Piracy, Pakistan, and the 1st 100 days of Obama

My MBA classes have kept me superbusy and kept me from writing.  But this piracy phenomenon in East Africa merits discussion.   I am obviously pleased at the rescue of Captain Phillips and the professionalism of the Maersk Alabama's crew & captain, as well as the decisiveness and effectiveness of the US Navy.  The debate about what to do now seems curiously stupid.  The Somali pirates have declared that they will attack any US flagged ship they run across. If that is not a declaration of war, then what is?  By the precedent of centuries, the US should bomb, shell, and destroy any and all pirate ports, harbors, ships, and assets.  Then to prevent this from happening again, mine or blockade the Somali coast to the degree possible.  And if it still persists, burn down the pirate's on-shore havens.  This should be a no-brainer.  

The bigger concern for me is what is happening in Pakistan. The Taliban have basically morphed into land pirates - taking the resource of establishment parties and flouting any notion of law.  The Taliban have identified the Achilles' heel of the Pakistani nation-state - the long-standing feudal structure of rural Pakistan, where an oligarchy of wealthy landlords hold sway. By grasping the vulnerability of this ossified social structure, the Taliban have set the stage to potentially pull off a Bolshevik-style revolution. Pirates garbed as revolutionaries - that is a difficult problem to redress.  

Democracies have historically and generally successfully met the challenge of bandits/pirates attired as demagogues by simultaneously enforcing the rule of law and breaking the outlaws while engaging in land reform and economic aid to take care of the populace's real grievances. Pakistan is so dysfunctional it cannot do that - a significant part of its military is in in league with the Taliban, while there is no economic sector separate from the military or the landlords that could be an outlet for the rural poor to focus their energies on.   It has no politicians with charisma and credibility who could be a magnet for others to rally around.   

So what should we do?  I really have no idea.  Is the occupation of Pakistan a viable option? The answer would appear to be no, but the time may come for it to be necessary.   Alternatively, the break-up of Pakistan into its provinces may make the problem more manageable.  I just hope we have some really smart people thinking this through.  But what comes after the fracture of an abyss?

Which brings me to the 1st 100 days of the Obama administration.  Many of my readers will likely wonder if my extended silence is due to buyer's remorse regarding President Obama. Maybe. I must confess to chagrin at the administration's budget policies, Russia approach, and initial statements on health care.  But he has not screwed up Iraq and has left options open regarding Iran and North Korea.  I sense the administration is just in a mode of trying to concentrate on the economy and keep options open to the degree possible on everything else.  That sounds sensible for now but the rest of the year may not be as kind to President Obama as the 1st 100 days. 

Reaction to Mumbai
There are no words to express the horror, the disgust, and the rage I felt as I was glued to the television set on Wednesday night, Thanksgiving and the day after and the day after that. While I did enjoy the company of good friends on Thanksgiving dinner, and although my family and friends are primarily in Chennai and Andhra Pradesh, far from the carnage on the other side of India, my thoughts were not far from the country of my birth. What struck me Thanskgiving evening was the strangeness of so many of my friends asking – why? Who? I felt like asking, What would you have me say?

As if we don’t know. How can we not know? Have we come so far from 9/11 that we don’t know the who or the why? It was simply sad to perceive the grasping at straws that I saw in my conversations – is it because of poverty, or lack of opportunity? Of course we know why – there are people in this world who believe they should be in charge, are angry that they are not, and are unhappy at the happiness of others. The who is even easier – radical Islamic fundamentalists are at war not just with Americans, Israelis or Britons, but with Indians, Thais, French, Australians, Iraqis, and many Africans. And these radical Islamic fundamentalists train in Pakistan (and parts of Afghanistan), are equipped in Pakistan likely by elements within the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and military, and are funded by oil money from Saudis through Pakistan. And sadly, they probably receive some cut from the $10-11 billion President Bush has authorized to Pakistan in the last 7 years in the name of the war on terror.
So what do we do? Some would say India should behave as America did after 9/11 and go to war. At a gut level, I would probably concur. But at a cerebral level, realistically India should not risk nuclear war over this. But India can and should demand Pakistan extradite the known kingpins of terror in Pakistan:

