I started to write an explanation why I haven't been posting much lately, but I realized that it was boring and that it would take just as much time as writing a politically interesting post. So forget explanations and on with the politics!
As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.
It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.
Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.
But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.
I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.
I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.
In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obameter #193: Summit on Nuclear Terrorism
Einstein proved that a little matter can be converted to a massive amount of energy. Atoms of some isotopes of some elements are capable of breaking down into several smaller atoms in such a way that some mass is lost and, thus, a great amount of energy is gained. Uranium-235 is one such isotope, the only naturally-occurring isotope of any element that can sustain a chain reaction of atomic fission; that is, that the fission of one atom can trigger the fission of another, over and over until the U235 is all used up. Thus, a great enough mass of U235 at a sufficiently extreme density can cause a massive output of energy - an atomic chain reaction. The theoretical maximum energy production is 19.54 TJ/mol - in other words, one mole of U235 (235 g or ½ pound) is enough to heat 18 Olympic swimming pools from frozen to boiling.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Obameter #125: Order Us Out of Iraq
Until the financial market collapse in October, the biggest issue in the 2008 presidential election was Iraq. Bush was The Devil™ who took us in and Obama was The Coward™ who would bring our troops home without victory. Rhetoric was heated hyperbole and exaggeration. It was bad.
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The USA and The UAE
Apparently I wrote this post twice. I think this version (originally dated 8/29/09) is actually better than the previously published version. Oh, well. Compare and enjoy.
In 2006, the White House approved of the sale of several sea ports to a corporation owned by the United Arab Emirates. The ports were already foreign-owned (owned by a British company). George W. Bush thought the sale was a great idea that would demonstrate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not an assault on Islam or Arabs generally. Conservatives opposed the plan, arguing that it would harm national security to have an Arab nation responsible for keeping terrorists out. In my opinion, the opposition was a combination of racism and a mistaken impression that the UAE could not be effective.
On Friday, Aug 28, 2009, UAE forces captured a shipment of weapons of war being distributed from North Korea to Iran in violation of a bunch of international sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran share in common controversial, unilateral experimentation with nuclear material. For these among other reasons, both were listed (alongside Saddam's Iraq) by George W. Bush as "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." [1] And now there's a connection, and our allies the UAE, whom we should have trusted, have identified and weakened the link between them.
It was a miserable mistake for us to refuse the UAE port deal. We should treat our allies better. Will the current administration, with it's new-found emphasis on our reputation in the world, address this? We shall see.
In 2006, the White House approved of the sale of several sea ports to a corporation owned by the United Arab Emirates. The ports were already foreign-owned (owned by a British company). George W. Bush thought the sale was a great idea that would demonstrate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not an assault on Islam or Arabs generally. Conservatives opposed the plan, arguing that it would harm national security to have an Arab nation responsible for keeping terrorists out. In my opinion, the opposition was a combination of racism and a mistaken impression that the UAE could not be effective.
On Friday, Aug 28, 2009, UAE forces captured a shipment of weapons of war being distributed from North Korea to Iran in violation of a bunch of international sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran share in common controversial, unilateral experimentation with nuclear material. For these among other reasons, both were listed (alongside Saddam's Iraq) by George W. Bush as "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." [1] And now there's a connection, and our allies the UAE, whom we should have trusted, have identified and weakened the link between them.
It was a miserable mistake for us to refuse the UAE port deal. We should treat our allies better. Will the current administration, with it's new-found emphasis on our reputation in the world, address this? We shall see.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Iran, North Korea, and the United Arab Emirates
The headline reads UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran.
These aren't nuclear weapon parts, but they are explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and other similar things of the type that have been killing Americans in Iraq. It's also wildly against UN resolutions. If the allegations that weapons have been smuggled over the border from Iran into Iraq are true, these weapons could've ended up being used against US troops in Iraq if they hadn't been caught.
I don't know if the North Korea/Iran connection existed before George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, but it's clear he was right to list them together. They obviously have some traits and trade in common.
Remember the UAE ports deal? Many Republicans in the legislature and conservatives nationwide doubted whether US security should be entrusted to an Arab nation like the UAE, and whether they could truly be our allies. I think this definitively shows that 1) our best interests are aided by their actions, and 2) they are good at sea security. This only reinforces my belief that we should've let the UAE buy the ports they wanted, and that only short-sighted prejudice prevented it.
