China Triumphant?

It cannot be said that the government of China is lacking in self-esteem. Nor can it be said that the Trolls of Beijing do not believe fully that the Forbidden City has reclaimed the "Mantel of Heaven" from the barbarians of the West--including the US.

The reaction of the Trolls to the announced sale by the US of Patriot missile batteries, Blackhawk helicopters, and Osprey mine hunting ships to Taiwan has surpassed previous denunciations of American support for the island state. Sanctions against US companies as well as other unspecified consequences have been spit like rail gun projectiles since the deal was announced.

The tone of the Beijing message has been that of superior to inferior. The lofty disapproval and threats of punishment by the Central Kingdom against those barbarians who fail to show proper deference, to pay tribute, to kowtow.

The response by the Trolls undoubtedly surpassed the expectations of the Obama administration--as is evidenced by the pathetic sense of timing shown by Secretary of State Clinton during her remarks in Paris the other day. Remarks which threatened China with diplomatic isolation and other icky-poo things should the Trolls not go along with the next round of sanctions on Iran.

The howls from the Trolls as well as "consequences" for the US will grow louder and perhaps more harmful should the Obama administration find Taiwan is in justified need of the jet fighters and submarines which it has requested. It might be noted in passing that the American sale, even if it should finally include the jets and subs, will in no way alter the basic military balance between China and Taiwan. That balance is irrevocably tilted in favor of the Trolls whose military expenditures continue to expand at double digit percentages year after year.

As the Obama administration and, in particular, the Secretary of State consider the implications of the Chinese reaction, lack of cooperation on Iran, and massive holdings of US debt, they might also consider where the responsibility for the current degenerate situation resides. A bit of pondering on that question might give insight as to where the solution might be found.

Chinese triumphalism is predicated on US money. American bucks have been flowing in ever larger torrents ever since President Clinton "opened the door." Clinton believed for reasons rooted in ideology rather than realpolitik that open trade made for good neighbors. He was wrong. The Chinese hold to a course of world politics which has been and will be hostile to the national security and strategic interests of the US.

President W. Bush pushed the trade door open even further. He also was propelled by ideology rather than realism. His ideology was rooted in the supposed benefits for "bidness" as well as the American consumer. Both did benefit economically, the former more than the latter. But, the benefits for both "bidness" and consumer were at the expense of the nation as a whole.

As anyone with a minimal knowledge of both Chinese history and basic economics could have told either President Clinton or his successor, the Chinese would rake in dollars almost beyond counting. These dollars would furnish the ways and means not only for commercial development, economic expansion, and jobs but also for military expansion and--here is the Mr Big of things--purchasing foreign debt, particularly American debt.

Thus, in so far as the Chinese are feeling triumphant, it is a triumph which we have handed them on a Yankee greenback tray. The feeling of triumph need not last. That is the good news.

First of all, the Chinese are already demonstrating a degree of hubris which would have done Bush/Cheney proud. Whether engaging in espionage on an industrial scale in the West (as MI 5 has noted regarding the UK) or declaring "nyet" with a volume which the old Soviets never showed regarding Iran or waving rhetorical cudgels at the US without a thought as to possible responses, the Trolls are exhibiting hubris at an astronomical level.

The US is not without means to slow Chinese economic recovery. It is not without the capacity to impair the sale of Chinese origin goods in the US. Doing so would not only be salutary to the Trolls, it would do some good for American businesses particularly those few which still make things rather than provide services.

Sanctions against US companies who furnish equipment to Taiwan must be met on an augmented "tit for tat" basis. So also should lack of cooperation on Iran be countered by a similar response.

Now for the hard part. The administration and Congress must wean themselves from dependence on the Chinese debt purchasers. Considering the ability of the Fed and Treasury to create more inflationary "virtual" dollars, this should not be impossible. Catastrophic inflation may reside in either option, but the second approach at least lessens the capacity of the Trolls to limit American foreign policy freedom.

The Great American Public had a long, long spending spree due to China. The dues collector has come so we all will take a necessary hit in the short to mid-term, but that is better than having to bend our national and strategic interests to the dictates of the Trolls of Beijing.

Now, repeat after the Geek, "Buying Chinese is trading with the enemy." That may have been beyond the comprehension of three American presidents (including the incumbent,) but it should and must not be beyond ours.

Talk About Bad Timing!

In the Great Game of Nations complexity is the rule. This being the ground truth, the main rule of the matter it ill behooves a country to make the game even more complex. However, this is what the Obama administration has managed to do in its so far bootless effort to constrain Iranian nuclear ambitions.

To be quite fair events outside the control of the administration have also served to render the Iranian nuclear question even more complex and resistant to solution. The specific event here is the killing of Hamas heavyweight Mahmoud al-Mabhou in Dubai.

The specific complication for which the Obama administration must take full responsibility is the sale of defensive weapon systems to Taiwan at almost the very moment that Secretary of State Clinton was making threats against Beijing in Paris. The administration acknowledged the obvious in advance: That the Chinese would go exoatmospheric over the sale.

Still, the sale and the threat of "diplomatic isolation" went on in apparent tandem. It is bizarre enough to utter dark predictions of evil consequences which would ensue upon the Trolls of Beijing continuing their opposition to another round of UN sanctions given that China is soon to be the second largest economy on the planet and holds oodles and oodles of Uncle Sam's IOUs with more on route. It is beyond the merely bizarre to assert such threats when the US needs the understanding cooperation of Beijing on many levels far more than the Chinese need Washington.

China may not veto any new round of Security Council sanctions, but it is not likely to abide by them. The same may be said of the Russians--and other countries. Even if Russia is on board with another sanction effort, it is less than probable that it would move to enforce them. Also questionable is the continued will and resolve of either Germany or France to take the economic hit of actually curtailing the thriving trade which businesses in both nations have carried on with the Iranians.

The cover for major sanction busting is already in place. It is provided by the internal opposition to the mullahocracy. An easy argument to the effect that any particular sanction requirement might hurt the Iranian people but not the government or Revolutionary Guard Corps exists.

Even if not true, even if the sanctions are narrowly directed against the Revolutionary Guard and other governmental entities, it may be said with a more-or-less straight face that the ultimate effect of any particular sanction (such as one hitting the gasoline deficiencies in the country) can be seen as weakening the opposition by hurting the person in the street. Thus, sanctions no matter how worded will be porous to the extreme.

The US has pinned too many hopes on the sanctions. So far none have worked. None are likely to given the resistance of the Trolls of Beijing and the ability of others to excuse sanction violations. As a result there exist two almost equally unpleasant alternatives: Accept Iran as a nuclear capable power and pray for sanity in Tehran or use the "military option."

In the interim the administration has to accept the probability that Iran will strike at Israel using proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah. That the administration is doing just this is seen in the recent comment by former Marine general and current National Security Advisor, James Jones, that such are both probable and near term.

The near term just became shorter with the killing of the Hamas commander in Dubai. No matter who precisely suffocated (or electrocuted following torture) the guy, Hamas has already (surprise here) pointed the finger at Mossad. While it is equally probable that al-Mabhouh was killed by individuals in no way connected with either Mossad or Israel, the "Zionist entity" will be held responsible not only by Hamas but Tehran.

The Iranians are the largest supporter of Hamas as they are Hezbollah. Unlike Hezbollah which is subject to a fair amount of Syrian influence if not control, Hamas is answerable only to Tehran. The consequence is simply that if the interests of both are served, the resulting unity will assure Hamas takes its best shot at Israel (including Israel's external interests.)

The consequence of the new Dubai complication does reinforce the message of SecState Clinton to Beijing: That Iran is key to (in)stability in the region and this will redound to either the advantage or disadvantage of China.

The only bright ray of hope in the current set of reinforcing complexities is to be found in the inherent Chinese distaste for instability. More than most Western governments and societies turbulence of a social and political sort is anathema to the Chinese. If their Mideast/Persian Gulf regional experts are on the ball, the possibilities for burgeoning instability resident not only in the Iranian bomb dream but in the Iranian use of proxies against Israel and others will be properly highlighted for their bosses' attention and action.

Of course, the promptings of regional experts will be drowned out at least in the near future by the sense of outrage resounding around the Forbidden City in the wake of the US selling gigabucks of hardware to a recipient considered by the Trolls to be a province in rebellion. The rights and wrongs of this position are manifold but the consequences are not. China is not likely to heed either the threats of Secretary Clinton or the advice of their in-house experts.

So what?

So, the Obama administration can set yet one more deadline for Tehran's compliance. Or not. The end is the same. Iran will continue to pursue the bomb. The Israelis will have a very difficult decision to make. Hamas will seek to kill more.

