INTERMEX POWER

2012-02-02T11:28:00.002-07:00

Pakistan Slams NATO Leak on Taliban Support

Pakistan on Wednesday hit out angrily at a leaked NATO report accusing its spies of secretly aiding the Afghan Taliban, saying that pre-dawn air strikes killed at least 20 local Taliban fighters.
Pakistan's alliance with the United States and NATO plummeted to an all-time low after US air strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26 and Islamabad has since shut its Afghan border to NATO supply convoys.

The Next War

Oliver North |

Not one of the old "frogmen" or young SEALs who gathered this week at the nearby National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum for their annual Muster want to see another war. Those who came here are veterans of combat spanning from World War II to the present war in Iraq and Afghanistan to numerous other unnamed fights around the globe. Within their ranks are men -- and their families -- who know what it means to go in harm's way, often without any recognition or public acclaim.

When War Games Go Live. Preparing to Attack Iran. "Simulating World War III"

by Michel Chossudovsky

With ongoing war games on both sides, armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran are, according to Israeli military analysts, "dangerously close".

There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history.

The drill, called “Austere Challenge 12,” is scheduled to take place within the next few weeks. Its stated purpose "is to test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems, especially the “Arrow” system, which the country specifically developed with help from the US to intercept Iranian missiles."

In the course of December, Iran conducted its own war games with a major ten days naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz, (December 24, 2011- January 2, 2012).

Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously. While Israel and the US are preparing to launch major naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, Tehran has announced that it plans to conduct major naval exercises in February.

An impressive deployment of troops and advanced military hardware is unfolding.

Meanwhile, Israel has become a de facto US military outpost. US and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel's Ministry of Defense.

A large number of US troops will be stationed in Israel once the war games are completed.

The assumption of this military deployment is the staging of a joint US-Israeli air attack on Iran. Military escalation towards a regional war is part of the military scenario.

Not Time to Attack Iran

Why War Should Be a Last Resort

By Colin H. Kahl

Obama speaks about the U.N. Security Council's sanctions on Iran (Kevin Lamarque / Courtesy Reuters)
In "Time to Attack Iran" (January/February 2012), Matthew Kroenig takes a page out of the decade-old playbook used by advocates of the Iraq war. He portrays the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran as both grave and imminent, arguing that the United States has little choice but to attack Iran now before it is too late. Then, after offering the caveat that "attacking Iran is hardly an attractive prospect," he goes on to portray military action as preferable to other available alternatives and concludes that the United States can manage all the associated risks. Preventive war, according to Kroenig, is "the least bad option."
But the lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out. A realistic assessment of Iran's nuclear progress and how a conflict would likely unfold leads one to a conclusion that is the opposite of Kroenig's: now is not the time to attack Iran.

Time to Attack Iran. Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option

In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon -- particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

The Splintering of Al Shabaab

A Rough Road From War to Peace

Bronwyn Bruton and J. Peter Pham

Washington's repeated attempts to bring peace to Somalia with state-building initiatives have failed, even backﬁred. It should renounce political intervention and encourage local development without trying to improve governance.

An AMISOM battalion in Mogadishu. (United Nations Photo / flickr)
For the better part of five years, much of Somalia's long-suffering population has been caught in a deadly stalemate between al Shabaab, an al Qaeda-linked militant group, and African Union peacekeepers, known as AMISOM. The peacekeepers are tasked with defending the country's weak Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which, despite years of backing from regional powers and the West, remains politically dysfunctional and incapable doing anything resembling governing. Fielding an army of its own remains a distant aspiration.

The Next War of the World

By Niall Ferguson

Alan Khatib

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF BUTCHERY
In 1898, H. G. Wells wrote The War of the Worlds, a novel that imagined the destruction of a great city and the extermination of its inhabitants by ruthless invaders. The invaders in Wells' story were, of course, Martians. But no aliens were needed to make such devastation a reality. In the decades that followed the book's publication, human beings repeatedly played the part of the inhuman marauders, devastating city after city in what may justly be regarded as a single hundred-year "war of the world."

Slain Border Patrol Agent’s Family Files Lawsuit in Fast & Furious Scandal

Kurt Nimmo

The family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the federal government. Terry was killed on December 14, 2010, by drug cartel bandits in Arizona. Investigators found two AK47s at the scene that were linked to the government’s Fast and Furious gun-running operation.
Under Fast and Furious, the ATF orchestrated the sale of guns originating in the United States to Mexican drug cartels financed by international banks.
According to William Newell, former ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division, the Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “full partners” in Operation Fast and Furious.

IRAN: The Next War on Washington’s Agenda Politics

Paul Craig Roberts

Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”

Coverage Roundup: Afghanistan and Pakistan

It was a busy day for news from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here is a roundup of coverage from The New York Times:

Panetta Sets End to Afghan Combat Role for U.S. in ’13 | In a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said on Wednesday that American forces would step back from a combat role there as early as mid-2013, more than a year before all American troops are scheduled to come home. Mr. Panetta cast the decision as an orderly step in a withdrawal process long planned by the United States and its allies, but his comments were the first time that the United States had put a date on stepping back from its central role in the war. Read the article here.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — When David H. Petraeus testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, it was a rare public appearance by America’s onetime most famous general who by tradition has gone into virtual hiding as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But the spymaster, who oversaw the troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, now has a biographer who is keeping his name in lights, at least on the set of “The Daily Show:’’ Paula Broadwell, a doctoral candidate and 39-year-old major in the Army reserves who is the author of “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.’’

Karen Bleier/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDavid Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

Ms. Broadwell describes Mr. Petraeus as a mentor, so her book, written with Vernon Loeb, a Washington Post editor, is not exactly a searing portrait.

A Quick Roundup of the Pentagon’s Proposed Budget Cuts

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta outlined on Thursday the first major step — he called it a “down payment” — of shrinking the Pentagon after a decade of war. Included in the proposal: limit pay raises for troops, increase health insurance fees for military retirees and close bases in the United States. Of those proposals, our colleagues Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker write that pay-raise limits, though modest, “are certain to ignite a political fight in Congress, which since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has consistently raised military salaries beyond what the Pentagon has recommended.”
For more on the exact budget reductions, as well the political challenges the changes may present to the Obama administration, the effects on military benefits and the changing nature of the United States’ force presence throughout the world, read their full article here.
You can read the Pentagon’s proposal in full here.
And to see how readers like you would cut the defense budget, check this out

The Next War

By JEFFERY DELVISCIO

As the new year begins, At War is taking a look at a series by our Washington correspondents dubbed “The Next War.” The articles examine the American military and the decisions confronting it in a new age of austerity, from the cuts to come, to the costs of technology and the vision of a newer, leaner fighting force.

Panetta’s Pentagon

Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesLeon E. Panetta, center, in the Rose Garden in 1995 as President Bill Clinton announced a Bosnia peace agreement. From right are Vice President Al Gore and Anthony Lake, the national security adviser.

