The pros and cons of continuing or escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be gleaned from two recent books, "The Search for Al Qaeda," by Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A. analyst and adviser to three presidents, and "The Duel," by the Pakistani writer and filmmaker Tariq Ali. One thing they agree on -- and which was underscored by the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai -- is that Pakistan is going to be at the forefront of foreign policy concerns for the Obama administration.
It's hard to get more apocalyptic than Riedel. "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today, where every nightmare of the 21st century -- terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the danger of nuclear war, dictatorship, poverty and drugs -- come together in one place." It is, he adds, the country most critical to the development and survival of Al Qaeda.
The importance Ali attaches to Pakistan can be found in his subtitle: "Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power." The United States thinks it needs Pakistan now, he says, in order to fight Al Qaeda and the insurgents who are carrying out attacks on the NATO troops in Afghanistan (a recent attack on a 100- vehicle convoy was launched from Peshawar), just as it needed Pakistan as a base for fighting the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The two men also agree that the threat presented by Al Qaeda has been exaggerated. "Its importance in the general scheme of things is greatly overstated by the West," Ali writes. "It unleashes sporadic terror attacks and kills innocents, but it does not pose any serious threat to U.S. power."
Except for when it attacks one of our major cities, kills several thousand of our citizens, and causes hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in our economy, thus emboldening terrorists throughout the world.
Although Riedel calls Al Qaeda "the first truly global terrorist organization in history," he also says that it does not have "a mass following in the Muslim world" and that it is "not on the verge of taking over even a single Muslim country."
Where the authors part company is over what to do now. Expand NATO forces in Afghanistan, Riedel says. Withdraw all NATO forces from Afghanistan, Ali counters.
Prince Harry may be third in line to the throne. But it is hard to see why anyone in his right mind would want to be the monarch of a country bursting with such pious, pompous, prudish, sanctimonious, semi-hysterical, self-righteous, mealymouthed, whining prigs.
The phrase 'our little Paki friend' - or at least the Paki part of it - has brought them out in force this week, displaying modern Britain at its silliest.
Once you lay siege to a language, you lay siege to people's minds. You seek to control not just what people say, but what they think.
Oh, the humbug of it all! The BBC, of course, was foremost in denouncing the use of the dreaded word - despite its recent reluctance to apologise for the obscene language of its broadcasters.
Then there was Fleet Street. If one cause unites newspapers up and down the land it is the declared belief that political correctness has reached absurd proportion.
Yet here they were, either solemnly or hysterically - according to the paper you bought - denouncing the Prince for his breach of that new and insidious code.
Another example of PC fashion was on a recent Radio 3 programme, where one individual suggested it was now wrong to use the term 'foreigner'.
No less alarming is the remorseless decline of the once famous British sense of humour. In the late Sixties, Spike Milligan starred in a TV series playing 'Paki-Paddy', a Pakistan-Irishman. It was a comedy.
Today, showing the series might well lead to a prosecution. And, of course, denunciation by politicians. David Cameron was immediate in declaring the dreaded phrase 'completely unacceptable' - pompous twit.
Imagine you were involved in an accident or even a terrorist incident. Who would you expect to dash fastest to your aid - the Prince or one of those race relations correspondents? The question answers itself.
And do you imagine the Prince would show any sort of discrimination about which fellow soldier he tried to save in a battle? That question also answers itself.
There is a deadly serious political aspect to this whole business of allowable words, which George Orwell would have understood. Once you lay siege to a language, you lay siege to people's minds. You seek to control not just what people say, but what they think.
The distortion of history that this can lead to was exemplified for me when I talked to a young man about the World War II invasion of Russia. By the Nazis, he parroted.
By the Germans, in millions, I stressed. He vaguely thought only Nazis had been on this mission.
Those who press the PC cause are always a public menace. My message to them is that if you are so hyper-sensitive about the implications of every word, you should go and live in a monastery. Or better still, emigrate.
There is a better way of putting it. But this is, after all, a family newspaper.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I saw nothing in the video that could be remotely considered to be "offensive." What I saw was an exuberant British army officer showing off elements of his unit on film.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/17/2009 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Its the basic group type that was livid when it was discovered, at the same time Joe found out, that from private government records he owed $1000 when the same wonks think its nothing that the nominated Treasury Secretary owes $10000. Selective outrage as a demonstration of primate territorial behavior.
And signed documents stating he recognized he owed it, and then when caught only paid back the most recent debts, skipping the ones beyond the statute of limitations since the IRS couldn't compel him.
Then when Obama's team vetted him and raised the issue, he coughed up the rest. The man is guilty of tax evasion. But let's make him Treas Sec anyway, he's a good guy and really smart.
