The most significant threat to our national security is the debt-limit deal Congress approved last week. The all-cuts, no tax increases deal was a significant victory for fiscal conservatives. Now it has become clear what the price of that victory was -- deep, destructive cuts in national defense.
The first cuts will reduce defense spending by about $350 billion over the next 10 years. If enacted, these cuts would come on top of the more than $400 billion already cut from defense during Obama's first two years in office -- bringing the total reduction in defense spending to more than $750 billion. This is not cutting defense, it is gutting defense. Shared sacrifice.
It gets worse. If the "super committee" established under the bill does not reach agreement on a second tranche of spending cuts, the Pentagon will get hit with another $600 billion in automatic cuts. This means the Pentagon could see its budget contract by more than $1.3 trillion.
On paper, the automatic cuts are nearly equally divided between defense and domestic spending. The problem is Democrats succeeded in exempting many of their most cherished programs from the threatened sequester -- everything from refundable tax credits to education, federal highway programs and even airport grants. If Republicans won't accept tax increases when the special committee meets, Democrats can simply walk away and pocket deep defense cuts while protecting most entitlements and many of the discretionary programs they care about. Indeed, some have suggested that the Democrats' default position will be to let the special committee fail and allow the automatic defense cuts to kick in.
But Republicans have a secret weapon: The Democrats failed to exempt Obamacare.
Indeed, with cuts to Obamacare scheduled to automatically take place, the real challenge may be persuading some Republicans not to simply walk away and let the trigger kick in. A sizable number could decide that $600 billion in defense cuts is a price worth paying to defund Obamacare. Therein lies the deeper problem: The fact that Republicans agreed to put $1.36 trillion in defense cuts on the chopping block shows just how much the GOP consensus behind a strong national defense has eroded.
Washington is once again prematurely claiming a "peace dividend" -- except this time without the peace.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/09/2011 03:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's be realistic: there are some items in the Defense budget that could be eliminated without harm to the republic's security.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2011 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I fully agree Steve. However, those are exactly the things that historically are protected by the House, Senate, Executive, Governors, and other special interest groups. With all the waving of hands and high statements like that, no one has done more specification of 'what' they want cut than Obama has proposed as a real budget. It's all smoke and mirrors. What will be cut will be training, maintenance, spare parts, facilities upkeep, ammo replenishment, etc. Been there, seen it, done it.
Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends.
Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press.
#3
What will be cut will be training, maintenance, spare parts, facilities upkeep, ammo replenishment, etc. Been there, seen it, done it.
Those don't buy votes and influence, bring in political donations, or engender long-running, follow-up contracts.
Same reason why there'll be troop RIFs (Reduction in Force). Hopefully there won't be a corresponding increase in the hiring of GS-04s from certain demographics in the D.C. area, like there was under the Clinton administraion.
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
most intelligent and cogent comment you've made today
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2011 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yeah, Shakey, but it still falls under pork for some Representative or Senator or Governor, anyone one of which will be bribed bought with some PAC or reelection money. Deal with the reality when the wolves negotiate how they're going to cut up the sheep. The old "I'll protect your program, if you protect mine" or the other "I'll support your funding bill if you support my funding bill" or the "As Chairman of the committee, nothing leaves this room unless my project gets funded" is still in play.
What should determine defense is the definition of the Threat(tm). Once that is specifically defined the rest like force structure and funding follow. The very first place to start in defense cuts is to examine commitments to other parties/nations that can be dropped. That directly impacts force structure. It also means that the politicians are forced to reconcile the ink on the paper with the costs incurred. They can of course lie and do the usual sweep of the hand, but if nothing more it gives ammo to their current and future opponents on the consequences.
Italicised comment is from a commentary by Jakob Augstein, the bracketed text is VDH's fisking. rtwt. Haven't read a fisking this good outside the 'burg in a while. Nevertheless, at least one good opportunity springs from America's fate: The further the United States distances itself from us, the more we will (have to) think for ourselves, as Europeans. The West? That's us.