Like some Frenchman once wrote, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Climate Change--The Cesspool That Won't Empty

Yvo de Boer, the Czar of All Anthropogenic Climate Change at the UN, and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which might better be known as The End Justifies the Means Panel are is still nattering, blustering, and attempting to explain some very unpleasant truths. The blustering and nattering is the specialty of Mr de Boer. The IPCC is in charge of smoothing over the hills and valleys of lies with the soft butter of good intentions.

The UN Climate Change Czar has taken the position that the US is somehow "bound" by the rhetorical promises at Copenhagen made by the master of lofty talk, President Obama. The Austrian born Dutch citizen, who is accountable to none outside of the carnival by the Hudson, blew off the reluctance of the Senate to act favorably on the potentially economically crippling "cap and trade" proposal put forward by the ever-so-green Obama administration.

With a serene detachment of the sort which might accompany another proclamation from Mount Sinai, the UN factotum told the press that Americans were slavering and drooling after "green" jobs (as opposed to any job of any color) and would not tolerate a failure to deliver on the Obama promise. Mr de Boer also opined that the Environmental Protection Agency could pick up the ball should the Senate be so ill-advised as to drop it.

In making this Olympian declaration Mr de Boer demonstrated the sublime ignorance of American political realities which only a member of the UN bureaucracy--or a True Believer in the Progressive Agenda--could essay. The "Czar" left aside such bagatelles as the possibility that the Congress might, in the face of an electorate less than thrilled with the current state of play on the Hill and in the Oval, legislatively remove the power to regulate carbon dioxide from the EPA's portfolio. He also ignored both the incompetence of the EPA and the net effect upon informed public opinion of the IPCC's extreme economy with the truth.

Additionally, the detached Mr de Boer overlooked the impact of an increasing awareness on the part of Americans that further sacrifices on its part can be more than offset by the actions of other nations. This is a critical matter which has also eluded the EPA.

To highlight this ground truth and its implications, the Geek invites you to consider the matter of ground level ozone. This noxious form of oxygen is responsible in large measure for the unpleasant phenomenon known as smog. To control the emission of ozone the EPA has not only put in place stringent limits on human activities (such as operating motor vehicles) which result in the production of ozone but is in the process of increasing the limitations.

The EPA also monitors ground level ozone. It is this part of the agency's mission which detains us at the moment. Let's focus on two areas of the United States. One is small and remote. The other is both large and important in all facets of American life.

The small one first. In southern New Mexico there are three counties. They extend from the border between New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico to the northwest. In order they are the El Paso bordering county of Dona Ana, Luna county, and Grant County. With the exception of Dona Ana which centers on the 100,000 person (more or less) city of Las Cruces, the counties are small in population, feature large expanses of either high desert (Luna) or pinion forested mountains (Grant.) None are noted for industry although Grant county still hosts a Phelps Dodge copper smelter currently engaged in reprocessing ancient tailings dumps.

Ground ozone monitoring shows that over the past three years each of these counties have been out of compliance with the current standards. They would be even more non-compliant under the proposed new standards. Dona Ana is the worst "offender," with Luna in second place, and distant Grant country bringing up the rear of the "law breakers." The EPA has already made the usual threatening noises of fines and loss of federal highway money should the counties and their municipalities not bring the areas into compliance beaucoup schnell!

There is only one difficulty with the EPA's findings, conclusions, and dark hints of penalties to come. None of the counties are responsible for the elevated ozone levels. No. As anyone with access to a map showing prevailing winds could discover in a matter of seconds, these three counties lie downwind of Cuidad Juarez. This Mexican city currently best known for a level of violence exceeded in very few war zones is usually noted for its level of air pollution.

There are no, repeat, NO, effective, enforceable limits on the production of ozone, particulate matter, or any other ingredient of air pollution in Juarez. And, if there were, a little bit of money changing hands ends the "violation."

The EPA with the supreme confidence of a totally out of touch with reality bureaucracy has chosen to ignore the real source of the ozone, instead flexing its muscles on a triad of totally inoffensive American counties. The worthies of the EPA appear completely indifferent to the underlying reality that no amount of American sacrifice, no degree of penalty, no amount of economic deprivation will solve the problem.

Now for the bigger problem. Ground level ozone monitoring shows that there has been a significant increase in the evil chemical despite the severe restrictions which have been in place in California, Washington, and Oregon. To the surprise (and dismay) of all, the level of ozone has increased even as the costs of restriction have elevated. Obviously more costs, tighter standards, more monitoring will not have any effect on the steadily worsening situation.

That gloomy conclusion results from the simple and easily demonstrated fact that the ozone levels rise and fall in tandem with the direction of the prevailing winds. When the winds come from the general direction of Asia (read China) the levels increase, when the winds blow from some other direction, the ozone slips away to the happy low levels resulting from the efforts of the past forty years.

Perhaps because California and its neighbors have a lot more voters than the three miscreant New Mexico counties, the EPA will have to acknowledge its powerlessness in the face of made-in-China ozone. Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps EPA will demand admission to the US foreign policy community.

Not that the foreign policy community of the US is currently underpopulated. Nearly every cabinet department has a seat. The new, expanded National Security Council has a (very large) seat. Then the Congress is amply if usually parochially represented. With so many oars of varying sizes in the murky, choppy waters of foreign affairs it is no wonder that the ship of state so often is in peril of foundering on the rocks of one overseas "crisis" or another.

The introduction of the EPA, or the current administration's climate "czar(s)" will in no way improve our capacity to address any realities which might reside behind the scrim of distortions, junk science, special pleading, and drives-for-power created by the climate change Warriors of the Good Cause. The mere mouthing of "pledges" by the US government or the government of any other country without both a sound basis to justify the needs underlying the "pledges" and a verifiable mechanism of unquestionably reliability and disinterestedness is an exercise in feel-good meaninglessness.

The best that might be adduced in support of making pledges and similar exercises in political masturbation is that such an exercise does far less damage than does invoking the bureaucratic force of some remote, out of touch agency to impose counterproductive sanctions on an innocent public. It is just this that Mr de Boer and his ilk both inside and without the UN desire to do.

Pace Mr de Boer, but the only effective, authentic way to address whatever (if anything) which might reside within and under the term of "anthropogenic climate change" is the slow, messy means of political give and take. This means not only the political process of diplomacy but also, at least in those few countries where democracy reigns in a relatively untrammeled form, the even more messy process of achieving a domestic consensus on what should be done, what might be done, and how to do it.

In turn this requires that folks like Mr de Boer abandon their automatic love affair with top down fiats and diktats. It demands that Mr de Boer and company surrender their reflexive reliance upon central commands. It means there is finally no substitute for trusting the self-organizing, decentralized capacities of an informed public.

An informed public means a public which is not lied to by "scientists" who believe with the terrible sincerity of an al-Qaeda leader in the justice of their desired ends allows for the employment of any means. The perversion and prostitution of the methods of science--including constant testing, constant criticism, constant doubt--cannot be allowed to stand. There can be no more well-intended lies, no more silencing of critics, no more running roughshod over doubts.

A good start in this direction would be the disestablishment of the IPCC. It has no more credibility. It has surrendered all rights to be heard. It must be replaced by an open body which includes all the doubters, the sceptics, the agnostics. True beliefs, compelling agendas, needs for power and prestige will only assure that no informed public can or will exist.

Mr de Boer and others who share his perspective must also go. They do not and cannot accept that bureaucracies do not have all the answers, that central commands are not likely to result in long term success. And, worst of all, they distrust, perhaps even despise the good sense, intelligence, and capacity for effective self-organization of the hoi polloi.

As the soldiers of Cromwell said to the Long Parliament, "You have sat here too long to do any good. Get hence!"

From The Sky-Is-Blue Department

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has finally gone public on an elephant in the john which has been present but unacknowledged all too long. On the road in India the SecDef made a long overdue reference to the strategy of al-Qaeda. Quite specifically he commented to the reporters present that al-Qaeda is working with Taliban of Afghanistan, Taliban of Pakistan, and the gang behind last year's Mumbai attack, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), to provoke war between Pakistan and India.

This option is both too obvious and too attractive not to have captured the attention of the leadership echelon of al-Qaeda. Not only have India and Pakistan gone to war several times before, both countries (Pakistan far more than India under its present government) are willing to stage another rematch. All that is needed is a proper inciting incident or maybe two if the Indians are in a particularly cautious mood.

Had it not been for India's "restraint" and "statesmanlike" behavior, as Gates correctly characterized matters, the attack on Mumbai would have been sufficient. The lack of a robust response by India undoubtedly perturbed both the heavyweights of Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda. Even the foot dragging and irresolute response on the part of Pakistan's government to the Indian demands that Islamabad haul its freight in both investigating and prosecuting the LeT leaders down home in Pakistan did not end India's policy of restraint.

A year ago some outside observers (including the Geek) expected an Islamist "second strike." It was unimportant just which group of the many available undertook the second attack as long as one occurred. No Indian government could have survived politically had it not taken strong retaliatory measures.