#5
KBK, that's pretty much Hugh Hewitt's thought. Hugh thinks that Bambi deserves to have on his team pretty much whoever he wants, and that Geithner's troubles are small compared to what he's capable of doing to 'help'.
It's precisely that sort of thinking that has gotten this country into so much trouble. There are two types of citizens: the elites and the schnooks. The elites are forgiven their transgressions as long as they don't get un-PC (e.g., Prince Harry) whereas the schnooks (e.g., Joe the Plumber) can't ever be allowed to catch a break.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/17/2009 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
On the eve of Barack Obamas inauguration, James Delingpole says that the President-elect is horribly reminiscent of Tony Blair in 1997. He may be a fantastic guy, and look great, but he will bring a ragbag of scuzzballs, communists and eco-loons to power with him.
No matter how excited you may be about Barack Obamas inauguration on Tuesday, I bet youre not as pleased as I am. Never have I wished more devoutly for a presidential victory than the one won by this mighty intellect-cum-healer-cum-fashion-model-cum-general-all-round-Messiah a man so conscious of his own merit that, unlike any president before him, he plans to swear his inaugural oath on the Lincoln bible.
But this wasnt because I nurtured a burning desire to see the first ever African-American made US president. Nor because Id bought into his speeches or that lovely, confident, articulate speaking voice he has. Nor yet because I had the remotest faith in Obamas ability to change America for the better. Quite the opposite, actually. The reason I wanted him to win was because I was halfway through writing a book called Welcome To Obamaland: Ive Seen Your Future And It Doesnt Work. The title just wouldnt have had the same ring under a President John McCain.
When I tell them about the book, most of my Conservative friends go: Wow! That is such a good idea. But all the credit here belongs to a brilliant US publishing vice president named Harry Crocker III who contacted me out of the blue one day with the nicest email Ive ever received. Dear James, it went, as a longstanding Spectator reader and fan of your column I wondered whether you might be interested in writing a book for us
Ive been pinching myself in disbelief ever since. Mind you, there were a couple of obstacles which at first seemed insurmount-able. The first was that Harry wanted the book delivered in a month and the second was that, it being published only in America for a US audience, the project seemed to require rather more knowledge about US politics than I have or ever will possess.
It's time for Democrats to say so. During the campaign they rarely did for fear of jeopardizing Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency. But today, the hesitation is less tactical than emotional. Most Democrats think Bush has been an atrocious president, and they want to usher him out of office with the jeers he so richly deserves. Even if they suspect, in their heart of hearts, that he was right about the surge, they don't want to give him the satisfaction.
Yet they should -- not for his sake but for their own. Because Bush has been such an unusually bad president, an entire generation of Democrats now takes it for granted that on the big questions, the right is always wrong. Older liberals remember the Persian Gulf War, which most congressional Democrats opposed and most congressional Republicans supported -- and the Republicans were proven right. They also remember the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, when prominent liberals predicted disaster, and disaster didn't happen.
Younger liberals, by contrast, have had no such chastening experiences. Watching the Bush administration flit from disaster to disaster, they have grown increasingly dismissive of conservatives in the process. They consume partisan media, where Republican malevolence is taken for granted. They laugh along with the "Colbert Report," the whole premise of which is that conservatives are bombastic, chauvinistic and dumb. They have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching the people whose politics they loathe be proven right.
#1
a good point buried in a steaming pile of "Bush bad. Bush stupid" crap. It's the WaPo, nuff said
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/17/2009 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What they truly need to realize is how far they are pushing the people on the right. They have sought to criminalize the conservative viewpoint. It's no longer that we simply disagree, but they've constantly portrayed us as evil.
Thanks to them, I will happily embrace that. Democrats are no longer human to me. They deserve no mercy, pity or compassion. I have taken their hatred so long that I will gladly return it to them. In spades.
They time will come that they will have to reap what they have sown, and I'm thinking that what happens to them will be beyond their wildest nightmares.
So I offer them my congratulations, they have replaced the Nazi's as the most evil people on this planet. The Nazi's were simply happy to kill everyone else. But for the Democrats, they have embraced and celebrated a culture of human sacrifice worse even than those from before. One that glories in the deaths of their own children while protecting adults that prey on children in the sickest ways imaginable.
So while it is a sad thing, to see so many voluntarily resign from the human race, I refuse to call it anything else anymore. We will not win the coming political struggles by turning the other cheek and being timid or refusing to fight back hard against them in the public arena of ideas.
A new Dark Age is coming. The only question left is do we cower in our homes or build fires against the dark?
#4
Is the surge solely responsible for the turnaround? Of course not. Al-Qaeda alienated the Sunni tribes; Moqtada al-Sadrs Mahdi Army decided to stand down; the United States assassinated key insurgent and militia leaders, all of which mattered as much if not more than the increase in U.S. troops.
