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...