2012-02-02T11:13:00.001-07:00

Not Time to Attack Iran

Why War Should Be a Last Resort

By Colin H. Kahl

Time to Attack Iran. Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option

The Splintering of Al Shabaab

A Rough Road From War to Peace

Bronwyn Bruton and J. Peter Pham

The Next War of the World

By Niall Ferguson

Alan Khatib

Slain Border Patrol Agent’s Family Files Lawsuit in Fast & Furious Scandal

IRAN: The Next War on Washington’s Agenda Politics

Paul Craig Roberts

Coverage Roundup: Afghanistan and Pakistan

It was a busy day for news from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here is a roundup of coverage from The New York Times:

Panetta Sets End to Afghan Combat Role for U.S. in ’13 | In a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said on Wednesday that American forces would step back from a combat role there as early as mid-2013, more than a year before all American troops are scheduled to come home. Mr. Panetta cast the decision as an orderly step in a withdrawal process long planned by the United States and its allies, but his comments were the first time that the United States had put a date on stepping back from its central role in the war. Read the article here.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Karen Bleier/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDavid Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

Ms. Broadwell describes Mr. Petraeus as a mentor, so her book, written with Vernon Loeb, a Washington Post editor, is not exactly a searing portrait.

A Quick Roundup of the Pentagon’s Proposed Budget Cuts

The Next War

By JEFFERY DELVISCIO

Panetta’s Pentagon

Quick study: Alastair Smith on political tyranny

A.B. | LONDON

ALASTAIR SMITH is professor of politics at New York University. The recipient of three grants from the National Science Foundation and author of three books, he was chosen as the 2005 Karl Deutsch Award winner, given biennially to the best international-relations scholar under the age of 40. He is co-author of “The Dictator’s Handbook: How Bad Behaviour is Almost Always Good Politics” (2011).

THE ECONOMIST ON CHINA

Fairly confusing

The politics of fairness

Fairly confusing

by W.W. | IOWA CITY

FAIRNESS played a central role in Barack Obama's state-of-the-union address, and I suspect it will play a central role in the president's re-election campaign. But what does Mr Obama have in mind when he deploys the f-word? It may not be the case that fairness is, as Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, puts it, "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments". But it cannot be denied that fairness is an idea both mutable and contested. Indeed, last week's state-of-the-union address seems to contain several distinct conceptions of fairness worth drawing out and reflecting upon.
Toward the beginning of his speech, as Mr Obama was trying to draw a parallel between post-second world war America and today's post-Iraq war America, he offered this rather stark choice:

Facebook

Facebook may be a good bet for investors now; but regulatory problems lie ahead

IT ALL began as a lark. Mark Zuckerberg posted pictures of his fellow Harvard students online to let viewers comment on who was hot and who was not. Eight years later, Facebook is one of the hottest companies in the world. On February 1st the social network announced plans for an initial public offering (IPO) that could value it at between $75 billion and $100 billion (see article). This is extraordinary. Investors believe that a start-up run by a cocky 27-year-old is more valuable than Boeing, the world’s largest aircraftmaker. Are they nuts?

Pathetic Scholarship: Michael Emmett Brady. by Mark R. Crovelli

Nothing in the academic world reeks more revoltingly than the man who labels anyone who disagrees with him a shoddy scholar. Such a desperate act of intellectual dishonesty is a sure sign that the man who resorts to it possesses not a shred of intellectual integrity and is utterly incapable of honest discourse. The fact that few scholars ever stoop so low is primarily due to the fact that their peers are readily capable of recognizing the tactic for what it is: puerile name-calling masquerading as argumentation.

Nevertheless, there do exist a few simple-minded souls in the academic world who are undaunted by the crassness and fallaciousness of the ad hominem and the non sequitur. For men of this ilk, scoring cheap points against an opponent is more important than forming sound arguments or even clear thinking.

No Country Will Exit the Euro Zone This Year: Jim Rogers by Ron Haruni

Billionaire investor and chairman of Singapore-based Rogers Holdings, Jim Rogers believes that no country will exit the euro zone this year.

“I don’t think we’ll see anybody will leave the euro zone in 2012, there are 40 elections in 2012 there will be more problems this year. Governments everywhere will do their best to make sure we get through elections. Maybe in 2013 you should panic and certainly by 2014 you should be panicked but 2012 will be better,” Rogers told CNBC Monday.

Get Off the Road to War: Stop the Sanctions on Iran by Michael S. Rozeff

It would be nice if the U.S. kept its word when it signs those international agreements that are in some kind of accord with rights and advance the international maintenance of rights.

The U.S. has not done this with Iran.

The U.S. and Iran signed the Algiers Accords in 1981 to end the hostage crisis. See also here. Point 1 of the accords is titled "Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs". It reads (in full):

"The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

This is a pragmatically wise policy. Moreover, it is in the direction of respecting the rights of Iranians and also those non-Iranians who have dealings with Iranians. Overall, it is an agreement that settled a potentially explosive situation. It moved toward peace.

Florida: God’s Waiting Room for Freedom by Brian Wilson

A post-Florida Primary Review.
Of sorts.
Another primary; another late night of Required Talk Show Homework. While much happened that deserves comment, one big, fat lie must be mentioned.
An alleged reporter on Faux News said "Romney got the most votes in all categories, women ... and the Tea Party." These Fox clowns already have zero credibility with me. They don't have to French kiss
Romney in public to prove it.

Facebook Files, Revenue Short of Expectations

The Story Behind Australia's Richest Woman

Mitt's Coronation?

Obama's Maddening, Winning Speech

He will marginalize his opponents as the bloodless Numbers People.

By DANIEL HENNINGER

Barack Obama's poorly received State of the Union speech deserves a second look. Conventional wisdom pronounced the SOTU a relatively weak Obama effort. It was. Diffuse, filled with the usual enemies, it pulled together various back-filed policy ideas into a proposal he called, with a straight face, "An Economy Built to Last."
Bemused election-year observers remarked that both ObamaCare and the nation's entitlement bomb passed unmentioned. In his reply, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels noted that we are not going to be able to outrun the simple math on entitlement spending. That's true. We can't. But Mr. Obama just may for the next 10 months.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

President Obama speaks at Intel's plant in Chandler, Ariz.

2012-02-01T22:02:00.002-07:00

Gold in the Face of Facebook

By Addison Wiggin

02/01/12 Baltimore, Maryland – Stocks are up today. The major indexes have jumped 1%… for no obvious reason.
There’s talk of a halo effect from the pending IPO of Facebook, which could file the paperwork as early as today.
Oy… Talk about “riding on a smile and a shoeshine,” to borrow from Death of a Salesman.
“You have 500 million people,” we wrote 13 months ago, the last time we deemed Facebook worthy of our attention, “playing Farmville and Mafia Wars and telling the world how wasted they got last night… but what makes them worth an average $100 in market value?

By Bill Bonner

02/01/12 Baltimore, Maryland – We had lunch with an old friend last week. We hadn’t seen him since our school days in the ’60s. He told us the following story.
“It’s amazing. I’ve lived there all my life. But I’m a little different, I guess. My brothers are doctors and lawyers. I did them a favor by being the black sheep of the family. So they didn’t have to be.
“I live in a rich neighborhood. But I don’t work much. I can’t work at all now, since I had my motorcycle accident. And I guess people wonder how I could live in such a place. Well, the answer is simple. My father was an eye surgeon and he bought it in 1941 and gave it to his children when he died.

Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

By: Peter Schiff

With its announcement this week that it will keep interest rates near zero until at least late 2014, the Federal Reserve has put another large crack into the foundations underlying the US dollar. In a misguided attempt to provide clarity and transparency, Ben Bernanke has instead laid out a simple road map for economists and investors to follow. The signposts are easily understood: the Fed will stop at nothing in pursuing its goals of creating phantom GDP growth, holding down unemployment, propping up stock and housing prices, and monetizing government debt. To do so, it will continue to pursue a policy of negative interest rates, while ignoring the collateral damage of unsustainable debt, virulent inflation, misallocated resources and credit, suffering yield-dependent retirees, and a devalued U.S. currency.

The Dollar's Lucky Streak

By: Peter Schiff

Recent U.S. economic data, such as the modest drop in the unemployment rate and the massive expansion of consumer credit, have suggested that the American economy is finally recovering. Opposite conclusions are being thrown at Europe, where many are convinced that recession is returning. Not surprisingly then, the dollar is currently hitting a multi-year high against the euro. The strength of the dollar itself is often held up as one of the major proof points that the U.S. economy is "improving." But the data points that I believe really matter continue to suggest an economy on life support. I believe that the dollar is rising for reasons that have nothing to do with America's economic health.

GBTV: Glenn analyzes Ron Paul's record

GBTV: Indictment of the media Part 1

CBS Avoids Catholic Clash with Obama, Turns Instead to Church Being Stolen Blind

By Matthew Balan

On their Wednesday morning shows, the Big Three networks continued their trend of all but ignoring the Obama administration trying to force religious institutions to include coverage of sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraceptives in their health care policies without a co-pay. The new mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services would force Catholic hospitals and schools to decide whether to submit to the new policy or follow the Church's teachings against birth control.

Keynes and the Current Crisis

by Dean Baker

Tim Congdon covers a lot of ground in his essay on Keynes, Krugman, and the liquidity trap. I will narrow my focus to the current crisis and the relevance of Keynes to the policies being pursued.
First, it is important to focus on an issue where there should really be no grounds for disagreement: the size of the stimulus and its expected impact. Contrary to what Congdon states in his piece, the stimulus was closer to $300 billion a year (@ 2 percent of GDP) in 2009 and 2010, not $800 billion a year. The total stimulus package came in at close to $800 billion. Nearly $100 billion involved a technical fix to the alternative minimum tax, which is done every year and has nothing to do with stimulus. Approximately $100 billion was slated to be spent after 2010 in longer term projects. This leaves $600 billion, or roughly $300 billion to be spent in both calendar years, 2009 and 2010.

Questioning the Drone Wars

Posted by Benjamin H. Friedman

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that we are building more unmanned aerial vehicle bases around the Horn of Africa and Yemen to strike al Qaeda militants.
For a critical take on drone strikes in both places, read what I wrote here in July. I discuss the danger of conflating all jihadist militants with those bent on attacking us. Here’s the bit on Somalia.

Since our recent drone strike in Somalia on leaders of the al-Shabab insurgent group, the administration has claimed that Shabab’s leaders are plotting terrorism against American or western targets. The only evidence given for this assertion is vague claims of Shabab’s ties to Yemeni militants and its claim of responsibility for a 2010 terrorist bombing in Uganda. But that bombing came because Ugandan troops are in the African Union force fighting al-Shabab. While reprehensible, the attack does not show a desire to terrorize Americans.
At the risk of sounding quaint, Congress should make the administration substantiate its claims that Shabab is targeting Americans before we bomb them further. We have enough insurgents to fight these days outside Somalia.

The US Must Reassess Its Drone Policy. by Malou Innocent

An American missile killed Pakistan's most wanted militant, Baitullah Mehsud, on August 5. The death of the radical Taliban commander was a success for Pakistan and the United States. However, the method used may well produce dangerous unintended consequences in how it might undermine one of the United States' primary interests. Chaos in Afghanistan could spill over and destabilize neighboring Pakistan. That's why the efficacy of missile strikes must be reassessed.

The targeting of tribal safe havens by CIA-operated drone strikes strengthens the very jihadist forces that America seeks to defeat, by alienating hearts and minds in a fragile, nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority Pakistani state.

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 3

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Declaring that Saddam Hussein had become a new Hitler who was bent on conquering the United States and the rest of the world, President George H.W. Bush went to war against Iraq, securing the permission of the United Nations but not securing the congressional declaration of war required by the U.S. Constitution. The war was a slaughter. The Iraqi army was a third-rate military force that never had a chance against the most powerful military in history. Countless Iraqi people lost their lives, including tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqi soldiers.

During the war, the Pentagon commissioned a study on the probable effects of bombing Iraq’s water- and sewage-treatment plants. The report indicated that if such plants were bombed, countless Iraqis would die from infectious diseases arising from drinking polluted water.

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 2

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Today, many Americans have come to accept that Iran is an official enemy of the United States. Most people know about the animosity between the Iranian government and the U.S. government. Since many Americans often conflate the Iranian government and the Iranian citizenry, the entire country is usually viewed as an enemy.
Some might say, “But Jacob, the Iranian government is a cruel and brutal dictatorship, one that jails critics of the government, tortures them, and even executes them. Surely it doesn’t surprise you that the U.S. government opposes the Iranian dictatorship, especially given the ardent devotion to freedom and democracy that has long characterized the U.S. government.”

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 1

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Now that the celebrations over the killing of Osama bin Laden have died down, reality is setting in for the American people. It is slowly dawning on them that the killing won’t make any difference whatsoever and, in fact, might even make things worse for them. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan continue, as does U.S. foreign aid to Middle Eastern dictatorships and the Israeli regime. The war on terrorism continues, including the assassinations, indefinite detentions, kangaroo tribunals, kidnappings, renditions, secret prison camps, intrusive searches, and Guantanamo Bay. The infringements of fundamental rights and liberties also continue and almost certainly will expand, given the threat of terrorist retaliation for the killing of bin Laden.
What did bin Laden’s killing accomplish? It accomplished nothing good for the American people because government officials will continue to trample upon their fundamental rights and liberties in the name of gaining safety from the terrorists and in the name of national security. Americans will also continue to bear the burden of ever-increasing federal spending, taxes, debt, and inflation that come with an imperialist foreign policy and a perpetual war on terrorism.

Thank Goodness for WikiLeaks

by Sheldon Richman

In October WikiLeaks released close to 400,000 U.S. classified military documents relating to the Iraq war. The American people, the theoretical masters of the government, were not supposed to see them. The government preferred that they not know. So just as when the website released 77,000 documents on the Afghan war in August, government officials and apologists for the empire’s war policies roundly condemned WikiLeaks. Apparently, the greatest breach of decorum is to let the American people know how their government conducts its wars. In November WikiLeaks began to release more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables, creating even more heat for the organization.

