What is soft power?

THIS is soft power. From President Elect Obama's victory speech:

To those who would tear the world down, we will defeat you.

To those who seek peace and security, we support you.

And to all of those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright. Tonight we have proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms, or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

Many of us are still rightly concerned about the "war on terror". The more observant of us might have noticed a few things about the war in Afghanistan. We cannot win that conflict with only military power. It cannot be won even with military power coupled with economic power.

The war in Afghanistan, and the wider war on terror, is a war of ideas. What side can best persuade the people of the world to join their cause? This is what George Bush always failed to understand. It is what General Petraeus, the architect of the surge in Iraq, always did understand. You have to get the people on your side. The policies of George Bush: preemptive war, unilateralism, arrogance, belligerence, and torture, only yielded short term gain at a long-term loss.

Obama is a much needed clean break from the policies of Bush: unity. He preaches it. He acts it. He literally embodies it. He is a descendant of both Christian and Muslim, black and white. The soft power of the United States has literally gone up by orders of magnitude just now.

It, of course, remains to be seen if Obama is indeed crafty enough to capitalize on this resurgence of American soft power. To bring the war in Iraq to a swift and stable close. To bring some peace to Afghanistan. Resolve Darfur, strengthen international institutions. The world is desperate for physical and moral leadership right now, and only the United States can fill that role today. President Obama will make it happen.

McCain's concession speech

Thats the McCain I know. I always knew he was still down there. If only he had defeated George Bush in 2000. I look forward to seeing him on the Daily Show again soon =).

Independents in Indiana

Supporting Obama over McCain by almost 20%.

This is striking when you stop to consider McCain's prominence was largely based on his appeal to moderates and independents like myself.

John McCain betrayed independents when he picked Sarah Palin as his VP, and they will bury him for it.

I still don't get it. McCain secures the GOP nomination and THEN moves to the right. It makes no sense. He ceded the entire middle of the political spectrum to Obama. Did he deliberately throw this election?

My last appeal: vote for Obama.

A year and a half ago I predicted that Obama would defeat McCain. At the time I had enormous respect for both men, and to some extent I still do. Yet events over the last few months have made it quite clear to me that Barack Obama is the superior candidate. First, here are three pieces written by conservatives who are supporting Barack Obama.

1. In February, I wrote my Conservative Case for Barack Obama. It is one of my favorite pieces, and everything still applies.

2. Andrew Sullivan's Top Ten Reasons why conservatives should vote Obama. A conservative Catholic British-American, Andrew's blog is one of my favorites.

3. The Economist newspaper finally endorsed Barack Obama. Coming from a right-of-center newspaper with 150 years of support for free trade, that is a powerful statement.

Since my "Conservative Case for Obama" was written in February, it is missing commentary on two important developments that have occurred since then. Obviously, the most important is the financial crisis. My views on economics are more conservative, thus John McCain should easily be able to draw my support on this issue. Unfortunately, he does not.

His first response to the financial crisis was to rashly call for the firing of Hank Paulson. He then suspended his campaign to fly to Washington DC to "help" with the bailout plan (with what expertise, I wonder?). He constantly accuses Obama of socialism - a curious accusation to make, considering we just nationalized all of the banks with McCain's support.

Meanwhile, Obama has had a steady hand and has been surrounding himself with very intelligent advisers. I for one don't believe his populist economic rhetoric; I suspect he is going to have economic policies similar to those of Clinton. Further bolstering Obama is this impressive survey by The Economist. Even controlling for party affiliation, the professionals overwhelmingly supported Obama's economic policies. Obama's principled stance against McCain's stupid idea of a gas-tax repeal earlier this summer also scored him a point.

The end game is that I am not overly impressed with either candidate on economic matters. Obama seems to have a better grasp on things, but I reflexively disagree with any left-wing economic policies, especially in this time of crisis. McCain has been a consistent supporter of free trade and cutting government waste, which I would support. However, his erratic and inconsistent behavior has made me question how he would handle things as president. To get a feel for how bad it really is, consider watching this video where Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto rips McCain a new one for his handling of economic issues.

