Well summer has finally ended, and I have no choice but to accept the unfortunate reality that school is beginning yet again.  On the plus side, now that I've returned to academia and a somewhat-normal routine, I'm set to resume blogging regularly (or at least less-irregularly).  To kick things off, here is a response to Dan Drezner's post about how millennials understand foreign policy.  Jeremy wrote a terrific response last week, and so I'm going to expand upon some of his themes and explore a few new ones.

I see two major points in this discussion:

1) We are not isolationist, instead we are globalized to an unprecedented degree.
2) We are cynical of how the world works, but that is not always a bad thing.

The most important point, contra-Drezner, is that our generation is not going to be "anti-interventionist to the point of isolationism."  Instead, as Jeremy noted, this generation is truly the first "globalized generation."  In terms of foreign policy, this means that we understand the inherent interconnectedness of today's world.  Every individual across the globe could potentially impact our lives here, as the 9/11 hijackers proved, and as we increasingly rely on the internet for all aspects of our daily lives our vulnerability too grows.  This is the bitter fruit of economic globalization and the revolutions in communications, travel, and technology that have changed the fundamentals of our existence.

Furthermore, we millennials understand that there is no going back.  We cannot retreat to "Fortress America" and choose isolation; for seclusion is no longer an option.  There are two reasons for this - structural and personal.  Structurally, I find it hard to believe that the world will stop "shrinking" anytime soon.  Communications technologies are constantly growing more powerful, and as the global economy continues to integrate it pulls the world inextricably together.  We no longer manufacture everything in America that we need to survive, and the oceans of the world no longer serve as protective barriers against foreign intrusion.  America is part of this global system, and millennials understand that taking our ball and going home simply no longer applies.

On the personal level, globalization, however you choose to define it, has taken root amongst our peers.  Many millennials have traveled, studied, lived, and worked overseas, and not solely in Old Europe.  We are fortunate to have these opportunities, made possible by the decrease in time, barriers, and, most importantly, cost of international adventure.  The factors that enabled us to travel more than any previous generation are not going away, nor are the connections we made to people, places, and cultures.  In other words, we millennials have a greater understanding of the globe than our predecessors, and a vested interest in places that is impossible to otherwise replicate.

The second major point concerns our relationship with governments, our own and foreign, and the international system.  We are, to put it mildly, cynical.  The distortions and lies of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq headline the list of grievances, but struggling through the Great Recession while watching Congress dither is only slightly less influential.  Thanks to the miracle of the internet we have witnessed the prevarications of other governments and the ways in which they manipulate their own people.

This cynicism is not necessarily a bad thing.  Our eyes are open to the ways of the world, and we are prepared to analyze the events of the future, not simply accept what we are given.  And this doesn't mean that idealistic optimism is dead - we millennials have our fair share of dreamers, planners, and changers.  But we do recognize the difficulties of achieving real, substantive, enduring changes, and come prepared.

Drezner's post is laced with pessimism for the future, and Jeremy is fueled by anger and frustration from our experiences.  I don't share these views, but, like Jeremy, I am cautiously optimistic about the chances for our future.  The interconnected world presents evolving threats, and it will require intellectual rigor, pragmatic flexibility, and a clear vision to meet these new challenges.  I have faith that we millennials are prepared for what comes next.

I would like to start out by making a disclaimer as this post is sure to generate some criticism. I am in no way anti-immigration, nor do I support government action restricting the rights of immigrants (legal or not) such as the law recently enacted in Arizona allowing police to demand proof of visa/citizenship from anyone they suspect of being in the United States illegally. My own father in fact is an immigrant to America. Demagogues and Dictators is at its core a security blog and the following is meant to bring your attention to a certain new technology that could have uses far beyond what the military is currently thinking.

For the past few years, the U.S. military has been developing what it is calling an "Active Denial System," or as Wired Magazine has dubbed it a "Pain Ray" (Aka the "Goodbye Weapon or the Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System (V-MAD)). When I first head of this device back in 2007, the military was testing to see if it could be used to non-lethally disperse crowds in Iraq. Essentially what this technology does is to concentrate microwaves across a limited distance. All organic tissue within a close proximity to the rays beam will experience an extremely hot sensation similar to opening a hot oven. From videos of the testing I have seen, the ray is very effective at getting people to instinctively move away from an area. The military claims that the weapon is entirely non-lethal and causes no permanent damage, although in one case a test subject had to be rushed to a hospital and treated for burns. As reported by Wired, this system has also recently been deployed for testing in Afghanistan

Now how does this relate to border security? Imagine a string of these microwave devices planted across the southern border of the United States all rotating in a random order such that only a minority of the border is hit with the ray at anyone time but ensuring that over a certain period of time the entire border is covered. This would negate the selective use of certain easy border crossing points as anyone crossing at any point along the border would risk being hit with the ray.

Human rights groups would obviously go crazy if the U.S. government were to even float the idea of such a system and I for one am not advocating it use either. However, I can imagine instances when such a system might have to be at least considered in emergency situations. Say for instance if terrorists were caught trying to smuggle nuclear material over the border. There would be in instant public outcry to seal the borders once and for all. You can't put up a huge fence overnight but you could deploy these Active Denial Systems in a matter of hours if you had a deployment plan already worked out. Furthermore, if the Mexican government were to fail, which according to the Defense Department is on par with the likelihood of the Pakistani government failing, the U.S government would need some way to temporarily stop a mass exodus of millions of people from Northern Mexico. In my opinion using this system would result in far fewer casualties than deploying the National Guard and the Minutemen down to the border armed with M-16's.

I know this is not a popular thought but we here at D&D believe that it is never wrong to think and we welcome any and all debate on this topic.

On Monday, the New York Times reported on a Defense Department memo claiming that under Afghanistan's hard terrain lays nearly a $1 trillion in mineral deposits. These minerals include large veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium a vital component of computer batteries. But the reality of this story is that it is more of a propaganda campaign or "information operation" than it is real news. Yes it is true that these minerals do exist in Afghanistan but it is by no means news. The U.S. Geological survey made the discovery back in 2007. However, the U.S. government is pushing the story now because the coalition here has been rocked by some particularly bad press here the past week (Ironically from the New York Times. This causes me to wonder if the Times is attempting to buy its way back into the good graces of the Embassy in Kabul.) The most damaging of this press was comments attributed to President Karzai about the West not being able to win in Afghanistan. This story is similar to ones that preceded the Iraq War when the Bush administration claimed that Iraq's oil wealth would pay for all the costs of reconstruction.

