Detailed Abstractions » Iraq

IMF Chief Says Global Recession Caused by Ghosts….

Michael S. Langston — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:58:36 +0000

Ok…. so not really, but what he stated isn’t too far off as ghosts are just as factual as the “imbalances” he claims are responsible the global recession.

Strauss-Kahn,_Dominique_(official_portrait_2008)

So what did he say? Well, as usual, his improvable opinion, has to wrapped up in provable facts; the “global imbalance” (whole thing here via International Business Times):

…while the recovery is underway, it is not the recovery we wanted. It is a recovery beset by tensions and strains—which could even sow the seeds of the next crisis.

True. Not only true, but also the reason why Egypt can’t be obviously predicted, as even the protesters are fighting amongst themselves.

Why?

Because the protests were born out of economic conditions and not a desire for freedom or Sharia Law. This is why you can see the same unrest in Yemen, Jordan, the Sudan, and other countries.

This isn’t to say that a small faction, even a weak faction in Egypt like the Muslim Brotherhood, could never end up in charge. They could. They could use the fractured protesters against themselves towards their own aims and possibly turn Egypt into an Islamic state much like Iran.

This is a real fear. & combine this possibility with two major changes coming to the Middle East:

1. Iran getting *nuclear weapons with little more than talk from the international community; demonstrating they believe they are in a comfortable position of strength.

*(in 2015 or 2012, whether you believe public reports from Israel or the UK respectively)

2. *Possible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, leaving Iran very strong militarily. They will immediately become the largest and most capable military force than all others in the region (great article via Stratfor).

*(Iraq doesn’t wish to be controlled by Iran anymore than the US wants this to happen. So it’s possible the Iraqi parliament votes to keep US troops in country for insurance.)

People are naturally worried. Either one of these alone is reason enough to fear instable states might flow towards Iran’s ideology, but when combined with everything else, concern is warranted.

The media of course has done what they do best. Put up a false dichotomy by breaking this into only two sides; Egypt is becoming either an Islamist State or a Free Paradise. The facts on the ground don’t support any particular conclusion at this time, but it’s tougher to write about that.

Just remember when reading the press reports that just a few short years ago most of these people were telling all of us how great Iran would become after the Green Revolution…. but I digress.

Our IMF Chief continues, using the factual and obvious instability in many countries, by warning of global imbalances, specifically (speech cont’d):

Growth in economies with large external deficits, like the U.S., is still being driven by domestic demand. And growth in economies with large external surpluses, like China and Germany, is still being powered by exports. As the IMF warned in the years leading up to the crisis—and as the G-20 has emphasized—these global imbalances….

Which is another fact. There are trade imbalances between many countries with respects to China and Germany. But then his facts stop, even though his words do not.

He moves forward by acting as if the two countries are the same. Both seen as part of this “problem” based upon one and only one factor, which he ultimately blames for the global recession. Not just is it to blame for the current state of the global economy, but he also predicts this imbalance could (speech cont’d):

….put the sustainability of the recovery at risk.

His evidence for this is factual data that China’s recovery might be too overheated for long term sustained growth. But by using the factor of trade imbalances as a primary filter, he erroneously conflates the two countries all while ignoring significant differences, such as freedom and rule of law.

Both of which we know and for which we can demonstrate, are the main sources of poverty, disease, and starvation in the world.

To name but one obvious example, it’s not that Zimbabwe’s citizens aren’t capable of producing the food and other products they need. It’s the oppressive government system, with central control, built upon the premise of equality, actively prevents their own citizens from succeeding.

And the same goes with China, as the reason China will likely be stepping into economic troubles very soon, even with their exports on the rise as other countries recover (including Germany), isn’t because of some Ghost of Magical Imbalance. The true global imbalance is money; caused by governments like China propping up such economically and socially oppressive systems.

As their centrally controlled systems fail to provide stability and by design their corrupt government officials fail to provide security through consistent application of the rule of law, even their own citizens don’t invest domestically (DA post here, source NBER here).

In a freer China, where the rule of law was followed, where property rights were secure, domestic investment would be an obvious. With China currently however….

But all of this is seemingly ignored by the IMF Chief as he concludes all this evidence helps make his case. This one-factor view of things allows him to not only ignore real differences, but also allows him to not have to argue his primary assertion.