• Omar Sheikh (released by India after the 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking and the murderer of Daniel Pearl and the likely giver of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta in August 2001, and supposedly serving prison time in Pakistan),
• Dawood Ibrahim (a key organized crime figure responsible for earlier terrorists attacks in Mumbai),
• Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar (also released after the 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking and founder of the Al-Umar Mujahadeen
• Maulana Azhar (released by India after the 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking and founder of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammed),
• Hamid Gul (a former Pakistani general, former chief of the ISI, and pivotal figure in the creation of the Taliban)

While India is at it, America should demand the hand-over of A.Q. Khan, the wheeler-and-dealer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya, and who knows who else. When Pakistan refuses all of these, India should pursue an escalating response set:

• Cut off all trade and transportation links with Pakistan
• Ask the International Monetary Fund (i.e., America) to not give the $7 billion in loan guarantees sought by Pakistan
• Ask America to cut off all military and non-humanitarian aid to Pakistan
• Cut off the headwaters of the Indus which originate in India
• Blockade the Pakistani ports of Karachi and Gwadar (obviously the American supply lines to Afghanistan will be at issue, but increasingly Pakistan blocks those supply routes anyway)
  

Follow-Up: Obama vs. McCain/Palin/Economy

Many thanks to Wretchard for linking to my previous post, and also thanks to all the commenters both at his site and mine. I would like to reply to some of the issues raised by the various comments:

• My religion & background: I was born in India, came to America, when I was three, and am from a Hindu family. I would consider myself religious, believing in God, trying to read and grapple with scriptures, and attending our religious functions and festivals regularly.
  
• Am I a misogynist because I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency?: This I must take exception to. I gave my reasons for opposing both of these in previous posts, and those are my reasons. I will elaborate on Sarah Palin below. But would I oppose a woman for President just because she is a woman? Of course not. If Sen. McCain genuinely wanted a female Republican, he could have picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Condoleeza Rice. If he needed someone young and very attractive, how about Michelle Malkin (is she >35 to pass the age threshold?)? Personally, I was hoping in August McCain would pick Bobby Jindal who is much more accomplished than Sarah Palin and who I predict will do much more in Louisiana than she has ever done or will do in Alaska.
  
• Obama's Record vs. his words: This is a fair criticism, that I focus more on what Obama says. He has little national legislative record of note or accomplishment. He has been a party line voter most of the time in the Senate. As I noted, ordinarily I probably would have gone with McCain based on his honor, service, tax policy, record of bipartisanship, experience, and toughness. But I believe the issues I raised about McCain-Palin are serious ones.
• Am I anti-religion or anti-Christian? As noted above, I am not anti-religion. But I do value the separation of church and state, both because the state can corrupt the church and doctrines of religious infallibility can destroy state policy. And as a scientist, I do think creationism should not be introduced into school science classes, and I have legitimate worries that Palin, either as a VP, future President, or future Republican nominee would further that cause. To digress, I think God created evolution and we should all leave it at that - the evolutionists who claim evolution contradicts God and the creationists who just blind themselves to all evidence that contradicts their claims are just plain stupid. The latter to me is the greater danger as they are far more numerous and destroying science education would condemn generations of students to not understanding how antibodies are generated in the body, how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how drugs targeting epidemics can be generated by selective evolution in vitro and in vivo, and yes, how species share common ancestors. But to summarize my position, I do believe faith and reason are like a pair of shoes - you can go farther with both than just one.
• Am I pro-Islamic fundamentalist?: This is frankly amusing. Please see my essay vault

- Myths of 9/11:
- Questions on the Quran I and II
- So called liberals need to face facts
- The only root cause
- Free Speech, Slavery, and Islam
- Defining a Religion
- Self-determination?

There are many others in the essay vault that may be of interest to the commenters

On Sen. McCain, I have great personal respect for him and would love to see him as a Secretary of State in an Obama administration - as a liberal hawk, his idea for a "League of Democracies" is nice (to self-promote, I tabled an idea for a Democratic Nations Against Terrorism Organization in this essay in 2006), and his toughness vis-a-vis Russia would be good to have, and it would be rich to have him be the point man on robust diplomacy with Iran. But his odd lack of focus on Pakistan and pretending its military is an ally is long past counterproductive; Pakistan is more of a failed state now after 7 years of Republican-backed military dictatorship. And Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia, is the the real incubator of evil - let us remember Omar Sheikh, who beheaded Daniel Pearl, and had a key financial role in the 9/11 plot, has still not been extradited to the US. Let us remember AQ Khan who ran a Nukes R Us for years (kudos to the Bush administration for at least impeding his operation and hopefully shutting it down - we don't know because he remains at his home in Pakistan). Let us remember Pakistan's airlift of Taliban and likely al Qaeda fighters from Kunduz in the fall of 2001. And let us remember Pakistan's firing on US helicopters and allied soldiers just weeks ago despite our $11 billion in aid over the last 8 years.

On Obama vs. McCain on the economy, yes there are many unknowns on the economy. But Obama's team of Volcker/Rubin/Summers/Buffett gives confidence in hoping for a Clinton economy redux while McCain's team of Gramm and Fiorina gives considerable worry as to 4 more years of Bushonomics.

On Gov. Palin, several conservatives - George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, David Brooks have noted charitably her frank inadequacy. Why did I say she is not bright or curious? George Bush may not pronounce words properly, but his sentences are understandable. The Couric interview shows she cannot string together sentences coherently or logically. And I don't think it's condescending to question the adequacy of the intelligence of someone who states she is ready to be a hearbeat from the Presidency who went to 5 colleges in 6 years to wind up with a journalism degree to become a sports reporter, and is now reported to believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted because she has seen footprints in dinosaur tracks. As far as curiosity, I would bet serious money that prior to this campaign, she has never read the National Review, Wall Street Journal, or the Weekly Standard, or any publication of substance outside of Alaska. I would even bet she has never read Belmont Club or LGF. Maybe she has not read them even during this campaign. So to put her in a Vice-Presidential role is plain irresponsible.

Notes on the Economy:

I hope yesterday's vote results in a better bill. I did not claim to be an expert in finance (I specifically noted I was not), but wanted to share what I felt were good ideas (and gave credit to those from whom I derived the ideas). I do not think McCain delivered his party, and to criticize Obama for injecting partisanship when it was McCain who stole the show last week is a bit rich. Anyway, I still think the key ideas I noted (suspending mark-to-market, buying equity stakes, restricting golden parachutes, using net worth certificates, buying and restructuring the underlying troubled mortgages, bringing back the trading tax while cutting long-term capital gains tax) are sound ones. And I still think the House Republican's plan for a government backed insurance plan for bad assets seems to me to be a setup for Fannie Mae meets AIG in the future. As for overall budget ideas (these are somewhat old), please see the following:
Smorgasbord
Focusing on Domestic Issues

Obama for the Presidency + Notes on the Economy

It’s been a busy summer professionally so I have not been able to post for a while. I have also been waiting to decide who I was going to vote for, and now I am prepared to endorse Barack Obama for the Presidency.

I was seriously considering voting for John McCain well into August due to his strength on national security, less propensity to raise taxes, and his long record of bipartisanship as well as personal honor & service. But Senator McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin, his performance last week with the financial situation, and several things he said in the 1^st debate have sealed my decision to recommend Senator Obama.

Let me revisit the key issues where I think Obama is the best choice and discuss McCain’s weaknesses:

• National Security:
• Pakistan: Obama has clearly defined Pakistan as the nest of Islamic fundamentalist evil, something which is 8 years overdue and which my conservative friends have only belatedly come to realize. Osama bin Laden and his gang must be hunted down and destroyed for symbolic and strategic value; it is not an easy problem but I think it will be more easily achieved by a leader who recognizes Pakistan is the problem. McCain, in Friday’s night’s debate is out to lunch on Pakistan: he justified Gen. Musharraf’s coup in 1999 by saying Pakistan was a failed state at the time. This is a blatant rewriting of history. Pakistan was led by a democratically elected Prime Minister at the time (certainly not a failed state in the sense of Somalia or pre-2001 Afghanistan). Background: Musharraf invaded india in june 1999 going behind the back democratically elected prime minister, who ordered a withdrawal. When the PM tried to dismiss Musharraf later that year, Musharraf conducted his military coup. This was widely condemned at the time by democrats, republicans, the UN, and the British Commonwealth. The question must be asked: Does John McCain support a military coup by Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state whose military’s intelligence service is in cahoots with al Qaeda and the Taliban, in the future if its democratic government struggles or tries to impose civilian control of the military?