The reason why news of these vasts deposits is no need to celebrate is simple. The minerals are worthless unless you can actually get private companies to come in here and mine them. And with the security situation what it is that is not likely to happen any time soon. Afghanistan for instance would be a great country to run oil pipeline through, stretching from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and then on to China as well. However, despite a great deal of effort on the part of a U.S. company called Unocal they were never able to negotiate enough treaties with all the tribes and Taliban to agree not to blow up the lines or siphon oil from them. The one country with a mining contract in Afghanistan right now is China which now owns the largest copper mine here. They don't care about their people dying so it works out well for them.


The Taliban can't really mine anything so we don't really have to worry about them getting this revenue as they simply arent organized enough not to mention the lliterate enough. Furthermore, from this map you can tell that the majority of the deposits are located in Northern, Western and Central Afghanistan, all areas where the Taliban is not strong. The Taliban makes the majority of their money through taxes, which they are pretty good at collecting. They front farmers the money to buy opium poppy seed. They then take a percentage of the farmers cut when he sells his product to the local drug lord. They then also tax the drug lord for the right to move his product through areas they control. It is very mafia like here both in the government and the black market.

The other really bad thing about all these mineral deposits being discovered is that its really just one more thing for the government here to exploit for bribes. The Chinese got their copper mine for a song simply by paying a few million to the right ministers. The mine itself is worth billions.

Today in the NY Times, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs, Bing West wrote an Op-ed outlining his plan to save Afghanistan by circumventing Hamid Karzai and focusing on bringing governance to Afghanistan at the local level. Mr. West puts it out there that having a strong military actually running the country from behind the scenes may in fact be the best case scenario for Afghanistan. As he points out this would be situation like in Pakistan where instead of the country having a military, the military would have a country, but at least it would be more stable than the Afghanistan we find ourselves with today.

This argument is certainly interesting, and I do not argue with Mr. Bing that what we have now in Afghanistan is certainly not a democracy considering the blatant evidence that Hamid Karzai stole the election. However, his plan for a strong man government backed by the military has a very serious flaw. Bing West assumes that the Afghan National Army (ANA) is actually a capable force. While the ANA is rated higher than the Afghan National Police (ANP) in the sense that they aren't actually extorting locals or running drugs like the police. However, you have to think about who is actually joining the ANA. Afghan families and tribes are not going to let their best men leave their homes to support a government that they have no faith in. From what I have heard from U.S. troops who have gone on patrol with members of the ANA is that a lot of them are the "scrubs" of Afghan society.

My readers may find this short documentary clip of interest. Its a british video journalist who is on patrol with British and Afghan troops. As you can tell, the ANA shows no discipline and are in fact High in the middle of a firefight!

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about this.

And that's my fifty cents (inflation...)

This past weekend the New York Times published an article entitled "Letting Women Reach Women in Afghan War." The following is my take on this evolution in the practice of counterinsurgency.

First of all, let me state that I think this is a really novel idea that has a decent chance of yielding good intel. Its definitely a sign that General McCrystal is doing his best to implement COIN doctrine and give it his own special twist.

What can be gained specifically from talking to the women in Afghan society is a sense of what the practical needs of the people really are. As the family caretakers, women are much more likely to discuss practical issues such as food or water shortages or lack of access to medicine or winter clothing. From interviews I have read with Afghani men and tribal elders, they tend to focus on the bigger issues like "why are you occupying so many houses in our town, how long are you staying, are you going to destroy our poppy crop? etc."

Acquiring this type of knowledge can allow the marines embedded in these villages to take small steps towards improving the quality of life for these villages. The article in the New York Times claims that this data is to be uploaded into a database in order to help guide military planners and aid workers. This will only be helpful if the database exists on the unclassified level. Too often the military feels the need to classify such information thus preventing many of the NGO's working in Afghanistan from gaining a better perspective of the needs on the ground. A similar flaw can be found with Human Terrain Teams currently operating in Afghanistan. These teams are made up of many academics who do not wish to share their data with anyone but their direct superiors as they are hoping to one day publish it on their own.

Talking to women in their homes has the added advantage of removing a lot of the posturing that we see in more public Shura meetings with men in rural villages. In these meetings a lot of the Afghan males feel the need to act hostile towards American forces, due to the fact that there are representatives from the Taliban sitting in the circle with them.

I see one major flaw in this plan. It is fantastic that any group of marines is being given specialized training in counterinsurgency, let alone an all female unit that will be operating outside the wire interacting with Pashtun women. However, the plan rests entirely on whether or not husbands of Pashtun women allow them access to their homes in the first place. While the husbands may actually be ok with an American woman entering their home, how are they going to feel about the male translator who is accompanying her?? The piece to this story that is clearly lacking is that as far as I can tell these female marines are not learning Pashtu, and as long as I have been studying Afghanistan I have never heard of the military employing female translators in Afghanistan.

A colleague of mine named Emily Keane who has spent time as an aid worker in Afghanistan informs me that there are in fact female translators offering their services in Afghanistan who have in fact been of vital help to many NGO's especially in the area of family planning and reproductive health services. However, it is unlikely that the number of female translators needed exist outside of Kabul and it is equally unlikely that the female translators that are known to exist in Kabul would be willing to leave their families and travel with American military units into combat zones.

To conclude, I think this is a fantastic step in the right direction and is a sign that the US military is giving a lot of thought as to the best way to adapt counterinsurgency practices to needs on the ground.

And thats my fifty cents (inflation...)

I am happy to report that we (and by we I mean the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Program Agency) are closer than ever before to coming out with a hand held translation device. Yes the same people who brought you the internet and GPS, are currently funding a research initiative titled the Robust Automatic Translation of Speech program to streamline the translation process.

As reported by Katie Dummond on Wired Magazine's blog The Danger Room

"What troops really need is a machine that can pick out voices from the noise, understand and translate all kinds of different languages, and then identify the voice from a hit list of “wanted speakers.”

The goal is to have a working model that is the size of an ipod and is 98% accurate in 20 essential languages. Such a device would quite literally change the way we fight wars and respond to disasters. A common complaint from the battlefield is the poor quality of many translators who simply do no possess the English language skills...

For those of you who don't know me, I am a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy. As a graduate student in Boston I have access to a consortium that allows me to take classes at Harvard and MIT if I so choose. I know that many people are probably sitting in their cubes as we speak thinking to themselves "I should stop reading blogs and apply to grad school." This blog entry is for you. I have not yet had the opportunity to take any classes at MIT but I currently am attending classes at both Fletcher and Harvard and thus feel that I am in a unique position to offer those thinking about applying to graduate school a first hand account of the differences between these two fine institutions of learning.