These aren't nuclear weapon parts, but they are explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and other similar things of the type that have been killing Americans in Iraq. It's also wildly against UN resolutions. If the allegations that weapons have been smuggled over the border from Iran into Iraq are true, these weapons could've ended up being used against US troops in Iraq if they hadn't been caught.
I don't know if the North Korea/Iran connection existed before George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, but it's clear he was right to list them together. They obviously have some traits and trade in common.
Remember the UAE ports deal? Many Republicans in the legislature and conservatives nationwide doubted whether US security should be entrusted to an Arab nation like the UAE, and whether they could truly be our allies. I think this definitively shows that 1) our best interests are aided by their actions, and 2) they are good at sea security. This only reinforces my belief that we should've let the UAE buy the ports they wanted, and that only short-sighted prejudice prevented it.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Obameter #134: Send two brigades to Afghanistan
Since early in the campaign, Obama has maintained that George W. Bush's focus on Iraq has distracted from and crippled the military objectives in Afganistan. In his own words, "Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."
I don't believe that Iraq was a distracting or weakening influence on US endeavors in Afghanistan, but I do believe it is largely stabilized and well-in-hand. My reasoning for why to send troops to Afghanistan more closely matches McCain's, wherein he argued that counterterrorism strategies developed in Iraq would help win on the Afghani front as well. In either case, sending additional troops to Afghanistan, which has lost ground in the past two or three years, seems perfectly reasonable.
According to PolitiFact.org, Obama announced in February that he would send a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and a Army Stryker Brigade to Afghanistan. They called "promise kept" at that point, but I was interested to see if the troops actually arrived in Afghanistan. BBC reports that the Marine Expeditionary Brigade certainly did, while the AP reports that the Army Stryker Brigade has been hastily retrained for deployment in Afghanistan any day now.
I could make a big deal about the hasty retraining of an Army Stryker Brigade that has months of preparation and training for work in Iraq and how that contrasts with Obama's 2002 claim that he opposed "a rash war". Why is Bush's rush to Iraq bad, but the Strykers' rush to Afghanistan solid policy? But I trust the troops to adapt quickly and do a good job, so it's a minor quibble.
File this under "Good job, Mr. President."
On another note, I did the math and I need to do 5 Obamameter posts every 2 weeks to cover them all before Obama's first term ends. So I'll be stepping up the pace on these to about 3 a week. I should also explain my methodology: I've been running through the promises listed by PolitiFact, addressing promises with definitive conclusions first, and "Top Promises" first among those. After those distinctions, I've been running through them in number order. If I run out of promises with conclusive results, I'll cover "In The Works" promises, and lastly "No Action" promises (which currently constitute over 70% of the promises made). Promises covered as "In The Works" and "No Action" may be revisited later to note new progress. Now you know the plan, and knowing is half the battle.
I don't believe that Iraq was a distracting or weakening influence on US endeavors in Afghanistan, but I do believe it is largely stabilized and well-in-hand. My reasoning for why to send troops to Afghanistan more closely matches McCain's, wherein he argued that counterterrorism strategies developed in Iraq would help win on the Afghani front as well. In either case, sending additional troops to Afghanistan, which has lost ground in the past two or three years, seems perfectly reasonable.
According to PolitiFact.org, Obama announced in February that he would send a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and a Army Stryker Brigade to Afghanistan. They called "promise kept" at that point, but I was interested to see if the troops actually arrived in Afghanistan. BBC reports that the Marine Expeditionary Brigade certainly did, while the AP reports that the Army Stryker Brigade has been hastily retrained for deployment in Afghanistan any day now.
I could make a big deal about the hasty retraining of an Army Stryker Brigade that has months of preparation and training for work in Iraq and how that contrasts with Obama's 2002 claim that he opposed "a rash war". Why is Bush's rush to Iraq bad, but the Strykers' rush to Afghanistan solid policy? But I trust the troops to adapt quickly and do a good job, so it's a minor quibble.
File this under "Good job, Mr. President."
On another note, I did the math and I need to do 5 Obamameter posts every 2 weeks to cover them all before Obama's first term ends. So I'll be stepping up the pace on these to about 3 a week. I should also explain my methodology: I've been running through the promises listed by PolitiFact, addressing promises with definitive conclusions first, and "Top Promises" first among those. After those distinctions, I've been running through them in number order. If I run out of promises with conclusive results, I'll cover "In The Works" promises, and lastly "No Action" promises (which currently constitute over 70% of the promises made). Promises covered as "In The Works" and "No Action" may be revisited later to note new progress. Now you know the plan, and knowing is half the battle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)