations will work [in fact I'd probably be alarmed if they were that naive or bemused by their own cleverness] - can it be so shoddy a business as putting perfunctory act for appearances sake? And to please what audience - the code pinkers and Green Party faithful who actually believe the problem will yield to refined debate?

It's a conundrum because apparently Obama is going to announce today that the US knows and has known for some time that Iran is building/has built a secret enrichment facility - I take it this news is being made public because by means not yet clear Iran now knows that we know. What this means, among other things, is that while Obama was pushing the 'let's talk' approach he knew Iran was proceeding without compromise towards what supposedly we were going to talk them out of.

So, again - why? Is there a cunning strategy here, or just appearances? And if just appearances, why were they so conflicted on how to respond to the Iranian reform protest, a conflict of interests that only made sense if they actually had faith in negotiations?

I suppose this is why Gates was so dismissive of Israeli threats of a military strike - he knew that Israel knew that a strike could never be successful - but, again, if that's so, wouldn't you want to keep the illusion of an attack alive in order to improve you negotiating position if you actually believe in the efficacy of negotiations? I'm not getting this: either the administration is confused about what to do about Iran - or their plan is cunningly obtuse.

update: the Obama apologists are running the story that this is a brilliant negotiating ploy, springing this intel at the last moment to apply ultimate pressure to Iran, Russia and China. Not impossible, but leaves much unexplained. If a strategem, keeping it secret would have been vital so how did Iran find out? Seems more likely this 'brilliant ploy' is just an ad lib made necessary by Iran finding out. Wouldn't it have made more sense to spring this trap during the reform protests, when the regime was at its most vulnerable? If the idea is to shame Russia and China into supporting sanctions, seems to me that would have worked to best effect during the protests when the world's attention was squarely fixed on the questionable practices of the regime. And how bout the fact that calling Iran out like this puts greater pressure on Obama to get a deal done? If Iran, Russia and China still resist, which is likely, certainly for Iran, since their intentions to acquire the bomb are now obvious, won't Obama then be under more pressure to intercede? For this reason you could make the argument that they didn't want this intel to come out at all - you could even argue that this scenario actually improves Iran's position - kind of a "go ahead, make my day" moment, if you will.

One thing is clear: both Bush and now Obama knew about this for awhile - so why didn't they tell IAEA inspectors? The intel was being withheld for a reason - but Bush wasn't into negotiating, so how can a 'negotiating ploy' be the reason? Is it possible that the reason was that, in order to keep the site clandestine, Iran would have to sacrifice security against an Israeli or American attack and now, if his apologists are right, Obama has compromised that military option?

However it came about and why, the more I think on it the more it troubles me that Obama is acting like he now has a winning hand as regards negotiations - because, if he doesn't have a winning hand, and I don't think he does, well... this isn't the kind of game that you can just fold and walk away from - if Iran calls his bluff, if China and Russia see him as vulnerable and choose to exploit that - what happens then? because we know he would not use a military threat, how much would he give away to save face? and if it comes to that would Israel then decide that he can't be trusted and take the dreaded step themselves?

And finally, I'm still struck by how it is just assumed that an American military strike would be worse than Iran getting the bomb - and don't get me wrong, that may very well be true - but you just can't assume it, it's not nearly that clear cut - and yet an American strike is simply passed off as absurd - whereas all we really know for sure is that initially it would seem worse - but five years down the road of a nuked up Iran? I hate the Nazi parallels, but when Germany built up its military against the dictates of the Versailles Treaty, if Britain or America, their concerns rebuked, their calls of alarm ignored, had in response sent a few bombers over Berlin everyone would have been aghast, everyone would have accused them of brinkmanship, warmongering - unless they could have seen into the future and known what Hitler planned to do with that Wehrmacht.

[of course, allowing for your Nazi analogue, the middle east is not Europe - even if Iran succeeds and uses its enhanced powers to further a reckless ambition, what's to be gained by risking a major war to stop them? We save Israel? No offense, but hardly seems worth it - unless of course you see Israel as the linchpin that once pulled sets a whole series of connected events in motion none of which promises goodwill and cheer for the West - and that indeed is the rub]

Quick hit: if US pulls back in Afghanistan what does that say about Gates' Pentagon procurement changes? Much of what the budget changes dictate concerns Gates' admonition 'fund what's suitable for the wars we're fighting now, not may fight in some future' - failure to fund the F-22 for instance is a reflection of that. But if we're not going to fight the war we're fighting now, Afghanistan, then how much sense does the policy defined by Gates' budget make?

Not that Gates' recommendations are all about COIN - but the fact remains that insurgency tactics have been used quite effectively in the wars Gates is referencing and so COIN is implied - therefore, if we're incapable or unwilling to commit to such a conflict now, it certainly seems reasonable to ask what that says about the Gates doctrine.