A while back my politically minded sister asked me if I had checked out this news and opinion website called the Daily Beast. I informed her that I had and despite its popularity amongst some quite intelligent friends of mine, I for one refuse to give that site a single hit. For any news outlet that wishes to be taken seriously simply cannot be proud of the fact that one of its most notable commentators is Meghan McCain, daughter of two time Presidential loser Senator John McCain.

Secretary Gates has announced that he will be replacing Marine Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz, director of the Joint Strike Fighter program . In military terms this amounts to a straight up firing. This makes the fifth General that Gates has fired in his tenor as Defense Secretary sending the strong message that with stars comes accountability. (It should be noted that two of those Generals were fired for misplacing several nuclear warheads for a matter of hours, I think we can all agree that any Secretary in their right mind would have fired those guys)

The long anticipated QDR has finally arrived and all of us security geeks voraciously downloaded it yesterday and stayed up to the wee hours of the morning pouring over its every word desperately searching for something resembling a coherent defense strategy. Unfortunately, there is not all that much new to report. The QDR reminds us that we are still actively fighting two wars and that essentially we can't really figure out a way forward until we somehow extricate ourselves from those debacles. To that I say "Don't we need to be thinking at least ten years ahead if we aren't going to be caught off guard." The following is a critique of the 2010 QDR, which despite my overall disappointment, does have a few new ideas scattered amongst it.

I thought this was a very good speech. There were really no parts that I thought were lacking in factual correctness or innacurracy. Obama told the American people the truth and that is his highest responsibility. He did not attempt to play on the emotions of American as was evident in every single George W Bush speech. Their were notable invitees but he did not feel the need to fill gaps in his speech by referring to them. This was a smart speech that treated the American like adults who are capable of hearing bad news as long as it comes with some hope for tomorrow. Bravo Obama and the behind the speech staffers who really make this happen

 
Thanks to everyone who joined us for our liveblogging.  We enjoyed ourselves, and we hope you enjoyed it too!

10:24 PM - Jeff's SNAP ANALYSIS - This was a surprising speech from President Obama.  In it, he clearly sought to define his perspective on domestic economic issues and challenges, while attacking and redifining those who oppose his vision of change.  He briefly touched upon international issues such as free trade, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation -- but the main shock tonight was the fiesty approach to his views, and the views of his challengers and detractors.  While there were occasional moments of flippancy, they were followed by serious moments of gravitas.  I think that there will be many things said in the coming moments, and in the days to come, on the issues and perspectives presented here.

10:21 PM - Dave - Well that's all she wrote.  My snap analysis - great speech, but my question is about the follow-through.  Can he stay on top of Congress and make them productive, rather than petty?  Congress is a wild beast to tame, and it's a tall order even for Obama.  All in all, a well-delivered speech and a great job of attempting to reclaim the narrative.

10:20 PM - Jeremy - Good Political slogan "We are America" (following my "everyone is just as american as everyone else).

10:18 PM - Dave - Ahhhh, the camera shot of my Congressman, and my hero - Patrick Kennedy.  And as Jeremy said, he looks relatively sober!

10:17 PM - Jeff - ... and here it is.  An attempt to reclaim the mantle of change.  Can he do it?

10:16 PM - Dave - Don't hold your breath, Jeremy.

10:15 PM - Jeremy - I would like Obama to say, "there is no such thing as the real america, the people on wall street are just as the same as the people on main street in Iowa because we are all americans deserving of the same respect and rights afforded to all citizens who contribute to making this the greatest country on earth."

10:14 PM - Jeremy - Head of the Marine Corps is very against repealing don't ask don't tell.  Fact: more women are thrown out of the armed forces for being gay than men (by far).

10:13 PM - Jeff - Prediction...CONFIRMED

10:13 PM - Dave - There's the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Can he follow through this year?

10:12 PM - Dave - I thought the way he glazed over Afghanistan without any significant discussion was fairly glaring.

10:11 PM - Jeff - I am worried that any sanctions will not dissuade the Islamic Republic from their current path -- this was unnecessary, and only throws water on the grease fire of Khamenei's comments on Israel today.

10:10 PM - Jeremy - Reducing nuclear stockpiles saves us money, we also need to upgrade our warheads (Dirty secret: we arent sure all our missiles still fire)

10:09 PM - Jeremy - It should be noted that while Bush was always saying support the troops he consistenly cut benefits for veterans (fact courtesy of my healthcare lobbyist girlfriend).

10:07 PM - Jeremy - Reality Check: Not all troops are combat troops. Obama does not mean all US troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year.

10:07 PM - Dave - I know I'm not the only one who thinks Iraq is going to disintigrate over the next year.  More to come on that in the next few weeks.

10:06 PM - Jeff - Obama and the Predator/Reaper strikes.  I am waiting for the Yemen issue here -- and I think we can expect a call on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

10:06 PM - Jeremy - Reality Check: Troops will not be coming home in any big way in 2011

10:05 PM - Dave - First foreign policy mention.  Not surprising that he focused on domestic issues, but over an hour?

10:04 PM - Jeff - Napolitano is truly rocking Janet Reno chic!

10:03 PM - Dave - He's right to call out the GOP on insisting on 60 votes to get anything done, but are they going to change?

10:03 PM - Jeff - The Party of No and Leadership - this is an edgier Obama

10:02 PM - Jeff - "We still have the largest majority in decades, and people still expect us to solve problems" -- this is a throwing of the gauntlet

10:02 PM - Dave - He's hitting all the right notes now, but he needs to stay on this after the speech to make any change.

10:01 PM - Jeremy - Great line "what frustrates Americans is that every day in Washington is election day."

10:00 PM - Jeff - I think I can safely say that we here at D&D share Obama's concerns with the recent Supreme Court Decision -- though he needs to be careful with the term "Foreign Enemies"

10:00 PM - Jeremy - Justice Kennedy was just shaking his head when obama criticised the supreme courts decision on campaign fincance. Once again the Supreme court should not be there!!

9:59 PM - Dave - This appeal to common sense sounds tired to me.  He said it in the campaign, but was unable to change anything.  How is he going to make this year different?  I think he has to stay on this bully pulpit.  He's off to a great start.  I like the earmark website, even just for the symbolic value.

9:57 PM - Jeff - "Lets try common sense -- a novel concept."  I think Rush Limbaugh just had another heart scare

9:57 PM - Jeremy - Republicans say tax cuts for the wealthy help our economy. What country have they been living in for the past decade. Studies show that the rich tend to save the money they get from tax cuts and the middle class tends to spend their tax cuts on trampoleens etc (yes i know i cant spell)

9:56 PM - Jeff - Obama has shocked DC with this speech tonight.  He is not pulling his punches and he is not shying away from defining his opponants on his terms.  This is Teddy Roosevelt's Bully Pulpit!

 9:55 PM - Dave - Whoa that's some bright yellow!

9:54 PM - Jeremy - Pay as you doesn't matter because it doesn't include supplemental defense spending, which as i said earlier is our second biggest expense.
9:54 PM - Jeff - The Nuclear Option through Executive Order!

9:53 PM - Dave - I remain highly skeptical of this "spending freeze."  It just reeks of cheap politics.

9:53 PM - Jeff - This is weird -- he just proposed alot of new spending.  Gone are the days of the Obama/McCain debate where he called for a "scalpel, not a hatchet".  I want to see where he is going on this line.

9:52 PM - Jeremy - Good admission "I have added another trillion dollars to the national debt to help stave off economic collapse." In order to pay off that debt Obama is going to freeze spending for three years. (which was McCains plan during the campaign) However it should be noted that the defense budget is not covered by the freeze which after social security is our biggest expense

9:51 PM - Jeff - It's like Kubrick filming the State of the Union.

9:51 PM - Dave - That overhead camera angle made me dizzy.

9:51 PM - Jeff - Obama is definitely feisty tonight -- a bit less gravitas than a normal State of the Union-- it feels almost like the campaign has started tonight.  An interesting move.

9:51 PM - Dave - Once again, a friendly reminder that this isn't my fault.

9:50 PM - Jeremy - Just the facts!  Another great line "all this spending occurred before I walked through the door."

9:49 PM - Dave - Nice to see him calling out the GOP on being the Party of No, but I think it might be too late to salvage health care.

9:49 PM - Jeremy - Obama is finally taking the opportunity to reshape the debate on Health Care.  It's about time -- but it may be too late

9:48 PM - Jeff - this is the obama I like. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Healthcare reform will lower the national debt. Hells yea it will!!

9:47 PM - Jeff - Couple that with the Economists' reporting of the "Obama Effect" of 11 trillion, we are in good shape!

9:46 PM - Jeremy - Some Fun History: During one of Bill Clinton's state of the union speeches the teleprompter failed at the begining of the speech and he spoke for over an hour off of memory.

9:45 PM - Dave - I'm pretty sure Obama is the funniest President we've had since William Henry Harrison, who was a stand-up comic in his spare time.

9:45 PM - Jeremy - Did Scott Brown get invited to the State of the Union?  I feel like he didn't because now would be the time for the camera to pan to him

9:45 PM - Jeff - Obama just made a classic pivot from humor to the passion of Health Care

9:44 PM - Jeremy - I will be disappointed if Obama doesn't bring up the national debt in this speech because its a huge national security concern and the American public needs to know that

9:42 PM - Dave - I certainly support student loan reform!

9:40 PM - Jeff - That is officially a double down on the Doha Trade Agreement and an exhortation for the Senate to move on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement!

9:39 PM - Jeff - Can we really turn the rust belt into the photovoltaic belt in this short a time span?
9:38 PM - Jeremy - Important educational fact: notice that the joint chiefs and the supreme court justices never clap (justices probably shouldn't be there to begin with but that's just my opinion...separation of powers....)

9:37 PM - Jeff - Oh!  Smackdown on Climate Change!  paraphrase -- even if you are an idiot, you like money don't you?

9:37 PM - Jeremy - I have so little faith in the intelligence of some congressman that i am honestly shocked that they all know when to stand up and sit down in unison

9:36 PM - Dave - Climate Smackdown!

9:36 PM - Jeremy - I am totally for more nuclear power. Its much safer these days. Not so much about off shore drilling but if thats what the republicans need to get over the hippy solar panels then so be it

9:35 PM - Jeff - This new push on future jobs and a future generation of light water reactors is reminiscent of the TVA of the New Deal.

9:35 PM - Laura and Catie - Where is Pelosi looking???

9:34 PM - Jeremy - To Second Obama, Americans need to realize that they are not losing their jobs because the banks screwed up, the economic collapse just brought to light the fact that we are no longer a manufacturing country. Those jobs have gone overseas and arent coming back. Unfortunately too many americans dont have the education and training to do skilled jobs. The solution government sponsored retraining programs and better education in math and science for all americans and being able to write better wouldnt hurt but lets not get ahead of ourselves

9:34 PM - Dave - Someone at CNN has a great sense of humor for showing Chris Dodd when Obama talked about "punishing the banks."

9:33 PM - Dave - Once again, I'm glad he's trying to elevate the issues above partisan politics. However, I would like to see some ideas about how to make it so.

9:32 PM - Jeremy - Great Line! No second place for America!

9:32 PM - Jeff - That was just an amazing line!

9:31 PM - Jeff - What happened to the Spending Freeze?

9:29 PM - Jeremy - I would love to have the government pay for me to get a solar panel for my house.

9:29 PM - Dave - He's very focused on domestic policy. Not a single mention of Afghanistan or Iraq so far. Not that I'm surprised.
9:28 PM - Jeremy - Prediction Confirmed!

9:27 PM - Jeremy - If more money goes to small banks for small business loans doesnt that mean the big banks will give even less money out for small businesses than before? Not sure thats a great idea...
9:26 PM - Jeremy - Prediction, Obama announces the building of America's first high speed train, a project that will create thousands of jobs (please let it run from boston to DC!)

9:25 PM - Jeff - Boener seems to be a big fan of a new jobs bill ... and interesting gambit. Keynsian economics meets the high speed train!

9:25 PM - Jeremy - I worry that this has been too positive thus far, I feel like the 25 million unemployed are saying "who gives a shit about the guy in Phoenix!"

9:24 PM - Dave - Obama has to walk a very fine line here talking about the financial recovery. Unemployed people, of whom there are many, don’t want to hear that the bank recovery worked. Like Jeremy said, he needs to continue addressing us as adults, not children.

9:23 PM - Jeremy - Keep saying not a single dime, good bumper sticker phrase.

9:22 PM - Jeff - This is a good vein for Obama to run with - who doesn't love a tax cutter?