Libertarianism versus Statism

by Jacob G. Hornberger,

All of us have been born and raised within a statist box, one in which the federal government’s primary roles are to take care of people, regulate their economic activities, and maintain an overseas military empire that intervenes in the affairs of other countries.
Both liberals and conservatives have come to accept this statist box as a permanent feature of American life. Even worse, they have convinced themselves that life in this statist box is actually freedom.
What makes libertarians different from liberals and conservatives is that, although we too have been born and raised within the statist box, we have broken free of it, in an intellectual and moral sense. Moreover, unlike liberals and conservatives, we recognize that statism isn’t freedom at all. It’s the opposite of freedom. Genuine freedom, libertarians contend, entails a dismantling of the statist box in which we all live.

2012-02-01T17:09:00.000-07:00

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 3

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 2

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Restoring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, Part 1

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Thank Goodness for WikiLeaks

Libertarianism versus Statism

The Student Loan Debt System. Posted by Keith Taylor

Student loan debt is the latest economic crisis du jour. The standard pundit blames the students, and in some respects their vitriol has a semblance of validity.
Myself, I have yet to see students getting rich off of the system. I see students who have unexpected medical emergencies, family problems, and worst yet: administrations who callously tack on unexpected fees. Where does all the money to pay for this come from? Well, unless you have rich parents, student loans are probably the answer, and those student loan debts are just getting worse.

Davos and disconnected elites

By David Ignatius,

DAVOS, Switzerland
The organizers of the World Economic Forum were self-critical enough to organize panels this year on such dark topics as “Is Capitalism Failing?” and “Global Risks 2012: The Seeds of Dystopia.” And these were just the latest in a series of annual ruminations here on the troubles of the globalization movement the conference symbolizes.

It’s hard to be a convincing Spenglerian amid so much good food and drink, not to mention money. But let’s ponder one aspect of what might be called the “Davos Dystopia” — namely, the way in which the elite networking it represents has unintentionally worked to undermine social cohesion in the larger world. Even as the elites have become better connected, resentment toward them has seemed to grow back home — fueling discontent.

Will Romney's Strengths Prove Moot Against Obama?

By David Paul Kuhn -

Mitt Romney is winning the GOP race for two reasons: big money and weak competition. That should distress Republicans. Romney cannot rely on either advantage if he faces Barack Obama.

Gingrich's Grandiose Claims About Authoring The Supply-Side Revolution

Image via Wikipedia

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth.
Whenever Newt Gingrich has been asked to explain why he is supposedly more “conservative” than other Republican presidential candidates, he has repeatedly replied that he “helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp develop supply-side economics.” If that were true, I think I would know about it.

Tax "Reform," RIP?

By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- Almost everyone favors "tax reform" in the abstract: Broaden the tax base by reducing deductions, credits and other tax breaks; and then cut top tax rates. But this sort of sweeping tax reform is usually a political nonstarter, and if you want to understand why, take a look at the tax proposals in President Obama's State of the Union address.
His recommendations include: a new corporate tax credit to subsidize moving jobs from abroad back to the United States; a tax credit for companies locating in communities that were "hit hard when a factory left town"; extension of "temporary" tax credits to promote U.S.-produced windmills and solar panels.

Obama Vs. The Clergy

By Michelle Malkin

President Obama and his radical feminist enforcers have had it in for Catholic medical providers from the get-go. It's about time all people of faith fought back against this unprecedented encroachment on religious liberty. First, they came for the Catholics. Who's next?
This weekend, Catholic bishops informed parishioners of the recent White House edict forcing religious hospitals, schools, charities and other health and social service providers to provide "free" abortifacient pills, sterilizations and contraception on demand in their insurance plans -- even if it violates their moral consciences and the teachings of their churches.

David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.

By THEODORE B. OLSON

How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?
What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president's surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president's party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly—and accurately—stated that you have no involvement?

Morning Bell: Federal Workers Overpaid, and CBO Agrees. Mike Brownfield

Here’s some news that federal bureaucrats in Washington — and indeed around the country — don’t want to hear: According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week, federal workers are paid higher than their private-sector counterparts.
The “alarming news” hit the national media yesterday, but there’s a funny thing about the report. None of it is really “news” — in fact, The Heritage Foundation long ago uncovered the truth about federal pay. The CBO’s report this week was spurred in part by two years of work on federal compensation conducted by Heritage and the American Enterprise Institute.

In Negotiating Missile Defense with Russia, Obama Could Learn from Reagan’s Example. Scott Erickson

In 1987, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was designed to eliminate their nations’ respective intermediate range, ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. In discussing INF negotiations with the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan famously summoned upon one of his guiding principles: Trust but verify.
Thirty-five years later, the Obama Administration has adopted an entirely different tack in dealing with ongoing missile defense negotiations with Russia. Rather than negotiate from a position of informed strength, this Administration has deferred to a far less preferable alternative: capitulation.

Pentagon’s Preview of Defense Budget Indicates Future Military Will Lack Important Capabilities. By Baker Spring

On January 26, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta provided the public with a preview of the defense budget request the Obama Administration will submit February 13. The full details of the fiscal year (FY) 2013 defense budget request will be released next month, but Panetta’s presentation makes it clear that the budget will not provide the U.S. military with the resources it needs. With inadequate resources come inadequate capabilities, which the Secretary described in general terms.
Lessening the Overall Readiness of the Force
As was the case following the Vietnam War in the 1970s, defense budget reductions of the scope previewed by Panetta generally lead to reduced combat readiness and, ultimately, a hollow force. This is because a force that is too small has to endure higher operating tempos and rotation cycles. It also results in a reduction in the technological edge that permits the U.S. military to achieve victory on the battlefield quickly and with fewer casualties. Finally, it becomes more difficult to man the force with high-quality personnel and maintain high morale.

CFPB Wields New Powers with Director. By Diane Katz

Within hours of Richard Cordray assuming the role of director[1] at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), agency officials began exercising their newly expanded powers. Their immediate target is all manner of “nonbank”[2] financial services used by millions of households. While proponents contend that the new regulations will benefit consumers, the structure of the bureau—its unparalleled power magnified by an absence of accountability—bodes ill for most Americans.

Getting Nowhere, Very Fast. by Thomas Sowell

California has a huge state debt and Washington has a huge national debt. But that does not discourage either Governor Jerry Brown or President Barack Obama from wanting to launch a very costly high-speed rail system.

Most of us might be a little skittish about spending money if we were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. But the beauty of politics is that it is all other people's money, including among those other people generations yet unborn.

The Bishops Are Wrong and Have No One But Themselves To Blame for Obama’s Persecution of Catholics. by Eric Giunta

This past Sunday, bishops around the United States delivered to their congregations a short pastoral letter urging prayer, fasting, and legislative lobbying against the Obama administration’s announcement that all employers, most religious institutions included, will soon have to subsidize their employees’ contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Given the terribly low expectations most Catholics have of their bishops, it is no surprise that many of my co-religionists, surveying the now-daily condemnations by clerics and laymen (on both the orthodox "right" and the dissenting "left") speak of a proverbial "waking" of "the sleeping giant." But I’m afraid a dose of ecclesiastical realism is in order. All indications are that the bishops’ approach to these events is woefully off the mark and cannot but backfire against them in the long run.

Obama Sandbags the Archbishop. by Patrick J. Buchanan

At the end of Sunday mass at the church this writer attends in Washington, D.C., the pastor asked the congregation to remain for a few minutes.
Then, on the instructions of Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl, the pastor proceeded to read a letter.
In the letter, the Church denounced the Obama administration for ordering all Catholic schools, hospitals and social services to provide, in their health insurance coverage for employes, free contraceptives, free sterilizations and free "morning-after" pills.
Parishioners were urged to contact their representatives in Congress to bring about a reversal of President Obama's new policy.

Ben Bernanke: The Official Counterfeiter. by Gary North

Back in 1969, a Disney cartoonist sat down at his story board and produced a booklet that the Disney organization never saw: The Official Counterfeiter. It was a presentation of fractional reserve banking and the role of the Federal Reserve System.
His name was Vic Lockman. As far as I know, he was the first cartoonist ever to do a booklet based on the Austrian theory of the business cycle. He revised the booklet in 1974. It is now back online.
It is a shame that he did not do a version of this booklet for one of the Scrooge McDuck comic books. He wrote stories for Uncle Scrooge. Of course, the Disney organization would not have released it. Too controversial.

Don't Trust Your Instincts

By John Stossel
Simple answers are so satisfying: Green jobs will fix the economy. Stimulus will create jobs. Charity helps people more than commerce. Everyone should vote.
Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in "The Fatal Conceit," it's a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors' existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.

Policing the World

By John Stossel

With an election approaching and at least some Americans upset about irresponsible spending, the president has finally expressed a political interest in cutting something. He says the Pentagon will spend "only" $525 billion next year. That's slightly less than the current $531 billion.
A cut is good, but this will barely dent the deficit. We could save much more if America assumed a military policy designed for defense rather than policing the world.

Libertarianism, Rightly Conceived. by Trevor Burrus

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has joined the critics who, over the last year or so, are dismissing libertarianism as a simple-minded philosophy. In "Libertarian Illusions," Sachs takes libertarians to task for "championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values." "Libertarians," Sachs writes, "hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect and even survival of the poor, weak and vulnerable — are to take a back seat."

In fact, most libertarians believe that the "other values or causes" listed by Professor Sachs are best promoted by promoting liberty. We believe so strongly in liberty because we believe that all those values are vital to humanity. At bottom, what ties libertarians together is the notion of a "presumption of liberty" — that state action needs justification, not human freedom. This idea is far from controversial and, in fact, it is the founding principle of the modern liberal state.

No More Bipartisan Bailouts by Michael D. Tanner

One of the few lines in President Obama’s State of the Union address that actually received bipartisan applause was his vow of “no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop outs.” Of course the president then went on to claim credit for his bailout of the auto industry and promise additional handouts to the “green energy” industry.

2012-02-01T12:41:00.002-07:00

In Negotiating Missile Defense with Russia, Obama Could Learn from Reagan’s Example. Scott Erickson

Pentagon’s Preview of Defense Budget Indicates Future Military Will Lack Important Capabilities. By Baker Spring

CFPB Wields New Powers with Director. By Diane Katz

Getting Nowhere, Very Fast. by Thomas Sowell

The Bishops Are Wrong and Have No One But Themselves To Blame for Obama’s Persecution of Catholics. by Eric Giunta

Obama Sandbags the Archbishop. by Patrick J. Buchanan

Ben Bernanke: The Official Counterfeiter. by Gary North

Don't Trust Your Instincts

Policing the World

By John Stossel

Libertarianism, Rightly Conceived. by Trevor Burrus

No More Bipartisan Bailouts by Michael D. Tanner

A Flat Tax Is the Answer. by Daniel J. Mitchell

The class-warfare crowd is predictably outraged that Mitt Romney supposedly paid just 13.9 percent of his income to the crowd in Washington. Surely this is a sign of both inequity and iniquity. Meanwhile, previewing a theme for the general election, President Obama said in his State of the Union address that "millionaires and billionaires" should cough up at least 30 percent of their earnings to the IRS.

This is bad policy based on inaccurate data.
Let's deal first with the flawed numbers. Capital gains taxes and dividend taxes are both forms of double taxation. That income already is hit by the 35 percent corporate income tax. So the real tax rate for people like Mitt Romney is closer to 45 percent. And if you add the death tax to the equation, the effective tax rate begins to approach 60 percent.

The Politics of Johann Wolfgang Goethe Mises Daily: by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

This year marks the 250th birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Most Europeans know that he was the greatest of all German writers and poets and one of the giants of world literature. Less well known is that he was also a thorough-going classical liberal, arguing that free trade and free cultural exchange are the keys to authentic national welfare and peaceful international integration. He also argued and fought against the expansion, centralization, and unification of government on grounds that these trends can only hinder prosperity and true cultural development. Because of his relevance to the ongoing construction of Europe, I'd like to nominate Goethe as the European of the millennium.

Inflation Targeting Hits the Wall Mises Daily: by Antony P. Mueller

The financial-market crisis is not over but has grown into a vicious sovereign-debt crisis. Nevertheless, monetary policy makers of the major economies go on to practice the same sort of policy that has led to the crisis. Following the model of inflation targeting, they continue to disregard the quantity of money and the amount and kind of credit creation. As they did before, central bankers cut interest rates as low as they can. Few seem to remember that the monetary-policy concept of inflation targeting was adopted with the promise that low and stable inflation rates would produce financial and economic stability. Reality has not confirmed this assurance. On the contrary, inflation targeting was instrumental in bringing about the current financial crisis.

By BRENT BAKER

From the Media Research Center
The secretary speaks," ABC fill-in anchor David Muir excitedly teased at the top of Wednesday's World News, "billionaire investor Warren Buffett and his secretary, who pays a much-higher tax rate than him. He says not fair. She's now at the center of a huge debate. What does she think? An ABC News exclusive." Muir promised that "tonight we hear from the secretary for the first time," but she merely got to utter one sentence as ABC used her as a poster girl to hike taxes.

Buffett Tax Folly

Newt's Post-Florida Depression

$5 Trillion and Change

Obama's four years have seen the four highest deficits since 1946.

The political strategy behind Obamanomics was always simple: Call for "stimulus" to rescue the economy, run up the debt with the biggest spending blitz in 60 years, and then when the deficit explodes call for higher taxes. The Congressional Budget Office annual review released yesterday shows this is all on track.
CBO reports that annual spending over the Obama era has climbed to a projected $3.6 trillion this fiscal year from $2.98 trillion in fiscal 2008, or more than 20%. The government spending burden has averaged 24% of GDP, up from an average of about 20%. This doesn't include the $2 trillion tab for ObamaCare.
All of this has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years. Thanks to higher revenues, the federal deficit will decline to $1.08 trillion in 2012, or 7% of GDP. But that is still the highest deficit since 1946—except for the previous three years. In other words, the four years of the Obama's Presidency will mark the four highest years in spending and deficits as a share of the economy since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office.

Enlarge Image

EPA And don't forget the national debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back. On President Obama's watch, CBO says public debt will climb this year to 72.5% of the economy from 40.3% in 2008. This isn't as high as Italy or Greece, but it's rising fast toward the 90% level that begins to debilitate an economy.
We pause from this gloom for some good news: Despite the abuse they've taken, House Republicans have made some fiscal progress. CBO estimates that overall federal spending in 2012 will grow by only $3 billion, or less than 1%, which compares with double digit increases during the Obama-Pelosi years. Republicans have also tried to reform entitlements, but Democrats wanted a $1 trillion tax hike ransom for even modest cuts, which was wisely rejected.

