The Loyal Analyst

What next, Mr. President?

2012-11-08T22:52:00.002-08:00

The President waves to the crowd before his 2012 acceptance speech.

On Nov. 6, Barack Obama secured a second term as President of the United States of America. While I congratulate Obama on his victory, I must ask: what exactly, Mr. President, will you do in the next four years?
The focus of Obama’s reelection campaign was the economy, so it is reasonable to assume that he will make strengthening the economy his top priority. The centerpiece of the President’s first-term economic policy was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e. the stimulus), which made long-term investments in infrastructure, green energy, education and manufacturing. Obama plans to enact another, smaller stimulus in his second term, named the American Jobs Act, which will cut income and payroll taxes and increase infrastructure and education spending. The rest of his economic plan consists of an overhaul of the tax code and investments in energy. Obama promises to raise the capital gains tax (a tax on investments and stocks held for more than one year that primarily affects the wealthy) from 15 to 20 percent and to raise taxes on the top two tax brackets from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively. His tax plan also includes promises to eliminate loopholes and to streamline the tax code for businesses and individuals. The plan specifies to phase out loopholes for those with incomes over $200,000 and to eliminate several loopholes for large companies, although how it plans to streamline the tax code remains unclear. He also aims to create or extend numerous tax credits for individuals and businesses, such as a $3,000 credit per each worker hired for businesses, cut the corporate tax rate, eliminate the current tax credit for outsourcing and extend the Bush tax cuts and other tax cuts and credits for individuals making less than $200,000 per year.

The President’s energy policy in his next term will be similar to his first term’s energy policy. Obama plans to focus primarily on funding alternative energy while also expanding access to cheap hydrocarbons. He aims to raise fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles, set a requirement that all utilities must produce 80 percent of their electricity by 2035, continue funding and supporting the alternative energy industry and increase gas, oil and coal production by opening up some public lands to drilling and encouraging hydraulic fracking (a new, controversial type of natural gas extraction) while insisting on higher environmental safeguards for drilling and fracking.

For the President, economic policy and fiscal policy dovetail, which is why he has proposed a plan for cutting the deficit. His plan for reducing the deficit centers around an 80-page deficit reduction plan that he drafted in 2011. Obama calls for raising taxes on the wealthy by eliminating the capital gains tax, raising marginal income tax rates and eliminating loopholes for the wealthy. The plan also incorporates spending cuts. Obama plans to cut $257 billion from discretionary spending, primary by cutting subsidies to agriculture and the oil industry. He will also cut $450 billion from the defense budget, try to cut Medicare’s budget by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices and to levy an additional Social Security tax of 2-4 percent on those with incomes over $200,000 to try to make Social Security solvent, among other things. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this budget will cut the debt by $2 trillion and increase GDP growth by 0.6 percent, although the President’s opponents point out that his budget adds $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to the CBO’s baseline budget, which includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and sequestration (an imminent series of spending cuts). Despite his willingness to cut the deficit, Obama has stated that he will try to prevent the impending “fiscal cliff” (i.e. the impending combination of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and sequestration), which is projected by the CBO to put the economy back into recession. Like much of Obama’s economic policy, however, his deficit plan is unlikely to pass through the Republican-controlled House.

Indeed, because the Democrats do not control Congress, the only thing that Obama can be guaranteed to do in his second term is to cement the achievements of his first term. Two of his main accomplishments, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), a banking and financial sector reform law and the Affordable Care Act, still have major provisions that need to be implemented. The main achievement of Dodd-Frank was to require regulatory agencies and new committees set up by the law to draft and enact certain regulations of the financial sector. Only one-half of these rules have been drafted however, so Obama will have to fight to get the rest of the regulations drafted. Similarly, most of the important provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and the ban on gender discrimination by insurance companies, will be enacted in 2014. Since several states are already trying to fight these provisions through both legislation and governor decree, Obama will have to fight, using the courts, personal influence over state governments and possibly legislation, to ensure that the main provisions of healthcare reform get enacted.

On social policy, Obama supports gay rights, gender equality and immigration reform. The most important social policy for Obama is women’s rights, judging by the amount of focus he placed on it in his first term. The President aims to expand free contraceptive access to women, pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which aims to make it easier for victims of wage discrimination to discover if they are being discriminated against and to seek justice and to try to pass other bills that combat sexual violence and wage discrimination. The President believes that women should be allowed to get abortions, so he will likely oppose potential legislation that restricts access to abortions, both in Congress and at the state level. In terms of gay rights issues, Obama supports legalization of same-sex marriage, although how he plans to achieve this is unclear, as it can only be accomplished by amending the Constitution. He also plans to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which bans hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity) and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes. On the issue of immigration, the President’s platform notes his support for reforming and streamlining the immigration process, although his platform lists no explicit reforms. He is a noted supporter of the DREAM Act, which would provide illegal immigrants who are students or soldiers in America with permanent residency status, and he would probably make trying to pass the DREAM Act his biggest goal as far as immigration is concerned. Since he has described his failure to pass the the DREAM Act as the biggest failure of his first term, it is reasonable to expect that he will make pushing for the DREAM Act one of his top priorities in his second term.

Although Obama fought for all of these issues in his first term, the extent to which he would be able to achieve them in his second term is limited due to both the limited Constitutional role of the President and the fact that the House is controlled by Republicans. The most important way that Obama can influence social policy is through whom he appoints to the Supreme Court. Four justices are in their late 70s and are thus likely to retire. The Court, which is split 5-4, is set to rule on cases concerning the constitutionality of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, the constitutionality of affirmative action and California’s Proposition 8, among other important social issues, so who Obama appoints to the Court will have long-lasting effects on social issues.

The foreign policy of Obama’s second term, like his first term, will be centered on slowly ending the War on Terror while preparing to face other, more long-term threats. Obama’s primary foreign policy challenge in his next term will be to ensure that the 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan goes well. The success of the withdrawal will be contingent on whether Afghan security forces are able to fight terrorism on their own in 2014 and whether the Afghan government will be able to become functioning, strong and non-corrupt, so the President will likely focus on making these things happen in his second term. Even after the Afghanistan withdrawal, Obama will have to continue to fight terrorism. He will probably continue his policy of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and will have to manage the backlash and opposition that they generate, although he has offered no specifics.

The President’s primary foreign policy plan is to shift American power away from the Middle East and towards Asia. The centerpiece of this effort will be to continue the “pivot” to Asia, which is the rebalancing of American power (especially military power) towards East Asia and especially China. The President promises to shift 60 percent of our military strength to Asia by 2020, an effort that is already underway, and to attack China’s allegedly unfair trade policies, although he probably will not do so due to the risk of starting a trade war. He also will likely reach out to American allies in East Asia, especially India, and continue to invest in military hardware for South Korea and Japan. Unfortunately, he has offered few specifics on other major foreign policy issues, including Iran, the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and the economic crisis in Europe. Judging from his first-term’s record, Obama will likely try to reach out to Brazil and India, increase sanctions on Iran while continuing both covert military actions against Iran and create efforts to find a diplomatic way to remove Iran’s nuclear weapons and ignore the crisis in Europe.

Barack Obama has a difficult four years ahead of him. He will have to fix the economy, prevent the deficit from spiraling further out of control, protect the rights of minorities and refocus our foreign policy towards long-term threats, all while having to battle strong Republican opposition in Congress. I wish him good luck. He’ll need it.

We gave up in Afghanistan today

2012-09-18T18:45:00.001-07:00

An American medic treats a wounded French soldier in Afghanistan.

Something huge happened today: we gave up in Afghanistan. This was a long time coming. American interest in the war has fallen substantially and is now nearly non-existent. The Republicans did not mention the war at their convention (Clint Eastwood's mention of Afghanistan in his speech, the only mention of the war in the Republican convention, does not count) and devoted just part of a paragraph to it in their platform while the Democrats mentioned the war just once at their convention. The war receives just two percent of all news coverage. Although everything from the high price and difficulty of the covering the war to the complexity of the conflict (which makes it too difficult for most Americans to understand), the main reason the war is not featured in the media is simple: people just don’t care about it. Three-fourths of Americans disapprove of the war, and almost none rank it as the most important issue in the Presidential election. Even the government is ignoring the war. Because of its unpopularity, the war in Afghanistan is ignored by the President. The most popular solution, speeding the withdrawal, is militarily impossible: the Afghan army is not ready to maintain order in Afghanistan or combat terrorism, evidenced by its systemic corruption, its failure in counter-terrorism operations (specifically in the Helmand region), and, most importantly, the huge number of green-on-blue attacks that raise questions about the loyalty and cohesiveness of the Afghan force. The President knows that he is in a double-bind: succumbing to popular opinion would lead to a partial collapse of the Afghan state at best and a Taliban resurgence at worst, neither of which would go over well with voters, while dragging on the expensive and bloody war is unpopular. The best solution for the President is to thus keep the war out of the spotlight, where it cannot hurt his chances for re-election.

All of this collective disgust with the war and ignorance towards it has an effect on the situation on the ground. The President’s sole focus in Afghanistan has, for the past year, been trying to end the war as quickly as possible. The entirety of the Afghanistan section in his platform is devoted to reminding the American people that he is orchestrating the withdrawal of American forces from the country. Indeed, his entire line of attack against Romney in his platform is that Romney “has suggested he would leave [American troops in Afghanistan] indefinitely.” The consequences of this have been his decision to publicly announce the withdrawal timeline (which is very useful for the Taliban because it gives them a clearly defined schedule for preparing to reconquer Afghanistan, a schedule that yesterday’s massive, complex attack on “impregnable” Camp Bastion proves they are following) and to leave no troops in Afghanistan after the deadline, which could contribute to instability there if the Afghan army is not ready by 2014, as now looks probable.