Gates observed that Indian patience and restraint was not unlimited in the face of future attacks on a scale rivaling the one on Mumbai. The Secretary's words were both diplomatic and quite blunt.

Their bluntness implies that the Indian government had made it abundantly clear that the next attack would not pass by unanswered. A further implication is that the Indians would be unwilling (or politically unable) to accept any US counsel to the effect that they be patient, that they show restraint, that they turn the other cheek in the event of another outrage committed by Islamist jihadists with a documented or even probable connection to Pakistan.

The Indian military has a wide range of retaliatory capabilities at its disposal. In highest probability the use of the most circumspect method would recommend itself. The most probable response would be carried out by Indian domestic manufacture cruise missiles against known terrorist training centers in Pakistan. This approach would limit collateral damage while allowing for an escalation should such prove necessary for either legitimate security reasons or compelling domestic political requirements.

Any Indian response even one as low profile as a single cruise missile strike on remotely located camps would carry risks. Additionally, it would have to be very carefully calibrated. The Indians would need to consider--and to avoid if at all possible--stimulating either of two probable Pakistani reactions. There is no desire in India for Pakistan's population to rally monolithically behind its government let alone the Islamists of LeT and Taliban. Neither would the Indian government (or the US) hope to see a Pakistan further weakened internally so as to assure an Islamist victory in that country.

Whether the Indian government and military are capable of so perfectly calibrating any hypothetical retaliatory strike is questionable at best. What Gates said hints strongly at the reality that the Indians are less concerned about that aspect of life than they are about motivating the Pakistani government to get off the dime and work far more sedulously at the task of eradicating both Taliban in Pakistan and the leader of the "syndicate of terror," al-Qaeda.

The US is just as interested in motivating Pakistan to do more in the war for its government's survival. Gates correctly called the conflict with al-Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan "existential" in nature. Regardless of the hopes and delusions of those Islamists in the government, military, and Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, the contest between Taliban et al and the current regime is a zero sum game. There is only room at the top for one winner be it the status quo or the Islamist jihadists.

For just over two decades now the Pakistani military and ISI have fostered, nurtured, supported, guided, and protected both Taliban and al-Qaeda. Throughout this long period and process it has been the hope of ISI and others in the power elite that someday in someway the Islamist jihadists would provide the winning element in the future war with India. Whether through the provision of strategic depth in Afghanistan or the means of creating a fifth column in Kashmir and elsewhere in India, the Pakistanis have seen Islamist jihadists as a key weapon for future success against the hated Hindu rival.

In a set of very real ways India has already won the future war. Not only is the Indian military far more competent than its Pakistani rival, the Indian decision to invest heavily in human capital has given the country a vast advantage economically and in terms of social coherence. In addition the landmass of India compared to that of Pakistan implies strongly that the former country can survive a limited nuclear attack far better than the latter.

The great equalizer of nuclear weapons does not exist as regards the Indian-Pakistani calculus. The population and economic infrastructure of Pakistan is simply too concentrated to survive even a very limited (one to five weapons of twenty kilotons yield) nuclear attack. Sheer geographic propinquity assures that even a conscientiously counter-force strike would be a major counter-value attack.

The same situation does not apply to nearly the same extent in India. The country could survive a mid-sized attack (twenty to fifty weapons of up to fifty kiloton yield) without being existentially impaired.

In short, reality behooves Islamabad even more than it does New Delhi to take firm, effective, and rapid action to end the "syndicate of terror" before the syndicate can bring its strategic vision into effect. Should the syndicate succeed, the results will be far more disastrous for Pakistan than India.

And that, bucko, was the crucial sub-text of Secretary Gates' remarks to the press. One can only hope they read the papers in Islamabad.

We Don't Need No Education--Or Freedom

Taking a look at the most recent UN Development Program Report on the state of knowledge and freedom in Arab (and other Muslim) states gives the impression that Arabs neither have nor want much in the way of education and its necessary twin, freedom. To summarize the many metrics employed in making this report: Arab and other Muslim states rank at the bottom of the human heap in education, knowledge production, human capital development, economic freedom and, last but far from least, personal and political freedom.

This harsh judgement obtains even though some gains have been made in primary education such that illiteracy has declined among both men and women in the region. Still, the majority of people in the Arab countries remain unable to read or write at even the most basic level.

Overall the quality of education in Arab states--particularly that at the secondary and post-secondary level--is questionable at best. Putting the matter bluntly, the achievement of students in the hard and life sciences is very unimpressive as is that in mathematics and the higher technologies. The very fields of human knowledge most critical for success in the world today and into the foreseeable futures are those most under served in the Arab-Muslim states.

No one should be surprised by the gloomy assessment offered by the high priests of cultural relativism at the UN. Alone among the major religions of the world Islam looks only in its collective rearview mirror. Just as Islam holds that there was no history before the birth of the Prophet, it holds that the time and place of Mohammad, the Perfect Man, constitutes the halcyon of the human condition.

Nor can the constant linking between the "Will of Allah" and the outcome of any scientific experiment be discounted in appreciating the inherently reactionary nature of Islam and all educational systems under its sway. To put the matter simply but accurately, if the supernatural must be invoked to explain even the most trivial and commonplace of scientific matters, then, no science is possible.

(In this context recall that a textbook on chemistry approved by the Pakistani government not that many years back had the phrase "if Allah wills" inserted in an explanation of how two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen combine to make water.)

Overall the report makes clear that while Arab-Muslim states can and do exploit the science and technology developed elsewhere, there is little if any indigenous capacity to add to the sum total of either technology or science now or in the near term future. The corollary of this is that the states and people of the Arab-Muslim world will continue to be dependent upon others for any and all improvements in their quality of material life. It also implies that any Muslim who somehow escapes the stultifying atmosphere of Muslim education must leave the Muslim world in order to put talents and abilities to work.

There are other implications as well. Implications that the UN folks did not bother to consider.

One implication is the appeal of Islamism to members of the better educated segment of the Arab-Muslim population. There is little if any real, meaningful future open to a young man with a first class education and a better than simply mediocre mind in the Arab-Muslim environment of today. At the same time there is a strong probability that such an individual would perceive himself to be alienated from and unwelcome in the Western countries where his education, talents, and character might find ample reward.

Most, if not all, of the "martyrdom seekers" in recent years have been young men adrift between the promises of the West and the seductive certainties of Islam. They have been individuals of good education, economically comfortable backgrounds, and seemingly of a promising future. At the same time they have seen themselves as having been estranged from the cultural heritage of Islam.

This gap, particularly the loss of the reassuring certainties which so fill the pages of Islam, provided the easily exploited vulnerability of these men to the blandishments of radical clerics. These men of the Koran could and did easily promise the rewards of total uniting with Allah in the gardens of paradise. Given the uncertainties of life which presented themselves to these men of both sensitivity and belief, it is scarcely surprising that they resolved their internal dilemmas in favor of immortality through suicide, paradise by way of murder.

Another implication concerns the stability of states such as Pakistan. To consider this critical country, it is necessary to take a good, hard look at its public education system. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, the lack of a respectable, effective public educational system available to the majority of Pakistani citizens.

Space prevents a detailed account of the failed Pakistani public school system. (Also, the Geek, unlike most Americans, is bored by statistics and considers them to be a bane.) There are three educational systems in Pakistan: the private schools (many of them world class) which are available to the elite only, the madrases which provide much indoctrination in Islamic ideology but little else, and the public schools.

The public schools are the option preferred by the majority of Pakistani families. These do provide somewhat more of an education than do the exclusively religious institutes. The problem comes in the simple fact that the majority of public schools either do not exist (locally they are known as "ghost" schools) or are ineptly staffed, or starved of equipment and supplies.

(Along this line consider the remarkable absence of casualties amidst all the school bombings conducted by Taliban. Lots of buildings destroyed, but no one killed. What is this, Taliban is suddenly concerned with conducting humane, low fatality war? Since when? No, most of the buildings hit are "ghost" schools. This impression is borne out by close examination of images of the damage. No desks, no blackboards, none of the usual impedimenta common to schools everywhere, even the Third World.)

India made the choice years ago to invest heavily in human capital development with a real heavy emphasis on education. Pakistan chose instead to invest heavily in military capital. The strategic impact of these diverse choices is quite evident today as one compares the Indian and Pakistani economies.

The current maldistribution of educational potential in Pakistan serves the needs of the indigenous elite. It serves their short term requirements for stability and regime maintenance. It has assured that the children of today's elite is guaranteed to be the elite of tomorrow. At the same time the use of "ghost" schools assures sufficient graft, corruption, and bribery to secure support in the hinterlands while placating the Islamists by making sure there are sufficient students for the madrases.

Short term, this approach has been win-win for the elite of the country. It has been tacitly approved by the US. We have been aware for years of the inherently destabilizing potential of the educational system, but have held our peace. We have poured money into Pakistan's military capital development without any more than pro forma hints that human capital development is the better option.

Long term stability in Pakistan will come if and only if the country puts an effort into genuine education. The US must support this seismic shift in Pakistani policy. It is in our interests as well as theirs that the money, manpower, and brainpower be shifted increasingly from gun toting to intellect building.

Gun toting buys short term order. It does not and cannot buy long term stability. Education brings little if any short-term benefits, but it does result in long-term improvements. The problem lies in that education takes years, decades, even generations to bear fruit. And, governments live by days, weeks, or, sometimes, months. They demand results right, bloody now!

It may be too late already for Pakistan as it is for Afghanistan, Yemen, and other Islamist jihadist hot zones. The question that must be asked--and answered--is it too late for the rest of the Arab-Muslim world?

The Geek would like to be an optimist. It was his optimism which drove him from the government to academia. But, he is first and foremost a realist. So, his hot wash answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Yes, it is too late for any of the Arab-Muslim states and the majority of their populations.

The reason is simple, blunt and (to Islamists) unpleasant. Islam is both anti-education and anti-freedom. Islam has little if any use for the real world of human beings, their lives, loves, hopes, fears. It focuses instead on two unrealities: paradise after the Day of Judgement, and, the presumed Utopia of the Arabian Peninsula nearly fifteen hundred years ago.

Education and freedom both insist on the importance of life now. Both also see that the human condition has far more potential than that which existed among a flea bitten collection of semi-nomadic herdsmen and occasional traders in a remote area of the Earth far in our past.

Failure Breeds Catastrophe

A ground truth about Haiti: It was a failed state long before the earthquake hit. Arguably, it was the failed nature of the Haitian state--and the well-meaning but totally ineffectual efforts on the part of the UN--which assured the earthquake became a sizable catastrophe.

The Geek is well aware that he is out of step with the journalists, politicos, academics, and always concerned folks of the world by not seeing the earthquake and its human cost as a tragedy of world historical proportions. The Geek may be a cold dude, but he has a grip on the realities of Haiti which seem to elude all too many.

Haiti has been a failed state since the moment of its creation in a welter of war, disease, and bloodshed. Not because, as the always-terminally-out-to-lunch Reverend Pat Robertson averred in one more mind-boggling rush of total asininity, of a "pact with the devil," but because of the deep seated internal conflicts which have riven Haitian social, political, and economic life for the past two centuries. These divisions have made their existence manifest not only in the simple fact that very few Haitian heads-of-state have died in bed with their boots off, but also in the endemic corruption, governmental inefficiency, structural poverty, and environmental rapine which have marked Haitian history since the giddy-up.

It is a pathetic and telling indictment of a society, a polity, a culture, when the twenty best, most peaceful, most productive years of its existence occurred during a period of foreign (US) military occupation and rule. It is an even more pathetic and harsh indictment of Haitian life when it is realized that some (elderly) Haitians look back fondly on the brutally repressive rule of Papa Doc and his scion, Baby Doc.

The US ended the last great Haitian adventure in authoritarian rule during the early years of the Clinton administration by some tough talk on the part of Colin Powell and the credible threat of the Marines landing one more time. As was often the case with exercises in more muscular diplomacy (see, inter alia, Somalia), the Clinton boys and girls declared victory too soon and drew back in favor of collective efforts by the Organization of American States and (of course) the UN.

Several elections, coups, counter-coups, and rumors of coups later, Haiti has been under the effective tutelage of the UN for the past half decade or so. Internal security has been provided, such as it is, by a UN peacekeeping force while UN and assorted non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have provided the backup for the locally elected government at all levels from the national on down. A very great deal of well-intentioned efforts, money, charitable donations, and peacekeeping services have poured into Haiti. Poured in without any noticeable improvement in the economy, the quality of social life, the efficiency and accountability of government, or the security of physical existence.

Under the beneficent UN/NGO regime, Haiti has remained what it has always been--a social, political, and economic basketcase. It has retained its lamentable status in all these areas for the same, long standing, historically well-rooted reasons of internal divisions, systemic and endemic corruption, and a culture of perpetual violence. To these the years of external support and assistance have grafted a firm belief on the part of Haitians generally that the outside world owes them.

The several seconds of earthshaking have resulted in highlighting these pre-existent dynamics in a dramatic and quite unmistakable fashion. The ramshackle facsimile of a Haitian government has collapsed even more completely than the shoddy built structures on the sides of deforested hills covered by soil subject to liquefaction with less of a stimulus than that provided by a 7.0 temblor. The UN and its NGO accomplices have shown the usual frictions, institutional egos, inability to coordinate effectively which have existed all along. The Haitians--or at least a significant portion of them--have acted out their "frustration" resulting from the perceived failure of the world to provide food, water, medical supplies, housing, and ipods fast enough.

As an overlay to the realities on the ground in Haiti--realities which could be overcome quickly and efficiently if control of the relief and rescue efforts would be vested in one command structure possessing the relevant skills, equipment, and systems--everyone and his/her brother from President Obama to the UN to the usual crew of NGOs is now clamoring for cash money. Not supplies, not services, not expert personnel, not communications and control systems. No. Just send cash. And lots of it.

The UN Secretary General, whose organization is yet to account for the money received and allegedly expended in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami, insists that without beaucoup bucks, the humanitarian disaster in Haiti will know no limits. President Obama has dragooned his two immediate predecessors into ramrodding an all-American cash raising effort. The same will be or already is happening elsewhere in the world, particularly Western Europe.

In Haiti, or, more accurately, in Port-au-Prince, there are people raising merry hell in their expression of the effects of starvation, dehydration, post-traumatic stress disorder, and simple frustration. It is of interest that the vast majority of images from the streets of PaP show young men in good health, men who are, in medical terms, "well nourished," going about the business of looting and pillaging.

Presumably these young, well nourished, well muscled men are those who have been constructing roadblocks of corpses whenever and wherever a relief supply convoy is spotted on the road. The assorted media accounts never state where the hijacked supplies might be taken after seizure, but would it be too cynical, too politically incorrect to bet that whatever is taken is later sold--for cash to those with that most prized of commodities?

Apparently all the UN heavyweights in country are too preoccupied finding a journalist who will pass on their tales of devastation and death without precedent in the UN's history to notice that the UN peacekeeping forces are both too minimal on the ground and too prudent to actually protect the supply convoys. The same spokespersons like their colleagues from the legion of NGOs are too involved with demanding more money to have noticed that supplies already piled up at the one and only airport are not being moved to those who, it is alleged, need them so desperately.

In one of those little ironies which throw the realities on the ground in Haiti into sharp relief, the US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson is just off shore. It has a number of medium lift helicopters just perfect for moving supplies from the airport to those who need them. But, the worthy and ever-so-concerned humanitarians who own and control those supplies are unwilling to allow the US Navy to move them.

Now, the Navy has its downsides as do all the American military services. But, the Navy and the others are very, very good at moving vast mountains of material very quickly and efficiently from central depots to users in the field. The US military has the expertise, the equipment, the systems to move men and material from where they are to where they are needed. Thus, it seems logical that the US military be given the task of moving stuff.

But, that sort of narrow minded logic does not meet the needs of either the UN or the assorted NGOs in their Quest For Bucks. It is that sort of narrow minded logic with an emphasis on results, on getting the job done, which would violate the institutional egos, the personal careers, the heart and soul of humanitarian relief organizations both public and private.

The US military is also very good now at providing security in the context of humanitarian relief and political stability operations. The US military have been undergoing the most rigorous sort of on-the-job training in this sort of operation for some years now. So, it is only logical (there's that icky-poo word again) that the UN and its clones give the responsibility for protecting as well as moving the relief supplies over to the US military.

That won't happen. Not in this world. Even if the movers and shakers of the UN, the OAS, the assorted NGOs, had an attack of honest self-evaluation, the notion of allowing the US military services to move material, save lives, and provide security is simply unacceptable to the high minded, internationalist, post-modernist, multi-culturalists of the aforementioned entities.

As an unfortunate but seemingly necessary consequence of the institutional agendas, histories, and values of the UN and the NGOs alike it will be more of the same in Haiti. Just as the assorted well-meaning but totally ineffectual groups have been screwing the pooch in Haiti for some years now, they will continue to do the same in the days and months to come.

Just as has been the case elsewhere in recent years, the UN and its co-conspirators in doing good will use emotionally laden propaganda, outright deception, and never-ending wails and warnings to keep their collective paws in our pockets. We will continue to have the privilege of paying for their collective failures.

Say it once more, with feeling, "May you live in interesting times."