After crushing Gingrich, can he make his campaign a cause?

With his resounding comeback win in Florida Tuesday, what have we learned about Mitt Romney? He can take a punch. He's shown the discipline, tenacity and organization to dismantle a vulnerable opponent. What we still don't know is whether the one-time, and now once again, GOP front-runner can make a convincing case for his own candidacy.
The Florida Republican primary race was a thing of beauty only if you like the Ultimate Fighting Championship on cable. Knocked back after his South Carolina defeat, Mr. Romney and his team came out swinging, kicking and clawing at Newt Gingrich. He delivered the blows himself and without apology in debates, and he unleashed his attack ads and surrogates to do the rest of the dirty work.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

Mitt Romney after Tuesday night's primary in Tampa, Fla.

Soros Sits Out Obama’s Super-PAC Money Race Beside Big Democratic Givers. By Hans Nichols -

George Soros, the billionaireinvestor who bankrolled Democratic groups during George W. Bush’s presidency and then indicated in 2010 that his givingdays were over, is back.
He just isn’t giving to the political action committeeworking to re-elect President Barack Obama.
Soros is joined by million-dollar donors such as filmproducer Stephen Bing and auto insurer Peter Lewis in notcontributing to Priorities USA, a group founded by former WhiteHouse aides to help return Obama to the White House. The pro-Obama organization raised $1.2 million in the second half of2011, bringing its yearly total to $4.4 million, according toFederal Election Commission filings.

Why the Early U.S. Didn't Go the Way of the Euro: Echoes

We usually don't think of the U.S. as a monetary union, but early in its history it essentially was. Unlike the crisis-wracked euro zone, the dollar zone survived its first few decades without a major crisis, providing the fragile young republic with a period of relative stability during which it began to congeal culturally, economically, politically and militarily.

Mexico’s Democracy Needs Justice System to Match: Enrique Krauze

By Enrique Krauze

Mexican culture doesn’t have muchroom for fiction about criminal investigations or the solving ofcrimes by the police.
There have been some significant crime novels, notably theseries written by Paco Ignacio Taibo II starring the privatedetective, Hector Belascoaran Shayne. But investigativevictories by the police? The mere idea of a Mexican HerculePoirot sounds unreal. This isn’t much of a mystery, either,considering the nature, in general at least, of the Mexicanpolice and its procedures.

Rubio Could Help Republicans Learn to Love the Dream Act

Illustration by Bloomberg View

In a Florida Republican primarynotable for the bleakness of its attacks, one event offered asingular ray of hope. Speaking to a Hispanic group in Miami,Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, took a tentativestep toward reclaiming his party’s pro-immigrant legacy.

Gingrich Says He Will Continue Race Against Romney After Florida. By Lisa Lerer and Michael C. Bender

Mitt Romney prepared for victory inthe Republican presidential primary in Florida (BEESFL) today, as Newt Gingrich, trailing in public opinion polls, vowed to wage aprolonged fight for the nomination.
“You can sense that it’s coming our way,” Romney, aformer governor of Massachusetts, told reporters on his campaignplane yesterday. “It’s getting better and better every day.”
With Romney surging in Florida (NFSEFL), Gingrich told reporters inOrlando today he will continue campaigning until June or July,“unless Romney drops out sooner.”
Gingrich has started to lay out a strategy for the sevencontests next month as aides pointed to national surveys showingtheir candidate in the lead as proof that he could still win thenomination.
“We are going to go all the way to the convention,”Gingrich told a crowd of about 200 at the Renaissance AirportHotel in Orlando yesterday. “We are going to win in Tampa. Andwe are going to be the nominee with your help.”

Give Okinawa back to the Okinawans by Doug Bandow

2012-01-31T16:17:00.002-07:00

The U.S. is overextended and overburdened, but Washington policymakers are determined to preserve America’s dominant military presence around the globe. Financial pressure is forcing the administration to finally slow a massive, decade-long increase in military spending, but American garrisons overseas remain inviolate. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared: “The U.S. remains committed to maintaining a robust forward presence in East Asia.”

That means preserving multiple bases in Okinawa, which have burdened island residents since the U.S. defeated imperial Japanese forces there in mid-1945. Nearly seven decades later Washington refuses to take any meaningful steps to lighten the load. Indeed, Administration pressure in 2010 helped force the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama over the issue.
The American government insists that it is and always will be the senior partner in any alliance. Washington will protect you, but only on its terms. In this case, the U.S. wants bases in Okinawa, and wants them forever. Nearly 30 Okinawans, ranging from elected officials to students, are visiting Washington, D.C. this week to tell Americans about the resulting burden on the people of Okinawa.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon).

