onparkstreet

Uh Oh

by

It may take all hands. While Obama and his team were hardly the only ones to underestimate the depth of the problem they inherited in early 2009, their failure to define it from those early days has undermined a bedrock idea of American liberalism, the faith in the capacity of government to play a constructive role in the markets and make up for the limits of individuals to cope with them. Since unemployment has remained so high for so long while deficits have soared, it must mean the stimulus did not work and the money was wasted. Smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes, therefore, would be the only answer. And so, Obama’s challenge may be more fundamental even than reducing unemployment and winning re-election; he wants to prove that liberal economic theory can be adapted to the 21st century.

“The White House Looks for Work,” NYT

(Emphasis mine.)

On MLK Day

by

King graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 with a degree in sociology. He was unhappy with his major, however, complaining about the “apathetic fallacy of statistics.” While at Morehouse, King decided to change his field of study. He entered Crozer Theological Seminary, where he absorbed the writings of political philosophers “from Plato and Aristotle,” King wrote, “down to Rousseau, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill and Locke.”

In a beautiful tribute to King, delivered at Spellman College in 1986, then secretary of education William Bennett explained why King turned to the liberal arts. In Bennett’s words:

Martin Luther King turned to the greatest philosophers because he needed to know the answers to certain questions. What is justice? What should be loved? What deserves to be defended? What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for? What is man? These questions are not simply intellectual diversions, but have engaged thoughtful human beings in all places and in all ages. As a result of the ways in which these questions have been answered, civilizations have emerged, nations have developed, wars have been fought, and people have lived contentedly or miserably. And as a result of the way in which Martin Luther King eventually answered these questions, Jim Crow was destroyed and American history was transformed.

– Peter Wehner, Commentary

“The apathetic fallacy of statistics.” Sharp phrase. Reminds me of the following article (yes, it’s a bit of a tangent, I admit):

By about a quarter-century ago, however, it had become obvious to sophisticated experimentalists that the idea that we could settle a given policy debate with a sufficiently robust experiment was naive. The reason had to do with generalization, which is the Achilles’ heel of any experiment, whether randomized or not. In medicine, for example, what we really know from a given clinical trial is that this particular list of patients who received this exact treatment delivered in these specific clinics on these dates by these doctors had these outcomes, as compared with a specific control group.

– What Social Science Does—and Doesn’t—Know, Jim Manzi, City Journal

“Cameras,” Matt and Kim

by

my water comes straight from the tap
and those bottles are all just for show
——————————————
I see that we’re made of
more then blood and bones
see we’re made of
sticks and stones

don’t forget to breathe
need locks for your keys
don’t forget to breathe now
forget to breathe now

The Matt and Kim song “Cameras” is everywhere and good thing, too, because I like it. Definitely dance-around-your-room-or-tap-your-toes-in-line-at-the-store time. Here’s the YouTube “official version” (can’t figure out the embedding url) and here is their fun and vibrant website. Posted on the website is the following observation from the Matt and Kim Twitter feed: “This guy at the pharmacy made it very clear to me that snow is a four letter word.”

Do I have to Twitter now? I generally don’t like it. It makes me feel like a stalker with ADD. (Full disclosure: I used to Twitter. Twitter microfiction I called it. Deleted it. May revive it. Who knows? And, yeah, I know you can’t recover an old account. I saved my microfiction on – wait for it – PAPER….)

Don’t forget to breathe now….no time for cameras we’ll use our eyes instead….

UPDATE: Okay, maybe today isn’t the best day to express my sentiments toward Twitter given Charles Cameron’s post below. It’s definitely a cool technology but I don’t know if it is for me.

How you move stuff around is an interesting topic, isn’t it? (Part II)

by

Part I here. (The comment thread on the previous post is very interesting. Kudos to the commenters.)

It’s been quite an interesting read thus far. I might actually go so far to say that some of the greatest inventions in warfare have been canned foods and preservatives, the internal combustion engine, cold-weather clothing and heaters, and night-vision equipment. These allow armies to campaign anywhere they choose, for as long as they desire. They also permit armies to operate day and night, and all year long–a relatively recent development in warfare.

– Starbuck on Martin van Creveld’s “Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton”.

Talking to the local media on January 2, Balochisan’s Chief Minister Muhammad Aslam Raisani said that the provincial government was ready to provide security to NATO supplies if they were transported through the Gwadar port. Raisani said that the NATO forces would have to invest $1.5 billion for the construction of roads to facilitate the transportation of oil to Afghanistan through the Gwadar port. He added that the Afghan Transit Trade through Gwadar could promote trade and business in Balochistan besides opening new opportunities for employment. According to him, the Afghan Transit Trade through Gwadar Port was the need of hour for the development of the port.

– Raman’s strategic analysis

Two more excerpts as “food for thought”:

“COIN”: It is quite possible that never before in the annals of military operations has a concept been so thoroughly abused as this one. After all, the COIN described in FM 3-24 is really “Colonial Intervention” rather than Counter Insurgency.

The entire comment is worth reading in full.

Israel is particularly eager for these UAVs to succeed at maritime recon, for that would open up a huge market for Israeli made UAVs and sensors. Israel has been the leader in UAV technology for over two decades, and has been supplying with UAVs to the Indian navy for eight years now. India has taken the lead in regularly using UAVs for maritime reconnaissance.

– Strategy Page

The Super Sweet Strategery of Strategic Depth

by

Pakistan’s beliefs in the value of seeking strategic depth in Afghanistan were influenced by two factors. The support it received from the U.S. in waging an armed response against the Soviet occupation triggered the belief. The success of that endeavour with no apparent costs to itself, gave Islamabad the illusion of being able to play a major role in the geo-politics of Central Asia. This more than anything else led to the belief that Afghanistan provided the strategic leverage Pakistan had long been seeking. The energy-rich Muslim states of Central Asia beckoned both Pakistan and the energy-seeking multi-nationals. Iran’s standing up to western pressures was proving an obstacle to long-term plans for energy extraction from the region. Afghanistan offered both shorter energy routing and political control through Pakistan.

V. R. Raghavan (The Hindu, 2001)

Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, “wants a reliable proxy that has territorial control of the P2K area,” Mr. Dressler adds. This desire is the result of Pakistan’s historic conflict with India. “If India comes across the border, Pakistan can fall back into Afghanistan and drive them out. It’s about strategic depth vis-à-vis India. As long as that continues to be a driving concern, Pakistan’s support for the Haqqani network will continue.”

The Christian Science Monitor (via Small Wars Journal)

A highly plausible future scenario indeed (regarding the second quoted item). In the event that the Indians decide on a massive ground invasion into Pakistan and march sturdily through the landscape of jihadi-networks and scattering Pakistani troops – with nary a nuke in sight and the US sitting idly by – it sounds like a winner of a strategy. The supply lines to the Indians will, of course, be Bollywood unicorns pooping ammunition and some sort of MREs.

On the other hand, serious people seem to take Pakistani strategic depth worries seriously. The Indians are forever being told that they must take Pakistani fears of regional encroachment into account so that the United States (ISAF) may have a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan that is stable. Although….

My basic point, lost in the midst of all of those excerpts, is that despite having “full” strategic depth in Afghanistan during the time period of the Kargil War, a conflict occurred between the two.

– from a comment I made in this thread at Small Wars Journal (regarding the theory that strategic depth in Afghanistan may prevent conflict between India and Pakistan).

I think a strategy that brings about the very thing you claim to be worried about (the Indians in Afghanistan with ISAF supporting a reasonably India-friendly government) seems like a loser to me. Want to see the math?

1. Pakistan supports the Taliban in Afghanistan for purposes of “strategic depth.”
2. The Taliban invites in Al Q.
3. 9-11 happens and Americans and others are murdered.
4. Americans invade Afghanistan.
5. India follows with the rest of the development crowd….

See? A loser of a strategy in terms of the vaunted s.d.

What say you ChicagoBoyz commenters? Have I got it totally wrong? Am I a total paranoid? A partial paranoid? Leave a comment below if you must….

PS: I always enjoy reading Max Boot at Contentions but, er….?

The United States can influence the choice only at the margins, but we must do what we can to signal to the army leadership that we will stand behind them if they decide to do more to take on the radicals. In this connection, it is highly useful that President Obama has agreed to NATO’s timeline not to transition security responsibility in Afghanistan until 2014. That should put to rest some immediate concerns about America’s fickleness as an ally and reassure the Pakistani army that we will stand with the forces of moderation in Pakistan should they do more to battle the growing religious extremism that threatens the very survival of the state.

Respectfully, the Army is not a force of moderation. They are following a long-cherished regional strategic plan that has nothing to do with our alleged “fickleness.” Given China’s monetary support of the regime, I wager the Pakistani Army/ISI will continue to think they can play various networks to their advantage. 2014 or no. Sorry to be so cynical. I hope I am wrong.