• Iran: On the surface, McCain projects a far tougher view on how to approach Iran than Obama, and Obama’s willingness to negotiate directly could indeed be construed as weakness. But let us look at the record – McCain’s approach has indeed been tried for 8 years, and Iran has only gotten closer to nuclear weapons. Maybe diplomacy with carrots & sticks has a shot at shifting Iran’s course (I doubt it) or at least building international acquiescence for military action, but ignoring Iran has not achieved anything. And the bottom line is that no US government and certainly no Israeli government will stand aside Iran to get nuclear weapons. Indeed, I’d like to raise the following question with regard to Republican policy on Iran (first noting that Gen. David Petraeus is a truly brilliant commander, and I don’t want to take anything away from him): was the success of the surge in Iraq enabled/bought by US allowing Iran to continue with its Manhattan Project unfettered (including for example that atrocious National Intelligence Estimate last year saying they pulled out of nuke research) and by the US allowing Assad in Syria to get away with the assassination of Rafiq Hariri (the UN "investigation" into that has gone nowhere)? We'll never know the answer, but i think the question should be asked. Iraq is important, but so are Iran and Syria.

• Iraq: To reiterate my previous positions, readers know I supported the invasion of Iraq and continuing US military involvement. This judgment call is premised on hopefully turning Iraq into a decent democratic country to promote positive change in theMiddle East, a “democratic domino” theory. Readers will also know I have consistently bashed President Bush’s mismanagement and absence of planning, and worried gravely about the primary motives of this administration. Whether this was the right call or not will not be known for decades. I respect and applaud John McCain’s support for the surge; it was vital political cover at the time for that approach. But we are at a point, both militarily and economically, where $10 billion a month and >100,000 soldiers to support Iraq in an effort to have long-term bases there does not make much sense to me. Iraq wants us out by Dec. 2010; Obama proposes us leaving by June 2010 – that is a negotiable difference. We have finite army resources – might these not be better deployed for action against al Qaeda, possibility of action against Iran, and reserve uses elsewhere?

• Economy/Financial Situation: McCain’s behavior this past week can charitably be called bizarre. There was an apparent deal (maybe, maybe not) on Wednesday and Thursday morning. McCain asked Bush for a photo op meeting Thursday presumably to emerge as a hero with Obama at his side. If anything, McCain backing House Republican proposals which had been previously rejected and then his mysterious silence in that meeting blew up that meeting. What did he accomplish? Delay. Now one can say that might be a good thing (I have grave reservations about a blank check for $700 billion). But he made this big show about returning to Washington to get a deal done. That along with advisors who say we are in a mental recession and who are pretty weak on economics (vs. Obama’s team of Rubin, Summers, Volcker, and Buffett) makes McCain a poor prospect for leading the economy. As far as the bailout package itself, I will highlight some ideas that I think are good (posited by various sources this past week) below.

• Fiscal Policy: Obama will spend more, McCain will tax less. Neither have addressed entitlements or the national debt. Both will have this $700 billion (probably more) bailout to deal with. Neither are reassuring to me as far as America’s fiscal health long-term. Indeed, McCain's glib debate line about a spending freeze on everything but entitlements/defense/interest on debt/veterans' care is absurd: there is not much left in discretionary spending, and does he want to freeze spending on the FBI/DEA/Homeland Security/National Institute of Health?

• Health Care: I have concerns about both candidates’ approaches, but I think Obama’s plan makes more sense than McCain’s of just getting rid of the employer health benefit tax credit to set up a “market.”In any case, McCain’s ideas of privatizing the VA, cutting funding for injured veterans, and his abstentions on preserving Medicare fees for doctors this summer make him a bad choice for me.

• Science: Our long-term outlook as a nation depends on investment in research & development in medicine, engineering, energy technology, nanotechnology, etc. This link is very instructive. I think it shows Obama has thought much more constructively about maintaining America’s scientific pre-eminence.

• Energy Policy/Environment: Both support offshore drilling (McCain more so), have extended some support for measures against climate change and for nuclear power, and for alternative energy. Emphases will be different. I don’t think there is that much of a difference.

These I think are the key issues to judge the two candidates. On the merits, I give Obama the edge. But McCain’s experience, service, and toughness could have overridden all of that for me. The clincher for me is McCain’s selection of Palin. She is just Bush + Huckabee on high heels. She is not bright, she is not curious, she is not coherent when dealing with probing questions. She is, in the words of Peggy Noonan (Reagan’s speechwriter), “chirpy” about war with Russia, talks about Putin “rearing his head into Alaskan airspace”, and can’t pronounce nuclear properly or speak “caricature”. She plausibly believes (the quote is unclear) that the Iraq war is “God’s plan”; she certainly said a natural gas pipeline in Alaska was God’s will. She is quite likely a creationist. Let me not even mention what Republicans would do if Obama could not speak proper English (either in pronunciation or grammar) or if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter (even Republicans have already discussed that in passing). But the last is a distraction. McCain is 72 years old; his #2 pick has to have 2 out of 3 traits – experience, intelligence, or wisdom. I think Sarah Palin strikes out on all 3 counts. Obama has done us the favor of keeping Hillary away from the Presidency; may he do us the additional favor of keeping Sarah Palin away as well.