More by Doug Bandow

Okinawa’s travails have a long history. The Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa is the largest, were independent throughout most of their history. Only late was the territory conquered by imperial Japan. Okinawans were never fully trusted by Tokyo and suffered horribly in the closing stages of World War II.
The so-called “Typhoon of Steel,” as the American invasion campaign was called, ran from April through June in 1945. Combat was brutal. Estimated civilian casualties ran up to 150,000. The U.S. occupied Japan after the war and turned Okinawa into a veritable colony. Only in 1972, 27 years after the conclusion of the war, was the island turned back to Japan.
However, the U.S. military continues to control much of the island, roughly 20 percent of the land mass. Long fences separate residents from property owned by their ancestors. Air bases crowd civilian neighborhoods. Prime beaches remain under U.S. military control. Thousands of young, aggressive foreign men transform local life—and often not for the good.
Frustrated Okinawans have been asking for relief for years. Anger exploded in 1995 after the rape of a teenage girl and insensitive comments of the U.S. military commander. But nothing changed, despite large demonstrations. Okinawans faced a hostile partnership between the American and Japanese governments.
The U.S. military likes Okinawa because of its central location. Nor does the Pentagon want to pay to relocate the Marine Expeditionary Force. Inconvenience for Okinawans is not a concern in Washington, other than the extent to which it complicates the U.S.-Japan relationship. Gen. Burton Field, commander of U.S. forces in Japan, dismissed the “resistance in Okinawa” with the observation that “the sooner we are able to build a better place for the Marines to operate, the sooner we will put some of this animosity behind us.”
However, the real author of the Okinawans’ distress is Tokyo. The U.S. government negotiates with the national Japanese authorities, not the Okinawan prefectural government. From Washington’s perspective, responsibility to accommodate local preferences lies with Tokyo, not the U.S.
But the Japanese government also favors concentrating bases in Okinawa because of its location—its distance from the rest of Japan. Roughly three-fourths (by area) of U.S. military facilities, with half of American military personnel are located in Japan’s most distant and poorest prefecture, making up just .6 percent of the nation’s territory. Although nearly six of ten Japanese is critical of the resulting burden on Okinawa, none of them wants another U.S. base near their neighborhood.
Proposals abound for tinkering with the American presence. In 2006 after a decade of negotiation the Japanese government agreed to pay to help move some Marines to Guam and relocate Futenma airbase to less populous Henoko elsewhere on the island. The initiative was designed to satisfy no one. Inconvenient to the U.S., expensive to Japan, and unhelpful to Okinawa. In Japan’s 2009 election the opposition Democratic Party of Japan opposed the proposal. After taking office, DPJ Prime Minister Hatoyama declared. “It must never happen that we accept the existing plan.”
The new government’s intentions were good, but it did not expect the Obama administration’s unyielding refusal to reset Washington’s military relationship with one of its closest allies. The DPJ had spoken of creating a more equal partnership, but that is not how America conducts alliances. Nor were Japanese policymakers—and people—ready to challenge the relationship. The first DPJ government collapsed under U.S. pressure.
Yet the Futenma plan appears to be no more viable than the Hatoyama premiership. The Government Accountability Office figures that relocating the Marines to Guam likely will cost more than $29 billion, nearly triple the initial estimate. Congress cut all money for the project this year. Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Jim Webb (D-Va.) called the proposal “unrealistic, unworkable and unaffordable.”
Japan also slashed 2012 financial support for the move. Tokyo is inclined to simply kick the can down the road, so to speak. Doing so “worked” after the 1995 rape; protests eventually died down. Large demonstrations erupted again in 2010 but then ebbed.
Japanese leaders hope that doing nothing will work again, at least in the short-term, since Okinawans still have little clout in Tokyo. Prime Minister Naoto Kan last year told island residents that “We have reviewed [moving operations out of Okinawa] from every angle, however, and the current situation would not allow it.”. For years Tokyo has attempted to simultaneously bribe and browbeat local residents into submission.
Civil disobedience is a potential game-changer. In May 2010 17,000 Okinawans created a human chain surrounding Futenma. More recently roughly 200 demonstrators delayed delivery of an environmental impact report on a new runway from the defense ministry to the prefectural government. Using force against protestors would threaten a future Japanese government’s survival and embarrass Washington.
Rather than resist Okinawan demands, the U.S. should voluntarily reduce its military presence on the island. Jeffrey Hornung of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies observed. “Given how much problems this is causing in Okinawa, it’s finally time to rethink things.”
But American military facilities are a symptom, not a cause. The bases exist to support the defense of Japan. The MEF also is available for deployment elsewhere, most obviously in a war on the Korean Peninsula.
It is unreasonable to expect Washington to defend Japan without bases in Japan. But the U.S. should end its security guarantee and then remove, rather than relocate, its military facilities in Okinawa and elsewhere in Japan. Indeed, instead of augmenting its forces elsewhere in East Asia, such as in Australia, Washington should withdraw and demobilize troops and close bases throughout the region. World War II ended 67 years ago. America no longer need guarantee the security of its many prosperous and capable allies.
Japan should endorse this step as the only way to escape its status as an American protectorate. Tokyo has essentially relinquished control over its own territory to comply with U.S. demands. Although the Obama administration frustrated the 2009 DPJ campaign pledge to create a more equal security partnership, Japanese citizens will inevitably raise more questions about the bilateral relationship as they debate security issues.
Prof. Kenneth B. Pyle of the University of Washington argued that “the degree of U.S. domination in the relationship has been so extreme that a recalibration of the alliance was bound to happen, but also because autonomy and self-mastery have always been fundamental goals of modern Japan.”. Even as Prime Minister Hatoyama was beaten by Washington he looked to the future, observing. “Someday, the time will come when Japan’s peace will have to be ensured by the Japanese people themselves.”
That many Japanese still look to America for their defense is hardly surprising. Relying on a friendly superpower for protection frees domestic resources for other purposes. The alliance also eases Tokyo’s diplomatic burden, which otherwise would include reassuring neighbors still obsessed with Imperial Japan’s military depredations.
More curious is Washington’s determination to keep paying for Japan’s defense. The U.S. government is broke, having run deficits exceeding $1 trillion three years running. Unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone exceed $100 trillion. A potpourri of other financial obligations account for another $100 trillion. Yet most U.S. policymakers presume the necessity for a permanent, even enhanced American military presence in East Asia.
There are two different rationales for Washington’s paternalistic role. The first is to contain China. Pointing to the People’s Republic of China, Gen. Field declared. “Most of the countries in this region want to see this remain a secure and stable region.”
Exactly how the Marines help contain Beijing is not clear. As Robert Gates observed, U.S. policymakers would have to have their heads examined to participate in another land war in Asia. If a conflict with China improbably developed, Washington would rely on air and naval units.
Moreover, despite persistent fear-mongering about Beijing, the PRC is in no position, and for many years will not be in position, to harm the U.S. Chinese military spending remains far behind that of America. Beijing is working mightily to deter the U.S. from attacking China, not to attack America.
Japan and its neighbors have greater reason to worry, being closer to and weaker than the PRC. However, it is up to them, not Washington, to assess the risk and respond accordingly. They should take whatever steps they deem necessary to ensure that their region remains “secure and stable,” as Gen. Field put it. Just as China is seeking to deter the U.S., they should seek to deter Beijing.
Japan already has constructed a capable military, called a “Self-Defense Force” to get around a constitutional prohibition originally enacted at the insistence of Washington during the American occupation. But Tokyo has never invested resources commensurate with its capabilities; in fact, the government recently announced that it was reducing SDF outlays. If Japan believes itself to be threatened by China, as well as ever-unpredictable North Korea, then Tokyo should do more.
There also is good reason for Japan to work more closely with like-minded states such as the Republic of Korea. This bilateral relationship, like others involving Tokyo, remains tainted by history. But so long as Washington essentially smothers the region with its security blanket, allied states have little incentive to eschew taking domestic political advantage of nationalistic sentiments and work through historic difficulties. Take away the American guarantee, and other states have a much greater incentive to cooperate.
Indeed, in recent years Beijing has exhibited sharp elbows in its relationship with other states over territorial claims. The response has been to exacerbate regional concerns over Chinese behavior and spark increased military spending, and in particular naval procurement programs. That is far better than expecting Washington to build more ships to deploy to the region.
Some policymakers talk more broadly about promoting regional stability, but it’s hard to imagine a contingency requiring deployment of the Okinawa-based MEF. Manpower-rich South Korea doesn’t need a few thousand Marines if the North invades. Even if “something,” whatever that might be, happened in Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Indonesia, Burma, or Cambodia—among the least stable states in the region—it is hard to imagine why the U.S. would consider intervening with ground troops. Not every geopolitical problem warrants an automatic American military response. Then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald Fogelman admitted that the Marines “serve no military function. They don’t need to be in Okinawa to meet any time line in any war plan.”
The second purpose of the U.S.-Japan alliance is to contain Tokyo—or as Maj. Gen. Henry Stackpole famously but inelegantly put it, to maintain “the cap in the bottle” preventing “a rearmed, resurgent Japan.”. It is a claim that even Japanese officials have used on occasion to protect us, since surely you don’t want the Imperial Japanese navy wandering the Pacific again.
But the “stop us before we aggress again” argument has grown thin after decades of peace and democracy. While there are no certainties in life, there is no evidence of resurgent militarism among more than a fanatic few. Deploying even a few peace-keeping troops has proved to be highly controversial for Tokyo. The Japanese should not be treated as if they possess a double dose of original sin.
Moreover, Washington could help ease regional concerns by promoting military transparency and multilateralism. Tokyo should adapt its forces and relationships to defense and deterrence against a superior power. Without a large army, Japan could not occupy anyone even if it wanted to.
But whether Tokyo does more and, if so, precisely what it does, and with whom, should be up to the Japanese people. It is not America’s place to dictate.
Dropping the U.S.-Japan military alliance would not mean abandoning the U.S.-Japan relationship. Economic, family, and cultural ties would remain strong. Moreover, the two countries should cooperate militarily. Shared intelligence, emergency base access, training maneuvers, pre-positioned materiel, and other forms of cooperation would remain appropriate. The U.S. could act as an “off-shore balancer,” ready to aid allied states such as Japan if threatened by a potential hegemon. But Washington no longer would attempt to micro-manage regional disputes of lesser consequence.
Adopting such a stance would be in the interests of the American and Japanese people. And especially in the interest of the Okinawan people. The U.S. should begin transforming its alliance relationships. Now is a good time to do so with Japan.