Beyond (Un)Reasonable Doubt

Google can be--and is--both loved and hated. At the moment one has to love the search engine company since it and it alone has had the courage and savvy to tell it like it is. To let the world and its brother know that the Chinese government is executing major, very sophisticated cyber-espionage attacks against not only Google but thirty some other major companies as well.

Google placed the cyber attacks on top of the Beijing demands for search engine self-censorship as a reason to consider withdrawing entirely from the enormous Chinese marketplace. While analysts have debated the long and short-term economic impact of this threat, the reality is that someone, sometime, has to take the toughest of tough lines against the hostile Chinese government.

In the normal course of affairs it is governments which take the hardline, make the threats, issue ultimata, but when the steward of international affairs is lacking in will or capacity to do the right thing, then it is necessary that a private enterprise step up and take a whack at the problem. This is what Google is doing. It may be acting in its own best interests but in doing so it is acting in the best interests of the US as well.

"Engine Charley" Wilson may have been wrong when he stated, "What is good for General Motors is good for the country." back when he was Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense. If today the panjandrums of Google were to make a similar comment, they would be right on.

Reputedly the US State Department will issue a "demarche" in the next week or so on the Chinese matter. If it is keeping with past Notes, the US will express "concern" perhaps even "grave concern" over the allegations. It will request that the Beijing government investigate the situation. It might even be so bold as to allude to unspecified "consequences" if the Chinese do not cease and desist in their wholesale efforts to steal everything not nailed down in cyberspace.

If the past is the reliable guide it normally is, the Chinese government will reject the demarche. The rejection will contain all the usual rhetoric about "Cold War thinking" and US "backsliding." Chinese foreign ministry spokespeople will invoke the sacred totem of "Chinese sovereignty" and Chinese "internal affairs" along with the new fetish of the supremacy and perfection of the Chinese legal and judicial systems.

The ball will be hit back over the net by the half-hearted folks of Foggy Bottom. They (and quite possibly SecState Clinton) will "deplore" the Chinese attitude but otherwise will let the matter slide away into diplomatic oblivion.

The three step model which has characterized Sino-American relations for some years now typifies what the Secretary of State described a few days ago as she started off on her Asian jaunt as a "mature" relationship between the US and China. Apparently Ms Clinton sees a "mature" relation as being inherently asymmetrical, that is, a relationship in which one party lies, cheats, steals, and engages in a general sort of Adolescent Oppositional Defiance Disorder and the other party is endlessly patient, understanding, willing to compromise, and quite willing to ignore manifestations of hostile behavior.

In all probability the neat, lawyerly minds of Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and other legal types in the administration are greatly perturbed by the inability to prove the Chinese culpability in this as well as other instances of cyber-espionage to the criminal justice standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Lawyers apparently have such tidy little minds that it is difficult or even impossible for them to get a grip on the messy realities of normal international discourse such as espionage (whether cyber or the old fashioned sort) and the use of terror tactics by both non-state and state actors.

The reality of cyber based espionage is that it is nearly impossible to prove to the standards demanded by an American court of law. That ground truth has been reemphasized by such non-techno-wonks as the National Security Council as well as by legions of highly competent techies.

Even if it can be demonstrated that the attacks originated in China using a server located in Taiwan that in no way proves the Beijing regime either executed, authorized, or knew about the attacks. While the sophistication of the effort in its exploitation of a small flaw in the software for pre-Internet Explorer 8 can be best (and perhaps only) explained by direct governmental and military involvement, it does not in and of itself prove the Trolls of Beijing masterminded the operation.

Without the highest standard of proof, the lawyers of the Obama administration cannot bring themselves to do more than issue pro forma expressions of concern, of minor irritation. Without the sort of incontrovertible evidence which would make for a slam-dunk conviction in Federal Court, the pettifoggers of the administration cannot do more than wring their hands over the theft of billions of dollars in US intellectual property or even the penetration of critical defense establishment systems.

This orientation, this narrowness of both mind and vision, assures that President Obama and presumably others in his administration will take a far more vigorous position with the violations of human rights executed by the Beijing authorities in their (successful) efforts to censor searches and sites. Human rights is a far more attractive mast on which to nail the colors of indignation then is the fundamental reality that the Chinese government and military are engaged in wholesale theft of American property and defense secrets. After all there is no real need to prove anything in the realm of human rights abridgement. The allegation is enough.

Then, of course, there is the other inhibition operating on the Obama administration. Not only do the Trolls of Beijing hold a trillion dollars more or less of US government notes, the administration and the "Progressive Caucus" in Congress need the same Trolls to pick up a few tens of billions more in order that the "Transformational Agenda" can be executed in full.

Perhaps these less-than-reality oriented, agenda driven, multi-cultural advocates of the post-modern era are totally unconcerned with Chinese espionage. In their mental calculus the theft of intellectual property from mere corporations or the undercutting of US national security and defense capacities is of little moment compared to the pressing need to put the Transformational Agenda into full effect.

After all, which is more important, the present and future security and economic strength of the nation or the bringing of the blessings of True Belief to the benighted multitude of Americans? It seems the Obama administration has made the choice.

Now, perhaps, the founders of Google are regretting their full-throated support of Mr Obama. That would be a nice wrinkle to the current imbroglio.

Freedom Is Still An Endangered Species

Freedom House has issued its preliminary report on the state of freedom in the world for the year 2010. For the fourth successive year the number of folks living in free social, political, economic, and cultural venues has declined.

This means, quite simply, that the number of free states has declined as well. While not as "unfree" today as, say, twenty years ago, the state of play for freedom (and those who relish in the confusion, messiness, and uncertainty which comes with being free) remains parlous in the extreme.

It is a quick--and very sobering--process to take a dekko at the report's regional maps. They tell a lot in one fast view.

Consider the map of the Middle East and North Africa. There is only one country--Israel--which meets the criteria for freedom. In comparison there are fourteen states with a total population of nearly 325 million which are categorized as "not free." Three states with a population of thirty eight million are "partly free." It is of more than passing interest that the only non-Muslim country in the regions--Israel--is also the only "free" one.

The map of Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union shows a similar picture when one looks at the coexistence of Islam and populations which are "not free." The solidly Muslim Central Asian republics are solidly "not free." In Eastern Europe it is of interest that Serbia is "free," while the Muslim plurality state of Bosnia is "not free."

A quick look at the world map indicates that very few Muslim majority countries are in the "free" classification. Indonesia makes the cut, but it is fair to argue with that conclusion given recent waves of anti-"Infidel" violence in the island state. Mali makes the list of "free" states which is a credit to it given that most of Africa is in one of the two lesser categories as well as it is ninety percent Muslim.

Both Turkey and Pakistan are considered by Freedom House to be "partly free." How well merited this designation is and how long it might be applicable are both open to debate. The increasingly Islamist leaning Turkish government of the AKP as well as the rapid growth of Islamism among recent arrivals in Ankara and Istanbul from the hinterlands seem to show a negative trajectory for Turkey's overall freedom. Pakistan is torn between pure Islamist jihadists, supporters of Islamism, those who hope to use and control Islamist jihadism for reasons of state, and a diminishing number of more or less nominal Muslims who see a place for religion but hope to keep religion in its place. This dynamic does not bode well for either the continued freedoms in or the stability of Pakistan.

To look at the "free" side of the world map is to see the tracery of both the Enlightenment and the Christian worldview which gave rise to that often maligned intellectual, social, and political movement of the Seventeenth and succeeding centuries. Western Europe, North America, most of South America as well as such offshoot states as Australia, India, South Africa are on the "A" list. Japan and South Korea appear among the blessed as well. (As does, rather surprisingly, that distant, desert country of Mongolia, a place untouched by the referenced phenomena.)

South America is primarily "free." Some of "partly free" are members of the Bolavarian Revolutionary group. Others such are experiencing internal political unrest including that driven by narcotraffickers. The only "not free" state in the hemisphere is the old standby, Cuba. The number of "free" countries is quite encouraging compared to a couple of decades back, but it is disturbing that the Bolivarian movement has used the mechanism of elections to come to freedom limiting conclusions.

Freedom brings some necessary consequences. Among these are uncertainties, inequities, imperfect justice, and and very imperfect outcomes. Freedom equals political messiness, slow solutions to complex problems, frustration, and other less than fun-filled concomitants of the human condition such as disorder and insecurity.

People crave security and certainty in life. Most also want fair even if imperfect outcomes, equity of reward and sacrifice, and other forms of ameliorating the many vicissitudes to which life is automatically heir.

Freedom limiting regimes, be they secular or religious in their ideological roots, promise to overcome insecurity, defeat disorder, insure equity and justice, and generally banish the icky-poo aspects of life. Therein lies the fatally seductive appeal of limiting liberty in the interest of greater goods. It matters not in the least that history has demonstrated repeatedly that the promises as well as the greater goods of the freedom annullers is on a par with the visions induced by LSD. People will continue to fall for the scam, to sell their freedom for the hallucination of security and predictability.