9:21 PM - Jeremy - Common misconceptions spread by the ridiculous right: 1. No terrorist attacks happened in the Bush administration (...if you don't count 9/11). 2. Obama bailed out the banks and AIG...(Actually he just continued the programs that Bush started)...ok bailing out the auto industry was probably a bad move on Obama's part

9:18 PM - Jeff - Too big to care? Populist root canal?

9:18 PM - Jeremy - Obama does a lot better when he speaks straight to the American people with the tone that says "i know you are smart so I am not going to dumb this down or offer you half truths." Obama needs to sympathize with those who are unemployed and blame the banks but he should not fixate on trying to act equally as mad as they are. George W. Bush was the President that you could have a beer with, Obama is the President you hope to learn from every time he speaks. Speech writers please cut down on sad speech and focus on what we the democratic party should from this day be known for: straight talks and facts. Bush and the Republicans wanted to scare you into submission, Obama wishes to educate and with your help lead us to salvation. Economic recovery will not be a quick victory, it will be one of patient minute success.
9:15 PM - Dave - While I think that the Wall Street/Main Street cliche is overplayed, I like that he is setting this as an adult discussion about real issues, not about politics.

9:14 PM - Jeff - And Blanktown, Swingstate.

9:13 PM - Dave - Is this the part where he reminds us that this is all Bush's fault?

9:12 PM - Jeff - There's a template for the first few minutes of the speech. It's like a Mad-Lib.

9:08 PM - Jeff - Justice Kennedy was giving Obama the stink-eye!

9:06 PM - Dave - First correct prediction of the night goes to Jeremy, for predicting the red tie.

9:04 PM - Jeremy - Republicans led the charge to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq and yet they seem entirely opposed to any mention of tax increases. It appears that the republican party is actually intent on the downfall of the Republic. Apparently Republicans missed the civics class when the rest of the students learned about how taxes pay for things like wars and and supplemental defense spending. (Another blog idea: why don't we teach civics anymore?) News flash people we need to pay China back all that money we borrowed at some point and the longer we wait the more interest we have to pay. I do not have such a low opinion of the Republican party to think that they think they can just will away our national debt. However, I do believe that they are selfish enough to put off tax increases until they either die or retire. The one thing I want to hear Obama say tonight is "i want to be honest with the American people, we need to raise taxes, but only on those who can afford to pay." Lets get it on
8:59 PM - Jeff - How is Holder's mustache so much darker than his hair? Just For Men?

8:58 PM - Dave - My pregame prediction/recommendation – Obama needs to regain his position as the adult in the room. During the campaign, Obama got tremendous credit for keeping his calm and being rational, rather than engaging in low politics. He needs tonight to regain that poise and lead, rather than play the political games.

8:57 PM - Jeremy - Purple. I like it.

8:47 PM - Dave - The beer is cold, the pizza is warm, and lots of unimportant people are milling about on the chamber floor. It must be almost time for the State of the Union! I'm here with Jeff and Jeremy, and we'll be bringing you our (hopefully) insightful analysis during the night. The comments section is open, so send us your thoughts too!



F&*K it, we'll do it LIVE!

Dear loyal followers (and new readers who have stumbled in here from HuffPo)...

Join us TONIGHT at 9 PM EST as D&D goes boldly where many others have gone -- with our own twist!

We will be Live Blogging President Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address, sharing our imput, analysis, and commentary as the address unfolds! Our comment sections will be wide open, and we can't wait to hear your thoughts on our thoughts on President Obama's thoughts.

To those of you scanning this post, here are the highlights:

Tonight. 9 PM. State of the Union. Live Blogging.

So... Turn on the TV, grab a cold one, and long on to D&D!

see you all then!

1. Can someone please explain to me why Rod Blagojevich is not in jail? I mean, come on DOJ. The FBI has this guy on tape talking about wanting to sell President Obama's vacant senate seat, yes the words "for sale" were never mentioned in the phone calls but just like pornography, I know corruption when I see it and someone saying they arent going to give "something for nothing" seems pretty clear to me. Even without that little incident Blagojevich is also facing charges of trying to leverage state approval for the sale of the Chicago Cubs on the condition that the editorial staff of the Chicago Tribune stop calling for his resignation (which they were pursuing on a account of about a dozen other federal crimes this mope is accused of...

When remarking on the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the esteemed think tanker Anthony Cordesman once remarked that it was "the most pointless and destructive planning effort imaginable...[and that] if God really hates you, you may end up working on [it]. So what is this document that all of DC and the security community at large is eagerly awaiting the release of and is it of any real significance?

First some quick background. The QDR is a document that was first conceived of in 1993, then referred to as the "Bottom-up Review" and was an attempt by the DoD to address the international security environment in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. In 1996 Congress legislated that the Department of Defense conduct a "Quadrennial Defense Review" to address the U.S. military's strategic objectives and identify future security threats. To put it simply, the QDR is meant to be a time when the Defense leadership (Office of the Secretary of Defense) takes a step back from the day to day operations and attempts to think long term and answer the BIG questions. Who do we see as our enemies today and in ten years? Are we investing in the right technologies to fight these enemies? Do we possess the appropriate strategies and doctrine to face the current threats? Is the enemy we are fighting today going to be the same enemy we will be fighting in ten years?

Word on the street is that the Obama administration will be coming out with its QDR sometime in the next month. The QDR will be the most important document that the DoD puts out this year and in my opinion will likely be the most important document that the Obama administration generates as a whole, short of the budget, for some time to come. It may seem at first that I am disagreeing with the comments made earlier by Anthony Cordesman, however, I assure you that while the author does think quite highly of himself, he is not that foolish. I completely agree with Dr. Cordesman (who by the way is a Fletcher Grad) that every QDR done to date has been a collasal waste of time and resources. If you have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading all three QDR's you will notice that good chunks of them were simply copy and pasted from the previous QDR. You will also notice that they are devoid of any real strategy. The QDR was thought of as a strategy document that would supply direction to the entire armed forces, but instead it has mostly devolved into a petty fight between the services over who gets the bigger share of the budget.

Ironically, the years before the QDR existed were the years that the US military actually had a series of set strategies that for the most part worked. For the majority of the Cold War the U.S. military had a strategy of containing the spread of communism and despite dragging us into Vietnam, the strategy did manage to prevent the expansion of the Soviet Union. In the late 70's to early 80's, the U.S. military also adopted an "off-set strategy" whereby the DoD recognized that it could not produce nearly as many troops and weapons as the Soviets but would instead off-set their superiority in numbers with superior quality troops and high-tech weaponry (JDAM's, GPS, Star Wars etc). Finally, in the 90's the U.S. adopted the strategy of planning to be able to fight two conventional wars at the same time. Less of a detailed plan but a strategy none the less. However, despite jumping in head first into two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the DoD has yet to come up with a defined strategy in over 9 years of war.