Obama's State of the Union: Too Little Foreign Policy. by Ted Galen Carpenter

2012-01-31T16:15:00.003-07:00

President Obama’s treatment of international issues in his State of the Union was profoundly unsatisfying. Under the US Constitution, the president’s principal responsibility is to direct the foreign policy of the United States and to protect the country from external enemies. A State of the Union address ought to reflect that priority, but this one fell far short.

Obama did open his speech with a brief discussion of foreign affairs. There was the expected self-congratulatory passage regarding the on-schedule withdrawal of US troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. Likewise, there was the predictable praise of American military personnel for taking out Osama bin Laden and other high-level leaders of al Qaeda. Yet the overall treatment of international policy ultimately made up barely ten minutes of a sixty-five minute speech.

The emphasis on domestic issues highlights a problem in the US political system. American voters tend to elect chief executives based far more on their domestic agendas than on any expertise candidates might have in the arena of foreign policy. Incumbent presidents understand that their re-election prospects, barring a major international crisis, depend primarily on their performance regarding domestic — especially domestic economic — issues. President Obama’s State of the Union address clearly reflected that understanding.
The portion of his address that was devoted to international issues emphasized two themes: thinly-veiled economic nationalism and a sometimes strident insistence on undiminished US global leadership. The first theme ought to trouble other nations, especially China. Although the president gave perfunctory endorsement to free trade agreements, even that segment had more than a tinge of the “fair trade” caveat — with China cited specifically for allegedly unfair practices. Indeed, with one exception (Obama’s declaration that he was unwilling to cede leadership in clean energy to either Germany or China) Beijing was the only offender mentioned by name.

Obama missed an opportunity, in a high-profile setting, to articulate a more sustainable and effective international policy for the United States.

Moreover, a major theme in the speech — arguably the most prominent single theme — was the need to restore American manufacturing and overall economic competitiveness, thereby keeping jobs in the United States or returning jobs to America’s shores. From trade policy to tax policy, and to rebuilding America’s infrastructure, the goal of economic nationalism was paramount. For countries, especially those with export-led economies that are dependent on the US market, there is reason to be nervous about the president’s emphatic endorsement of that orientation.
The second theme — the insistence that US global leadership is undiminished and will remain so — also ought to make Americans uneasy. Obama’s stress on that point seemed to border on shrill. On one occasion, he thundered that analysts who contend that America is in decline, or even that US power has waned, “don’t know what they’re talking about.”
Such an attitude is a classic case of denial. The reality is that the United States faces chronic federal budget deficits of approximately $1.5 trillion per year, with much of the growing debt held by China, an emerging strategic competitor. Washington has proven spectacularly unable to achieve an array of major, high-profile foreign policy goals. Those include making Iraq a model of stability and democracy for the Arab world, winning the war in Afghanistan, and getting either North Korea or Iran (much less both countries) to relinquish nuclear ambitions. The notion that the United States exercises the same degree of global dominance that it did in the immediate post-Cold War decade is delusional. It is more than a little disturbing that the president seemed unwilling to acknowledge an obvious change in fortunes.
Once President Obama returned to a discussion of international affairs in the State of the Union address — following a nearly fifty minute focus on largely domestic matters — his treatment consisted of little more than generalities and sound bites. America, he proclaimed, is the “one indispensible nation” in world affairs — echoing a slogan of national narcissism once voiced by Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright.
On those policy issues that did receive some attention in his address, the president’s assessment reflected a persistent, and often vapid, bipartisan consensus. That was clearly true regarding Israel, for example. The president reaffirmed an “ironclad commitment” to Israel, just as US chief executives have done for decades.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

More by Ted Galen Carpenter

The bipartisan consensus about Iran was also in evidence. There was no indication of flexibility regarding that country’s nuclear program. The endorsement of ever-tightening economic sanctions against Tehran, accompanied by dark hints that all options remained on the table if sanctions fail, was as prominent as under previous administrations. Indeed, Obama boasted that Iran is now more isolated than ever before. There was the tiniest of olive branches — a statement that Iran was welcome to rejoin the community of nations if it would only abandon its nuclear apostasy, but that option has been, and remains, a non-starter. Those who hoped to see some recognition that the current policy merely deepens a dangerous confrontation with a major Middle Eastern power found no reasons for encouragement.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the president’s all-too-brief, perfunctory treatment of foreign policy was the list of important issues he did not discuss. Relations with the European democracies were virtually ignored. Likewise, such key powers as Russia and India were invisible in the State of the Union address. And except for the complaints about unfair trade practices, the relationship with China was snubbed. There was certainly little indication that Washington and Beijing have important security concerns — and underlying policy disagreements — in East Asia or anywhere else.
As a campaign speech that hit raw nerves among important domestic political constituencies, or as one to inspire the American people to restore the country’s economic greatness, the State of the Union was a winner. But as a speech that reflected the president’s primary role as the steward of US foreign policy, it was shallow, perfunctory, and sterile. Obama missed an opportunity, in a high-profile setting, to articulate a more sustainable and effective international policy for the United States.

INTERMEX POWER

The Next War of the World

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Panetta’s Pentagon

The Next War of the World

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Panetta’s Pentagon

Quick study: Alastair Smith on political tyranny

The politics of fairness

Fairly confusing

Facebook

Facebook may be a good bet for investors now; but regulatory problems lie ahead

He will marginalize his opponents as the bloodless Numbers People.

By DANIEL HENNINGER

By Addison Wiggin

By Bill Bonner

Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

The Dollar's Lucky Streak

By David Ignatius,

Gingrich's Grandiose Claims About Authoring The Supply-Side Revolution

David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.

By THEODORE B. OLSON

Don't Trust Your Instincts

Don't Trust Your Instincts

By BRENT BAKER

Obama's four years have seen the four highest deficits since 1946.

After crushing Gingrich, can he make his campaign a cause?

Give Okinawa back to the Okinawans by Doug Bandow

Obama's State of the Union: Too Little Foreign Policy. by Ted Galen Carpenter