[As we say in America -- "promises, promises..." Does that "distance" include rejection of U.S. military subsidies -- as in the final departure of the remaining 52,000 American troops in Germany? Given the status of the EU, and what I read in the German papers about Italians and Greeks--and then again in the southern European papers about Germans -- Mr. Augstein should be thinking not of ridding America from the West, but whether the West will still include a united Europe, which is proving as undemocratic as it is unable to continue the basic premises of the welfare state. So the West indeed totters, but the general culprit -- whether evidenced in the North-South divide in Europe, the rancor over borrowing an unsustainable $16 trillion in the U.S., or the dichotomy between the financial health of red- and blue-state America -- is an unsustainable redistributive state.
The desire for "distance" unfortunately is not just confined to European elites like Mr. Augstein himself, but is voiced more often by a far greater numbers of Americans, who cannot quite fathom the premises of postmodern Europe, much less why in tough financial times we should be subsidizing the security of a system that won't pay for what it thinks it requires for its own protection -- is NATO still the old British formulation, as articulated by Lord Ismay, of keeping Russia out, America in, and Germany down? If the French and British military record in Libya or the German-Greek negotiations are a blueprint for a new definition of European singularity, then God help our trans-Atlantic cousins, since America will soon no longer be willing or able to.]
#1
At a certain point the Roman Empire split, the Western half to include Rome fell quickly by 455 [the date the real Vandals sacked the city]. The Eastern half would continue in some form or fraction till the 15th Century. Justinian the last Emperor to dream of reuniting the old Roman state, so exhausted the East in manpower and resources trying to recover the glory days, that it was unable to stop the first Muslim war of expansion and conquest. There comes a time to allow history to take its course for those civilizations that commit cultural suicide.
#5
Yup. Post-Roman Italy was actually doing okay before Justinian; the Vandals and Lombards ruled lightly and wanted to be more Roman-like. The Roman senators still controlled much of the land and wealth, and life was more or less romanized.
Justinian led a terrible campaign to reclaim Italy for the Empire, and in the process his army marched up and down the peninsula several times. When they were done Rome was a wreck, the senators were gone, and the land was ruined for a couple generations.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2011 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Single best thing we could do for Europe at this point is to leave the military wing of NATO, and invite the Europeans to plan and participate in their own defense. Let them figure out how much they need, where to put it, and who's going to do it. Let the Euros find the new balance point between defense and social spending, or let them go under.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2011 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Let the Euros find the new balance point between defense and social spending, or let them go under."
Yes, exactly that.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
08/09/2011 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
In all fairness to Justinian, everything he might have accomplished was pretty much undone by the plague, including his own health for the rest of his life. The Empress Theodora, however, was singularly responsible for extending the life of the empire by another 200 years.
In a situation eerily reflective of today's America, the empire was split into political factions, the blues (think blue States), who were favored by Justinian, and their allies, the more radical greens, who sought to overthrow him, and the less powerful reds (think red States) and the whites.
After a period of severe instability that almost overthrew the government, called the Nika Riots, led by the greens and the blues, Justinian was about to call it quits and flee, but Theodora thought otherwise. So she called for something of a peace conference with the blues and the greens to be held in the largest amphitheater.
The blues and the greens arrived, and decided to name their own emperor, but the queen sent a trusted eunuch and two generals. The eunuch delivered a bag of gold to the blue leaders, and reminded them that Justinian had long supported them. They took the hint, and ordered all the blues, as a group, to leave the stadium, much to the surprise of the greens, who decided that the new emperor would be a green emperor (think Al Gore.)
But the amphitheater, now containing only greens, was surrounded by the two trusted generals and their armies. Who then went in and slaughtered every one of the greens.
An act which politically stabilized their empire for 200 more years.
#9
"Let the Euros find the new balance point between defense and social spending, or let them go under."
Which is something the United States has NEVER come close to finding in 235 years, even with a GPS...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Single best thing we could do for Europe at this point is to leave the military wing of NATO, and invite the Europeans to plan and participate in their own defense.
I agree completely. Until I think that might be just what the Russians want. Would we care if EUrope came under the New Soviet umbrella?
#11
"Would we care if EUrope came under the New Soviet umbrella?"