How much do Russia's shifting opinions on Iranian sanctions have do with them trying to milk more concessions from Obama viz nuclear arms treaties, one of which, START II I believe, needs to be renegotiated by December? I say this because after making it reasonably clear a couple of weeks ago that they probably wouldn't support sanctions on Iran Medvedev, a short week after Obama cancelled European missile defense, has come out and said 'well, maybe we could... I dunno... not impossible I guess...'. I suppose an optimist would say that it's a positive response to a positive gesture and a cynic would say that it's evidence that Putin believes he can play Obama like a fiddle. I of course remain a cynic. What troubles me is that Obama was on again yesterday at the UN with his 'no nukes' agenda and regardless of how wise or delusional one thinks that is by aggressively pushing this agenda and putting the weight of his personality behind it he is in actuality putting himself in a worse negotiating position if Putin has ulterior motives - essentially saying to Putin 'this is very important to me and I'm willing to put my trust in you to make it happen' - as a cynic, that troubles me - just as in his role as cunning Machiavellian oligarch Putin is no doubt cheered by it.

That type of disagreement, otherwise known as "competition," is the beating heart of capitalism. Different enterprises compete with each other by pursuing different strategies. These strategies encompass everything an enterprise does—including how it manages and pays its employees.

At bottom, all the practices of an enterprise are tacit predictions about which procedures will bring the most reward and which ones will avoid excessive risk. Accurate predictions bring profits and survival; mistaken predictions bring losses and bankruptcy. But nobody can know in advance which predictions are right. By allowing different capitalists' fallible predictions to compete, capitalism spreads a society's bets among a variety of different ideas. That, not the pursuit of self-interest, is the secret of capitalism's achievements.

To be sure, capitalists' different ideas are all, in the end, about how to gain profit. That's why incentives matter. But what matters even more are diverse predictions about where profits—and losses—are likely to be found. For this reason, herd behavior is a danger to capitalism, if the herd bets wrong. But herd behavior is imposed on capitalists every time a regulation is enacted—and regulators, being as human as bankers, can be wrong.

Regulations homogenize. The Basel rules imposed on the whole banking system a single idea about what makes for prudent banking. Even when regulations take the form of inducements rather than prohibitions, they skew the risk/reward calculations of all capitalists subject to them. The whole point of regulation is to make those being regulated do what the regulators predict will be beneficial. If the regulators are mistaken, the whole system is at risk.

That was what happened with the G-20's own Basel rules. Now the G-20 has decided to blame the crisis on bank compensation systems, which it proposes to homogenize just as it had previously homogenized bank capital allocation. What has not been explained is why we should trust that the G-20's regulations won't be mistaken once again. Jeffery Friedman, Wall Street Journal.

I don't have much to add to that - gov't is just as culpable for this crisis as business, more so probably - banks took on too much risk based on dubious calculations and questionable motives, but much of this behaviour was incentivized by gov't policy and regulation - but the storyline that has been allowed to emerge, encouraged to emerge is that capitalism is in essence bad and consequently the crisis is all the fault of Wall Street greed which now only gov't - and Michael Moore, apparently - can save us from. It's a case I think where the response to the crisis may prove more baleful than the crisis itself.

"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government," McChrystal says

To play devil's advocate [really?] couldn't one also say that because Afghanistan is a tribal society that has little use for government this encourages corruption since politicians do not depend on sanction from a motivated electorate?

The general says his command is "not adequately executing the basics" of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. "ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army," he writes. "Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages."

Again, befriend the Afghan people to what end? To enable a system that encourages defeat? We're in Afghanistan because we're an empire, how does it make sense to fight a war there by pretending we're not? Isn't the real lesson here, fight like an empire or don't fight at all? Again, COIN seems to me based on assumptions made in order to force a strategy on a situation - we don't want to fight like an empire, or possibly we simply can't, so let's do COIN - it seems logical but it isn't since it makes the assumption that Afghanistan is amenable to the strategy.

He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending "as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases." Strengthening Afghans' sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition "cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people."

But isn't this backwards - isn't it rather that the people must be willing to accept the risk of defending their own security? I reread the article Petraeus wrote on the principles of COIN back in 2006 and the first rule he cited was to quote T.E. Lawrence saying in effect let the Arabs do a half assed job themselves rather than we do a much better job for them. We don't have to accept their risks, they have to step up and accept ours.

Overall, McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: "The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . . "

In other words saying 'even if we do what I think we should do I have, in the final analysis, no idea if that will solve the problem of Afghanistan'.