Beinart is the quintessential CFR stooge. He and his fellows promote themselves as out of the box intellectuals yet they cant resist writing their version of history in the present. Theirs is an egocentric quest to define the problems for their pre-declared solutions. And their cynicism is satisfied from the ease at which they can sway the politically ambitious class. Of course, even a novice salesman could sell Nancy Pelosi with a simple narcissism close. But the irony is how these Big Picture academics unabashedly buttress their philosophies with the myopic. Look how Beinart defines the Surge. He declares it simply as an increase in U.S. troops - not an overall strategy. In other words, the Surge was just an event and therefore is independent of other events. As if the Sunni Awakening and Al-Sadrs actions almost happened in some sort of time vacuum. You see, this allows him the liberty of assigning his own values of those events. And predictably he puts those events on equal footing (and above) of one of the most remarkable military success stories of all times. As my Grandmother used to sarcastically say Aint he clever?
#5
Being in love a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
01/17/2009 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Democrats. It must suck to realize you've spent your life cheering for the party consistently on the wrong side of history. But then, most of them are too ignorant to realize it. I suspect that many can't face that Lincoln was a Republican, that the Southern Democrats bitterly fought the civil rights movement and that "peace" in Vietnam resulted in massive genocide.
Well, at least this guy is willing to get on board once the war has already been won. Nothing says brilliant like a willingness to admit you were wrong.
#4
Can one of the experts here explain to me why we aren't designing the future carrier for vertical take-off and landing, and thereby reducing the size of the deck/ship?
#5
Because the US already has 12 of them. They are called amphibious assault ships. The next gen LHAs won't even have boat docks.
Posted by: ed ||
01/17/2009 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Because VTOL planes make crummy fighters (low performance) and piss poor bombers (very limited pay load). Did I mention that for most of its carreer the Harrier had no radar and thus was restricted to short range IR missiles? (Another consequence of teh limited payload of a VTOL plane).
#9
Can one of the experts here explain to me why we aren't designing the future carrier for vertical take-off and landing, and thereby reducing the size of the deck/ship?
#1
Sheila C. Bair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other officials have talked of a bank that would be created by the federal government to buy financial institutionsâ bad assets.
I've been beating a dead horse since last fall, that we should have rechartered the Bank of the United States and instead of absorbing the bad paper and debts of banks and lending institutions, they should have been taken in whole. In other words we are not stuck with just the bad stuff, we get the assets as well. If they're that insolvent, then they're forfeited. No need to maintain an upper management structure that has failed and is paid well above GS and SES levels. When all the shenanigans with the Treasury and Congress are done, it would have been far cheaper in the long run to have followed that course.
#2
There's only one way to "Save The Banks" that's to fire all from Ceo down, keep tellers and such they're not at fault, but everyone above bank teller (Possably lower managment, such as assistant managers who've not been "Tainted" yet") should be barred fron working in ANY finncial institution FOR LIFE
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/17/2009 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
President-elect Barack Obama will be testing the limits of the global markets' ability to absorb U.S. government debt by piling an $800 billion stimulus plan on top of more than $1 trillion in new obligations already scheduled this year.
Wall Street analysts worry that China, Japan and other nations that readily helped finance U.S. debt in the past won't have the willingness or wherewithal to buy what will amount to three to four times the previous yearly record of Treasury-issued debt of $455 billion. Some analysts predict a calamity such as the failure of a U.S. bond auction, which could drive interest rates sharply higher just as the economy is struggling to recover.
Others are less worried, but evidence is mounting that the debt burden could rise to unmanageable levels. The mere mention by Mr. Obama in a news conference last week that the U.S. could run deficits exceeding $1 trillion for several years sent a shudder through the Treasury bond market, where those deficits must be financed, sending interest rates temporarily higher.
A bond auction failed last week in Germany, which has comparatively little debt to finance, raising concerns about whether the United States faces similar problems on a much larger scale. Wall Street rating agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's Corp. said they are closely watching the surge in debt and the willingness of foreign investors to finance it.
"Fiscal risk has noticeably increased," said S&P analyst Nikola G. Swann, while "the country's exposure to a change in international investors' willingness to add to their portfolio of U.S. dollar assets grows with each year."
On Thursday, the Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing on the so-called debt bubble and is expected to ask a panel of economists about the ability of world markets to finance the growing U.S. obligations.
"In a world where you are running a deficit profile of staggering proportions, it all comes down to the confidence of foreign investors," said Alex Jurshevski, a strategist at Recovery Partners who expects the Treasury to borrow as much as $2 trillion more this fiscal year to finance its bank bailout program as well as budget deficits that are burgeoning as a result of the recession and the massive stimulus Mr. Obama is planning.