Notes on Financial Crisis:

Let me conclude with my thoughts, based on what I have read this week, about the financial crisis. If I had a $700 billion check, I could think of a lot of things to do with that money besides a Wall Street bailout. But a lot of serious people are saying a credit freeze would cripple America – I am not sure but we probably should not take the chance. I know people will say too much credit got us into this mess – but I have also seen that heroin withdrawal can be fatal and that such patients need detox – maybe this package will be detox; I certainly hope it puts us on that path. I am glad the Democrats have gotten executive compensation caps, equity stakes for the Treasury, and oversight; I am glad the Republicans have blocked some of the Democrats’ dumb ideas. I think the Republicans’s scheme for government backed insurance is weird and possibly dangerous, setting up potential for a Fannie Mae meets AIG situation in the future (a government sponsored enterprise which is an insurance company). Personally, I wonder whether a better plan (and most of these are not my ideas as I am not well-versed in these issues but those I have picked up from various commentaries in the national press and friends) would be:

• The Fed providing credit for employer payroll, student loans, municipal bonds, i.e., key lines of credit in the economy
• Purchase of a combination of net worth certificates and some equity (preferred shares; senior stakes) in these insolvent companies by the Treasury
• Relaxation and rewriting of mark-to-market rules which don’t make sense in the present context
• Buying troubled mortgages directly, restructuring those deals, and selling those back into the market later
• Forcing banks to cancel dividends and issue new equity on the private market
• Bringing back the 0.25% tax on stock trades (which was in force from 1914 to 1966) while cutting long-term capital gains tax somewhat – this would generate revenue while discouraging speculation
• Encouraging executive compensation plans tied to long-term productivity

These are the best ideas I have seen on the net (Sebastian Mallaby; Anil Kashyap; Raghuram Rajan; Luigi Zingales; William Isaac; William Gross; some of my friends).

Obama for the Nomination

Well friends I have been out of touch as I have moved to a new job in Utah. Things are settling in.

The never-ending Presidential campaign goes on for the Democrats. I have been reluctant historically to write in endorsement of any specific candidate as I treasure my status as an independent. But now the time is right to cast my support to Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Two politically strong candidates have and will continue to fight a tough campaign. This is a full 60 minutes of football. The first quarter through Super Tuesday was a draw, and the 2^nd quarter belong to Obama through 11 straight wins. Too many commentators thought the game was over at the half. Senator Clinton regrouped and had a solid ground game in Ohio & Texas, ramming the ball into the endzone coming out of halftime So now there is still almost a full half left, with the very real prospect of this game going into overtime! What a crazy year this 2008 is.

So why do I write now in support of Senator Obama? I think it is vital to push for a candidate who offers the best possible chance for progress on so many fronts – dealing with radical Islamic fundamentalism and the threat of terrorism, rebalancing our foreign policy, revitalizing our economy, and dealing with real changes in energy policy, health care , education, environment, and our nation’s fiscal soundness. And with an evenly matched game, I hope I can influence events to some degree in the key remaining states – Pennsylvania, NC, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky.

Senator Obama is a far superior candidate to Senator Clinton both in substance and in style, in the content of his character and the class of his campaign. Let me first give my overall impressions and then discuss issues point-by-point. Obama genuinely represents a break with the past. His crossover appeal rests not only in his badly needed eloquence and charisma, not just in running as a politician who happens to be black as opposed to a black politician (and as opposed to Clinton’s cleverly manipulative use of her woman-as-victim role), not merely in respectful dialogue with members on the other side of the aisle, but in consistently challenging conventional orthodoxy. For example:

· He was and remains the first candidate to identify Pakistan as the root of al Qaeda and as a critical arena to apply action, not just words. No one, not McCain, not Clinton, not even the “crazy cowboy” Bush has had the courage to say that.