So you support a pull back? No, I support holding Obama responsible for making a campaign pledge of re-committing to the Afghan war, the good war as opposed to the bad one in Iraq as he would have it, when he didn't know what the hell he was talking about and then sending 20,000 more troops over there after taking office which he did as far as I'm concerned for appearances sake and so now if we retreat it's really gonna look like a retreat - which means he's probably going to make the worst decision possible ie, try and fake a commitment. I support holding Obama responsible for that.

So you support a retreat? No, I support a rethink of what I consider to be the fantasy of COIN, a strategy adopted I believe by the generals because they feel they have no other viable options. Afghanistan was a problem to which only two solutions applied: go big, like the empire we are, and conquer it, without pity and without remorse; or go small and keep your objectives limited. We're now stuck in the middle, from which there is no escape without suffering severe consequences, and being led by a president who I'm convinced sincerely believes that forcing a public option on health care on the American people is of much more importance than that dirty little war over there.

So you support a retreat? I dunno. Leave me alone.

In the category of 'all the bloody things I don't have a clue about', while doing some reading on the history of nuclear arms policy, given Obama's recent decision to cancel European missile shield and my skepticism re his overtures in general thereof, I find that Paul Nitze, father of the American nuclear deterrence posture, near the end of his life called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I only mark this since I've ridiculed Obama in the past for calling for the same. I understand an old man warming to death and making an appeal to fantasy - but that only entrenches my opinion - to wit, that such calls place emotion over facts; that abolition would require an infallible method of verification, of which no technology exists that can promise such a thing; the law of unintended consequences - ie, just as we really couldn't predict the dynamics of a world with nuclear weapons, how can we pretend to understand what a world suddenly without them would be like? In other words, would such a world prove more dangerous or less? I mean, any sane person understands the emotion of 'O god, please rid us of this plague' - but in reality? Not so clear.

I continue to maintain that it is not in the nature of humans to give up or abrogate successful weapons technologies, both offensive and defensive - instead they develop new ones that render old ones either irrelevant or less threatening. Ergo, missile defense - I would consider any focus placed on abolition that drew impetus and resources away from missile defense to be an extremely unwise move.

Obama opts out of East European missile defense - does that bother me? Don't think so but possibly. It was supposed to protect against Iran but that was never really a practical solution and what they're proposing instead, a more variegated and extended shield, seems to make more sense, at least from what we know of it - and so in that sense I'm not bothered. Problem is, the East European shield was never about Iran but rather directed towards Russia which is why Moscow was so pissed by it - pulling back from that with the rather weak excuse that they hope this makes Russia more amenable viz Iran's nukes seems to me a gesture fraught with potential complications. So I'm a little hot and cold with this one - I suppose if they'd set it up so it seemed less like capitulation I could get on board - still, if Moscow stiffs them on Iran despite the gesture, which is likely, America will look compromised, no? even assuming the new plans for missile defense are more sensible. They can't possibly think that should Russia refuse to play ball on Iran after such a nice gesture that they will be the ones compromised? I've read some comments that seem to buy into that line of thinking - I think it's crazy - countries act in their own interests, Russia will be a help here only if they see it's to their advantage to be of help, not from contemplating abstract notions of fair play or right and wrong. As far as I'm concerned all countries whose power relies on political systems that are at odds with western styled democracy see an advantage in America being diminished - not destroyed or precipitously undone because they're too important viz economic stability - but certainly diminished. Russia - or should we just say Putin? - will act according to that principle, not out of a sense of owing Obama one or a fear of looking bad in the eyes of progressive democracies.

Still, the real threat from Iran is not a nuclear attack on Europe or over Europe and into the US but rather by offering a nuclear deterrent against Israel and America as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to its friends in Iraq, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and thereby extending and emboldening its dreams of hegemony in the region. If the new missile defense plan mitigates that influence more effectively then an apparent capitulation to Russia may matter less - but logically, if what I've just described is the case, then they already think Russia is not going help with Iran, Iran is going to develop nukes and Israel will not be interceding in any way - which makes this a smart play? Or a huge gamble? - in the sense that Russia gets to look appeased while Iran's plans are only marginally degraded.

From Jerusalem Post:

"We actually are better able to deal with a changed situation, in which the intelligence assessments are wrong, with the new architecture than we were with the old one," Gates told reporters.

The new assessment asserts Iran is unlikely to have a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile until 2015 to 2020, a US government official familiar with the report told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains classified...

Fingar, who spearheaded the controversial 2007 national intelligence estimate that disclosed Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design work in 2003, was not privy to the new intelligence. But he said Iran may be working on short-range missiles because they are easier to build than large, long-range missiles, and lessons learned in their development can be applied to larger missiles.

He also said Iran may not be aggressively pursuing an ICBM because it has discerned its most likely adversaries are in the region, so shorter missiles have more immediate utility for offensive attacks or deterrence.