Only the graveyard possesses perfect tranquility, complete peace, absolute certainty, and utter predictability. People need desperately to get a firm grip on that reality. They also need to get a grip on a companion truth: Life, real, real authentic life, is as an unending exercise in risk, a constant career of sticking one's face in a fan until finally the graveyard can no longer be escaped.

We are all going to end up there. Thus there is no reason to hasten the process which is what has happened in all those many countries where freedom has been buried by a pile of false promises.

Looking For The "Perfect Weapon"

In a perfect world we would fight "perfect wars" using "perfect weapons." A "perfect weapon" would be one which killed only hostile combatants while not inflicting any collateral damage on civilians or civilian property. A "perfect weapon" would have a combination of accuracy and constrained lethality so as to assure that only those in need of killing received its attentions.

As an added benefit the hypothetical "perfect weapon" could be employed without putting a single friendly soldier in harm's way. It would protect the "good guys" while terminating with the most extreme prejudice each and every "bad guy" until the survivors within the second group gave up the war as a very bad idea.

The US has pursued the still elusive "perfect weapon" with a high degree of persistence over the years. And, its persistence has paid off--to an extent.

The closest approximation to the "perfect weapon" we possess currently is found in the often maligned unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) typified by the Predator and Reaper craft. These systems can and do kill specific, targeted individuals of high value within the ranks of the Islamist jihadist ranks without extreme collateral damage. And, without risk to the Americans operating the systems.

It is the latter reality--the absence of risk to Americans--which has aroused the ire of Code Pink and similar anti-war organizations. While one might think that reducing the body count in war would be a goal agreeable to those opposed to even the most legitimate of wars, it is not. Code Pink and company have engaged in a campaign of great vitriol and little realism to end the use of armed UAVs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

This campaign has been enhanced by the position taken by the UN Special Rapporteur on miscellaneous asininities connected with wars undertaken by the US. (OK, that isn't the man's actual job title, but it conveys the flavor of his position.) This worthy has hinted darkly that the use of UAVs might constitute a species of war crime. Why this might be the case is at best murky and leaves unexamined why dropping iron bombs on a village containing armed combatants along with civilians would not be a "crime" as well.

There is no doubt but that the use of armed UAVs in both Afghanistan and Pakistan have been effective. The Long War Journal keeps very close track on the UAV employment in the AfPak region and parses the claims of civilian as opposed to combatant fatalities and injuries very carefully. A quick perusal of the record over the past two years shows that fifteen senior and sixteen mid-level al-Qaeda personnel have been taken off the board by UAVs. The numbers concerning Taliban are equally good.

The UAVs not only perturb the organizational integrity of the Islamist jihad groups by eliminating key personnel, they disrupt movement, enervate morale, lower combat efficiency of the hostile trigger pullers and bomb makers generally. The various statements by Taliban figures in particular as well as the results of interrogations show the overall effectiveness of the Predator and Reaper attacks cannot be overstated easily.

Perhaps the chief limitation on the possibility of the UAVs being considered "perfect weapons" is the size, lethality, and radius of destruction of the munitions they deliver. Neither the Hellfire missile (initially developed and deployed over thirty years ago as an air delivered anti-armor weapon) nor five hundred pound precision guided bombs can be considered constrained lethality devices. The size of the bursting charge as well as the nature of the fragments created combine to assure that these weapons are more area than point in their effect.

Either Hellfire or the five hundred pound bomb will and have destroyed vehicles, structures, or sizable open air assemblies. This state of affairs is fine provided all of those downrange are sure enough combatants. In this context it must be noted carefully that neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban nor any other groups of this ilk are notably scrupulous about separating civilians including women and children from the combatant types.

While there will be targeting errors regardless of the layers of review and approval, the primary responsibility for collateral damage rests with the Islamist jihadis. As long as these Glorious And (Self) Righteous Goons of the One True Faith are unwilling or unable to sequester their martyrdom seeking trigger pullers, bomb makers, and the like from non-combatants, collateral damage will occur.

(A parenthetical thought: Quite possibly, given the belief system of the good Muslims who constitute the jihadist groups, it is believed that a favor is being done for the women, children, and other non-combatants in that should the Hellfire hit, all hands will go to Paradise.)

In time technology will produce the necessary refinements that will result in lower area lethality without impairing the capacity of the UAV delivered munitions to kill selected individuals. The Israelis have been making strides in this direction with the development and deployment of ever smaller but still highly accurate air-delivered munitions which kill the target but, absent a secondary explosion from the target's own explosives, leave those standing around unhurt. As senior US commanders well appreciate the need to reduce the perception of collateral damage among civilians, one can be reasonably sure the US is proceeding in the same direction as the Israelis.

A "perfect weapon" might also be characterized by an absence of diplomatic complaints over its usage. By this standard the Predator and Reaper are most imperfect weapons. The government and military of Pakistan as well as any number of Pakistani journalists, academics, and "strategic thinkers" have made many mighty moans over the dire consequences which will necessarily attend the use of UAVs. With tones and words suitable to an announcement of the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, these Pakistani patriots warn that the UAVs are driving an infinite number of peaceful people into the camp and arms of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Associates.

The Greek chorus of Islamabad also thunders against the horrid violations of that most precious of commodities--Pakistani sovereignty. Of course the great claque of opposition from Pakistani politicians and generals is not motivated by fear over the actual effect of the UAVs (except in so far as they hurt the Islamist jihadis supported by the Pakistani Army, Inter-Services Intelligence, or members of the political structure.)

Rather the Pakistanis see the UAVs as a "perfect enough weapon" that they want to possess it themselves. Not for service in the air over the FATA but for duty on the only "frontline" which matters--the common border with India.

It is safe to put the self-serving whines of the Pakistanis in the same category as the hopelessly misguided simpering of Code Pink. Both are irrelevant to the continued successful employment of Predators and Reapers in theater. Both are testaments of a backhanded sort.

The sniveling of Code Pink and the plaints of Islamabad are both actually powerful attestations to the fact that the US is coming ever closer to the development of the "perfect weapon."

Well, bucko, we can be grateful for that. And, we can only hope that we get closer to perfection very, very soon.

Is China Just One More Country With A DC Lobby?

The WaPo has an article reporting on the increased effectiveness of China's lobbying efforts inside the Beltway. The tone of the piece is more than a tad laudatory.

A number of members of both houses of Congress (all of the Democratic Party persuasion) are quoted. All have nothing but nice things to say about China and the Gnomes of Beijing who run the place.

The WaPo grudgingly allows that this upbeat tone on the Hill does not reflect the views of the majority of Americans. The writer, John Promfit assigns this backwards attitude on the part of many in We the People to either China's Communist past or its record in the human rights department.

Duh!

Just how could so many otherwise sensible Americans be so wrong? How could affairs have come to such a sorry pass that We the People do not, as does one of the Congressional worthies notes, see "the Chinese as Chinese and not Communists?"

Guess it must be the sheer cussed reactionary nature of so many of us in the hoi polloi. Right, Senator Kerry? How else can it be that your wave of applause for the munificent and benevolent Chinese is not shared by every American who has not been duped by the barely concealed populist fascists of the Tea Party movement?

Or, to advance an alternative which is both more parsimonious and more rooted in the real world of evidence and behavior: The Americans who distrust the Chinese (even while buying the products of their factories and slave labor camps) have a far more accurate understanding of the Chinese government, its past and its future intentions than the assorted Democrats. Rather than irrational fear or the after effects of "a Cold War mentality," the distrust of China evinced in recent public opinion polls might be based on a coolly reasoned appraisal of the policies, actions, and rhetoric of the Chinese government.

While the Congresspeople and Senators may not know it, the only political party in the People's Republic of China is the Chinese Communist Party. (OK for you detail minded folks: There are another eight small parties, all controlled by the CCP.) This fact implies strongly that China is, in fact, a Communist country even though there is an obvious and large number of privately owned enterprises--all of which exist on government sufferance and will continue to operate only as long as it is the interests of the state and government.

Thus the distrust of Beijing because it is Communist is not a relic of the bad old days of the Cold War but a realistic appraisal of the current and future reality of China. Score one for the benighted American public.

While the Congresspeople and Senators may not know it, China is not, as one of the quoted Democrats averred, just like the UK, France, or Germany--but trying to play catchup in its lobbying activities. The UK, France, Germany may undertake a little discrete espionage against the US. Each of these long standing allies of the US may periodically undertake a bit of bash-on-Uncle-Sam.

China is in an entirely different category all together. Its espionage actions, including those of a cyber nature, far transcend in frequency, persistence, and breadth those of any other nation including the far-from-friendly Russia. On the diplomatic front China is normally opposed to any demarche at the UN and elsewhere which is supported by the US or its Western European associates. Whether the Iranian nuclear question, anthropogenic climate change, or any other matter of seemingly shared concerns, Beijing is always within the opposition.

The American hoi polloi is both aware of these facts and, unlike the aforementioned Democrats, factors its awareness into its appreciation of China's relation with the US both at the present and in the future. Score two for We the People.

Unmentioned in the encomiums flowing from the Democratic Party statesmen is the explosive growth of the Peoples Liberation Army. The Chinese possess a military capacity far surpassing any legitimate defense need. Further, all the straws in the defense wind indicate that the Chinese are neither slowing nor likely to slow the continued development of the PLA. Given the absence of any current or near-term threat to Chinese territory, the only plausible reason for the ongoing investment in the military is the utility of a large, modern and well equipped military as a diplomatic support instrument. (Whether a nation speaks loudly or softly it is more likely to be heard if it possesses a very big stick.

The American public is aware of this unmentioned T. rex at the dinner table even if the Deep Thinkers of the Democratic Party on the Hill are oblivious. Score three for We the People.

One fact of life mentioned by the Democrats is both real and very, very potent. China holds a lot of dollars and dollar denominated IOUs of American origin. This is the well known remember-boy-we-hold-your-note approach to life. The very fact that the Gnomes of Beijing hold multiple billions of our dollars and IOUs assures them of a quite respectful hearing on the Hill.

The attention and respect given to the needs, desires, and views of the Gnomes of Beijing grow in tandem with the Congressionally driven need to borrow ever increasing mountains of money to fund the dreams of the Progressive Caucus's (and President Obama's) Great Transformational Agenda. It may be mere coincidence but it is of more than passing interest that each and every of the quoted cheerleaders for China has voted for (1) TARP, (2) the stimulus bill, and (3) the most expensive of the health care overhaul measures (as well as other assorted "progressive" spending measures of dubious utility.

With the deficit already in numbers with which only astronomers are comfortable and the high probability it will go ever higher, the need for borrowing back more of the dollars spent by We the People on items of Chinese provenance comes more and more pressing. Since most if not all of the quoted Democrats are committed internationalists, the notion of exchanging diplomatic freedom as well as American national and strategic security for a large mess of potage is quite thinkable.

Perhaps the lure of more easily borrowed money is of such power that the assorted fine folks quoted can overlook such bagatelles as this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the midpoint of the Great Famine which accompanied the Chinese Great Leap Forward and cost, according to Chinese governmental figures, some fifty million Chinese lives. To this day the Beijing regime has never, never acknowledged the famine occurred as a result of state policy, state planning, state indifference, and state control of all aspects of Chinese life--and death.

Some of the people quoted in the WaPo article might be inclined to toss out that bit of critical history as irrelevant to today's world politics. Such cavalier dismissal of the greatest man-made famine in human history is, self-evidently, wrong.

Within today's Chinese senior leadership are to be found men who were present in junior roles during the two "Greats," the famine and the leap forward. They knew and know what happened and see no ethical problem. Instead they see lessons learned: Collectivism does not work, control, total control, of the media of communication, the writing of history, and the collective memory of the nation all work very well for regime maintenance.

Germany admitted its collective culpability for the Holocaust. The Soviet Union, long before its dissolution, acknowledged the central role played by both Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the vast famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere during its forced draft move to collectivize agriculture.

The Chinese government has never accepted the reality that its failed policy was the direct cause of the massive three year die-off of its own people. Nor is there any probability that Beijing will ever do so--even though the tail can be pinned on the dead donkey of Mao.

Compared to the Great Famine or the devastation brought by the Cultural Revolution, the more recent human rights abuses of the Beijing regime pale into virtual insignificance. This in no way downplays the responsibility of the Chinese government in its ongoing suppression of basic human rights. It in no way relieves the Gnomes of Beijing from their direct, personal guilt for the egregious violation of international conventions to which the regime has formally subscribed.

China is not like other countries. It is not like Germany, France, the UK or even Russia. It is not even in the same minor leagues of total disregard for basic human rights as the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Sudanese. It is one of a kind. A league of its own.

The American public--or at least a large portion of it--is evidently aware of this. The Democratic Party "China Lobby" is apparently not.

This degree of willful self-delusion must exist for a reason. There is a reason. It is to be found in that great nearly final line in the film Fargo. Perhaps you remember it--

"All of this. For a little bit of money."

You Gotta Give al-Qaeda Credit

The 30 December hit on Forward Operating Base Chapman which resulted in the deaths of several highly experienced CIA officers including the Chief of Base (COB) represents a triumph for the Glorious Warriors of Martyrdom. The use of the Jordanian medic and long standing jihadi, Human al-Balawi, constituted an excellent example of a penetration operation conducted with both fine planning and exceptional attention to detail as well as a degree of patience which would have done credit to the Chinese.

The successful detonation of the bomb concealed on his person by the physician turned suicide bomber also represents a dramatic failure by CIA in following the basic rules of tradecraft. There is nothing mysterious about tradecraft. It is a combination of slightly paranoiac commonsense and good criminal procedure.

First and foremost tradecraft depends upon never trusting anyone--other than one's closest associates--completely. Or, to use the translated Russian proverb so beloved by Ronald Reagan, "Trust--but verify." In working a human source--which is what al-Balawi was supposed to be--it is an imperative that the source have face time only with his controller. Sure, there can be very occasional exceptions to that basic requirement, but the idea of allowing a double agent--which is what al-Balawi was--in close proximity with several officers including the COB is a major lapse.

No matter what hopes might have been placed on al-Balawi's capacity to play pointer to senior al-Qaeda personnel, no matter what assurances might have been provided by the General Intelligence Department in Jordan as to al-Balawi's new allegiances, he should have been handled only by his controller with other interested people viewing discretely. If it was absolutely essential, a second person, even the COB, might have entered the room with al-Balawi.

There is no doubt but most if not all double agents are prickly characters in need of constant reassurances, unending absolution, and careful psychological manipulation. Often the demands of a double are outrageous. Whenever possible they should be complied with. But, never, repeat never, at the risk of compromising security or the integrity of the totality of the operation.

If there was no way around allowing al-Balawi to not only meet in person but be in close physical proximity to a number of officers, then there should have been an appropriate trade-off. Imagine this dialogue:

Al-Balawi, "I must see them all. My information is too important."

Case officer controller, "Sure thing, but I have to pat you down first. Nothing personal, but I gotta follow regulations or my ass is grass. I'm sure you understand."

But this elementary precaution--a technique which was common in previous combat zones--was not followed. Presumably this lapse was due to the Agency's "lust for knowing" and the concomitant deep desire to finally put paid to some of the most obnoxious and able of al-Qaeda's senior personnel.

It is easy to understand how lust could overpower the necessary caution of tradecraft when one considers that the Chief of Base had spent eight years as a full time chaser of Islamist jihadists. There is no doubt but she wanted desperately to nail one or more al-Qaeda heavyweights to the barn door.

Another factor which might have contributed to the temporary (but quite fatal) lapse of reason is the nature of the relationship between CIA and Jordan's GID. It has existed for years. Since long, long before al-Qaeda came into existence, since before the Six Day War, the Agency has had a fine working relationship with GID. The relation has survived any number of political strains as well as the death of King Hussein. Undoubtedly there was a great desire not to give any offense to a close ally, particularly given the ability and critical utility of the GID to US intelligence services.

Yet the Jordanians had only had possession of al-Balawi for a little less than a year. Considering the depth of al-Balawi's public commitment to Islamism, to jihad, as well as the fact that he loathed, hated, detested Israel to a degree which bordered on monomania, nine or ten months is a remarkably short time to accomplish a 180 degree reversal in a man's values and motives.

Al-Balawi and his al-Qaeda controllers were able to deceive Jordan's intelligence personnel completely. This is to the credit of the enemy. That the Agency took GID assurances at face value is a discredit to the American spooks.

"Trust--but verify!"

Presumably the Agency did some verification. It is self-evident that whatever independent measures might have been employed by Langley, they were not enough. Admittedly, how much is enough is a very subjective judgement call based upon a large number of contextual and personal considerations. The still small voice embodied in tradecraft always whispers, "Err on the side of caution."

In this case the Agency's people in the field did not. They died as a result.

Death in the world of the spooks is a reality. There is a wall filled with commemorative plaques in Langley which attests to that ground truth. Just like any military service, an intelligence organization sucks it up and presses on after taking losses. As is the case in the military it is essential that the dead be memorialized not simply with plaques, medals, or speeches but by an accurate understanding of what went wrong so that proper action can be taken to prevent future losses.

In this case the lessons learned are simple. The first is one must always follow the most cautious application of tradecraft. The second is: "Trust--but verify!"