· He recognizes the problems of the black community stem not from racism, but from deep cultural issues that need resolution – missing fathers, broken families, lack of emphasis on education in favor of basketball or rap, drugs, etc. To lend the Presidency’s bully pulpit to Bill Cosby’s trenchant message would be a tremendous advance and possibly a chance to move beyond race-based affirmative action and the corrosive battles over race.

I think these examples are windows into a mind that recognizes reality and is not imprisoned by received wisdom that is long past its shelf life. An intellect that is bright enough to see that, in the words of JFK, “The old ways will not do.”

Now let us turn to the issues and arguments of this campaign. Contrary to what the pundits say, there is a good amount of daylight between Obama and Clinton’s positions on several issues:

• National Security: Obama has clearly and consistently identified the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater as a priority. McCain’s glib reply “Why would you bomb an ally?” is preposterous after a moment’s ponder – what kind of ally is Pakistan? I also think Obama is not as beholden to the Saudis as much of the Republican Party is.
• Iraq: Readers of this blog know I backed the invasion of Iraq and continued US military involvement. This was a judgment call based on the premise that hopefully turning Iraq into a decent democratic country would eventually promote positive political change throughout the region, a “democratic domino” theory. Readers will also know I have consistently bashed President Bush’s execution and lack of planning, and worried gravely about the primary motives of this administration. Whether this was the right call or not will not be known for 10, 20, perhaps 50 years. I will grant it has seemed like the wrong call for much of the last 5 years, although I must point out that just as the North Africa invasion after Pearl Harbor lured the Axis’ best general & forces into a desert environ where we could defeat them, the Iraq theater has been much more of a meatgrinder for Islamic fundamentalists (both footsoldiers and high level commanders from all over the world) than it has been for Americans. Yet I digress - how is all this an argument for Obama?
• It is vital to examine why Obama opposed the Iraq invasion and why Clinton supported it. Obama opposed it at the time because of his cost-benefit analysis – lots of blood and treasure invested with no obvious exit strategy. Clinton supported it becomes it seemed politically to be the best call for her future presidential run – support Iraq War II because Iraq War I was a slam dunk for the Republicans, keep a “tough” image, because it was supported by the polls and by most of her Senate colleagues. She was a follower, not a leader. She did what was convenient – sign on with Bush’s plan. And now when it is convenient and popular to bash Bush’s war, she does.
• On future management, both have committed to withdrawal. But Obama’s deftly leaving enough wiggle room (committing to fight terrorists and prevent genocidal ethnic cleansing) suggest to me he is wise enough to adjust policy to the realities when he is in office. Realistically, we have a moral obligation not to abandon the Iraqi people to foreign terrorists and predatory neighbors. When and if they want us to leave, we should. But we are not there yet.
• Iran: Obama’s statements that he would meet with Iran’s leaders are concerning. Yet as Martin Peretz points out in the Wall Street Journal, “Unlike the isolationists in the guise of idealists, or the cheerleaders for violence who pretend to be pacifists and populists, Mr. Obama is a patriot of the old cadence and the old convictions, and not easily pushed around. If he is elected president, he will disappoint many of his supporters, and surprise many of his detractors.” Senator Obama should be questioned more aggressively on how exactly he will prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and dominance of the Persian Gulf, but I believe his judgment and backbone are sound.
• Economics & Fiscal Policy: There is only so much a President can do about business cycles and economic slowdowns. Yet Clinton’s proposal for a 5 year freeze on adjustable rate mortages is moronic (it will simply raise rates for everyone else and freeze lending even more) and her “timeout” on future trade deals is equally braindead. Obama’s push for fair trade with labor & environmental protections is more sensible. His perception of the Social Security payroll tax as a highly regressive part of our tax code is spot-on, and his proposal for prefilled tax returns is in the words of the Economist, “a gem”. I would hope he would build on this by seeing that payroll taxes are job killers, and while removing the cap, dropping the rate from 6.25% to 3-4% on all income, and normalizing the tax system so that all income (even for hedge fund traders) is taxed equally.
• Health Care: Clinton’s first foray into health policy was a disaster, handing both houses of Congress to the Republicans for over a decade and putting Bill Clinton on the defensive for the rest of his tenure, Let no Democrat forget that it was Hillary Clinton who developed a gargantuan, unintelligible health care plan behind closed doors (initially with not even a single doctor on her panel), that it was unelected, unappointed Hillary Clinton who singlehandedly squandered the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Now she pushes for “mandated” health insurance for all, but conveniently does not specify enforcement. There are good reasons to require health insurance be obtained by all. But this is America, where freedom is justly valued at a high premium. The Republicans will have a field day with her health plan. Obama’s alternative of essentially allowing anyone to buy into a Medicare equivalent health system makes a lot more sense from a a variety of perspectives. I also fear for the future of medicine were Senator Clinton’s vision of national health care (she holds the VA as a role model for all health systems) to come to pass. Her complete divorce from healthcare reality is evidenced by her cluelessness that lack of incentives will lead to least common denominator care.

I think these are vital differences on substantive policy. On education, energy policy, and the environment, I think Obama’s proposals hold considerable merit as well.

The character of each candidate’s campaign is also important to consider. The Clintons, predictably, have fought tooth and claw. Throwing punches is part of politics. And as Obama has rightly noted with grace and class, it is important not to whine. But let us consider a few examples of the hollowness of Clinton’s arguments:

• The Red Phone: If Senator Obama’s lack of experience is a concern (and it is a fair argument), how is Senator Clinton’s any better? First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States do not count. Senator Clinton claims she brought peace to Northern Ireland. Really? I think George Mitchell, Tony Blair, and her own husband would be surprised to hear that! And while on the matter of the red-phone, if she wants to count her White House years as “experience”, then the Clinton administration’s indecisiveness on Somalia, Bosnia, and killing Osama bin Laden raise real questions about whether she can make tough calls, as of course does her vote on the Iraq war. And finally, John McCain’s record would eclipse Senator Clinton’s on this score.
• NAFTA: Admittedly, both candidates pandered to Ohio by bashing NAFTA, and Clinton pandered better. But how can she claim 35 years of experience and then claim she had nothing to do with NAFTA and was opposed to it from the beginning, when it was her husband’s administration that pushed it through? (On the whole, I think NAFTA was a good thing but should be renegotiated to some degree).
• Michigan: She claims she won Michigan when she was the only one on the ballot, yet 45% of Democrats there did not vote for her! Enough said.

So far all these reasons, I support Senator Barack Obama wholeheartedly for the Democratic nomination. As an independent, I will give Senator McCain a fair hearing in the fall campaign. I must confess I would probably vote (for McCain over Clinton (or not vote at all), as I suspect would a lot of other Democrats (electability and battleground state coattails will be important for the superdelegates to consider). Senator Obama has gotten this far by being “all things to all people” – black and white, native and immigrant, fresh face and hope and inspiration. He must now put some meat on the table – illegal immigration, Iran, energy policy, economics, entitlements – he needs to put some solid policy options on the table. He has the braintrust and the judgment to do it. He needs to reach out to working class white voters and to Hispanics – Edwards and Richardson could really help him out here, and the party.

This is not a test of hope vs. experience. This is a challenge of talent vs. stubbornness, of hope vs. Hillary! The experience issue is a straw issue – Abraham Lincoln was all the experience of one term in Congress, and a lot of bad Presidents had a lot of experience.

And as my father used to note in his battles with school administrators, a 3 year old filly will beat a 35 year old donkey anytime.

Bhutto Falls; who and what shall rise?

Funny, yet sad how back-to-back posts consider Pakistan. The shocking yet grimly expected murder of Benazir Bhutto cut down a larger-than-life figure. Ours may be known as the Age of Assassination - Putin putting Politskaya and Litvinenko on ice, the bombings of Rafik Hariri, Pierre Gemayel, and countless others by the Syrian mafia, and of course, now the death of Benazir. We now have mafias in charge of Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (perhaps we should throw China, Cuba, and Egypt on this list). al Qaeda is but another mafia in this rogues' gallery, funded by Saudis, increasingly manned by Pakistan, and with various links to Syria and Iran. That is the central foreign policy challenge of our time.

But let me return to Bhutto. She was flawed - her personal corruption was legendary. But her personal gifts of beauty and eloquence and knowledge of the West made her one of the precious few bridges between the West and Islam. Who killed her and why? I do not doubt the Pakistani government's assertion that al Qaeda was responsible and I do not doubt Bhutto's email from beyond the grave holding Musharraf and the government responsible. To me, there is no daylight between al Qaeda and Musharraf, and for that matter, much of his government/military/ISI. Musharraf and several of his henchmen noted by Benazir as likely suspects (Chaudhry Elahi, Ijaz Shah, and former ISI chief Hamid Gul) should receive the utmost scrutiny. As for al Qaeda, they probably provided the suicide bomber.