The new Obama plan would deploy systems designed to shoot down short- and medium-range missiles, with construction in phases to begin around 2011. Systems to counter longer-range missiles would be in place around 2020.

This revealing - heard Obama say in a speech the other day that America has both private and public options viz universities and that hasn't ruined the educational system so why can't the same be true for health care? Nice - he's either being an idiot here, and he quite obviously isn't an idiot, or he's trusting the media to be stupid or compliant or both and not question the premise of the statement nor question the veracity of the person making it - more likely scenario.

Yes, Kentucky State and Harvard are both universities offering a variety of post-secondary degrees in multiple disciplines - but that's pretty much where their similarities end. Taking the statement at face value, if Obama is saying that the quality of health care you get will depend on how much you can afford to spend, then fine, I have no problem with that. But of course that's not what he's saying even though that is what he's saying - if the statement was meant to say what it in fact infers the health care debate would be over and Obama would be toast - to liberals, anyway - conservatives and libertarians I imagine would not have a problem with a multi-tiered health care system.

And so he's lying, or, if you prefer, manipulating perceptions by being less than honest - he's feeding off the assumption that quality of care can and will be equalized, that this is the goal, and that both private and public options can compete in this regard - but of course the only way equality can be achieved, in health care as it would be in education, is if the public option, through various procedural machinations, subsumes the private option, bleeds the Harvards dry.

So, there you go, classic Obama - a seemingly obvious and indeed somewhat anodyne statement of ostensible fact delivered with great charm that the press ignores or obediently condones - but in reality is either nonsensical, indicates a rather dramatic change of course in Obama's thinking on health care - or is a lie.

Op-ed in WSJ rolls out statistics to reveal how useless the vaunted stimulus was - even allowing some legitimacy for the old saw 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' it was obvious to anyone not benighted by partisan spin that that stimulus was a political play only faintly infused with a sound economic sensibility - it's shocking how little heat Obama has taken for this, because it wasn't simply an astounding misuse of public funds, it compounded the public's sense that things were out of control and the gov't was focused on the wrong things - in a crisis defined to no small extent by a psychological malaise driven by fear and doubt a stimulus that the public viewed as rushed, tainted by politics and of inflating debt to a seeming unmanageable degree only made things worse.

I do find it odd though that they couldn't figure out what any poor person could have told them - people spend money when they feel secure in their employment, even if it's a shitty job, as long as you feel it's not gonna disappear, you'll spend - if you're worried about paying the rent every month any little windfall you get, like from a gov't stimulus, you're gonna hoard it, not spend it. I guess they don't know this because most of them can't remember the last time they worried about paying the rent - although in the article they note that Milton Friedman understood this dynamic and believed gov't intervention should be all about stimulating business and by consequence long term employment.

I dunno - I know little about business theory, less about economics - but I felt from the get go that that stimulus bill was a load of crap - troubling that the media is so willing to think or outright pretend otherwise - remember during the reprehensible celebration by the press of Obama's first 100 days how the stimulus was lauded and trumpeted as evidence that the administration was firmly in control.

update: WH has released own numbers putatively showing one million jobs created or saved by stimulus - unfortunately most view the idea of 'saved jobs' as not demonstrable and therefore deliberately obfuscatory - in other words lies, damned lies and... WH statistics. [it never occurs to you that you denounce Obama with a blind enthusiasm similar to that with which his benighted supporters applaud him? No, no, absolutely not... a knack for knowing when others are in the wrong would verge on delusional if I wasn't always right, no?...]

"... I want to be clever, I want to have insights, I want to be profound... but in the end I settle on being merely entertaining... both as a way of expressing and concurrently hiding how ridiculously empty those ostensibly more noble ambitions are..."

Didn't I say or suggest that the most disturbing thing about Obama's speech to the little ones was that people who found fault with it, like myself, were being characterized as racists and how such an unreasonable blanket accusation would have the effect of making dissent itself wrong? Hell, this idiocy had so swamped a dispassionate view of things that Howard Stern - Howard Stern for christ sake! - talked about how those who had a problem with Obama must be motivated by race - it's striking how so many of the people who held this point of view had magically deduced that Obama is so without flaw that those who oppose him must be afflicted with racist thinking - suddenly the most naive, illiterate simpletons in the culture were channeling a Thomistic acumen and reasoning out the racism in everything!

And so it is Jimmy Carter - granted, a man with a knack for saying stupid things with startling regularity - but still, an ex-president, that means something - Jimmy Crater has come out and said Joe Wilson must have been motivated by racism when he called out liar during Obama's speech before congress even though the only things we know with absolute certainty are that Wilson did indeed shout out and Obama was indeed being less than honest.

