#2
But the training effort has been drastically slowed by rampant corruption, widespread illiteracy, vanishing supplies, lack of discipline â and the added burden of unifying a force made up of a patchwork of often hostile ethnic groups.
Almost sounds like the US Army in Germany in the mid 70s. Drug abuse, race riots, high levels of UCMJ actions, the Donks gutting defense funding [except for pork projects], living at the edge of poverty, etc.
#6
iAlmost sounds like the US Army in Germany in the mid 70s. Drug abuse, race riots, high levels of UCMJ actions, the Donks gutting defense funding [except for pork projects], living at the edge of poverty, etc.
#7
This is going to take at least a generation of hands-on involvement -- both training and demonstration -- to change. We're not just dealing with the culture of the army and police forces, but of the country as a whole.
The alternative to sticking it out is to leave, thus proving to the entire Ummah that Osama bin Laden was right when he said we haven't the attention span for a real war like his jihad, which is a war of opportunistic actions over the course of decades. The lesson if we leave is to absorb whatever punishment we mete out, then pick at us in small attacks on the troops and civilian population for a few years until we elect politicians who throw up their hands at the trouble, apologise, and bring the troops home.
On 9/11 something like 90% of the world's Muslims thought the terror war, a.k.a. jihad, against the West was a wonderful idea. Since then, the West has waltzed through two battlefields Al Qaeda, et al had designated as the seat of their future caliphate -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- leading to the deaths of fifty thousand or so jihadi volunteers from around the world and the injuries of likely a similar number. Jihadi terror groups that have been having things mostly their own way in the Philippines, North Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia are finding their numbers depleted to such an extent that the North African groups had to amalgamate under the Al Q. in the Maghreb label. Islamist theorists favoured by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have recently published books stating categorically that the current terror jihad against the West is not only un-Islamic but will send its practitioners to hell instead of a paradise filled with 72 beauteous perpetual virgins per jihadi.
If I recall correctly, currently only about 30% of the world's Muslims will admit to interviewers to thinking that jihad against the West is a good idea. But if we retreat, that will change again. The world's troublemakers are already pushing to see if President Obama is made of the same stuff as his predecessor.
#8
It will take a generation to fix Iraq. It will take 4 to bring Astan to the twentieth century. And it's called the white man's burden. We aren't going to carry it that long for a place and people so unlikely to succeed. Iraq or Pakistan is more important in the long war and losing either is not worth Astan. If Barry had any intestinal fortitude he'd double down on Pak and abandon Astan. Let the Chinese and Persians have it.
The big news in Honduras is that the good guys seem to have won a four-month political standoff over the exile of former President Manuel Zelaya. Current President Roberto Micheletti agreed yesterday to submit Mr. Zelaya's request for reinstatement as president to the Supreme Court and Congress, and in return the U.S. will withdraw its sanctions and recognize next month's presidential elections.
Mr. Zelaya, whose term would have expired in January, isn't likely to be reinstated, given that the court has twice ruled against his right to remain in office. The Honduran Congress, which voted in June to remove Mr. Zelaya, will then use that high court's opinion to decide if he should be restored to power.
There is a risk that Venezeula's Hugo Chavez and other Zelaya allies will try to buy support for their man and stir other trouble. But Hondurans who have rightly stood up to enormous U.S. pressure to reinstate Mr. Zelaya aren't likely to be intimidated now.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the result as a diplomatic triumph, but it's more accurate to say that it extricated her and the Obama Administration from the box canyon they entered by throwing in with Mr. Zelaya. Hondurans had deposed Mr. Zelaya on entirely legal grounds for threatening violence and violating the country's constitution in an attempt to run for a second term. The U.S. nonetheless meddled and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated.
But Hondurans refused to bend, and the State Department apparently decided at last that Honduras was going to go ahead with its election whether the U.S. agreed or not. The Honduran compromise provided Mrs. Clinton with an elegant diplomatic exit.
Washington and the Organization of American States have now promised to send observers and recognize the elections; there will be no amnesty for Mr. Zelaya if he is charged with a crime; and the zelayistas will renounce their plans to call for a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. If Mrs. Clinton wants to call this a victory, it is--for Honduras
Posted by: Fred ||
11/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This sounds good. The 0bama administration gets to stumble back from its very ill-considered position, and Honduras gets to show that they are a functioning state with rules that apply to all. This may be a 'thank you Ortega moment' for showing the whole world how not to do it (unless of course you aspire to membership in the 'Dictator's For Life Club'). Big sigh of relief for the Honduran people.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/01/2009 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
there will be no amnesty for Mr. Zelaya if he is charged with a crime
Heh. Hopefully with cell mate Daniel Ortega.