McCain could have put people like me at ease with the selection of someone like Mitt Romney as vice president. Indeed, a McCain/Romney moderate pro-business ticket would be a very tempting alternative to Obama's populism. Alas, McCain took the low road and selected the most embarrassingly unqualified person to be VP that I could ever imagine. She is George Bush in a woman's body. Boastfully ignorant, hyper-religious, anti-science, and condescending to those who are curious about the world. One of McCain's own staffers was quoted as describing Palin as a whack job. The most important decision McCain had to make up till now was his VP selection, and in that decision he failed on an epic scale.

A month after her pick, I cannot emphasize enough how much I am turned off by Sarah Palin. However, anyone who thinks I am being unfair, reflexively using her as a reason to support Obama is dead wrong. My first reaction to the pick was excitement and support. Its obvious from that post that McCain had room to sweep me (and presumably other centrists) away from Obama. Instead, he threw us moderates under the bus to appease the far right. That decision probably cost him the presidency.

If I haven't been convincing enough, here is a final point. There is one outcome of an Obama defeat in 2008 that we can be sure of. Hillary 2012.

There you have it. We have two good choices, but in the home stretch one of them clearly pulled ahead while the other fell behind. McCain has had a good career and I wish he would have defeated Bush in 2000. Things would be different if McCain had been in charge for the last eight years. Alas, the McCain of 2000 is gone and is not coming back. There is only one real choice. Barack Obama for President in 2008.

This resonates with me

The other day, Sarah Palin mocked scientific research involving fruit flies. My undergraduate research, which had implications for cancer in humans, was based on a fruit-fly model. I suppose we can't really fault Palin for not knowing all of this (ignoring the fact that fruit flies are a common tool in even high school biology classrooms). We can fault her arrogance, though. It always makes sense, if one is to be discussing a subject with such contempt, to make sure said person knows what they are talking about. Otherwise they will be made to look quite the fool.

At any rate, here is a scathing piece on Palin's larger theme of anti-intellectualism and anti-science. A fantastic quote:

"This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity."

I would like to reiterate something of my own. I believe there is indeed some wickedness at work here. There is this sort of pseudo-debate about whether or not evolution is real. First of all, for you Catholics out there, this is a non-issue. The Vatican officially supports evolutionary theory. For other Christian sects, people are wrong if they assume they are forced to make a choice between evolution and belief in God. The two are quite compatible. I'll post on exactly why at a later date.

The crux of the issue comes down to this. I don't personally care whether an individual believes in evolution or not. On the surface, it can sound like a pretty outrageous proposition and without actually having studied it, its easy to have some skepticism. That being said, people in this country have this deep aversion to evolutionary theory because there is a group of people that keep pushing the message that evolution is anti-God and contradicts the bible. It is my belief that the people that do this are evil, manipulative, and are doing it because they know that sewing the seeds of (false) controversy creates an intellectual vacuum that they subsequently fill. Its all about influence and power, and denying evolution is the way these particular men achieve theirs.

At any rate, some will not be convinced; fine. Next time such a person is in the hospital, they should be sure they only accept penicillin for their staph infections. Evolution being false, strains of staph couldn't possibly have evolved resistance to methicillin. Thus these people certainly wouldn't need special antibiotics that can kill MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus), right?

Replace the word "Hindu" with "Muslim"

and I bet this article would be getting a lot more attention. Anyone disagree with that?

Victory or defeat

I saw this excerpt over on Andrew Sullivan's blog and wanted to repost it here:
-------------
On 9/11, Al Qaeda had no expectation of a traditional military victory against the United States. The point of the attack was economic -- to draw the U.S. into expensive and protracted foreign wars that would deplete our resources and destabilize our government. By invading Iraq, George Bush became the happy idiot to assist Al Qaeda in this goal. Now, Sarah Palin and John McCain take the leaders of Al Qaeda at their word when they say Iraq is the major front in the war on terror.

Neither consider the possibility that Al Qaeda wants Iraq to be the major front because it furthers their goal of weakening the U.S. while inflicting minimal damage on their operations.

Seven years after 9/11, we are seeing Al Qaeda's long-term goal being realized: the destabilization and economic collapse of the United States. Even as it's happening, the people who supported it all along want to continue facilitating our own long-term disintegration by clinging to simplistic concepts of traditional military victory and defeat. In this sense, they are possibly the most myopic, least strategic thinkers in the history of this nation.