#1
How does the Treasury bond market effect the state and corporate bonds?
My guess would be that higher interest rate T bills would drive the interest rates for all bonds up which would add to the debt obligation of the issuers and drive down their ability to spend, no?
#2
If the government can keep alternative investment vehicles (stocks & corporate bonds) in the tank, whatever funds people do have to invest will end up buying government bonds.
Larry Kudlow
Today's consumer price index dropped for the fifth consecutive month. This is part of the unwinding of the great oil shock that was an important, if overlooked, factor in the current economic downturn. Various talking heads have been wringing their hands over the specter of "deflation," which is a bad thing to economists. But oil at $145 a barrel added an enormous artificial bulge to the supply chain costs. The price falling to more normal levels -- perhaps in the $20-25 a barrel range -- reduces transportation and energy costs significantly.
I noticed today that there is not much talk about the CPI amidst the hullabaloo of the government effectively nationalizing Citigroup and the Bank of America. Making these giant banks wards of the state is a terrible idea. It's an enormous incentive to do some big-time boodling. Personally, I belong to a credit union. If I need an actual bank, there are lots of them around here that aren't Bank of America or Citigroup. The local isn't wiped out all the way.
The drop in retail gas prices alone has been variously estimated at $350 billion in new consumer purchasing power.
But the plunge in consumer prices is a great thought. It is a tax cut of massive proportions. The drop in retail gas prices alone has been variously estimated at $350 billion in new consumer purchasing power. In fact, real average weekly earnings have now risen four straight months on the back of the CPI drop. Over the past year, this key measure is up nearly 3 percent.
And while consumer prices are deflating, producer prices -- which represent wholesale costs to business -- have been deflating even faster with the plunge in energy and other commodities. Consequently, corporate profit margins are improving as costs drop faster than prices. This important development is also overlooked.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Of course that $350B in shiny new consumer purchasing power is partly, if not mostly, transient. Combine the coming cap-and-trade / BTU tax costs with a predicted rise in gasoline prices later this year and we'll be right back where we were soon enough.
#2
Deflation IS good news for consumers however if people start hoarding cash (and not doing transactions) waiting for prices to fall further then the whole economy seizes up.
#3
Based on this, consumers never had it better than in the 30's. Too bad there were so few of them.
The problem is not so much high oil prices or low oil prices, but volatile oil prices. Volatility makes it hard for people and organizations to plan with confidence. This shortens time horizons, reduces risk taking, thus entrepreneurial activity, and ultimately profitable growth. We would have had more stability.
But ultimately oil is one of many symptoms of the problem, not its cause. The real cause was the continual cascade of bubbles and bursts dues to e-z money and overextension of credit to uncreditworthy mortgagees.
The problem that I have rarely seen addressed is the unaccountable power of the Chariman of the Federal Reserve System and the existance of the FRS itself. 1913 was an evil year.
#4
Where does gauging stop and deflation begin? What is a legitimate mark up and what is a outright killing? Where is it written that fundamental and essential items of existence are of the same weighted value as luxury goods?
#5
The problem that I have rarely seen addressed is the unaccountable power of the Chariman of the Federal Reserve System and the existance of the FRS itself. The media is far more interested in continuing to pump the Obama bubble.
#6
Although the stock market has stumbled in the new year, it too will benefit from the inflation tax cut. Remember, the capital-gains tax is un-indexed for inflation. As prices moved up towards 6 percent last summer, stocks moved down big-time. Now, however, the decline of inflation is reducing the effective tax rate on real capital gains from roughly 40 percent last summer to only 15 percent through December. This is a huge tax cut on stocks and wealth-creation. While President-elect Obama appears to be willing to leave the Bush tax cuts untouched in 2009, and perhaps 2010, the falling consumer price index is slashing the cap-gains tax rate in real terms.
I find this incomprehensible. What can he talking about? 40% to 15%?
For most people, a 50% loss of capital is hardly compensated by that 'nice' long-term capital loss offset they've now got tucked away.
#8
The recent drop in oil prices is less of an inflation/deflation thing and more of a bubble busting thing. The twist is that oil touches everything, so when that bubble burst other prices came down too.
The effect is like a tax cut -- it doesn't directly create any more wealth. It just leaves more existing wealth where it belongs. If that continues, it will have a positive effect on growth.
#9
The drop in oil prices is better than a tax cut. 60% of the money paid for oil went out of the US economy, circulating for other economies' benefit. With the price drop, most of that money at least stays and circulates for a few turns (before going to China, Germany, etc).
Posted by: ed ||
01/17/2009 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Oil might go back up if the T-Bond sale fails and the dollar crashes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