What to do?

There are no good solutions. The Bush administration bears responsibility for giving $10 billion to Musharraf and for sending Benazir as a weak pawn, but America is not responsible for the assassination. Our interests go beyond the security of the nuclear weapons and the sanctuary accorded to al Qaeda. We are talking about 165 million people. We must recognize we are now not only dealing with the fallout of Word War I in Iraq but now the fallout of World War II in Pakistan (the retreating British Empire leaving behind a legacy of a hateful state bound for failure in the form of Pakistan). The Pakistani provinces of Sindh and Punjab are potentially salvageable in reorienting towards joining the modern world. There NWFP, FATA, Waziristan, and possibly much of interior Baluchistan need to be separated from the rest of Pakistan - whether that occurs from a civil war or from an external invasion, that is what will happen one day. Pakistan is inherently a centrifugal state, and perhaps the one person who could have held things together for a time lies 6 feet under.

What Beast Slouches Towards Pakistan, Where Buddhas Fall

The weekend's developments in Pakistan portend the onset of nightmare. Musharraf has decided that he wants to be a dictator, and will do what it takes to be a dictator. Hopefully now the scales will drop from the West's eyes. Musharraf has a knack of double-dealing and backstabbing - he undercut Nawaz Sharif's peace missions to India in 1998-1999 with an invasion of India's Kargil which Sharif was not aware of; then of course the coup of 1999, the ISI's holding of Omar Sheikh (murderer of Daniel Pearl and the man who sent $100K to Mohammed Atta in August 2001) in custody without turning him to the Americans, the airlift of Taliban/al Qaeda in Oct. 2001 from Kunduz amidst American bombardment, a truce with Taliban last year which only increased their terrorist activity both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and pocketing of $10 billion with what to show for it - increased madrasas, less freedom, and the likely continued presence of Osama bin Laden in the hinterlands of Pakistan. When will America get it? Musharraf is nothing more than Arafat in suit-and-tie, a con artist skilled at the classic shakedown of "If I go, who follows will be far worse".

As one Wall Street Journal editor put it re. America's blind eye to Kunduz in fall 2001, "we are beginning to learn is that if one enlists dubious allies, one runs the high risk of treading knee-deep in--how shall I put it?--foul-smelling organic waste matter. And as allies go, Gen. Musharraf is as dubious as they get. "

It is no longer acceptable for America to back Musharraf with the paradigm, "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB." I recognize the value of realpolitik, and that Musharraf's run an expert game as head of a Mafia playing America off against the zoids, achieving secure funding for his mob, er, military, amidst chaos they themselves sow. But that is the same charade done by the Saudi Royals and Mubarak, among others. Enough is enough already.

Bush started out vowing to marry America's ideals to its power, but ironically has distanced the two. Hypocrisy may be the homage vice pays to virtue; but there is a cost to hypocrisy which we may be about to find out. And there is a cost to the inheritance of detritus from earlier eras.

Which brings me to Pakistan. The country is defined by being the anti-India. Born of partition, its identity is necessarily driven towards being opposite of India - for if were democratic and secular, what need would there be for Pakistan? Hence, the creeping Islamicization, the stillborn nature of its democratic institutions, and the military's position at the apex of control. Cobbled together from the Punjab and Sindh which are culturally close to India put together with Pashtun areas and Baluchi areas beyond the Indus River which are less so, the only glues that can hold it together are religion and the military - which explains the current state of affairs, most poignantly noted by this report - . an ancient 130 foot tall Buddha in Pakistan has recently been destroyed by the zoids. Last time this happened in that part of the world we will all recall what followed 6 months later - 9/11.

So what should America do? Afghanistan cannot be solved without destroying the Taliban/al Qaeda elements in Waziristans and the other parts of NWFP. Will that only drive those elements across the Indus into the main cities of Pakistani society? Perhaps that has already happened. If there are elements within the Pakistani military that would willingly submit to civilian control, perhaps what we should work towards is encouraging the marriage of those parts with a civilian government (presumably Bhutto-led) with a divestiture of NWFP and Baluchistan from the Pakistani government - they want independence, let them have it and face the wrath of America without the Pakistani nuclear umbrella. The other option is continued military control which will lead to Saudi/Egyptian style government with all of the diseases attendant to such an arrangement, or civil war which would make Iraq look like a picnic.