Because if one wishes to argue about any imbalance, people listening would expect to hear reasons for the current imbalance, followed by reasons why that balance is wrong, and ending with some idea of what better balance would look like.

All relevant to his assertion, but all missing from his speech. As the assertion is difficult to prove.

For example, contemplate deciding how to rate Germany’s exports of hand crafted automobiles against China’s exports of inexpensive tea – if both exports are roughly the same dollar value are they equal? if not, why not?

Or contemplate the 1980′s US automobile & electronics markets which lost to Japan – should that imbalance have been fixed by force or through competition?

But then that’s the entire reason to use instability in the Middle East and North Africa, combined with some idea about the sameness of China’s & Germany’s economies, to give an unsustainable opinion.

Because it sounds good and it’s easy…. so long as you don’t actually contemplate the assertions made.

Our Warriors

Michael S. Langston — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:34:56 +0000

On each Memorial Day, I try to research at least one individual act of courage to remind myself about the nature of those we’ve lost.

This year, I read about a 19 year old, who sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers. While on patrol in Iraq, their Humvee came under attack. His job, manning the 50 cal machine gun on top of the vehicle is critical to their success. This day however (whole thing here):

…While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled “grenade,” allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death….

Born on June 14th, 1987, Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis lost his life to save others on December 4th 2006, in a place very far from home, because we asked him to go.

There are those that would say this doesn’t matter all that much since we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place. There are others who would argue strongly that even if you disagree, soldiers like this one are protecting our lives and our freedoms.

For me, not all wars are about saving our freedoms. Not every use of the military…. well, even most uses of the military, does not qualify as “protecting” Americans. Like all countries throughout history, our military is a foreign policy tool that we don’t like to use.

For me…. it’s not about protecting me or protecting our freedoms, it’s a simple as this: our country, through our elected representatives, asked this child to go to war. He went.

Yeah, that’s enough for me.

This is the UN Conference on Climate Change?

Michael S. Langston — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:00:27 +0000

President Obama, among other distinguished guests, got together at the UN for a conference on Climate change.

This pressing issue, that Mr. Obama cares so much about – that issue which his party fights for daily was so important, that his words must have been strong and firm on our commitment to the environment, right? (here):

…”I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted I believe in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”…

Ok – so unilateral action in our interests are different from other unilateral actions other countries make how? And should we care why?

I know, this again will make me be seen as heartless and I do understand that we have to act in a way that is semi-consistent with international laws, but it’s not our job nor is it our responsibility. I would like to think that when despots are killing their own citizens, we can act unilaterally if we wish.

Please understand; I’m not for an expansion of foreign entanglements mind you, I’m only saying that when something is a just cause and others are unwilling to do anything, then unilateral action is the moral response.

But, he did go on to say that he wouldn’t apologize for defending the nation’s interests. So there’s that… but this as well:

…”We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

“On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example. “…

Maybe the President is out the loop or something, but GITMO remains open, and without knowing the specific interrogation techniques which are now being allowed, “not allowing torture” is a joke. I think it’s obvious that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t believe they were “allowing torture”, but maybe he meant something else – like;

“I started a committee to look into closing GITMO, but I still support the Patriot Act, sending prisoners to other nations who torture, and really, most of my predecessors policies, with the exception of the committee and DOJ investigation.”

But this is politics, so he continues:

…”We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies — a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we — and many nations here — are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”…

Where’s Iraq? Oh, here:

…”In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.:…

Well, that’s not really true. We’re pulling back troops and have a date to leave, but the Iraqi government can ask us to stay and we would likely oblige… but even without that, does this match the campaign promise?

Hmmm….:

…On Tuesday, Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007,” which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders….

It’s almost becoming too easy to poke holes in damn near anything he says, but remember first and foremost that this was a UN Conference on Climate Change.

To be fair, he did get there. Out of roughly 1000 words spoke, he spent 46 words on climate change. For an administration that recently published a report described as this:

…The report describes in vivid detail how our urban infrastructure will be placed in peril from intense hurricanes and storm surges, how heat waves, poor air quality, and insects will increase, and how a rapidly intensifying climate change will make it difficult for both society and the natural resources we possess to adapt….

His discussion on the world stage leaves a lot to be desired.

For real climate change discussions and solutions: I highly recommend the Copenhagen Consensus.