That was the depressing part. I now have high hopes that the next QDR will offer up a concrete strategy for the DoD that moves it beyond the "war on terror". A basic question that the QDR will have to answer is who is the enemy? Is it local insurgencies, global jihadis, state sponsors of terrorism or all of the above? On an even more basic level I strongly believe that this QDR needs to firmly define "terrorism," specifically stating whether or not it is a criminal act or an act of war. Finally, the QDR will need to clearly state whether or not counterinsurgency is going to be the name of the game for the foreseeable future and if it is, how will be be changing the makeup of our forces to better reflect the enemy we face. This will undoubtedly mean making some very unpopular and very large cuts in the defense budget specifically things like next generation fighter planes, mid air refueling tankers and new super aircraft carriers (any of these ringing a bell!!)

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed reading about the QDR, its not the most fun document in the world but lets just hope the next one is actually worth reading. And if you happen to be walking down the halls at the Pentagon and you see someone with an ID card that reads "Kathleen Hicks" go ahead and give her a hug because despite being a great lady she is the one that God has chosen to to run this years QDR....

And that's my fifty cents (inflation)

I'm almost afraid to wade into this issue, as I'm sure I will anger many (I invite your comments!), but this issue is too important NOT to post on. Below is my analysis of the Obama Administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in lower Manhattan.

Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a criminal? Yes -- and, in a perfect world, he should get his day in court. He should be tried by an impartial jury lead by an impartial judge, and legally collected evidence should be presented for and against his guilt. The findings of the court should reflect the strength of our constitution -- finding someone guilty of a crime despite all of the protections afforded the accused.

How beautifully normative -- huh?

But we have problems here. Alot of them.

The Obama Administration has put on their normative caps (something I usually applaud) for exactly the wrong issue, at exactly the wrong time. Unfortunately, they have also pinned alot of their credibility and political capital to this trial.

Beyond moving the trial to the remotest corner of the globe, into a village without Internet, TV, radio, telegraph, semaphore, or word of mouth -- you are not going to find an impartial jury, much less an impartial judge. By holding the trial in Lower Manhattan a few blocks from ground zero, you raise the absurdity of this fact. Anyone who can swear in court that they are able to render an impartial verdict for KSM (especially in NY) is a liar. Can you bar the jurors from visiting something as innocuous as wikipedia?

Then there is the "evidence" issue. Will the transcripts of KSM's Gitmo interrogations be allowed? How do you transliterate the sound of water flowing over someone's gagged mouth? I would think that any lawyer would argue that there are some serious 4th and 5th amendment issues at play there. Should a judge rule that they are admissible, can a proper chain of custody be established over the content of the transcripts without violating alot of people's TS/SCI clearances?

Was KSM mirandized?

What evidence can be presented in open court? Will the government be granting temporary clearances to the jurors?

But more importantly, this trial will run the risk of perhaps the greatest opportunity for jury nullification even witnessed. Will this be a trial of a Terrorist, or a trial on Waterboarding? Will this be a trial of the 9/11 plotters, or an indictment of Gitmo?

Ultimately, I think this unlikely. KSM will be found guilty because he is guilty, but the issue is this: if the result of the trial is a foregone conclusion, is it a trial? The jury, upon entering the courtroom will not be questioning KSM's guilt or innocence, but rather how long they have to sit there before they can say "guilty" and go home.

Will the US government be issued a gag order on talking about terror, al Qaeda, KSM et al. during the trial to avoid charges of jury tampering?

This will be a show trial. Which is the polar opposite of what the Obama Administration wants, and it is a tragedy. We cannot find him innocent -- but we cannot give him a fair day in court either. What kind of defense will KSM present for his actions? Even scarier, what kind of defense will he be ALLOWED to present?

Ultimately, I don't know how else we can approach this mess. It seems that if we are to try terrorists like KSM in civilian court, they must be treated as criminals from their arrest to their incarceration. Since the Bush Administration failed to do this, we cannot attempt to reverse engineer a trial for those detained before Obama took office. This is something it appears the current President is seeking to rectify with the UndieBomber, but will a free and fair trial for terror suspects even be possible in this media environment?

In the words of my colleague Jeremy, that's my 50 cents (inflation...)

If you've got a better idea, let me know.

 
My colleague Jeremy has a great post about the range of options available to Washington in dealing with the nuclear problem in Tehran.  I agree with him that a military strike is an undesirable option.  It is unlikely to succeed, and could be counter-productive by persuading the Iranians that it is in their vital national interest to go nuclear.  I also agree with him that the Iranian economy is terribly vulnerable, especially to gasoline sanctions.  The Obama Administration seems to share his enthusiasm for sanctions.  Secretary Clinton recently came out in support of "targeted sanctions," which would attempt to punish the decision-makers in Iran, such as the Revolutionary Guard, but not harm the average Iranian.  However, this approach is not without risks.

Firstly, an effective sanctions regime requires cooperation from the entire international community.  If sanctions are to target gasoline, then oil-producing and refining nations are the key participants - without their support, any sanctions effort would fail.  Saudi Arabia would most likely help any effort to stymie their Iranian nemesis, but other oil-producing states, such as Venezuela, may not be so forthcoming.  The major question marks, as always, are Russia and China.  If they can be persuaded to accede, sanctions stand a chance of squeezing Tehran.  But if they, or large MNC's based in their territories, don't buy in, sanctions will be ineffective.

Secondly, economic sanctions against Iran are a risky gambit with the potential for severe blowback.  The Iranian regime is internally isolated and faces a strong and growing opposition.  Most reports speculate that the faltering economy is a key issue for the opposition movement and a significant source of dissatisfaction.  The majority of the populace faults the government, not the international community, for their economic difficulties.  This is notable because the trump card that the Iranian regime has often played in the past is to blame everything on "The Great Satan."  By shifting responsibility for any and all woes that everyday Iranians face to the United States, the government has been able to shore up their domestic credentials and remain in power. 