As Gary Shandling said, with this approach, our only hope of killing Osama Bin Laden is that he'll laugh himself to death.
----------------

It is mind boggling how strategically stupid it was to invade Iraq, for so many reasons, the least of which is economic. Meanwhile, the powers that be have no long-term plan for Afghanistan, and are lacking strategic insight there, too. Our problem in Afghanistan is that there are millions of recruits in neighboring Pakistan that are all too willing to cross the border to fight the Americans. The only way you can slow that down is to improve the image of America. Bombing targets in Pakistan and killing civilians is a pretty bad way to do that.

the VP debate

The only question that matters is this: do you think that your VP pick is ready to lead the United States, and the world, starting in January of 2009?

I don't know how anyone voting Republican can give an honest "yes" to that question.

Over the last two weeks I have seen much that would make me question the depth of Sarah Palin's knowledge regarding crucial issues. Her performance in this "debate" did nothing to dispel my skepticism, and therefore she failed. She managed to not embarrass herself, I'll give her that. Maybe we should be setting the bar a bit higher.

Have you ever seen someone in a terrible relationship?

One of those unhealthy, disastrous relationships that so many people fall into. Everyone knows that the relationship should end. Many friends will even tell the person as much. In response, the person may become angry or defensive. Ultimately, though, you hope the person will end the relationship before it is too destructive. Then, years later, the person will look back and say to their friends, "I wish I would have listened to you sooner!"

This kind of thing is going on right now, on an international scale; the world is telling us who to elect for President in 2008. I know, I know, Americans are the ones who get to vote, and not foreigners. Its our country, we should be able to do what we want...I get it. Still, check out this interactive map on Economist.com: What if the US Election were held worldwide? The rules are the same: nations are given electoral votes based on population, and it is winner-take-all. Right now, the tally of world electoral votes is, Barack Obama - 8,202; John McCain - 8. The margin of Obama's lead in most nations is something like 85% to 15%.

The Economist reader base is well educated, so this is a sample of some of the most informed people around the world. Furthermore, it is a right-of-center newspaper; one would almost expect a McCain bias among readers. Certainly, the Economist has displayed such a bias on its own over the last couple of years. Maybe we should take our international friends' advice, just this once. They seem awfully sure about it this time around.

P.S. There is one nation in the entire world that is leaning to McCain right now. Did you spot it? It is, ironically, Macedonia (ironic because Macedonia is one of my ancestral nations). Makes perfect sense, too. Macedonians want McCain to win, because then McCain starts war with Iran. And, as we all know, the Macedonians' favorite past time is conquering Persia.

A simple graphic explains why I am the man.

This is how one goes about making money on Intrade - spotting trends before they happen. I correctly predicted (4-5 days before the markets responded) that McCain's VP pick was a game changer. I unloaded all of my Obama stock on Aug 29.

Meanwhile, my prediction about the general election is unchanged since February. That is, the only way McCain stands a chance is if the economy is booming and Iraq is pacified. Once the financial crisis hit on September 16, everyone knew Obama's numbers would go up.

I sold all of my Obama stock at 61.6 tonight because I think thats pretty close to the natural equilibrium value. It won't go much higher or lower (max of 70, min of 55) unless something crazy happens between now and then. I'm interested to see how Palin performs in the VP debate on Thursday, or if Biden says something really stupid. Alternatively, many of the state electoral vote races are VERY close right now. The trades below represent the most hotly contested states right now. The numbers below represent the probability that the corresponding state goes for Obama. Obviously, subtract that number from 100 if you want to find the probability that the state goes for McCain. Look how close Indiana is!

Trade COLORADO.DEM 66.5
Trade FLORIDA.DEM 48.5
Trade INDIANA.DEM 42.4
Trade IOWA.DEM 83.0
Trade MICHIGAN.DEM 79.1
Trade MINNESOTA.DEM 79.5
Trade MISSOURI.DEM 33.5
Trade MONTANA.DEM 15.0
Trade NEVADA.DEM 51.0
Trade NEWHAMPSHIRE.DEM 60.0
Trade NEWMEXICO.DEM 79.9
Trade NTH.CAROLINA.DEM 45.0
Trade OHIO.DEM 51.7
Trade PENNSYLVANIA.DEM 75.0
Trade VIRGINIA.DEM 57.0
Trade WISCONSIN.DEM 79.9

Playing Economist

Some reasons why I suspect that the bailout is a bad idea:

-We are giving the Bush Administration 700 billion dollars to use however they see fit. The Bush Administration. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? When has Bush ever been prudent with our money? What crisis or problem has he ever successfully managed?