I understand how fools who lean left may be duped into aping [god, is that racist?] mindlessly repeating these talking points - but the more sophisticated ones surely must understand how dangerous it is for a democracy to be headed by an ideologue, backed by a sympathetic legislative majority, who cannot be criticized - they must understand this and so evidently have decided that a liberal agenda, or more accurately the ideas espoused and championed by a liberal elite, are of such great importance that the ends here entirely justify the means.

Which brings me to what really troubles me about how Obamism is developing - I'm impaired by a poor memory and so can't call forth specifics but I'm sure an astute student of history could point out how many times this kind of ideologically driven arrogance has ended in disaster. [one hardly needs a doctoral degree in history to look back at preceding administration whose worst mistakes were driven by ideological arrogance - it's always been my belief that they fucked up the war plan in Iraq because they were obsessed with the politics of it - likewise I've stated that the democrats health care push is all about politics, not creating an efficient, workable system, or, to put it another way, much like Bush and Iraq, they assume certain outcomes because they are so smitten with the political advantages that would result - my worry has always been that the inevitable leftward over reaction contra Bush would prove inimical to the welfare of the empire because of the impetus brought to it by Obama's personal advantages [which I tend to view as shortcomings, not virtues] - reminding one of a boat that is capsized not by the first thrust but by the over zealous reaction against it - which is why I supported Hillary: the contra Bush over reaction was inevitable but because I saw her as a moderate I figured instability could be contained - I saw nothing moderating in Obama, in fact, quite the opposite - but in the true spirit of Obamism that's apparently because I'm a racist - though, on the plus side, going by the same logic, I guess because I supported Hillary that means I'm not a misogynist? There's an ex-girlfriend or two who may be comforted by that news...]

update: on the other hand, as some are with justification pointing out, having Jimmy Carter rally to your side with moralizing idiocy is quite possibly a sure fire way to scare off independents, and no matter how ripe with liberal zeal Obama may be he's going nowhere if independents sour on him.

Rothkopf over at FP has chimed in with my recently made point that while the progressives in America are busy staring at navels to see if their new world order indeed abides there Russia and Iran have taken steps to guarantee that the world as it is now is about to get a whole lot more dangerous - as he puts it, Russia, with its security council veto, has just sanctioned, on the eve of negotiations to forestall such a thing, the largest state sponsor of terrorism becoming a nuclear power. So far Obama's plan to tap into the sweetness and light of his story and broker a new age of peace and understanding amongst the peoples of the world who have for too long toiled in darkness and despair wondering, where O Lord, where is the hope, the change you promised? - so far that plan is working out about as well as any reasonable person would have expected.

I didn't watch Obama's address to congress re health care and only know what I know about it from reading others criticism - and so was left with the impression that he essentially pressed the progressives' agenda and gave the uber liberals what they wanted, more or less - certainly, listening to comments from liberal types they seem to have the impression that that's what happened - but according to Brooks in today's Times that's not the case - he maintains that by committing to not adding to the deficit by as much as 'one dime' Obama is obliged to allow the CBO to be the final judge of what can and cannot pass - which therefore means that whatever bill emerges will perforce be a compromise and not nearly as ambitious as the address to congress seemed to indicate it would be. I suppose so - I'm not sure though how it's to Obama's advantage to disappoint the lefties - unless the plan is to either blame it on congress or enhance his credibility with moderates? - but would that mean they have no preferred outcome just so long as they look good no matter what the outcome is? Progressives seem to be carrying the day, they slide that way; moderates seem better positioned, slide over there. Dunno - but I agree with Brooks insomuch as that commitment re the deficit means something other than what it means - whether that's an embrace of the left [List, O brethren, taxing the rich will preserve deficit neutrality], a move to the middle [you see guys, I ain't no commie], or an act of cunning ambiguity possibly rooted in cowardice, not sure...

update: Mankiw is also confused by what Obama is or isn't saying re deficit neutrality and concludes the president is being less than honest:

At first, it sounds like the President is threatening to veto the bills being considered in Congress because, according to CBO, they will add significantly to deficits in the out years. If true, that would be a big story. But the provision he mentions in the next sentence seems to suggest he is just passing the buck.