Posted by: ed ||
11/01/2009 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not only will the bad guyz try to buy members of the Honduras Congress, they will have their thugs make threats against the members and their families as has been shown in recent days with a kidnapping and a murder. These people will have to exhibit more courage and integrity than you could expect these days from members of our own Congress. It is a sad, sad day when the people of a tiny little country like Honduras have to fight for democracy against the United States. I hang my head in shame.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/01/2009 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
In America's federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a "package deal" that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.
It's not surprising, then, that there's an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.
California and Texas are not perfect representatives of the alternative deals, but they come close. Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858. Only three states and the District of Columbia saw higher per capita government outlays than California, while those expenditures in Texas were lower than in all but seven states. California ranked 10th in overall taxes levied by state and local governments, on a per capita basis, while Texas, one of only seven states with no individual income tax, was 38th.
One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns. Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.
These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.
Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class."
These judgments are not based on drive-by sociology. According to a report issued earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California. The details of the Census Bureau data show that Texas not only spends its citizens' dollars more effectively than California but emphasizes priorities that are more broadly beneficial. Per capita spending on transportation was 5.9% lower in California, and highway expenditures in particular were 9.5% lower, a discovery both plausible and infuriating to any Los Angeles commuter losing the will to live while sitting in yet another freeway traffic jam.
In what respects, then, does California "excel"? California's state and local government employees were the best compensated in America, according to the Census Bureau data for 2006. And the latest posting on the website of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility shows 9,223 former civil servants and educators receiving pensions worth more than $100,000 a year from California's public retirement funds. The "dues" paid by taxpayers in order to belong to Club California purchase benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members.
None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.
The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.
If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently. You wouldn't know it from putting up with California's transportation and educational systems, but there actually is a principled, plausible argument to be made for the high-benefit/high-tax model. For the sake of both California and their own political ideals, its advocates ought to be leading the charge against every excess and inefficiency that deprives taxpayers of good value for their dollars. That won't happen until they stand up to their coalition partners by breaking their Faustian political bargain with California's self-serving governmental-industrial complex.
#1
Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau.
Not counting illegals who drain the state of welfare services, health care, and fill the judicial systems and prisons. The more you subsidize something, the more you get. See how the Mexican government addresses the problem of illegal immigration.
#4
You're a curious sort, g(r)im.
So, wuzzit Moe's books, the endless stream of dealers squatting on the sidewalk yakkin' atcha like a circus midway, Bertola's minnie stronie and booze for all regardless of age?...
Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 and now lives in Connecticut. She wrote "The Perspective of a Russian Immigrant" that ran on the op-ed page Sept. 8-11. This column first appeared Oct. 22; we are repeating it because of its importance and for the benefit of our weekend-only subscribers
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
The story of young pioneer Pavlik Morozov is required reading. Pavlik reported his father to the secret police for disobeying government regulations. His life exemplified the duty of all good Soviet citizens to serve their government.
From the first year in school, all of us are made aware of our ethnicity (ethnic Russian, Jewish, Asian, etc.) and class (proletariat, intelligentsia), around which society is structured. This inherent divisiveness makes it easy for the government to stir ethnic and class tension and in this way distract from economic failure.
Newspapers and TV transmit government-approved news. Any critical voice is immediately suppressed and publicly denounced.
My parents, as all citizens of the USSR, work for state-run companies. All workers are unionized another way the state controls the citizens. There is no private enterprise in USSR.
Whatever small private farms or shops that existed before 1930 have been taken over by the state. All medical care and schools are state entities. The government regulates what kind of technology, service and compensation are allowed.
From school age through adulthood, citizens are called to public service four to five times a year. Activities such as farming, cleaning places of work, and paper/metal scrap collections are mandatory.
Religious symbols are forbidden in schools or on state property. Most old religious buildings are transformed for secular use.
The Soviet government imposes the Iron Curtain. The state has strict control over our ability to travel abroad. This prevents us from realizing the discrepancy between the media's image of the great socialist country and the reality of our low standard of living.
USA, 2009: "Progressives" control the government. Children in some public schools sing songs about the president and study his directives.
Progressives view people not as unique individuals, but as groups. They play on class envy, or divide people by ethnicity (African-American, white, Hispanic, etc.). From early childhood they remind children of their ethnic identity. The idea of a color-blind society united under the American flag is not politically correct.
The mainstream media are aligned with the government. Those media outlets critical of government policy are publicly criticized by government officials and are in danger of suffering repercussions.
Government seizes a majority stake in two major auto companies and, through TARP money, has control over major banks. Congress discusses capping salaries in private businesses and is in the process of increasing its control over the health care industry.
Big labor union leadership is fully aligned with the progressives in government. There is strong pressure to eliminate the secret ballot in order to increase union membership.
Cap-and-trade, if passed, will drive a lot of small businesses into bankruptcy and create a fruitful soil for favoritism and government control over private entities.
Sept. 11 is declared a day of national service by the administration. It is no longer a day of remembrance for the horrific attack perpetrated by terrorists.
The American Constitution protects the separation between church and state. Atheist zealots pervert this ideal in order to force out religious symbols and traditions from public space. It is fashionable in progressive circles to ridicule religion and religious people. "Tolerance" is applied only to anti-religious values.
As a former citizen of the USSR, I heard and experienced all of this before. I listen to the speeches by the president asking people to sacrifice and serve. So what are we to sacrifice? For what? And to whom? I think I get it now.
Citizens of America, sacrifice your elders and forget your selfish aspirations of prosperity for yourself and your family! Sign onto Service.gov and serve your government!
#1
Gen McChrystal argues that growing Indian political and economic influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions, and accuses both Pakistans intelligence agency, the ISI, and Iran of helping the Taliban. His view would appear to be that Pakistan and Iran can counter Indias growing influence in Afghanistan only by assisting those Afghans who are not favourably inclined towards India, and this potpourri is making his job difficult.
#4
Occams Razor solution: Let the Muslims occupy their thoughts/AK-47s with the Hindus so that Christians and Jews may live in peace. And may the Hindus crush them, restoring the great Indian Empires of antiquity.
#6
Suddenly, Afghanistan has taken centre stage in the many-sided ongoing version of the âgreat gameâ: the only question is, for how long?
The Great Game for the 21st century has Russia teamed with India. British Agents from the 19th century must be turning in their graves.
Otherwise, 'liberating' Pakistan occupied Kashmir gives India a land route to Afghanistan and all of central Asia and blocks China's access to the Ghan.
The reasons the Great Game was played haven't changed that much over the last 100+ years, just different players.
Islamabad, Pakistan - Every time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to win over Pakistanis during her three-day charm offensive last week, they fired back a polite but firm message:
We don't really trust your country.
No matter how hard Clinton tried to reassure audiences in Lahore and Islamabad with talk of providing economic aid where it's needed most, Pakistanis seized on her visit as the perfect moment to lash out at a U.S. government they perceive as arrogant, domineering and insensitive to their plight.
At a televised town hall meeting in Islamabad, the capital, on Friday, a woman in a mostly female audience characterized U.S. drone missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in northwestern Pakistan as de facto acts of terrorism. A day earlier in Lahore, a college student asked Clinton why every student who visits the U.S. is viewed there as a terrorist.
The opinions Clinton heard weren't the strident voices of radical clerics or politicians with anti-U.S. agendas. Some of the most biting criticisms came from well-mannered university students and respected, seasoned journalists, a reflection of the breadth of dissatisfaction Pakistanis have with U.S. policy toward their country.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Look, Madam Secretary, we are fighting a war that is imposed on us," journalist Shirazi told Clinton. "It's not our war. That was your war, and we are fighting that war."
I'm sure the Mexican government said something along the same lines when the US Army put enough pressure on the Apaches raiding from Mexican territory that they felt it was easier just to loot local Mexicans than cross the Rio Grande. Mexico City wouldn't give us the time of day while the Apache were raiding here. When it came home, then they took notice that they were part of the solution.
#4
It is easy to blame the US/West but the fact is The Pakistan foreign policy of using extremists/hatred towards their neighbors/rest of the world has got them in the mess they are now in!Where is your pals/sponsors the Saudis when you need them?
You reap what you sow Pakistan!
India is thriving whilst Pakistan is a Mess.Who's fault is that Hamid Gul?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The big news in Honduras is that the good guys seem to have won a four-month political standoff over the exile of former President Manuel Zelaya. Current President Roberto Micheletti agreed yesterday to submit Mr. Zelaya's request for reinstatement as president to the Supreme Court and Congress, and in return the U.S. will withdraw its sanctions and recognize next month's presidential elections.