That tactic is currently failing.  The Iranian government has been unable to convince the populace that America is behind their problems, and as a result the opposition movement continues to gather strength.  Economic sanctions could reverse this trend, and enable the regime to shift blame onto the international community.  While "targeted" sanctions solve this problem in theory, in practice it is difficult if not impossible to limit the pernicious effects of sanctions to a select few.  Furthermore, the key is not who is actually affected by sanctions - it is who thinks they are being affected.  The current dynamic faults the Iranian government, but it is a fragile consensus.  Public opinion is notoriously fickle, and the mere existence of a publicized sanctions program could be enough to tilt the balance of blame onto the international community.

I don't mean to suggest that sanctions should be taken off the table.  In a problematic situation, sometimes the least-bad option is the best.  But any move towards sanctions must acknowledge and address these concerns or risk failure.

I'd like to make everyone out there aware of something pretty amazing that is happening on the Fletcher campus right now. As we speak dozens of graduate students are combing through thousands and text messages and tweets sent from Haiti and using them to direct search and rescue teams on the ground to people in need. This is an unprecedented event that I am positive will soon become the norm for international incident response.

Fletcher students have taken software that was initially designed to plot crisis incidents in Kenya and have transformed it into something that is actually helping first responders in real time. For years, experts in the security community have wondered how best to coordinate civilian and military efforts in a way that is helpful to both the military and civilian communities without compromising either communities independence or ability to function. Ushahidi has for the first time transformed crowd sourcing into the ideal link between civilian and military networks. Through various media networks, Fletcher students have gotten the word out to people on the ground in Haiti that if they text 4636 on their cell phones they will reach the Ushahidi network, which is mostly being run out of the graduate dorm on the Fletcher campus, but is also reaching volunteers in Geneva, and various countries in Africa as well. These texts communicate locations where people are either trapped under rubble or are in need of various supplies and or medical attention. Students at Fletcher then use Google Earth and various other mapping software to locate exact GPS coordinates for those in need of help and plot that location on a map located on a dedicated Ushahidi website (see the attached link). Numerous international organizations and militaries ranging from SOUTHCOM to the American Red Cross use these geo cordinates to launch aid missions to these exact locations. So far Fletcher students working through the Ushahidi network are responsible for at least 14 lives being saved. In other instances orphanages have texted that they are in dire need of water and within hours trucks arrive with the neccessary supplies. My hat goes off to these dedicated students who are litteraly working around the clock to supply teams on the ground with the appropriate coordinates.

In addition to text messages, the Ushahidi network is also monitoring twitter and facebook to find people who are in need of help. When not enough information is provided to pin point an exact location, Fletcher students write back to those who are twitting and facebooking to garner more precise information. I have to reiterate once again that as far as I know such a response has never been coordinated to a disaster using such social networking sites.

In another unprecedented move, the US military has released all of its satellite data for Haiti to allow people involved in crowd sourcing such as the Ushahidi network to actually plot where structures have collapsed and identify which roads are useable to deliver aid.

Currently, the following organizations are responding to geo-coordinates delivered by Fletcher students through the Ushahidi network:

Red cross
United Nations Foundation
Plan International
Charity Water
Clinton Foundation
US State Department
International Medical Corps
AIDG
USAID
FEMA

Ultimately, I believe that a conference involving multiple government agencies and leading NGO's will need to be conducted in order to discuss the effectiveness of crowd sourcing for future disaster response. Hard questions will need to be asked such as, were more lives saved due to exact coordinates being provided or were more people lost because teams were directed to a particular spot where 50 people were starving instead of another closer community of 500 simply because the smaller community possessed a cell phone? Once again though I have to say regardless of the outcome that my hat goes off to the innovative individuals who decided to try to make a difference if they could, and in my opinion their contribution has been outstandingly signifigant.

To leave you with one thought, I wonder if this is something that has been so successful mostly on account of the fact that it is so new. By this I mean that because this is such a new idea that only those in need and those responding to them are yet aware of this network. With every great idea we must consider the downsides. If for instance this same crowd sourcing system is used again to respond to incidences of violence in post election Kenya, do we run the risk of playing into the hands of people with bad intentions who do not wish to see people helped and thus text and tweet in false reports in order to divert the attention of first responders to those in need? This is an issue that certainly needs to be addressed in the future and I hope to see some dialogue started in the comments section of this blog. But for now my best goes out to those people struggling to survive in Haiti, the first responders on the ground and the tireless students at Fletcher.

And that's my fifty cents (inflation...)

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon threatens to ignite a nuclear arms race across the Middle East. The U.S. cannot tolerate the level of instability that would result from Middle Eastern states developing nuclear weapons, as the region remains vital to the energy security of the United States. Sanctions placed on Iran by the international community have thus far been unable to force Iran into a position where it is willing to seriously negotiate. It is my opinion that more direct action is needed to force the hand of Iran’s leaders.

Iran perceives itself as being a rising regional hegemon and is determined to play a dominant role in the Gulf. The Iranian state believes that the United States is intent upon acting on its stated policy of regime change in Iran and thus views the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as the greatest threat to its national security. Iran also sees itself as being surrounded by unfriendly neighbors, two of whom –Israel and Pakistan- are armed with nuclear weapons.

Available intelligence suggests that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. This evidence includes:

• Iran’s building of a nuclear enrichment plant in the desert at Natanz. The facility is designed to house 54,000 centrifuges but only 8,000 are believed to be operational. The fact that this facility has been converted into an underground bunker and is surrounded by antiaircraft guns strongly suggests that the nuclear activities contained within are not IAEA compliant.
• Data extracted from Iran’s computer networks in 2007 showed the Iranians to be in possession of blueprints for a nuclear warhead.
• The recent discovery of a hidden nuclear enrichment plant located inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base about 20 miles from the town of Qum.

While the previous administration recognized the Iranian threat, the Bush policy of placing conditions on negotiations has only allowed the Iranians to progress further on their timeline toward achieving a weapon. Furthermore, what seemed like early success on the part of the Obama administration in getting the Iranians to return to the negotiating table was actually just another attempt at stalling.

While air strikes have long been the solution of choice for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, expert analysis has shown that at best a coordinated air strike would merely delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear device by approximately three years. Secretary if Defense Robert Gates is also an advocate of this analysis. I propose that the US use "smart power" instead to drive the Iranian economy to near collapse through a "Price Attack."

While Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon appears likely, I believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear energy is genuine. Oil industry experts are predicting that Iran’s oil exports will decline to zero by 2014-2015. This comes as a result of domestic energy demand growth (6.4%) exceeding supply growth (5.6%) every year since 1980. Iran’s dependence on its shrinking oil export revenue suggests that the regime may be more vulnerable than previously believed.