-Hank Paulson will have almost zero oversight. We're going to put the future of the US Economy in the hands of one Bush appointee? This reminds me of the FEMA director Michael Brown during Katrina. I can hear Bush now. "Hankie, you're doing a helluva job."

-Where is the 700 billion dollars going to come from? The US government certainly doesn't have it. Where are we going to get it? Borrow more from the Chinese? We already owe them 1 trillion; why not make it 2? Or perhaps we could go beg King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Then he could channel the interest from our loans directly into the accounts of extremists and terrorists who are trying to take over Pakistan or are killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-What will the consequences of borrowing 700 billion dollars be? Inflation? A (further) collapse in the value of the US Dollar? If we're lucky, it will only be 15-20 years of economic stagnation, like in Japan.

Something can't come from nothing. This crisis is the result of a massive disequilibrium in the financial system trying to correct itself. A 700 billion dollar bail-out will only delay the inevitable. It allows us to avoid pain now for a lot more pain later. I wish Americans would for once not screw over future generations. We spent money we didn't have. We should pay for it. Not our children.

Simple Question:

"Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are socialized?"

One economist thinks Paulson is wrong for bailing out all of these financial institutions. I am inclined to agree.

Another conservative for Barack Obama

One can never quite read enough of these. My belief is that any conservative with foresight is supporting Obama. Such people have been demanding the heads of the current run of GOP leaders for their failures. They know that the best way to punish those leaders IS NOT to put them back in power for the next four years. It is to purge their asses from office until they get their act together.

Meanwhile, Obama has regained his lead over McCain on Intrade. Just a few days ago it was 47%-52% Obama-McCain; now its 51%-48% Obama-McCain. It will keep shifting back in Obama's favor. Historical precedent is very clear about this - economic disasters are bad for the incumbent party. It isn't helping McCain's case that he doesn't have a plan to deal with the economic crisis while Obama does. It also doesn't help McCain's case that he reportedly doesn't think the economy is in trouble, that he thinks the "rich" are people who make more than 5 million a year (making 2 million/year is middle class, I guess), or that he doesn't know how many houses he has.

The biggest thing that hurts me is to see John McCain become the very thing he stood against. He used to be a genuine maverick; he wasn't afraid to stand up to the GOP leadership or to "agents of intolerance". Now he panders to them. Instead of sticking with his centrist, independent-friendly credentials, he is sucking up to the evangelical base by picking an ignorant nobody to be his vice president. For Christ's sake, she didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" was. Has she been paying ANY attention over the last 5 years? It is absolutely outrageous. It is reckless. And the new biggest thing that annoys me is when a person tries to equate her experience with Obama's, to suggest there is no difference between Palin and Obama. It is painfully obvious that he is at least 10 times smarter than she is.

I would have been just as relentless had Obama picked such an ignoramus as a VP because there is a higher-than-usual possibility that he could be shot, whether we like to think it or not. So his VP pick was all the more important. McCain too has a higher risk of death than a typical president, due to his age and health. If I knew for sure he wouldn't die, that would be one thing. But we don't know that. And I don't want a Commander in Chief that apparently thinks going to war with Russia is not a big deal. Republican Senator Hagel seems to agree with me.

That horserace I recently spoke of

McCain on Intrade has broken 50% for the first time over the last couple of weeks. Before the Palin pick, Obama was sitting at a comfortable 62% to McCain's 38%.


The significance of this event should not be overlooked. The second graph is the probability that the Republican Party will win the presidency in 2008. Its value roughly reflects the strength of the GOP, which has diminished with Bush's disastrous polices. And as it now mirrors the McCain contract, the Republican_President contract has broken 50% for the first time in almost two years. It averaged 35% for most of that time (obviously then, the Democrats had a 65% chance of taking the White House). This confluence either represents the strength of McCain (+Palin), or the weakness of Obama; perhaps a little of both.