The answer is 'yes'.
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And how much are you contributing, Mr. SS?
Other than your mouth, I mean.
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/09/2011 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
A gentle reminder, Shakey, that Canada too benefits substantially from American defense spending. We south of the 48th would not mind at all if Canada decided to cancel the partnership and go its on way on defense, we really wouldn't. Try us.
Europe is destined to fail. It's unfortunate; many of us have ancestors who came from there, and there's an enormous culture, literature, art, and political theory that started on the continent. One cannot imagine the world history of the last two millennia, good and bad, without Europe. But Europe will fail for two reasons:
First, demography. There are to be fewer and fewer Europeans in the decades to come. One of the most popular names for a newborn male in Europe these days is "Mohammed", and while I don't begrudge anyone's faith, a Europe with a Muslim majority or near-majority population is going to be very different than the Europe we've known. Europe is a continent always defined by its ethnicity, and that is changing radically.
Second, will. Europe will fail because its people and particularly its leaders don't believe in the things that sustain a culture. Europe is all socialistic twaddle these days. It's no secret that the riots in London are coming out of neighborhoods that are the result of socialistic foolishness; that the police can't fight back; that the elites are telling people not to fight back; and that everyone just about is looking for a way to pick someone's else pocket for their pension plans and health benefits.
Europe is done because the people don't really believe in Europe -- the banding together of the elites into the 'European Union' doesn't count.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2011 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Whom are you defending us from? I'd like to know..
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Would we care if EUrope came under the New Soviet umbrella?
#17
I play pick up hockey with several members of the Canadian Forces Air Command (I still think of them as RCAF) most weekends in the winter. They're here in Upstate NY as part of EADS. Great guys, bring their share of the beer and, unlike Shakey Steve, understand what their mission here is all about. Glad they're here.
#18
Funny that the Americans and the Danes also lay claim...so does that mean you are 'protecting' us from yourselves also? Gets pretty convoluted, all this 'protection' you know...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/09/2011 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I wouldn't worry about American 'claims'. In the end, the EPA will decree its all untouchable. At least we should let someone else get it [like the Chinese who are drilling for Cuba now in oil resource areas between there and Florida].
#20
Suppose an extended game of Axis & Allies, or a simple game of Risk, is quite below such proclaimed stature. It is, after all, at a twelve year old's level.
Escape Merica's state? Last I saw the EU had to plug in an extra fan to catch the shit with another shovel load at the ready. At least in the USA polyticks have to address people unlike the selected EU. Keep it up, and you all will have border skirmishes on and off paper.
It is extremely difficult to understand the rationale (if any) behind terror attacks. All terror attacks are the sick acts of deranged - if perversely lucid - people, who feel impotent against the society they live in or they unwittingly fight for.
The Norway massacre by this young, pleasant looking monster is particularly horrible because it doesn't seem at first glance to have any explanation or justification, twisted or not. Unfortunately, it is as sickly rational (from a sick mind point of view) as any other terrorist attack.
Historians and intellectuals, fearful of the risk of repeating past atrocities (always perpetrated for the 'good' of humanity, of course) have been warning the West's progressives not to push their agendas to their extreme consequences lest they wanted to obtain the opposite of what they theoretically wished onto their citizens (racism, concentration camps, deportations, ethnic cleansing); but power, greed and corruption have muddled the original issues and molded them into perfect demagoguery material. The result? Uncontrolled immigration to the detriment (and often discrimination) of the indigenous population for the purpose of creating voting blocks, welfare and all sorts of entitlements to create dependence and passivity and - of course - more votes, misguided multiculturalism to appease violent minorities, betrayal of hard won ideals (to the point of harsh anti-Semitism, in Norway) for the sake of security, promotion of extreme relativism to undermine societies' institutions, etc., etc., etc..
In a normal democracy, these agendas are eventually moderated through political dialogue or die of their own, either when people see the lies behind the policies or when the nanny state runs out of money. Norway, on the contrary, could afford to drown their citizens in entitlements, accommodate and subsidize fresh immigration and at the same time lull everybody in a false sense of security, thanks to its oil wealth.
Such state of things eventually creates social conflicts which in normal circumstances generate a healthy (at least in the name of democratic choice) shift in politics and nothing more (as seen recently in most of Europe, including Norway). On the other hand, more serious and dangerous effects are produced on the weakest (or sickest, take your pick) minds. To these, the continuous exposure to such social contradictions exasperates their sense of betrayal, oppression, impotence, producing a desire to sow the horror we have sadly often witnessed, as a lesson, a message, a warning or a cry of desperation - who really knows what goes on in their minds.
Someone (individuals or groups) was bound to exploit the situation. Something was bound to blow up.
Forgetting what man really is, his limitations and potential and pretending, for political expediency, that we all are the same good, altruistic, outgoing beings, helps only power-greedy or clueless politicians, while tolerating intolerance for fear or gain only invites violence, of one kind or another.
A last observation: guns in Norway (they declare themselves proudly to be 'multiculturalists and pacifists') are anathema; even the police is totally unarmed. But most of the Utoya victims would be alive today if anyone had had a gun.
That last sentence could be true, and agreed that the police do not carry their guns with them as a general practice -- they have to get them from the lock-up. Also that most of the Utoya victims would be alive if they all threw rocks at the shooter to wound him and distract his aim instead of walking up to him to discuss his issues and persuade him to take a different course. But as for the rest of the paragraph, Norway has a very active hunting and sport shooting culture, and lots of people own things that shoot bullets, both registered and unregistered (see here for details). The shooter was a member of several gun clubs, and reportedly they knew nothing of his political activities.
It should be noted that Norway was under Nazi occupation during WWII for longer than any other western European nation. That bit of history would go a long way towards explaining why Norweigians are allowed to own firearms, while other citizens of other nations are not.
#2
Even original articles published at Rantburg hae some sort of news peg. I have published, written or rewritten no fewer than 600 articles at Rantburg and I have never used social media as a news source.
Maybe the rules aren't clear enough, but the posting interface does display rather prominently a box for a news source. Social media, if you want to include it should be included as a separate link in your article, not as a source.
#5
The killer promotes "patriarchy." How many women would vote for that? I believe he is a movement of one person. He will like the solitaryness of prison life.
#6
I spoke with a Norwegian Saturday. I asked him about this and he responded by saying that this was the work of one man like our Timothy McVeigh(I wanted to say Timothy Geithner). End of story. They have moved on. So I say leave this issue to the media talking heads elsewhere in the world.
Ok. I added "by Terry Mattingly" at the top of the text. To clarify: Elmalet Greamble7487 is Mr. Mattingly, only posting under a nym all unwilling? Mr. Mattingly, all you need do is erase/delete the nym and type in the name you wish us to know you by. This should also create a cookie attached to the new ID, so that in future the desired identity should appear instead of one of Fred's cute little randomized anonymous thingies.
Next point: if you have written a piece specifically for Rantburg, post it in full without a URL, because the correct reference is here. If you have written a piece for your own blog, link to the blog page in the URL box, but give us no more than a brief summary or a single paragraph from the text. Truthfully, the best way to garner attention for your blog is to put the blog URL In the optional website block when you post comments -- if your comments are thoughtful and knowledgeable, people are likely to follow you home to see what else you have to say. I certainly do, and have commented both here and on various blogs about what I've seen.
#8
Who's Terry Mattingly?
Look, this is getting too complicated, please delete the post; all I wanted was to publish the piece and then tell my followers on twitter and G+ to come and read it here (which I thought would be good for your audience too). Forget it, thanks.
#9
I have to totally take the blame for the confuson concerning this article.
All I wanted to do was to impress on the individual posting this material, that we like to see news links, not personal links in the source box, so I, unhelpfully as it turned out, included the first link on the Norway massacre I could google, enhancing the confusion.
I will not delete the article. It was good and well written. I am glad Rantburg was one of the places you decided to post it.
But, it has to be said, this was amateur hour for us, and for that I am very sorry.
#11
Ok Badanov, no big deal, apology accepted and thanks for the compliments.
But if you want to keep it, could you please clean up all the misunderstandings from the comments and delete the "Terry Mattingly?" green header?
Thanks! (^_~)
The 'downgrade' pic is popular :-)
President Obama, a few notes on the economy speech today, since I have a sinking feeling it might not be your last:
1) When trying to inspire confidence that we are not headed into another Great Depression, a good tactic is to not deliver your chat at a fireside. It sends the wrong message. "President Obama delivers fireside chat" is just -- not quite where we hoped we were, economically. It gives us the vague desire to start hoarding bits of tin. Does anybody listen to the radio anymore?
2) You do realize that no matter how many times you say "No matter what some agency may say, we always have been and always will be a Triple-A country" that doesn't make it true?
Does this work for Malia and Sasha? "No matter what your teacher may say, you always have been and always will be a straight-A student. I thought every student was the best student?
I have here a signed letter from Warren Buffett saying that if it were possibly to give you a 120 on that test, he would give it to you unreservedly. And Warren Buffett knows what's what."
3) You can't start a speech by saying that the problem America has is "a lack of political will in Washington" and end the speech by saying that the great thing about America is that "we've always not just had the capacity but the will to act." This author is probably one of maybe five or six(?) who listened to the whole thing.
The bad news is that no one in Washington is capable of solving these problems, because Washington is broken!
"The good news is that our problems are imminently solvable!" But not until the next election.
4) "For all of the challenges we face, we continue to have the best universities, some of the most productive workers, the most innovative companies, the most adventurous entrepreneurs on earth," you said. That's true, kind of, as long as you're willing to consider "millions of robots" productive workers. No, that's not my snark, missing the highlight. That's the author. This speech had the strange whiff of desperation that has crept increasingly into President Obama's communications. It is the sort of speech that you get at 3 a.m. from someone you thought you had succeeded in breaking up with. "But our universities are still the best! And we are very entrepreneurial! And Warren Buffett believes in us!" followed by inarticulate sobbing and the sound of someone falling off a table. It sounds like a good, strong, compelling case -- not at all grasping at straws -- until you say it out loud.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/09/2011 03:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
What do you suppose Obama will do and where will he go after the landslide in 2012?
There will be another Reagan style surge and lots of Mercedes and furs at the next Inauguration. 16 big gala parties all over Washington that night....and the cabinet Team will be all Business.
And Americans don't hang anybody when those people lose. Where will Obama go? What will he do with the rest of his life.
He can't grow an Angela Davis haircut and I don't see him making TV commercial endorsements. And Hollywood will drop him flat, they never stick with anyone who isn't "cool". Law Practice....another book? He might have to look for a job.
And somehow I don't think that his deep faith in God will be much help. Maybe he can sell Insurance in Manila.
Posted by: de Medici ||
08/09/2011 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Does anybody listen to the radio anymore?
Yes, but mostly listening in to Rush which probably is not Obama's target audience.
#9
"For all of the challenges we face, we continue to have the best universities
They could be if they actually taught subject matter and not left-wing ideology. They could be if they weren't driven by political correctness. Our largest State universities take huge infusions of Federal money and consequently look like clones of the Federal government. There is a tremendous cost of complying with Federal regulations and requirements in exchange for the boodle.
#10
There are seriously good university departments all over the country -- one reason why so many if the world's best come here to study -- and a few greats. But that's because there's a bell curve of quality in tertiary education as everything else, and we cannot all be one of the best, unless best is defined so far downward as to mean "and they've got their own printer for making certificates and ev'rything!"
#11
Another thing to work on for Obama is his imperious body language. You can mute the TV and tell he's scolding us just from the height of his chin.
Posted by: Charles ||
08/09/2011 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Charles pouty face also. The one that gets me is that pointing finger. Then what is a person got to do to have him bow to us!. What Rodney would say "I ain't got no respect".
[Dawn] TENSIONS between the US and Pakistain have continued to escalate ever since the May 2, 2011 raid that killed the late Osama bin Laden. ... who used to be but now ain't... Both sides have chosen to engage in a tit-for-tat pattern of escalatory moves. These have only increased the already deep-seated mistrust in the relationship.
On both sides, an increasing number of opinion-makers are calling for a rethink of the relationship. In Pakistain, some influential voices are pointing to the need to consider a 'plan B' to offset the excessive reliance on the US. Over in Washington, the appetite to continue supporting Pakistain has thinned out substantially as well.
A careful analysis of the situation has left me bewildered at these calls to find alternatives to a stronger US-Pakistain engagement. The fact is that at this point, there simply is no viable 'Plan B'. A breakdown in ties will cost both parties dearly in terms of their regional objectives.
Let me focus on the Pak side to provide a reality check.
Most calls for 'Plan B' hint at returning to the traditional strategic fallback option in times of adversity: leveraging ties with China, Soddy Arabia and some of the other friendly Gulf countries to a greater extent to balance the losses from a dysfunctional US-Pakistain relationship.
These avenues have serious limitations -- mainly because of the bitter reality that none of Pakistain's traditional partners are willing to stick their neck out at this point. China's signalling on the issue has been fairly consistent. Beijing remains concerned about American ingress into the region. However, the way to a man's heart remains through his stomach... it has consistently avoided any direct diplomatic confrontation on the US role in Afghanistan and on Washington's ties with Islamabad. In fact, China has actively shied away from posing as a potential substitute for the US role in supporting Pakistain.
Even tangibly, there is a qualitative mismatch between Washington and Beijing's ability to provide for Pakistain's needs. Going forward, the Chinese do see Pakistain as a major transit hub and as a floor for cheap production of low-value-added products; they will continue to invest in these endeavours. However, man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them... the Chinese model of assistance is far less amenable to providing direct cash infusions and emergency funds which provide immediate relief to the economy. Utility of US assistance is most critical in this regard.
On the defence side, the Chinese capacity to provide the hardware and capacity support that the US is able to is, as one senior military officer told me, "at least 50 years behind". Not to mention, there has been extensive tactical counterterrorism cooperation between Pakistain and the US over the past decade which has benefited the Pak military significantly. The Chinese, or for that matter, no other country, will be able to match that.
Pakistain's relations with Soddy Arabia and other Gulf countries have been consistently warm over the years; at a pinch, Islamabad has often persuaded them to help out. However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... none of these countries have given any indication of a willingness to upgrade their economic assistance massively to Pakistain in the near term. In fact, as their own economic woes have grown, they have been forced to cut back on support and even repatriate Pak labour in large numbers. Also important to recognise is the fact that much of the Gulf is very sensitive to US concerns and is therefore unlikely to back Pakistain's case in direct opposition to the US (should we get to that stage in US-Pakistain relations).
Let us also not be naïve in thinking that a developing country like Pakistain, for all its importance, can live on the wrong side of a superpower without affecting its other relationships. To cite just one example, Washington wields tremendous influence over the international financial institutions (IFIs) and has much to do with IMF's lenient attitude towards Pakistain. But IFI attitudes have been known to change rather abruptly when geopolitical environments take a turn. One ought to expect this, should signals from Washington become less favourable.
Also, a breakdown in US-Pakistain ties will undercut the very strategic interest Pakistain has been trying to protect all along: its regional balance vis-à-vis India. There is already a strong push in Washington for closer counterterrorism cooperation with India and to further exploit the convergence of US and Indian interests in South Asia. The move in this direction will only be accentuated if Washington and Islamabad part ways.
On Afghanistan, there is little doubt that the US is highly dependent on Islamabad for a favourable outcome. But it is equally true that Pakistain's interests are unlikely to be satisfied without some level of support from Washington. To be sure, Pakistain's nightmare scenario -- a return to anarchy in Afghanistan -- remains the most likely outcome should these two sides fail to complement each other's efforts in the 'endgame' in Afghanistan.
The history of the post-Westphalian world teaches us that the biggest blunders by states often have at their core miscalculations by leaderships about their country's self-worth, their options and the surrounding dynamics. Pakistain, like any other nation state, has a right to exploit interstate relations to its advantage; and it is entirely reasonable for Pakistain to reach out to its traditional partners as much as it wants. However, the hip bone's connected to the leg bone... none of these overtures can be based on misplaced perceptions about the intentions and ability of these states.
The fact is that Pakistain is extremely constrained in its options today. Unfair as it may be, the global narrative about Pakistain has forced even the best of friends to shy away from going the extra mile to back Islamabad's case. Pak state policies have to be crafted keeping this reality in mind.
There is certainly a need to recalibrate the relationship with the US. That said, it is dangerous for the Pak state to create an impression that ties with America are a net negative and that Islamabad will be better off without it. Let us face it -- things may not be good at present, but they will be far worse if we go too far down this road. A breakdown may be bad for Washington, but it will be disastrous for Pakistain.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
the Chinese model of assistance is far less amenable to providing direct cash infusions and emergency funds
IOW, the chinese are too smart to give cash.
#2
A have a feeling that the real alternative will be that the Paks will decide to throw a nuke at India, which will respond by eliminating Pakistan for good.
Philosophically, you have to wonder if the inherent malignancy of Pakistan is such that many of the people truly want a Khmer Rouge style annihilation. They truly want death in a spiritual way, as preferable to what they have.
#3
To sum up: nobody else will give us the money we need tk run the country -- nor even loan it to us -- China's weapons aren't anything as cool, the U.S. will side with icky India, and *drumroll* nobody wants to be our friend because they think we're all terrorists!!!
#4
The Pakis are once again threatening to pull their troops from the Afghan Border, i.e. SSSSSSSSSHHHHHHH PDeniably threatening the US that they will let armed Radical Islamist MilTerr = Jihadist Groups just walk in oer the Afghan-Pak borders + set up shop in Pakistan, or else ditto from Pak into Afghanistan + other parts China + Central Asia.
* ION DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [Did the..] US KILLED BIN LADEN BECAUSE A PAK [Intel = ISI] OFFICER CAME FORWARD TO CLAIM US$25.0MILYUHN REWARD???
ARTIC + Contrary to US Govt. + MSM-Net claims, it was this same PAK INTEL OFFICER, NOT BIN LADEN'S COURIER, WHOM LED THE US TO OSAMA'S ABBOTTABAD COMPLEX; SAUDIS WERE ALLEGEDLY ALSO COVERTLY PAYING PAK + PAK ISI A LOT OF $$$ TO KEEP OSAMA IN SAFE HIDING FROM THE US-NATO.
* INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM > [Indian Govt Official] 2,500 TERRORISTS IN LAUNCHING PADS IN PAKISTAN + PoK [Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir].
[Dawn] WE all know what is wrong with Bloody Karachi: every other day death descends on its streets to take innocent victims and then goes back to its lair only to return in a never-ending cycle.
The real dilemma is how to disrupt this routine of sorrow and protect helpless citizens who can hide but not run. Here are a few elements of what can be termed as the way forward in Bloody Karachi.
A start has to be made at the local cop shoppes, the first line of defence against rampaging killers. At the moment, they are dysfunctional. They are either beholden to neighbourhood gangs or, in many cases, act as a refuge for hardened criminals.
Nepotism and jobbery have caused unqualified staff to be inducted in the police, especially at the station heads' level.
Party loyalties are the norm in the selection of cop shoppe in-charges whose main task these days is to facilitate various crime syndicates and look the other way when law and order breaks down.
The handful of experienced and committed officers who remain are clueless about official policy on tackling the crime surge and have no certain idea about their future in case they take on the murderous thugs. They stay quiet and watch in great distress the crumbling of this primary state institution.
These cop shoppes have to be rescued to rescue Bloody Karachi. A list of non-functioning cop shoppes should be created to fathom the extent of the task of reform. A conservative official estimate suggests that almost 70 per cent of cop shoppes are compromised -- in the sense that they contribute nothing when it comes to saving lives. The redeeming feature is that the same estimate concludes that almost all local cop shoppes have fairly accurate information about the source of trouble in their jurisdiction. This information base needs to be used to chart out a cleansing plan by more reputable coppers appointed all the way up in Bloody Karachi's different zones.
These coppers should be interviewed by a high-level committee including the governor, chief minister, home minister, representatives of all major political parties, police chief, DG Rangers and the corps commander. That is the only way to make these appointments politically and administratively viable.
Equally critical is for these cop shoppes to be well-staffed and adequately resourced. Most cop shoppes are out-gunned by the criminals their personnel are supposed to fight. They have limited ammunition to dip into and have no back-up supplies to sustain the effort to cleanse the streets.
The situation is akin to the story told in the Gangs of New York, where the strongest of the gangs had thousands of members.
Their areas were so clearly demarcated that they resembled international borders.
Bloody Karachi's gangs have huge stocks of weapons: one official inventory of illegal and lethal weapons puts the number at 20 million. The lethality of these gangs can be measured by the number of hit men they collectively command. Almost 5,000 documented killers operate in the city, says PPP Senator Faisal Raza Abidi, who admits most of them are politically protected.
To uproot this mafia requires strong fortification of cop shoppes through a specially designed package of resources that does not run out every third week. The army and the FC have in reserve considerable piles of weapons, some of which have been given to police in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... The threat level in Bloody Karachi is not too different from that posed by the Taliban in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. In fact given the beastly nature of killing in Bloody Karachi it is hard to distinguish who is more brutal -- those who slaughter in the name of religion or those who chop, quarter and hang in the name of party politics or for land grabbing.
Moreover, Bloody Karachi is the national economic supply-line and hence of unparalleled importance to national security. A well-armed, well-resourced and properly mandated network of cop shoppes should be the key to saving this centre for national stability.
To make these cop shoppes more effective, a Bloody Karachi-specific intelligence grid needs to be put in place. The ISI and the MI have detailed information maps available about the gang bases and their patrons. This is dynamic data that is updated daily -- sometimes hourly.
To make the police and their operations more effective the civilian and military institutions need to work as one on the intelligence front and share their records in a sincere manner.Having positioned these blocs of state writ across the bloodied terrain of Bloody Karachi -- indeed new cop shoppes should also be created to better manage the terrain -- attention must be paid to the check-posts in the city. As of now, these are weakly manned and exceedingly unreliable, more a pain to the unsuspecting motorcyclist with his family than the mobile death squads who move as freely as mobile-snatchers. These check posts have to be augmented and in exceedingly volatile zones should be multilayered involving the police, the Rangers, FC and in some cases even the army.
The logic of establishing check-posts should correspond to the pattern of gang movement and areas of gang operations. These check-posts should all be so laid out that these form useful rings of round-the-clock security.
Parallel to this effort should be the plan to create tightly run and heavy check-posts on all routes to Bloody Karachi. If the city has to be stabilised then the transnational supply lines of weapons and drugs must be choked without which the police will never be able to cope with the challenge of law and order.
But the success of this general plan to revive the writ of the police through functional cop shoppes hinges on the critical decision by the political parties to stop using criminal syndicates as a means to secure and expand political turfs. They ought to know that violence breeds more violence, and in the end eats up, everything including those who unleash and sponsor it.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
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.
On paper, the automatic cuts are nearly equally divided between defense and domestic spending. The problem is Democrats succeeded in exempting many of their most cherished programs from the threatened sequester -- everything from refundable tax credits to education, federal highway programs and even airport grants. If Republicans won't accept tax increases when the special committee meets, Democrats can simply walk away and pocket deep defense cuts while protecting most entitlements and many of the discretionary programs they care about. Indeed, some have suggested that the Democrats' default position will be to let the special committee fail and allow the automatic defense cuts to kick in.
This speech had the strange whiff of desperation that has crept increasingly into President Obama's communications. It is the sort of speech that you get at 3 a.m. from someone you thought you had succeeded in breaking up with. "But our universities are still the best! And we are very entrepreneurial! And Warren Buffett believes in us!" followed by inarticulate sobbing and the sound of someone falling off a table. It sounds like a good, strong, compelling case -- not at all grasping at straws -- until you say it out loud.
[Dawn] TENSIONS between the US and Pakistain have continued to escalate ever since the May 2, 2011 raid that killed 
[Dawn] WE all know what is wrong with 
