NY TIMES: A safe haven for liberals! (SOCIALIST)
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Our Energy Crisis: ANWR
THE PUBLIC CHOICE CAPITALIST WRITES
Markets in Everything: Paranormal
As I have said before Tyler Cowen from George Mason usually does this but I have found some myself. This one is:
“Since 1964, $1 million has awaited anyone who can show proof of the paranormal.
That year, noted skeptic James Randi first offered anyone $10,000 if they could show objective proof of the paranormal or supernatural. Donations quickly raised the amount to $1 million.The Foundation offers copies of its financial statement as proof of the existence of the money, and it has repeatedly extended its Paranormal Challenge to high-profile psychics like Sylvia Browne, so far to no avail.”
Funny Invention: Sunglasses
The market rewards those who come up with products that we have never known we needed with grand profits. These people are entrepreneurs. In Austrian Economics, they are considered the driving force in the market. I seem to agree. Things like iPods and computers have really boomed our economy.
One interesting item is the invention of sunglasses. Almost everyone uses them and we never really think where do they come from. We probably can hardly imagine a world without them. Here is a tidbit about sunglasses’ great history:
“The first reason why they darkened glasses was because of smoke tinting, which was held in China before 1430. It was so far back in time, that of coarse their glasses were not of any prescription, and they were not used to protect your eyes from the sun. The Chinese judges had often worn sunglasses with quartz to hide the expression in their eyes while during a court case.
The experimentation of tinting lenses came from a man named James Ayscough in the 18th Century. He as well, did not seek sunglasses as protecting your eyes from the rays of the sun, but for the correction of vision impairments.”
The rest can be found here.
Thanks to this entrepreneur we can save our eyes from the sun and drive better.
~PCCapitalist
Inflation does slow growth…
The title of the post is very true but people do not understand inflation as much. Inflation is just the quantity of money in the system. Central bankers try to let out as much money as the economy grows if it doesn’t do enough its deflation, if it does it too much its inflation. Europe has been slow growing for a while but it is geting even slower with inflation. The Financial Times has it here:
“The eurozone moved closer to recession on Thursday after it emerged that the economy contracted in the second quarter for the first time since the launch of the euro.
Yet, while concerns mounted in Europe that the weakness in growth could prove protracted, evidence of growing global inflationary pressures continued to build. Just hours after the eurozone figures were released, US data showed consumer prices rose twice as fast as forecast by economists in July, hitting an annual rate of 5.6 per cent – the highest since January 1991.”
The rest can be found here.
~PCCapitalist
OPEC does abide by the Law of Supply!
For those of you who buy the whole OPEC is an effective cartel and they work together at restricting output and raising prices. Even though nothing has changed in the past 20 years for them to become less effective to more effective. This from the Financial Times:
“Opec last month pushed its production to the highest level in its 48-year history even as demand was slipping in the US and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday.
The combination of surplus supply and weaker demand has pushed oil prices to $113.50 a barrel, down 24 per cent in the past month and the lowest level since late April.”
Of course, the people that wrote this article believe the cartel works and that they agreed to do this to lower prices. I am sure that is partly true but what would any producer do if the demand increases? The would increase supply to meet the demand. They want to do this for two reasons and this will also explain why cartel do not work in free-markets.
First, cartels do not work because there is not a good enforcement mechanism. This is especially true for an international organization. As there is no international justice system to enforce this and people are more spread out. If Nigeria decides to produce a little more than it was allowed to, it will. They have an incentive to do so because they are undercutting the other producers. Then they sell more of their oil and make more money. Now the demand has been staying high the profits to do this is even higher. Each country will follow until we get back down to the market price.
Second, even if you believe that cartels do work this still holds true. If the price of oil continues to stay high, it increases the profits of those who innovate away or to more efficient energy solutions. For example, in the seventies when gas prices were high the race car industry invent more efficient fuel injected engines. This caused less gas to go to waste when burning the fuel. Since places like Saudi Arabia have only one real commodity, they don’t want to look down 20 years and see no jobs for themselves.
The law of supply states that as price goes up producers will produce more to meet demand. This is all that is happening. What you see in the news is OPEC pretending to “give us” more of a supply. When they are just abiding by the market.
The rest of the article can be found here.
~PCCapitalist
Pennies are really worthless…
I have written before that we should abolish the penny. No one uses it or accepts it hardly and it costs more to make it. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
My old post on pennies here.
~PCCapitalist
Homeless: Out of Sight, In-mind?
=
This from The National Review:
“During the upcoming Democratic convention, homeless residents of Denver will be given bus tokens as well as tickets to movies, the zoo, and museums - all located at conveniently great distance away from the convention center.”
Which looks a lot like this:
“(Because of the Olympics) Like thousands of others who packed Beijing’s main train station on Thursday, Li was prompted to leave town by a lack of work and an unwritten government policy encouraging migrant workers to clear out until the dignitaries and journalists have gone home.”
It seems like the popular thing to do is to sweep the homeless under the rug because we wouldn’t want them to ask the Democrats or foreigners visiting China for help. It seems that the leftist apple doesn’t fall far from the leftist tree.
Of course, I am not calling Democrats Communists. It is merely an observation that it seems that Democrats and Communists are using the same type of tactics.
The rest of the China article can be found here and the Denver one here.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario