Key Facts on Afghanistan

A Joint Institute for the Study of War – American Enterprise Institute Report

By Dr. Kimberly Kagan and Dr. Frederick W. Kagan

October 28, 2009

Download the Report Here

The Enemy in Afghanistan

The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) and the Haqqani network pose the greatest threat to stability in Afghanistan.

* The QST is an insurgent group responsible for Taliban operations in Afghanistan. The group is led by Mullah Mohammed Omar. Following the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, Omar relocated the senior leadership council to Quetta, Pakistan. Though the QST is most active in southern Afghanistan, its operations have spread into areas of the north and west.

* The Haqqani network, named after its leader Jalaluhuddin Haqqani, is an insurgent group operates in eastern Afghanistan—in Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Ghazni, Wardak and even Kabul provinces. It also retains a base in North Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of Jalaluhuddin, is reported to be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the movement given his father’s ill health.

Historically, the Taliban and the Haqqani network have been strategic enablers for al Qaeda.¹

* Prior to 2001, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s success was dependent upon support from the Taliban and Haqqani network.

* In the 1980s, Jalaluhuddin Haqqani met bin Laden while fundraising together for the mujahedeen in Saudi Arabia.

* In the 1990s, Haqqani invited bin Laden to establish training bases in Paktia, Paktika, and Khost (known as Greater Paktia).

* During the rise of the Taliban in the mid-1990s, Haqqani joined Mullah Omar as a minister in the Taliban regime. Together, they welcomed the continued presence of bin Laden and gave sanctuary to al Qaeda training camps.

* Despite the fall of the Taliban in 2001, the relationship between the Quetta Shura Taliban, the Haqqani network, and al Qaeda continues.

Given the integral links between the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and al Qaeda, it is necessary to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that prevents these groups from expanding their control and influence in Afghanistan.

The Mission in Afghanistan

On March 27, 2009, President Obama said his goals were, “…to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

Currently, President Obama is conducting a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Several options are being debated, such as a more limited counterterrorism strategy and the adoption of a robust counterinsurgency strategy (advocated by General Stanley McChrystal in his assessment).

Strategic Options

Counterterrorism in Afghanistan²

* The U.S. Department of Defense defines counterterrorism (CT) as, “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.”

* Given the range of Predator UAVs and the requirements for Special Forces teams, the conduct of CT operations using either requires bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

* While an over-the-horizon CT approach is feasible using long-range, precision-guided munitions, this approach relies entirely on Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and CIA networks to locate targets.

* The enemy has become increasingly savvy with its operational security, making SIGINT targeting more difficult.

* Even now it is difficult for CIA networks to provide targetable intelligence on key enemy leaders.

* CT operations have been the primary cause of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Outrage over civilian casualties has damaged the perception of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan³

* Counterinsurgency Strategy (COIN) has at its core the protection of the population from insurgents by military and political means.

* To achieve the President’s stated objectives, one must fully resource and implement a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

* This will require additional forces, as there are currently not enough troops to execute a proper counterinsurgency.

* Even with additional forces, it is necessary to prioritize objectives within Afghanistan and then mass forces in critical areas to protect and positively influence the population. The insurgency is most dangerous in RC (South) and RC (East). Counterinsurgents must focus on the critical population centers in: the central Helmand River Valley; Kandahar City and its surrounding areas; Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan Province; and Khost, Paktia, and Paktika provinces (Greater Paktia).

* Coalition counterinsurgency operations must be coordinated and mutually-reinforcing to achieve decisive effects and prevent the enemy from fleeing during the operation, only to return to the area later.

Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)⁴

“The role and responsibilities of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) must be clearly articulated. There has been an overreliance on the Afghan National Police (ANP). The ANP are simply not equipped for the combat-intensive initial phases of counterinsurgency. The appropriate role for the ANP should be maintaining order once the insurgency has been reduced to a manageable level and effective rule of law has been established.”

“The Afghan National Army (ANA) are appropriate for the combat-intensive phases of counterinsurgency, though they are not present in sufficient numbers. Growing the size of the ANA and advancing its capacity to carry out mission-critical counterinsurgency operations in Helmand will help to relieve some of the burden that is currently shouldered by coalition forces.”

“The best way to rapidly increase the size and capacity of indigenous forces is to partner coalition units with them together in combat”

“Dramatically expanding the size and capacity of the ANSF is only one part of a strategy. It must be paired with steps to defeat the insurgency and improve the legitimacy and capability of the Afghan government.”

¹ Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, “How Not to Defeat al Qaeda,” The Weekly Standard, October 5, 2009.

² United States Department of Defense, “The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,” Joint Publication 1-02, April 12, 2001 (as amended through August 19, 2009); Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, “Afghanistan Force Requirements,” joint publication by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War, September 19, 2009.

³ Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, “Afghanistan Force Requirements,” joint publication by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War, September 19, 2009; Jeffrey A. Dressler, “Security Helmand: Understanding and Responding to the Enemy,” Afghanistan Report 2, Institute for the Study of War, September 28, 2009.

⁴ Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, “Afghanistan Force Requirements,” joint publication by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War, September 19, 2009; Jeffrey A. Dressler, “Securing Helmand: Understanding and Responding to the Enemy,” Afghanistan Report 2, Institute for the Study of War, September 28, 2009.

Iniziamo con un gustoso antipasto.

“Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty da voce, come uno sfogo, a milioni di persone che altrimenti non l’avrebbero.”

“Voice of America e Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (…) portando informazione tempestiva, basata sui fatti, a popolazioni che altrimenti sarebbero tenute all’oscuro.”

“E mai prima nel recente passato c’è stato un momento più necessario per commercializzarla con un nuovo marchio e lasciare che il mondo sappia veramente che l’America è quella che, splendida, chiama con un cenno sulla collina.”

“Vaclav Havel ha detto che Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty fornisce nutrimento intellettuale, ispirazione morale ed i veri semi della società civile e della crescita e sviluppo democratici.”

“[In Bielorussia] Un capo dell’opposizione ha paragonato Radio Liberty all’aria che respiriamo.”

“La nostra più grande esportazione è la speranza.”

“La storia di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty è un racconto sulla libertà umana, con i capitoli cruciali che non sono ancora stati scritti.”

“Le notizie possono essere buone, le notizie possono essere cattive. Noi ti diremo la verità.”

“Noi tutti siamo molto orgogliosi del nostro ruolo nel portare la luce negli angoli bui e, nel caso di Voice of America, aiutare milioni di persone a vedere l’America e gli Americani come siamo veramente.”

“L’informazione, l’ossigeno della libertà.”

Lo scorso 23 luglio, Jeffrey Gedmin e Dan Austin, rispettivamente presidente di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) e direttore di Voice Of America (VOA), sono stati protagonisti di un’audizione presso il Subcomitato per l’Europa della Camera dei Rappresentanti USA, i cui atti sono stati successivamente diffusi con il titolo di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty e Voice of America: potere morbido e la libera circolazione dell’informazione.
Durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, quando ancora la CNN, Fox News Channel e le altre televisioni via cavo non esistevano, furono RFE/RL e VOA ad “accendere la luce su ciò per cui l’America combatteva”. Oggi, nella loro essenza, sono “strumenti di marketing”: a prescindere dall’argomento di cui si occupano, RFE/RL e VOA “vendono e commercializzano gli Stati Uniti d’America”. “Ogni giorno esse sono sulle linee del fronte per dare forma a ciò che il mondo pensa di noi”.
In questo senso – considerato anche il calo della reputazione che gli USA godono in giro per il mondo – è fondamentale “il lavoro che [RFE/RL e VOA] stanno facendo per raggiungere quegli ascoltatori che hanno un’esposizione limitata all’esperienza americana ed ai media occidentali”.
L’importanza vitale del migliorare l’opinione mondiale circa gli Stati Uniti è dovuta al fatto che “noi siamo sicuramente i leader del mondo, ed abbiamo necessità di amici a livello governativo nei nostri sforzi in tutte queste nazioni. Questo significa invariabilmente che questi governi hanno bisogno del sostegno dei loro popoli. RFE/RL e VOA ci aiutano a costruire questo sostegno”.
Questo serrato (ed illuminante) ragionamento chiude l’introduzione fatta dall’onorevole David Scott ai due interventi dei prestigiosi ospiti di giornata.
Primo a parlare è Jeffrey Gedmin, che prima di assumere l’incarico di presidente di RFE/RL nel 2007, è stato direttore dell’Aspen Institute di Berlino, e prima ancora ricercatore presso l’American Enterprise Institute e direttore esecutivo della New Atlantic Initiative dove “egli collaborava con politici, giornalisti ed uomini d’affari per rivitalizzare ed espandere l’Atlantismo democratico”.
“Sono passati venti anni da quando un Presidente invocò un’Europa unita e libera, e siamo circa a metà strada. Forse siamo al 60%, od al 47%. C’è un immenso lavoro che deve essere fatto. Io penso che noi giochiamo un ruolo importante”. Infatti.
Attualmente RFE/RL hanno trasmissioni per 21 Paesi ed in 28 lingue, ed uffici in 19 nazioni. Le trasmissioni raggiungono Russia, Ucraina, Bielorussia, l’Asia centrale, il Caucaso, alcuni importanti Paesi dell’Europa orientale, Afghanistan, Iran ed Iraq, con il prossimo obiettivo delle aree tribali del Pakistan.
Per quanto riguarda la Russia, Gedmin sottolinea che “un’informazione indipendente ed affidabile” è assicurata da un gruppo al lavoro a Praga (dove RFE/RL ha sede) affiancato da un ufficio a Mosca e da una rete di giornalisti freelance presenti in tutte le 11 zone di fuso orario del Paese. Lamenta comunque la perdita di una ventina delle emittenti “affiliate”, la maggior parte “a causa di pressioni politiche”. Inspiegabilmente, perché – afferma Gedmin – non facciamo propaganda, né programmazione antirussa: al contrario, “I colleghi del nostro servizio russo sono patrioti”. Nella vicina Estonia, poi, l’attuale Presidente Tom Ilves è un ex giornalista della radio.
Per quanto riguarda i Balcani, il Congresso può essere certo che RFE/RL aiuterà i leader ed i cittadini di Bosnia, Croazia, Serbia, Macedonia.. a procurarsi quelle “notizie ed analisi affidabili necessarie per prendere decisioni informate circa le loro vite ed il futuro”.
Spostandosi più ad oriente, nel Caucaso ed Asia centrale, vanno stigmatizzate le “tendenze illiberali” in Russia che hanno effetto anche nei Paesi confinanti. Su RFE/RL si può comunque contare, “noi rimaniamo in corsa, anche quando gli altri perdono fiducia”.
In Afghanistan, la sezione radio locale (conosciuta come Radio Azadi, con trasmissioni nelle lingue dari e pashtun) ormai raggiunge quasi il 50% della popolazione adulta con le sue “solide analisi sulla lotta contro le risorgenti forze talebane”. In Iran, anche per colpa del governo che interferisce con il segnale radio e blocca il sito web, l’audience di RFE/RL è minore.
Le ultime parole di Gedmin sono dedicate alla nuova sede della radio, una struttura a sei piani di quasi 21.000 mq provvista di studi di registrazione multimediali ed una moderna sala stampa. “L’edificio è efficiente dal punto di vista energetico. Cosa più importante, è sicuro”.
Tanto che qualcuno l’ha paragonato ad un carcere di massima sicurezza.

Secondo testimone dell’audizione Dan Austin che, prima di diventare direttore di Voice Of America nel 2006, ha trascorso 36 anni alle dipendenze di Dow Jones & Company. Egli ha lavorato anche per il Wall Street Journal, arrivando a ricoprire le cariche di vice presidente e direttore generale. Non prima di essere stato pluridecorato veterano di guerra nell’esercito statunitense impegnato in Vietnam.
A differenza di Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America diffonde le proprie trasmissioni sia per radio che per televisione ed attualmente è la più grande emittente USA a livello internazionale. Si stima che ogni settimana 134 milioni di persone nel mondo siano raggiunti dai suoi programmi, diffusi in 45 lingue diverse. 69 di questi 134 milioni sono spettatori delle trasmissioni televisive diffuse via satellite in 25 lingue.
Ovviamente, non è dato pensare che “ad ognuno di questi 134 milioni di persone piacciano l’America o le politiche americane”. In ogni caso, abbiamo “una credibilità presso le nostre audience che permette loro di farsi spazio nel chiasso di una penetrante propaganda ed attraverso la nebbia della cattiva e falsa informazione che oggi giorno caratterizza così tanti media mondiali”.
VOA può vantare 1.300 dipendenti e centinaia di corrispondenti occasionali e contrattisti in tutto il mondo, il cui lavoro costituisce la base delle sue 1.500 ore di programmazione settimanale.
In Kosovo, ad esempio, ben il 64% della popolazione adulta assiste alle trasmissioni radiotelevisive diffuse a partire dall’Albania. In Russia, causa “stretto controllo governativo”, VOA è organizzata come programma multimediale a partire dalla rete telematica, con una media di 60.000 visite mensili al proprio canale YouTube dedicato. Sono 4,75 milioni settimanalmente gli spettatori in Ucraina, mentre in Armenia ad assistere quotidianamente ai programmi tv di VOA è il 46% della popolazione adulta.
In Azerbaigian, dall’inizio del 2009 è in vigore un divieto di trasmissione che ha spinto i responsabili di VOA a diffondere i programmi radio in onde corte e quelli televisivi via satellite. Anche in Uzbekistan tira cattiva aria, tanto che la programmazione televisiva in lingua locale – l’unica prodotta da un emittente internazionale – è trasmessa da una stazione in Kirghizistan. La signora Rebiye Kadeer, leader esiliata della minoranza Uiguri in Cina, ha pubblicamente ringraziato VOA “quale fonte di informazione dalla quale tutti noi Uiguri dipendiamo”.

I bilanci annuali di RFE/RL e VOA ammontano, rispettivamente, a 90 e 201 milioni di dollari. “Noi crediamo che, dollaro per dollaro, siamo uno dei migliori investimenti che i contribuenti americani possano fare” dice Jeff Gedmin.
L’America sarà anche messianica – come sostiene, fra gli altri, Aymeric Chauprade – ma i suoi ideali coincidono con i suoi interessi.
E proprio “lì sta il motore della sua intima proiezione di potenza”.

Link para ver o filme

Link para o site oficial do filme

A dupla arrojada: Andy Bichlbaum e Mike Bonanno, fazendo-se passar por alter-egos da indústria e mundo corporativo, expõem as pessoas que lucram com o furacão Katrina, as caras por detrás do desastre ambiental de Bhopal e outros eventos chocantes.

Corporações/Organizações mencionadas:

Dow Chemical/Union Carbide, AIG, Exxon Mobil, AEI (American Enterprise Institute), CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), The Center for Homeland & Global Security

Algumas pérolas ditas neste filme:

“Nós estávamos confusos! Quando éramos crianças, aprendemos que fazer algo mau, dava castigo. E se fizéssemos algo bom, éramos recompensados. No entanto, quando nós anunciámos que a DOW iria fazer algo bom, o mercado deu à DOW umas valentes palmadas no rabo. Assim sendo, como poderemos fazer com que as corporações façam o que está certo? Precisamos de duas coisas: governo e regulamentação. O problema é que as corporações estavam a beber o refresco do mercado livre de Milton Friedman” – os The Yes Men

“O aquecimento global é ridículo, não é um assunto sério. CO2, eles chamam-lhe poluição, nós chamamos-lhe vida” -CEI (financiado pela Exxon)

“O que produziu todo este progresso que vemos? Foi interesse próprio, ou ganância se preferirem. Para produzir algo com que se possa ganhar um dólar.” – Milton Friedman

“Apenas uma crise, real ou percepcionada, produz verdadeira mudança” – Milton Friedman

“Quando o governo fez o que estava certo (os Yes Men fizeram-se passar pelo governo), as corporações também fazem o que está certo, mesmo que lhes custasse algum dinheiro” – os The Yes Men

Dou a este filme 9 em 10 esqueletos de ouro!

The National Journal is not everyone’s cup of tea, but this article nonetheless makes compelling reading. Remember the uproar a few years ago, when Harvard’s then-president found himself in hot water over remarks about whether men and women were equally able in the STEM fields? The debate is back. Here, columnist Stuart Taylor reviews a new book by Christina Hoff Sommers (also not everyone’s cup of tea, from the American Enterprise Institute). It’s called The Science on Women in Science, and in it she’s collected essays on the topic. Here’s an interesting outtake from the review:

Other authors cite evidence that the tiny pool of people capable of genius-level work in math, engineering, or physics is disproportionately male. Various studies show boys consistently claiming an overwhelming share of the very highest SAT math scores. And Harvard’s toughest math course has been almost all male since 1990.

Sommer’s own perspective is clear, at least to Taylor:

These [pieces claiming that the playing field is now more-or-less level - my summary] include an essay by Sommers warning that federal intervention may do more harm than good by pushing girls and women where they don’t want to go, holding boys and men back, and thus degrading the quality of American science. “The evidence of gender bias in math and science is weak at best, and the evidence that women are relatively disinclined to pursue those fields at the highest levels is serious,” she writes.

Taylor’s take on all this is relatively measured, compared to Men’s News Daily blogger Robert Franklin:

Where’s the proof that colleges and universities across the country are violating state and federal statutes forbidding discrimination based on sex?  And where is the evidence that this pervasive discrimination occurs in S.T.E.M. departments but somehow in no others?  Someone show me a single shred. Of course there’s not one.  And that’s not just my opinion, it’s the clear finding of not one but two separate studies that have come out within the last six months, both of which I’ve blogged about here and here.

The first was a study by a group of researchers at Cornell led by Dr. Stephen Ceci; the second was done for a congressional committee.  Both were studies into hiring and promotion in S.T.E.M. academic employment.  Both found an entire lack of discrimination against women.  Both found that men and women were hired equally, paid equally and promoted equally.  Both found that the only difference between the sexes came when women dropped out to attend to the requirements of childcare while men stayed on the job.  That resulted in greater advancement, hirer earnings and greater seniority in the long run for men.

If you’d like to read the studies he cites, they’re here and here. I’m not sure these studies back up Franklin’s viewpoint quite as compellingly as he claims, though – in the article in the first link, the researchers looked at 400 previous studies. Some of them do find that there is a “problem” with gender equity in STEM outside of women’s personal choices – the point of the work was to try to bring together the studies in some kind of coherent framework, and they conclude somewhat cautiously that women’s decisions about how they pursue family responsibilities are the most significant cause of the differences in representation in STEM fields.  In the second, which is a National Academies of Science study still to be published later this year, the authors do discount some of the more alarmist claims of gender bias, but also take care to say in their conclusion that

“the data should not be mistakenly interpreted as indicating that that men and women faculty in math, science, and engineering have reached full equality and representation, and we caution against premature complacency.”

In any case, it looks like we’re entering a new season of battling research studies on gender in STEM. Let the games begin!

[Updated: Education Week's having an online chat on this topic next week; the panel includes Stephen Ceci who's called out above. More here.]

[photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons]

When President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill last February, the administration projected that the bill would create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year, in part by quickly implementing “shovel-ready” infrastructure and energy projects. Unfortunately, the job market has thus far deteriorated further than economists had projected and proponents of the stimulus bill are now scrambling for explanations. But new data on the stimulus bill makes clear that many supposedly shovel-ready projects are still tied up in administrative red tape.

The administration recently announced that stimulus spending totaled $113 billion by the end of fiscal 2009 (which ended September 30). While this top-line number was consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected when the bill passed, the composition of spending differs significantly from the original estimates. Transfer payments to states and individuals for unemployment insurance and education have far exceeded initial projections, while spending for construction and infrastructure projects, designed to fuel job creation, is far below the original plan. A closer look at the implementation of the stimulus bill reveals why it is not surprising that the bill has failed to meet its objective of stimulating the economy.

The Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, and Transportation have spent less than 10 percent of their stimulus funds, far less than what was originally anticipated.

Federal departments and agencies tasked with spending money on infrastructure and construction have overwhelmingly failed to get the money out the door. The Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, and Transportation have spent less than 10 percent of their stimulus funds, far less than what was originally anticipated. In the case of the Department of Energy, the stimulus bill provided $38.7 billion to promote energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources, yet only $779 million, or 2 percent, of the money was spent by September 30, less than half of what was expected. The Department of Transportation, with its particular emphasis on shovel-ready projects, spent 8 percent of its stimulus funds—only three-fourths of what it was expected to have spent thus far. Other agencies have done far worse—National Institutes for Health and the National Science Foundation spent only 1 percent of their stimulus funds in the first seven months. At that rate, those agencies would take 58 years to exhaust their stimulus money.

Why is the money for these projects being spent so slowly? Spending on infrastructure and construction takes time because states must identify appropriate projects and then ensure that those projects meet all laws and requirements, including any required environmental impact studies prior to obligating funds. Once the money is committed, the state generally must select a contractor through a competitive bidding process before work can commence. This process can take years. The CBO, for example, originally estimated that some of the money provided for infrastructure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would not be spent until 2019.

The CBO originally estimated that some of the money provided in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for infrastructure would not be spent until 2019.

Meanwhile, spending for transfer programs, especially for unemployment insurance benefits, and new and existing federal education spending, is proceeding much faster than anticipated. States received $6.5 billion more than CBO estimated for education through the Department of Education’s new State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Spending for student financial assistance at the Department of Education also outstripped CBO’s original estimate by about the same amount. Altogether, the Department of Education spent $20.6 billion by the end of fiscal 2009, $11.7 billion more than anticipated. The Department of Labor spent $27.5 billion, an amount that exceeded CBO’s original estimate by nearly $10 billion, because total unemployment benefits were substantially more than expected. The Department of Health and Human Services was the biggest spender by department, with nearly $33 billion in outlays, nearly all of it federal payments to the states to operate Medicaid, about the same amount as originally forecast.

With a promise to restart the economy by providing needed demand in a faltering economy, Congress delivered the stimulus bill to the president’s desk less than a month after his inauguration, a legislatively impressive feat. Unfortunately, as the hard evidence about the bill starts to accumulate, it is clear that the legislation has done little thus far to help get workers back to work. Looking forward with a goal of creating jobs, lawmakers need to reexamine the stimulus bill and ask if there is any reason to hope that it will perform better in the year ahead. With the federal deficit exploding, Congress needs to either find a way for the stimulus bill to create real economic results quickly and efficiently or maybe just pull the plug.

Alex Brill is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was formerly chief economist and senior advisor to the House Ways and Means Committee. Rachel Forward has worked for the Congressional Budget Office, Senate Budget Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Apparently I’m not the only one who believes President Obama is dragging his feet in Afghanastan.  Click on the link to the transcript of Cheney’s speech today for the American Enterprise Institute. Full transcript: Dick Cheney\’s speech to the American Enterprise Institute

Sally Satel of the American Enterprise Institute gives her case of paying organ donors.

Christian Rocca ci riferisce dell’arruolamento di Isaac Asimov ed Hari Seldon  tra i consulenti (postumi) della Casa Bianca. In “La fine del mondo a Washington”  ci racconta di come la Casa Bianca stia studiando un serissimo rapporto sulla “continuità della presidenza” preparato dai due principali centri studi di Washington: il conservatore American Enterprise Institute e la liberal Brookings Institution. Il rapporto spiega che cosa potrebbe succedere alla catena di comando americana in caso di attacco al cuore politico dello Stato e prova a suggerire al Congresso soluzioni legislative per affrontare l’inevitabile assenza di leadership e la confusione che ne seguirebbero.

Chi non ricordasse chi sia Hari Seldon potrà trovare notizie diffuse qui.

Hari Seldon, primo e più grande psicostoriografo dell’Impero Galattico, utilizzando complesse equazioni matematiche da lui inventate e raccolte in una scienza definita “psicostoriografia” (o “psicostoria” a seconda della traduzione), arriva alla conclusione che l’Impero Galattico sta decadendo e che prima della ricostituzione di un nuovo ordinamento galattico che possa assicurare pace e tranquillità, dovranno passare 30.000 anni di anarchia e barbarie. Nel tentativo di ridurre questo periodo di caos ad appena mille anni, Seldon, che nel frattempo ha acquistato potere e popolarità nella capitale dell’Impero, utilizzando la psicostoriografia spinge gli eventi per inviare su Terminus, pianeta nella periferia della galassia, una comunità di scienziati, che ufficialmente avranno l’incarico di creare una Enciclopedia Galattica, monumentale opera che dovrà mantenere intatto il sapere tecnologico e scientifico per le generazioni a venire; in realtà questa fondazione di scienziati, che si troverà a dover superare una serie di Crisi Seldon, ovvero momenti di crisi previste anni o addirittura secoli prima da Hari Seldon grazie alla psicostoriografia, è destinata secondo il “piano Seldon” a diventare il nucleo del nuovo Impero Galattico che dovrebbe sorgere nell’arco dei mille anni successivi.

I received email from a friend, Jesse, asking whether I felt safer before or since the election of Barrack Obama.  He also sent me a copy of a speech given by former Vice President Dick Cheney to the American Enterprise Institute, which I read.  I attach a link below to the speech below and I recommend it as a read for all.

Let’s start with what President Bush and Vice President Cheney encountered shortly after their election.  9/11, in which over 2,000 Americans died, was the worst act of foreign aggression ever carried out on American soil.  Just as significant, this was not an individual act against the United States but was a culmination of a series of attacks by Islamic Fundamentalist.  First, there was the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center.  Then there was the bombing of the US facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995.  Next was the attack on the Khobar Towers in 1996 that killed US servicemen.  This was followed by the attack on the East African embassy in 1998 and finally the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000.

While President Obama will not call this a war, the above represents one, in my humble opinion.  Given the terrorists attacks against America from 1993 through 2001, President Bush and Cheney took the offensive and the political risks involved with their decisive approach.  There tactics were not all correct or successful, but that Administration deserve credit since there were no further attacks in America during the Bush presidency.  The alternative is to view this fact as an unbelievable streak of luck, which I do not see as a credible answer.

President Obama’s first nine months in office have raised concerns relating to his foreign policy.  He promised to negotiate with all without conditions and has apologized for American history on various occasions.  As a result of this diplomatic approach, the North Koreans have became more belligerent and set off another nuclear explosion.  Iran is no less belligerent to United States and has used force to stifle dissent in its country.  Most recently, President Obama has canceled the antimissile system to be placed in Eastern Europe designed to protect against Iranian missiles.  President Obama’s actions seem to mimic the appeasement strategy that Europe used so unsuccessfully prior to World War II.

So Jesse, to answer your question, I felt safer on foreign policy front under the Bush. Administration.  That’s a no-brainer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei

I have faith, in things I can see and buy and deregulate. Capitalism is my religion.

- Jack Donaghy

The above quote is from the Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winning television series 30 Rock. The character, Jack Donaghy, is an extremely wealthy and powerful executive of the GE Corporation, and an avowed capitalist. The show portrays his free market beliefs as antithetical to faith and, even moreso, religion.  Here is part of a letter from Ayn Rand to Barry Goldwater, written in 1960:

The Communists claim that they are the champions of reason and science. If the Conservatives concede that claim and retreat into the realm of religion, it will be an act of intellectual abdication, the kind of intellectual surrender that the Communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits.

The conflict between Capitalism and Communism is a philosophical and moral conflict, which must be fought and won in men’s minds, in the realm of ideas; without that victory, no victory in the political realm is possible. But one cannot win men’s minds by telling them not to think; one cannot win an intellectual battle by renouncing the intellect; one cannot convince anybody by appealing to faith.

Capitalism is perishing by default. The historical cause of its destruction is the failure of its philosophical advocates to present a full, consistent case and to offer a moral justification for their stand. Yet reason is on the side of Capitalism; an irrefutable rational case can be, and must be, offered by its defenders. The philosophical default of the Conservatives will become final, if Capitalism—the one and only rational way of life—is reduced to the status of a mystic doctrine.

I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Granted, some of this letter is dated. Capitalism (a necessary component of freedom) is no longer at war with communism, per se. Individual rights now faces the much broader threat of collectivism. However, most of what Rand said still rings true today. The collectivists largely control academia, so they have been able to convince many that “progress” and “reason” are on their side. While conservatives (those mediocre champions of individual rights) frequently take up causes backed only by a subjective morality, or faith. For all the reasons stated in the letter above, this approach will lead to the victory of the collective over the individual.

It has been made clear by brilliant individuals (Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek) that free market capitalism is the political system that is consonant with man’s nature and the system that is supported by reason. But it is often asked whether or not a person of faith can also be a supporter of the free market. As both a Christian and an ardent proponent of capitalism, I believe that capitalism and faith are absolutely compatible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that free market capitalism is the only system compatible with the Christian religion. If one holds man to be created in the image of God, then it must follow that the individual is the highest object in the temporal realm. It is at this point that the atheist, agnostic, and deist alike come to the same conclusion: man is supreme on this earth. Any system of government must therefore be centered around man. As man’s nature is that of an individual and not as a collective, any system of government must be centered around the individual. As free market capitalism is the only political system built around individual rights, it is the only moral political system.

Let me be clear, I completely agree with Ayn Rand that capitalism can and should be argued by reason, not faith. However, many people of faith seem to believe that capitalism, because it requires at least a degree of selfishness, is incompatible with their religion. I would remind those readers that capitalism does not prohibit sacrifice in any way. The important point is that it does not enforce it. A collectivist society forces selflessness on its members, at which point sacrifice is no longer moral because it was not done by choice. Capitalism, on the other hand, leaves every individual free to pursue their own goals – allowing disparate beliefs to thrive without the violation of individual rights.

Side note: for anyone interested the American Enterprise Institute is holding an event on faith and capitalism called “Can Christians Be Capitalists?” on September 30th in Washington, D.C.

SPIN METER: $2 trillion in health savings? Where?
Article: Breitbart

It was a watershed moment in the health care struggle: Leaders of the insurance, hospital and other medical industries stood with President Barack Obama at the White House and promised steps to save $2 trillion over the next decade.

Whatever happened to those savings, announced with much fanfare well before Congress had written any of the costly health overhaul bills now in play? Industry groups say they’re a work in progress. Many health analysts say they’re largely speculative.

“We should have cashed the check in May,” said Joe Antos, a health expert for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Those numbers never had any great significance then and there’s little now.”

The White House event on May 11 clearly had political significance. It was an early sign that the same interest groups that helped derail President Bill Clinton’s drive to reshape the nation’s health system in the early 1990s were willing to give it a go this year. That helped create momentum for Obama’s effort.

“The value is it showed the interest groups were trying to be at the table this time,” said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan group that studies health issues.

The promised savings, however, are a different matter.

For starters, the $2 trillion in reduced costs for care, administrative work and other medical expenses were supposed to be savings for the entire economy, not just the government.


That means that even if the savings were realized, much of it—no one knows exactly how much—would not be available to help Congress pay for its health overhaul bills. Those measures have ranged from an $856 billion bill by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to House Democrats’ $1.5 trillion version, both covering 10 years.

So far, the pharmaceutical and hospital industries have agreed to cuts that would total $235 billion in 10-year savings for the government. That’s a fraction of both the cost of health legislation and the $2 trillion in promised reductions.

“Insurance companies, drug companies are going to have to be ponying up,” Obama said Sunday on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation,” without specifying any amounts.

Health care executives say their effort to produce the savings is real and ongoing. They say they continue to talk, within the industry and with government officials, about initiatives to produce the money. Some would require federal approval, while providers could adopt others on their own.

“We’re committed to getting rid of unnecessary costs,” Dr. J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, said in an interview.

Industry officials also cite a 28-page letter they sent Obama in June, following up on their May announcement, that described steps they were advocating.

In it, drug makers proposed improvements in assuring patients follow doctors’ orders on taking prescriptions. Insurers wanted to streamline administrative work such as submitting claims, while the AMA said it has begun studying ways to reduce unneeded medical procedures.

The American Hospital Association said it was seeking ways to reduce hospital infections, while medical device manufacturers said they are looking for ways to reduce medical errors. Another participant—the Service Employees International Union, representing hospital and other health care workers—suggested savings through moving more patients from nursing facilities to their homes.

“We’ve been working with members of Congress to honor our commitment,” said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry trade group.

Analysts, though, say there are no assurances the proposals will become reality. The plans lack detail, could take years to perfect and implement, and in some cases could be resisted by practitioners inside and outside the medical profession who don’t want to lose money, they say.

The AMA, for example, says money could be saved by forgoing unneeded procedures if doctors could be protected from malpractice lawsuits as long as they followed specified treatments. Trial lawyers are vehemently against limits on such suits, however, and it is unclear what Congress will do when these two well-funded lobbies clash.

Experts also cite the uncertainty of measuring how much money the proposals would save because it would be hard to calculate what medical spending would have been without them. In addition, it would be difficult to enforce the new rules. A medical company, for example, might lose income in one area but raise prices in another to earn the money back.

Robert Reischauer, a former head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and now president of the Urban Institute, put it this way: “There’s no way they could make it a number you could write down on a deposit slip for a bank.”

   Irving Kristol published his most comprehensive and influential writings on politics and economics in his book “Neoconservatism”. It consisted of some of his greatest essays on religion, society education, culture, literature and most of all, values that have come to define neoconservative assessments of modern day politics.

The book and its articulation of the cause set the stage for the neoconservative movement which provided the intellectual foundation for the resurgence of American conservatism in our time. So much so that it can be said that Irving Kristol is its architect and paternal nurturer.

Kristol was educated in the radical socialism of the 1930’s but grew disillusioned with its process and thinking and eventually became an ideological proponent of the Soviet Union and in time as an active editor, publisher and writer, he helped move a generation of intellectuals to the conservative cause.

In an August 20, 2003 in a commentary for the regularly published collections of opinion that came from the American Enterprise Institute, where Kristol was a John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow, he wrote an article entitled “The Neoconservative Persuasion,” and in it he stated

“that the United States, for better or worse, is the most powerful country in the world and that it will either “find opportunities to use it or the world will discover them for it.”

He wrote: ” Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial … The older, traditional elements in the Republican Party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.”

Today those on the left try to create their own definition of neo-conservatism. They try to create a derogatory and often false description of conservatives that is as negative as the contemporary impression of liberalism and the label of being a liberal.  But in truth, neo-conservatism, both the word and its meaning, have been abused by both liberals and even conservatives. As indicated in Irving Kristol’s remarks of August, 2003, true neo-conservatives understand the responsibilities, both moral and strategic, that come with the leadership role that, like it or not, we as, as the most powerful and influential nation in the world have. This was his understanding and it is one that should not be casually written off.

Kristol was born on January 20, 1920 to Orthodox Jewish immigrants from the Ukraine. He later attended the City College of New York where he studied history and received his B.A..

20 years later he graduated from the City College of New York with a B.A.. He majored in history and had views that made him a Trotskyist.

Than in WWII he became a combat infantryman and fought in the 12^th Armored Division, Upon returning home, his evolution to conservatism began and in 1942 he met and married Gertrude Himmelfarb, who later became a renowned historian. Later they had two children Elizabeth and William, who is best known as Bill, Bill Kristol a man who in his own right, advances the conservative cause and is best know as the editor of the Weekly Standard fame.

On this day, September 18, 2009 at the age of 89, Irving Crystal left us. But as his physical presence left us, his philosophical and ideological genius left us with the perpetuity of an ideological foundation that, if implemented properly, as they relate to the future that unfolds, can keep us safe, strong and prosperous.