Translation: "I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

Someone should point out that in the midst of all this nonsense re health care reform [I'm not gonna argue the specifics of what the Democrats are after since as far as I'm concerned all they're really interested in is promoting an agenda and will say anything to that end {and I'm not nearly smart enough to argue specifics}] but I think it's important to note that Iran has officially ruled out negotiating away their nuclear program and Russia has indicated they will not back new sanctions which essentially means Iran can and will go nuclear anytime it chooses to take that step - which hardly comes as a surprise, but still, in the near term, such a development completely dwarfs health care reform - sure, long term, Obamacare and what it means as regards a liberal agenda and ballooning deficits presents possibly dire strategic problems - but short term? Iran or Israel's plans regarding it have potential to turn health care debate into an after thought. [but is that true? If Obama wins this health care battle, his stock will rise considerably, the far left will be emboldened, the affinities between the two will be confirmed and impelled forward, conservatives will be thrown back on their heels and into disarray, moderates potentially marginalized by liberal enthusiasm - the short term consequences of that could be a wee bit disturbing - actually combine that with Iran going nuclear and you have the potential for some serious foreign policy drift]

I remember reading a while ago that intellectuals love a revolution and willingly hove towards charismatic dictators because they long for adoration, ostensibly for their ideas, but in reality for themselves. And so it is that Tom Friedman in NY Times today lauds Chinese autocracy over American democracy because their enlightened dictators get to enact policy at will whereas our enlightened would be dictators are hobbled by answering to the people. Ahh... the other shoe falls, as they say - not that I'd label the Chinese charismatic, but communism is always sexy to a freeborn liberal [for instance see that insufferable doucebag Oliver Stone's embrace of Chavez - although I imagine only Stone is under the impression that he's an intellectual].

It's quite an astounding thing to read - and of course conservatives are all over it, remembering how left wing intellectuals in the throes of the Great Depression initially were all giddy for Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin - JP Sartre anyone? most telling thing that long winded bastard ever did was cling to communism like baby to sugared thumb while Stalin was busy putting a bullet in the brain of anyone who so much looked at a book. Glory days.

The curious thing is, how much of the enlightened left shares Friedman's POV? My guess, almost all of it. And still so many want to believe that those who worried over Obama's speech to the little 'uns was motivated by racism - it's the ideology stupid, not the colour of his fucking skin. [for you, maybe, but what about the wackos? Well, the wackos are always there - if you insist on making it about them then forget about rational discourse entirely, which is the net effect of these moronic or tactically sage - if you're a lefty operative - blanket accusations of racism - I mean, in such an environment, when would it not be racial to criticize OBama? When the NY Times signs off on it? Will they be the final arbiter? And the funny or sad part is that liberals are repeating the sins they ascribed to Bush - ie, you couldn't criticize Bush viz the war cause that would make you un-American - it's the same fucking thing and it's hard for me to believe they're too stupid to realize so I have to assume they know and don't care or are simply lost in a haze of ideological fervor]

"... yes, I stated years ago, not long after his 2004 keynote address at the democratic national convention, that Obama would prove a worse president than Bush... you see liberals see in him exactly what conservatives saw in Bush, a serviceable ideologue with an appealing personalty, perfect for selling an immoderate agenda to gullible moderates, the key demographic in any democracy... I say worse than Bush because it is my belief that if a great country is doomed to suffer through paroxysms of ideological pandering then better it come from the right, which favours strength and power and cold reality, necessary attributes of an empire, than from the left, which extols weakness and equivocation and the warm heart of a shared illusion..."

I was going to write a post attempting to explain the 'over reaction' to Obama's upcoming address to the school children of America - an over reaction that I guess I am guilty of, judging by a prior post of mine, a response borne of racism apparently, if the solemn reasonings of a fair amount of liberals are to be believed - which comes as a bit of a shock to me since I'm pretty sure I'm not a racist [hell, I'm Canadian - I'm barely anything at all] - but, anyway, I was going to write a post attempting to explain the as far as I'm concerned quite legitimate root of the anxiety, based as it is on a growing body of evidence that seems to suggest Obama is a demagogue populist who believes that as long as the force of his persona can convince his people a thing is right it therefore must be right, QED - I was going to write a post attempting to explain how this anxiety is a reflection of a perception of a cult of personalty brewing about the man, a markedly left wing cult - when I read that Michael Moore has released a new film that characterizes capitalism as a great evil [my, how original], a virtual sin that will be corrected by Obama, a depravity that Obama will deliver us from if only we are courageous enough to let him have his way - even quotes the rotund reactionary as saying that the revolution will succeed as long as we support Obama regardless of the quality of the policies he engenders, words to that effect anyway - and realized that fat boy Mike had done me the favour of obviating a need that I seem to have pursed anyways - go figure.

You see, I can't really know if Obama is a radical lefty - my best guess is he's an impish lefty wolf dressed in a sheepish something, his slim pre-presidential resume certainly suggests that, but who knows - the burden of leadership can often scare the sanity of moderation into a person. But what I do know for sure is that the fatuous acolytes that slavishly follow after him, believing him to be the avatar of a new world order that will make real their most prized conceits, I do know that these fanatics are not a phantom of any putative subconscious racism, they most decidedly exist, roiling in false ideals and a self aggrandizing anger, looming on the horizon just as dangerously, if not more so, than the bible thumping idiots who lauded the coming of Bush as a harbinger of a rapture that would deliver them unto their Lord.