A Primitive And Unconstructive People

It is small wonder that the Islamist jihadists (as well as the less violently inclined sympathizers and supporters who profess and practice politically oriented Islam) see the Arabian Peninsula of twelve hundred or so years ago as the desired paradigm of the human condition. These people and the societies which produce them are--like their desideratum--both primitive and unconstructive.

When the famed American diplomat and historian, George Kennan first used the term, "primitive and unconstructive," he was referring to a particular stance taken by the Soviet Union of Joe Stalin's day. As a man both knowledgeable of and sympathetic with Russian culture over its vast sweep of time, Kennan never would have applied the term to the entirety of the Russian population no matter how appropriate it might have been with respect to the Soviet strongman.

Faced with the actions and words of Islamist jihadists as well as the never ending paeans sung by the political Islamists to the glorious past of Islam during and after the life of the Perfect Man, Kennan would have been tempted to use the term to apply to an entire people. Or at least a significant component of that people.

Consider for a second the social and cultural nature of the assorted heartlands and havens of Islamist jihadism: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. All of these geographical expressions (as well as others less closely associated with al-Qaeda or Taliban or al-Shabaab or any of the other multiplying forces of jihad) are essentially tribal. Rulership is based on what anthropologists formerly (in less sensitive times) termed "the mighty man" or the "strongman." Socially and culturally all are disconnected from the streams of change running elsewhere in the world except to exploit those technological developments of use to them from cell phones and laptops to liquid explosives and automatic weapons.

To put the matter bluntly, the places which have given birth and later succor to the jihadists and the political Islamists who cozen and control them are as primitive as the society and culture which existed on the Arabian Peninsula over a thousand years ago. The historical record shows that the legacy of the long dead Muslims of the Peninsula as well as their successors along the roads of war and conquest has been marked by a singular lack of a constructive orientation.

Despite the best efforts of Muslim apologists, the historical record demonstrates beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the world today owes very, very little to the creative minds, the productive imaginations of Muslims over the past millennium or so beyond providing sanctuary for Jewish intellects fleeing the mindless repression of the Catholics in Europe particularly Spain.

Developments which have marked the construction of the modern world emerged not from those standing in awe of the Perfect Man and the Companions but those who either bowed to the Cross, contemplated the Buddah, or eschewed religion all together. Europe, North America, and Asia were and are the founts of constructive developments in all fields of human discourse. This is what irks the adherents of the primitive and unconstructive views propounded by Islamist jihadists.

For more than a thousand years the tribally based Muslim religion throughout its great swath of territory from Morocco to Indonesia has done nothing to advance the human condition. And, the march of Islam from its cradle to its current extent has seen far more bloodshed, far more persecution, far more destruction than that inflicted by the long conflicts between varieties of European Christians or between Christians and Muslims.

Only in the colonial sphere can the record of Christians descend to the valleys of devastation which mark the course of Islamic conquest and exploitation. Even in this worst of all Christian campaigns it must be said with honesty that the Europeans did try to create, did try to repair damage, did try to improve in many ways the human condition in the regions they seized. Yes, often the attempts were futile, often they were misguided, occasionally the attempts were both cynical and self-serving. Nonetheless, the balance shows the Christian's did make a good faith effort to bring sophistication in politics, medicine, law, technology, education, social mores, and cultural customs.

The Muslims did none of these things. Societies and polities remained simple, primitive, under the sway of "mighty men" and backward looking clerics. Until challenged, dominated by the West, the lands and people of Islam existed in an eddy of time, motionless as the larger currents of change, innovation, discovery, accomplishment swirled by.

The Islamists and those in Islam who support them either openly or tacitly want to regain the safety of their little motionless warp in time. Worse, they want to stop the currents of change.

There is a deceptive appeal in the simple. The simple life, the closely ordered life, the life which runs according to timeless principles enshrined by both the sacred literature and tradition seems so attractive because it reduces the risks of life, the perils of existence, the messy uncertainties of change. A strong, pure faith backed by a strong "mighty man" has great seductive power--particularly to those who have never left the world of the personal, the tribal, the ever-so-simple.

Even to some living in far more politically, socially, culturally, and technologically sophisticated places than the FATA of Pakistan or the barren hills of Yemen find a sweet, sentimental appeal in the notion of a simplified life in which the never ending dislocations of "progress" are noted by their absence. The human brain molded by its emergence in a simple society of family and tribe, an existence which was as timeless as the rhythm of the seasons and the movements of game, still homes in on the "simple life" as a compass needle seeks True North.

The Islamists and their armed jihadist component want to bring back the Good Old Days by force, violence, and fear. They will continue their efforts unless killed to the last man--an option which is not practical in any sort of real world terms even if it could be ethically justified--from one tribal venue or another. The most rational option available for a long term defeat of the jihadists is the ending of tribalism in those places where it and Islam coexist.

That option looked at objectively is very, very difficult to achieve. It is so not because it would take great amounts of thought, effort, and money. The detribalization of the Muslim world is difficult, not to say impossible, to achieve because the simple life is "primitive and unconstructive." It is in that reality that the appeal resides.

Raising The Ugly(?) Of Profiling

The matter of profiling prospective passengers on international flights (and perhaps other venues as well) is again under discussion. Well, to err on the side of accuracy, perhaps the word "discussion" is inappropriately mild. Acrimonious, emotional exchange of diatribes might be closer to the reality of things.

One ground truth on which all considerations of profiling is simple: It works. The experience of El Al airline over the past thirty years shows that conclusively. This ground truth is the single greatest reason in support of profiling.

The second ground truth regarding profiling is simply that it is offensive to all people who for whatsoever reason fall into the suspect category. The Geek is no stranger to this ground truth as there was a time in this country not that many years ago when all long haired men were viewed by security and police personnel as potential drug smugglers--despite the fact that no person would be so stupid as to use someone of an evident "hippy" appearance to run drugs on their behalf.

The Geek recalls with wry amusement all the times he was taken aside for "enhanced screening" even though he had valid ID up the ying-yang and was travelling on Official Business simply because he wore his hair in long braids in a form of tribute to his Apache ancestors. This sort of intrusive and often quite obnoxious secondary searching happened in a number of US airports as well as some in the UK, Germany, and even Luxembourg. To say the Geek was rankled is to engage in understatement.

Emotionally, therefore he is in sympathy with the views of those who are opposed to profiling as an insult to Muslims, Arabs, other people of color, and so forth. People would be insulted by the inevitable occurrence of profiling errors. The insult will be all the worse given that today's TSA employees are even more given to a species of arrogant rudeness far surpassing that exhibited by their predecessors of a decade and more ago.

Rationally, however, the Geek must go with the position that profiling is a valuable method of screening out potential threats even if it has a high false positive component. Considering both the problems of intelligence analysis pointing to a discrete, identifiable threat, and the exceptional vulnerability of an airliner in flight, the extra sieve of profiling is justified.

The first task is assuring to the greatest extent humanly possible that commercial airliners and other similar high value targets are secure from terrorist threats as the highest priority. A reliance upon advanced, expensive technology alone is insufficient. So is placing all hopes on the leak proof effectiveness of warning intelligence. Even a combination of the two is not sufficient guard to provide the appropriate level of safety for those travelling by air--or living and working on the ground below the flight path.

At the same time profiling is not an anodyne. It cannot and should not be used as the primary barrier in airline security. More, it is not a general purpose tool which can be used with equal effect to protect other high value targets such as sports arenas, concert venues, shopping malls, and office complexes. There are simply too many members of these target constellations with entirely too many of us bipeds coming and going for profiling to have any utility.

This set of considerations implies that the risks of alienating large segments of our own people or foreign populations is inherently limited. There is no real world based reason to conclude that the implementation of profiling will cause diplomatic difficulties with Muslim, Arab, or African nations. Neither, particularly if the matter is handled with any degree of sensitivity below that of purely barbarian, is their any realistic basis for the contention that racism, xenophobia, or any other manifestation of fear and hate will ripple through We the People.

The matrix of features which can be employed in a system of profiling is both well established and generally known. This implies that the utility of profiling is time limited as the Islamist jihadist groups will seek ways to fly below the profiler's radar in the same way the drug smuggling rings quickly learned what sort of person would be most likely to pass by the security and law enforcement surveillance without notice.

In the short term profiling would offer very real advantages in both the deterrence and interdiction of terrorist attempts to target flights to and from the US. Even a short term benefit would have longer term utility as it would provide the time necessary for the US and its allies to develop and implement more effective strategies and operational level doctrine for defeating the Islamist jihadist groups around the world.

There is just one major problem with profiling. It would require that the US government actually put a name to the enemy for the very first time. It would require the dropping of euphemisms like "violent extremist" and call it what it is: Islamist jihadist.

Telling it like it is might be too tough for the Nice Young Man From Chicago, and that means profiling will be dead on arrival forever.