Iran’s oil export crisis is a strategic opportunity

• The US should undertake a non-violent economic attack on the Iranian government that seeks to collapse their economy thereby denying them the resources to pursue a nuclear weapons program
• A price attack seeks to erode market power and reduce the price of oil. This can be accomplished through the adoption of increased fuel efficiency standards that overtime will decrease the demand for oil and force cartel producers to defend price by reducing supply. This is exactly what happened to Saudi Arabia in the 1980’s. Eventually Saudi Arabia was forced to increase production in order to reclaim market share and stave off bankruptcy, which caused the price of oil to drop further
• The goal of a price attack would be to force Saudi Arabia to repeat this behavior. As a result, Iran’s oil revenues would collapse because unlike other OPEC countries, Iran cannot increase production to compensate for falling price due to its crumbling infrastructure
• According to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences, a 50% increase in U.S. fuel efficiency standards would be enough to lower global demand by 2%-3% in 5-7 years, which historically has been enough to trigger a price defense by the cartel

Policy Implications

• Likely to constrain Iran in the long run, while simultaneously yielding monetary savings for the U.S.
• There is a chance that the price attack may be too successful and lead to the complete collapse of the Iranian state resulting in a regional power vacuum
• Policy relies upon Iranian oil exports continuing to decline due to a lack of investment in infrastructure. However, Europe and China continue to defy sanctions by investing in Iran’s energy sector

The locals in Yemen are not necessarily becoming radicalized by the presence of Al Qaeda extremists but they will eventually warm to their presence on account of the protection they offer against government oppression and general criminality as Yemen comes closer to becoming a failed state. This is approximately the stage of "infection" that AQ has currently reached within Yemeni society. The true danger to the rest of the world comes not from what AQ and its affiliate groups do from hereon out in Yemen but instead depends upon the international community’s reaction to their presence there.

The eminent counterinsurgency scholar David Kilcullen has written extensively about "accidental guerrillas," locals that do not necessarily share the views of the extremists they harbor but are brought into the fight against western powers nonetheless on account of heavy-handed counterinsurgency campaigns designed to kill terrorists, but that in reality kill mostly civilians. Air strikes and Predator attacks are particularly good at creating these "accidental guerrillas" as they kill indiscriminately with little thought given to the true danger of collateral damage. Especially in cultures that are tribally oriented, the need to seek revenge against those responsible for the death of a family member is considered a duty upon which the family’s honor rests.

Unfortunately, the international community currently has its hands full occupying two other predominantly Muslim countries and thus the forces are not available to conduct a proper counterinsurgency campaign in Yemen. However, instead of increasing drone attacks within Yemen’s borders, the U.S. should instead first try a modified carrot and stick approach. In this instance the carrot will be foreign direct investment and World Bank loans to help revive Yemen’s failing economy or at the very least keep it from collapsing. This is something the international community should be doing regardless in order to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state. The stick should be an information campaign that seeks to reach out to tribal leaders in order to educate them on recent history. As of last month, Yemen joined the list of countries from which AQ has launched direct attacks on U.S. soil. Specifically, the last country to allow such gross malfeasance is currently being occupied by nearly 90,000 foreign troops with more on the way. The point of this education is to convey the message that the presence of foreign fighters in their lands is a direct threat to tribal autonomy.

And that’s my fifty cents (inflation…)

Yemen's now infamous role on the world stage as the newest state to fail and become a terrorist safe haven can most easily be explained by its dwindling oil production. Like many middle eastern states, Yemen's government relies on oil exports for roughly 80 percent of its revenue. However, in the past six years Yemen's oil output has shrunk from 450,000 barrels per day to just 180,000 barrels per day. Until recently this sharp decline was masked by record high oil prices, but as oil prices have normalized, Yemen's economy finds itself on the brink of collapse. This loss of revenue comes at a particularly bad time for the Yemeni government as their country's security concerns continue to escalate. Yemen is currently fighting Shiite militia's in its Northern provinces not to mention the growing presence of Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters throughout the country.

The influx of Al Qaeda into Yemen can be directly linked to that states failing economy. Experts predict that Yemen's remaining oil wells will run dry within the next ten years. Impending economic destitution has however not caused Yemen's government to focus its efforts on creating some sort of economic life raft by say for instance reorienting itself towards a labor based economy. Instead Yemen's leader, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has chosen to reaffirm his family's stranglehold on power by appointing his kin to key government positions with the ultimate goal of ensuring that his son Ahmed succeeds him to the presidency. However, with less and less money to spend on security services to enforce his power, Mr Saleh is essentially securing his family's role as nothing more than the Mayor and city counselor of the capital of Sanaa. No national income not only means no money for a military but also ensures a complete lack of social services for anyone living outside of the capital, which after all is the primary purpose of having a government in the first place.

As we have seen in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Gaza, Pakistan, Egypt and countless other areas of the Muslim world, when governments fail to provide the most basic of services, extremist groups the likes of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are more than happy to step in and foot the bill. This is what we are now coming to see play out in Yemen. As government revenues continue to shrink, security throughout the country deteriorates as less forces are deployed and corruption abounds. Less security means greater ease of movement for terrorists who come to Yemen not to hide but instead to operate in plain sight in the rural countryside where overtime they cement themselves into local tribal culture through inter marriage (a common AQ strategy).

The U.S. answer to the realization that Yemen is a failing state has been to double the security aid we send annually to Yemen to $140 million. This is a ridiculously low sum of money when you compare it to the $2 billion that Yemen's GDP has been declining by over the last 3 years. Furthermore, sending security aid to a country whose president considers the security of his family to be the nation's number one national security concern is really not money well spent. A smart use of the money that the U.S. borrowed from China, would instead be on promoting local economic development through the opening of vocational schools and the funding of local industries like cotton production and leather tanneries. Without this investment, Yemen is likely to go down the same road as Afghanistan with its farmers abandoning traditional crops for narcotics. Many growers in Yemen have already switched to growing Qat, a mild amphetamine quite popular in Yemen. How long before AQ starts taxing this trade?

The lesson here is that we need to tackle Yemen's problems less kinetically and more economically. The reason it is so important to get this right in Yemen is that Yemen is just the first example of a problem the international community is going to have to deal with more and more in Middle East in the coming years. The oil is running out and in many nations much larger than Yemen (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq) there is simply not enough of an economy presence to make up the difference.

And that's my fifty cents (inflation....)