And so it is when Obama proposes a speech to school children, en masse, and attaches to it a White House authored lesson plan that seems to make Obama himself the focus of the event - not the precious little fucking children or education or whatever bullshit one might wish to fancy would be the focus of such an insipid production - well, you see how that might disturb a man's conscience, how a man might come to the conclusion that give Obama an inch leftward and the fanatics hungering after him will demand a mile. Has there been overreaction? Sure, there are wackos enough on both sides who are more than willing to exploit any opportunity to wax idiotic. But aside from that sideshow, is there reasonable cause to question Obama's motives? Absolutely.

I tend to believe that democracy only becomes a rational exercise when we see it as a not infallible but still largely effective mechanism for moderating political extremes, thereby freeing the ambitions of individuals and mitigating a natural fear of change - I think that's where its true value lies and tend to view anything that acts or seeks to undermine that quality as bad, whether the threat approaches from the left or the right.

“Where foreign forces have had a large footprint and failed, in no small part it has been because the Afghans concluded they were there for their own imperial interests and not there for the interests of the Afghan people,” Mr. Gates said. But he said that General McChrystal’s emphasis on reducing civilian casualties and interacting more with Afghans “has given us a greater margin of error in that respect.”

Oh, problems... First, he volunteers idea that Americans are imperialists which is, one, either not true as he seems to mean it or way too simplistic but regardless in effect endorses a jihadist point of view given the way he expresses it; and two, even if in broadest terms it is true that is not necessarily a bad thing - what the hell, it's not like Afghanistan is a thriving, dynamic state - some classic Roman style imperialism might do some good - we left some pretty big imperial footprints in Japan and Germany after WW2 and that worked out - India is a much more tolerable behemoth because of England - Goths were able to sack Rome because Rome taught them how to do it [is that a good thing?]. But of course Afghanistan is a long way remove from pre-war Japan or Germany and in relative terms may be even more backward than the Goths et al and so it is that Gates locks himself into these misstatements by his next sentiment - 'interests of the Afghan people'. His concern should be with what's in the interests of the American people - fighting a war to preserve the interests of a culture that is at least 500 years behind the times is absurd! Afghanistan is a sinkhole because of its culture - an honest acknowledgment of that fact then leaves you with three possible options: stay away, but remain committed to blow up anything having to do with al Queda should it re-emerge; stay involved but on a limited basis that secures American interests but keeps hands off as far as Afghan society goes - if the Afghan people want to fight the Taliban the way the Northern Alliance did then of course support them but from a distance - we can't fight their wars for them unless we get to change them as well; level the fucking country, seriously [and by that I mean act like an imperial power and impose your will] . COIN starts off with the wrong questions and therefore ends with the wrongs answers. Afghanistan is a tribal society, it's a relic - asking how to instill good governance without an imposing imperial footprint brings you to the faulty conclusion of COIN and it's population centric ideals - but tribal societies have no interest in good governance, in fact an overreaching central authority is probably the last thing they're interested in - as far as we know the kleptocracy of Karzai is good governance to them cause he just goes off and does his thing and leaves them alone to grow poppies. The Taliban knows this - the Taliban has figured out that COIN, which demonizes conventional war and opts for a theory of winning hearts and minds, works to their advantage because it is burdened by time constraints, doesn't understand the culture it is trying to engage, and fosters illusions concerning the brutal nature of warfare that will quickly turn American public opinion against the war as soon as events conspire to tear the illusion down - ie dead soldiers or dead civilians - see for example recent bombing of stolen fuel truck that apparently has killed scores of civilians - in a conventional war that's just an unfortunate mistake, but for a COIN operation that pretends war can be civilized, it's a disaster. Indeed, the incident is more telling than that: consider that when the bomb was released it's possible there were no civilians around the truck, but because of the impoverished, tribal, scavenging reality of Afghan society, by the time the bomb hit the truck had been swarmed by civilians trying to steal gas. Hell, it's possible that the Taliban, knowing exactly how the culture worked, set the whole thing up.

update: apparently Germans called in the air strike and now there brews up a bitter dispute between Americans and Germans about who's responsible, there seems to be a significant amount a confusion here about what happened - but that doesn't weaken my point, rather serves it, seeing as how the Germans are there operating under very limited rules of engagement which makes them reluctant to get their hands dirty which in turn leads to faulty intelligence and an over reliance on easy solutions to keep those hands clean - all of which I think are natural consequences of the irrational presumptions and ensuing compromises underlying COIN tactics.