It is interesting to note that McCain himself didn't particularly budge the GOP's chances in November. It was the pick of Palin as VP that really caused a spike in his numbers. It makes us wonder whether or not it will be a temporary or long-term gain. Incidentally, I do believe that McCain's winning of the GOP nomination had staved off what would otherwise been a complete massacre in the 2008 election by the Democrats. Under Romney or Guliani, the GOP would be under 30% right now in my opinion.

Something else that I just read on the BBC: Obama just gained record donations for the month of August ($66 million). Recent events have made many of his supporters very nervous. As well they should be. McCain/Palin is a formidable ticket, but it is beatable.

The day that John McCain picked Palin for VP, I sold all of my Obama stock on intrade at about 62. Now that contract is worth about 47% and so I emptied my bankroll this afternoon buying it back. I still think Obama is going to win this election, and here is why:

1. I stipulated long ago that McCain only has a chance at this election if the economy doesn't tank and the war in Iraq doesn't get worse. Has anyone been watching the news from Wall Street lately? It is good news for Obama, and bad news for McCain (a self-professed economics novice). Not to mention, a majority of Economists think Obama will be better for the economy in the long run.

2. Palin-fever will wear off. November is still a long way away, and her ignorance on important issues will become very apparent in the Debates. I believe people are going to underestimate the effect of the internet on this election. You simply can't hide ignorance like hers anymore...like the GOP were able to hide Bush's in 2000. Don't get me wrong, I like the woman as a person. But people are going to be uncomfortable with a foreign policy novice taking the reins when McCain dies.

3. McCain is running a nasty campaign and it will catch up to him. Obama has stayed above it, for the most part. McCain is lying, he is being deceptive. It is Karl Rove and George Bush all over again. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

So there it is, my prediction - Obama wins. But my margin of comfort isn't more than 5%. It will be a close one, and a major gaffe by any side or a major world event could tip things either way.

Denial

It has been a while since I've seen so much of it.

All of the pro-Obama pundits have been discussing the Sarah Palin vice presidential pick with the underlying assumption that it is obviously going to blow up in McCain's face. All I've been reading for the last week is anti-Palin this, anti-Palin that. Many of these tidbits have a lot of truth to them; especially from an independent or left-wing point of view (95% of the internet). However, they don't undermine the fundamental reality that Sarah Palin has made McCain a more competitive presidential candidate.

The right is falling in love with Palin. Evangelicals are getting excited. Only a week ago, I thought Obama's own VP choice was perfect, but the situation has changed dramatically. Joe Biden is going to have to tread very, very carefully in the VP debates lest he be seen as a bully. His inability to filter what he says would have been funny against a Romney or a Guliani; it will look chauvinistic against a Palin. The last thing the Obama/Biden ticket can afford to do is lose more women to McCain.

It will be interesting to see how Obama himself responds to the Sarah Palin factor. Hopefully his response will be more effective than that of all of his intellectual backers on the internet, which has been terrible. Its time to stop wishing Palin didn't make McCain stronger, or hoping that she is going to have some disastrous secret that destroys McCain's campaign. People need to take her seriously and begin to think about how to counter her. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to wake up on a cold November day still wondering how they lost to such a "weak" ticket.

Brilliant, McCain!

John McCain's pick of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was a brilliant tactical stroke. I must say, I was caught off guard by that pick but in retrospect I shouldn't be so surprised. If McCain is anything, he is a tactician. His VP is youthful, to offset his age. She is charismatic, something he lacks to some degree. She is moderate, and helps make the GOP ticket look as such. And of course, being female, McCain just tapped into the largest disaffected group of voters in this country. At this point, all bets are off. Intrade still has Obama at 60% to win, but make no mistake - it is a horse race at this point.

My own feelings are still pro-Obama but are relatively balanced between the two candidates. On economic issues, I side with McCain and always have. On foreign policy issues, the success of the surge and the stabilization of Iraq has turned a foreign policy and humanitarian disaster into a huge benefit - if it can be maintained. Everyone should give McCain props for that. The question we need to ask ourselves is who can best win the war in Afghanistan and who can best reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I believe Obama is still that man, but certainly not by a large margin.

P.S. Republicans should be very careful what they wish for. If Obama loses this election, Hillary Clinton is a guaranteed lock for the Democratic nomination, and probably the presidency, in 2012. The GOP might wish they'd tolerated an Obama for four years when faced with the prospect of another Clinton White House for eight.

****** Addendum ******

So apparently my initial sources might have been inaccurate. Governor Palin may not be a moderate at all. Some of the things I've been reading paint her as a religious right-winger similar to Rick Santorum; teaching creationism in the schools and all of that (BARF). At any rate, my opinion still stands that it was a smart political move on McCain's part. It isn't a decision that appeals to intellectual voters, it is a decision that appeals to spiteful voters. And there are many of them, who will soon realize if they already haven't that an Obama defeat in 2008 guarantees a Hillary Clinton run in 2012.

McCain will lose some ground with independents and moderate Republicans, who were hoping for someone with a strong economic background to complement McCain's obvious weakness in that area. But the truth is, as long as Obama talks like a populist and speaks against free trade, economic-issue voters will still be in McCain's camp. Meanwhile any losses he would have had will be more than offset by the gains in evangelicals and women voters.

There are a lot of people railing that this is a bad decision for the country. Bringing in someone with little experience and putting that person "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency. They point out that it makes a mockery of McCain's campaign slogan, "Country First". I agree with this people. It is a bad decision for the country. But it is undeniably a good decision for McCain's chances of winning the election.

The US Economy is a beast!

GDP grew at 3.3%? I thought we were in a recession? 3.3% is significantly more than what would be considered "fast" growth in Western Europe.

My 2008 election prediction had Obama trouncing McCain. I did allow for a caveat, though. For McCain to have a chance, the US economy had to be strong and Iraq had to be going well. Amazingly, both seem to be a reality. I still think Obama will win, but it isn't so surprising that the polls are pretty close.

Obama's speech tonight was good, but he will have to perform well in the debates if he is going to win this thing.

Afghanistan

I've been reading "Nixon and Kissinger" this month, which naturally has a lot of discussion of the Vietnam war. Specifically, the negotiations, the conflict, and the enemy mindset and strategy. There are far more parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam than there are between Iraq and Vietnam, in my opinions.

Iraq was a nastier war from the start, but I said some time ago that I think it will resolve faster. Either we will win or we'll leave; either way, some conclusion will be met. This is more or less consistent with the past governing history of Iraq; it is used to being unified by a strong force despite all of its differences in ethnicity and religion (Turks first, then Arab strongmen like Saddam).

Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a long storied history of NOT being under the control of one dominant central authority. It also has a long storied history of refusing to become pacified by any major power, even in ancient times. More recently we look at the British, the Russians, and now the USA.

Terrain looks to be another factor. Vietnam obviously had terrain that was extremely conducive to guerrilla warfare, support from local populace or no. Now compare the two present battle-zones. Iraq is flat, with fertile river basins or desert depending on where you go. It isn't especially easy to hide from US reconnaissance aircraft in the middle of a desert. Contrast this all with Afghanistan. Just mountains and caves and nothing. And a 2000+ long mile border with Pakistan. This is probably another reason why Iraq has traditionally been more centralized while Afghanistan hasn't been. In Iraq, Saddam could just send his army to crush the dissenting ethnic groups, who had nowhere to hide. Not so in Afghanistan. Notice also that the one ethnic group that gave Saddam the most trouble - the Kurds, have a lot of mountainous terrain in their homeland.

I was also thinking that oil would contribute to a centralized power structure whereas the lack of an organized economy or lack of reliance of a central government would discourage such organization in Afghanistan. Could be a combination of all of those factors.

But the main similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam in my mind is the psyche of the enemy. There is simply no negotiation, nor is there a desire to negotiate. The Taliban simply do not care how many men they lose. Their reserves are nearly infinite. This is identical to the mindset of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists. They will continue to attack even in the face of 10:1 casualty ratios.

So this is why I said some time ago that I think Afghanistan is more of a lost cause than Iraq; I see fewer prospects for a resolution and in 5-10 years we're going to ask why we should even bother. This isn't to say that we should give up the mission, but we need to re-think our strategy if we're going to make any progress. The impetus for this post in the first place was the news today of the French corps who were ambushed, with 10 killed and some 20+ wounded. France is contributing 3000; I imagine they will be gone before the years end. The war is pretty unpopular in other NATO nations as well. I'd say we have five years max to get this things wrapped up, because thats the very longest that public opinion will tolerate this sort of thing any longer, even in the states.

As far as what strategy changes are concerned, I would emphasize that we must think in political, social, and economic terms. Military solutions aren't as effective when your enemy doesn't care at all about casualties and your side does. I mean from news reports its seems like we already have 25:1 kill/loss ratios, it simply can't get much better than that unless we have robots. So here are my ideas:

1. Political: fix Pakistan. Yea, pretty simplistic and difficult I realize. But what I mean is we need to encourage democracy and strong institutions there, even if it means an anti-American (within limits) Islamic party takes power. We need to learn to work with such a government, to coexist with it. Once Muslims realize democracy isn't incompatible w/ Islam, a big reason for the Taliban to fight the Afghani government disappears.

2. Social: elect Barack Obama. The last thing we need is another militaristic Christian crusader speaking of going to war with miscellaneous Islamic countries. We are trying to get these people to see our point of view, to work w/ us, to coexist with us. Maybe we are destined to fight a clash of civilizations. But in the meantime, if anyone can convince some of the enemy to lay down their arms, its Barack Obama. I fear that McCain will only encourage more to pick up arms against us.

3. Economic: the opium trade is forcing poor Afghani farmers to break the law and side with the Taleban in order to feed their families. We need a three pronged approach here. First, mount a massive public campaign across the world but especially in Europe to reduce opium usage (discourage demand). Maybe Barack could spearhead it? Second, we should have our pharmaceutical companies buy Afghani opium for a fair price so the farmers can make their money legally. Third, we should subsidize Afghani farmers to grow other crops.

Third year of medschool is strange. I feel that there is less pressure and it is less busy than 1st and 2nd year. And yet, I feel that I have far less time than I used to. I barely ever get to read on the net anymore, and hardly get to crack my new issues of the Economist. So I decided I'd sit down tonight and think about something other than whatever clerkship that I'm in, but unfortunately have no time for editing or revising so if it looks jumbled, thats why. Because its way past my bedtime, and I have neurological examinations to perform in the morning...

Is Larry Summers a sexist?

The answer would depend on whether or not one believes that truth trumps political correctness. I think it does. A great many people do not. For the record, I don't like those people - which is why I feel the need to post this at all.

-------------

Addendum: I don't think many people will understand the point I've made above, so allow me to clarify. I don't care whether men or women are better at math. This is only an issue because a bunch of left-wingers with an agenda read a study, misread the data (either deliberately or in ignorance), and used it to continue to make the case that Larry Summers is a sexist. When the study is analyzed correctly, and put into context with what Summers actually said, the data supports Summers, not the other way around.

I've written before of this, but the dogma of political correctness is an eternal source of friction between myself and the left. The left prides itself on intellectualism and the search for truth, but in reality group-think and stifling of dissent saturates any leftist discourse. You can't have your own opinions, you can only tow the line.

The right, on the other hand, simply lies. I almost prefer that; it's less insidious.

---------------------

Addendum number 2:

"What's interesting is not only that Larry was fundamentally right about the facts (no surprise there), but that much of the mainstream media are still reporting otherwise." -Greg Mankiw (economics professor @ Harvard, former colleague of Summers, author of my favorite econ blog)

John McCain

I just don't get it. The way someone becomes president in this nation is to pander to the base in the primary, and then move back to the middle during the general campaign. John McCain had vast appeal to independents and moderates for years because he wasn't so reflexively 'conservative' on some issues.

McCain has had the GOP nomination locked down for months. What has he been doing since then? Moving to the right, pandering to conservatives, and alienating moderates! Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been moving to the middle ground, to the relief of independents like myself who never took to his populist economic rhetoric.

Its almost like he is trying to lose the election, or he is losing his mind. I guess I'm not too concerned either way, because I obviously want Obama to win. Still, it saddens me some to see McCain go out like this. I always liked him.

P.S. Intrade has Obama 65% to McCain's 31% right now. We may be looking at a landslide. Come to terms with an Obama presidency, because its going to happen!