Article in Wall Street Journal echoes very points I've been making re F-22/F-35 debate - even using language similar to mine:

This is a big gamble [dropping the F-22] and seems like a bad bet in light of China's apparent determination to push forward with its own fifth-generation program. If this bet does go south, it could cost America future air superiority in the Pacific. It could deny a key U.S. ally, Japan, a significant non-nuclear means for deterring Chinese aggression. It could also be bad for the U.S. companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing commercially. Washington's inability to offer a fifth-generation "champion" fighter could push South Korea and Japan to turn to French technologies to develop their own fifth-generation programs.

Mr. Gates and the U.S. intelligence community could prove to be correct, but they have so far offered little public data to explain the prediction that has served to justify such a potentially fateful decision. Meanwhile, despite the PLA's lack of meaningful transparency Beijing's own goals are crystal clear. It would be far smarter for the U.S. to prepare for the likelihood that Beijing will develop and build far more than 187 fifth-generation air-superiority fighters.

Curious observation regarding China that hadn't occurred to me - that the growing urban middle class, which I imagine a lot of people assume would be attracted to democratic reforms, might actually have no interest in such because that would empower the madding crowds of poor who form the vast majority of China's population. Hmmn. Pretty sure though it's a potentiality that hasn't escaped the notice of the dour little men pulling the strings of the PRC.

Is Obama a used car salesman? Was he one in a prior life? Part Trotsky, part Elmer Gantryish confidence man maybe... Reading today that on Tuesday next week when kids sit down for their first day of class of the new school year they will be required to perch themselves in front of a TV - ALL ACROSS AMERICA!!! - and watch a video from Obama about how important school is and then answer questions, put out by the Obama administration, that will prompt the mindless little bastards to express exactly what it is they learned from the great Obama today. It's astounding arrogance - astounding and absolutely pernicious. And then that night he's requested time before a joint session of congress to proselytize about health care? That's how you have a reasoned debate about this important subject, by essentially saying that this putative reform is all about the messenger and not the message? Why else request this grand stage where the voices and viewpoints of those that oppose will perforce be muted, pushed to the side?

I say used car salesman because it's as if he believes that, no matter the quality of the product, the real value is in the selling of it - in other words, the real value is him, and everything that he is, and that people should unquestioningly put their trust in that. If Bush had tried to do something this Orwellian - well, in his own way he did - but my point is a long time ago I predicted Obama would be worse than Bush and as far as I'm concerned he's well on his way to proving me right.

... this turn of worm was easy to predict during primary and presidential campaigns of Obama - he clearly became a 'hawk' on Afghanistan because he believed he needed to show some foreign policy gravitas, a certain comfort level re the use of military force, in order to sway dubious moderates and independents. Iraq obviously wouldn't do seeing as he had opposed both the war and the surge that ostensibly saved it. No, it had to be Afghanistan - but he had no idea what he was committing to, probably didn't in a sense even care - just wanted to win an election and no doubt thought he could talk his way out of anything if he had to. This guy was always an uber liberal who believed he could use his putative powers of persuasion to convince [fool] the not so liberal segments of the polity to just 'trust him' when push came to shove. His rhetorical commitment to Afghanistan was in keeping with the superficial gloss that has marked his rapid rise.

But now reality intrudes and fantasy, as always, is forced to fall away. His poll numbers are down, the press, once obsequious towards him, now seems somewhat less timid to question. Having backed himself into a corner, what will he do? Can't blame Bush - he made a campaign promise to correct Bush's abandoning of Afghanistan - how can he now abandon it himself? But if he makes a commitment to step up the effort he abuses the sympathies of the left to which he owes his political fortunes, sympathies which the record shows fit best his own inclinations. Is it in this man to forge a policy that is not beholden to a particular ideology - in other words, if the right thing to do is to stay the course in Afghanistan, will he do that even if it makes him unpopular among the crowd he wants most to be popular with?

Obama's election was the culmination of a well crafted illusion - the important question has always been what happens when that illusion is no longer viable? Obama deliberately embraced Afghanistan, for cynical and deceitful reasons as far as I'm concerned - it will be poetic justice if ends up paying a dear price for it. Unfortunately, though, we'll all end up paying that price.

Personally, I've always believed Afghanistan was a lost cause - mainly because I think there are only two options, go big or go small - we keep trying for some magical middle ground typified by the unreasonable championing of COIN, but I see that as a delusional attempt at compromise: you can't win a war like this and leave the underlying culture intact - you either accept the brutal consequences of that and go big or accept the limitations that culture places on you and go small.

But regardless of what's the right thing to do now I think it's important to realize that Obama's position has always been a phony one. Whether or not that continues to be the case, suppose we're gonna find out...