The president’s strategy vis-a-vis Afghanistan is now shifting to include another aim: keep the war out of the spotlight. This shift in strategy is best illustrated by today’s announcement that man-on-man training of the Afghan army, which is more effective than training in huge groups (think of the benefits of learning from a tutor over learning in a huge lecture hall), will be ended. This will surely reduce number of American casualties (which will also reduce the amount of news coverage the war receives), but it will make the Afghan army less effective. Although it can be argued that Obama is simply showing concern for our troops, we have to keep in mind that the point of sending soldiers somewhere is for them to go into harm’s way. While it is very generous of Obama to care for American troops, it runs counter to the point of deploying soldiers somewhere in the first place.

It’s hard to place the blame on Obama for America’s failure to fully commit to Afghanistan because it is brought on by the American people’s apathy and disgust towards the war. Mitt Romney’s vague plan for Afghanistan, which consists of little other than a promise to provide security in South and Central Asia (that’s about as specific as if he made his China policy “interact with China”) and a criticism of Obama’s public announcement of the withdrawal timeline. If we want to see change in our Afghanistan policy, we need to take interest in the war. We can’t have both a speedy withdrawal and a low-intensity war. We have to ramp up troop training efforts and supervision of the Afghan forces if we want order to stay in the country. Bases for drones and special operations will have to stay past the 2014 deadline in the likely event that terrorism threatens the Afghan government. We may even need to do a top-down restructuring of the Afghan government and military to root out corruption and diffuse power from the current elite to include more ethnic groups. Will this take a lot of effort and resources? Of course. But we have committed far too many resources to Afghanistan to simply half-ass the final, crucial transition and waste our 11 years of hard work there. Afghanistan is not just some backwards hellhole that we invaded in an imperialist fit of post-9/11 rage. It is a resource rich energy hub that, if its natural gas and minerals are exploited and the proposed pipelines through there are built, could change the balance of power in Asia depending on which country, China or India (or both or neither) exploits it first. It is a key piece in the struggle between India, a rising superpower, and Pakistan, an important player in the War on Terror, that shapes all of our interactions with South Asia and most of our policy towards the Indian Ocean. And, finally, it has the potential to become a terrorist base once again, which would allow for Al-Qaeda to launch another mass casualty attack on the American mainland. Afghanistan is still crucial to our country’s security, and if we give up now, all our resources spent their will be wasted. If the American public puts pressure on the Administration to go whole hog in Afghanistan, we may yet succeed. It is not yet too late.

Saving Europe with Natural Gas

2012-09-13T22:11:00.001-07:00

Courtesy CartoonStock.com

On New Year’s Day, 2009, a dispute over payment between Russia and Ukraine led to Russia cutting off all Ukraine bound gas, which included 25 percent of the European Union’s gas supply.1 To make things worse, Europe was in the middle of an especially harsh winter. Even though most countries had prepared for a gas shortage by stockpiling natural gas, their efforts were not enough, as few European countries had more than a month’s worth of reserves, and many lacked any reserves. The crisis hit Europe hard: Bulgaria was forced to shut off industrial production to save fuel for heating, thousands lost heating and electricity, and tiny Slovakia even declared a national state of emergency.1
This is not an isolated event. Russia has halted Europe’s gas supply in 1999, 2006, 2009, and 2012, each time in the dead of winter. The 2009 shortage cost €1 billion in Ireland alone2, and the 2012 shortage caused 650 deaths in Central and Eastern Europe.3 Although the EU as a whole gets only 31 percent of its gas from Russia, many Eastern European countries get 90-100 percent of their gas through Ukraine, and Germany, the EU’s de facto leader, gets 42 percent.4 Besides denying thousands of people heat for the homes and offices and severely injuring economies, these gas crises have broader geopolitical implications. Ukraine gave half the ownership of its gas pipeline, its biggest source of revenue, over to Gazprom (the Russian state-owned energy agency) after the 2009 crisis. Further, Russia took over most Ukrainian mines and power stations, has sent in many Gazprom security police to guard the pipeline (actually heavily armed soldiers and drones), boosted cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian defense ministries, has secured not only a more favorable Ukrainian government but also a much longer lease on its critical Black Sea base in Sevastopol, and, most ominously, has begun implementing political reforms in Ukraine to make Ukraine more like Russia. Russia has also exploited the total reliance of Eastern Europe on Gazprom’s natural gas in mid-2009 when it set up a number of security and economic alliances that heavily favored Russia (think Warsaw Pact part II).5 When Turkey lost 67 percent of its gas in 2009, it cozied up to Iran to get gas from them. Turkey helped Iran build a major pipeline through Turkey, a pipeline that until very recently continued to operate despite sanctions on Iran.
Further, Russia is not nearly as dependent on the EU as the EU is on Russia. Russia is building new pipelines to China and the Koreas, and has recently completed pipelines to China in 2010, and to Turkey and the Caucus region in 2006.6, 7, 8 Demand from Turkey and China nearly equals demand from Europe,8 meaning that Russia can make up lost gas revenues from Europe by simply increasing gas supply to other countries.
Europe’s reliance on Russian gas stems largely from the fact that Europe has little gas of its own. However, it seems puzzling that European nations continue to rely on authoritarian and unpredictable Russia in light of recent events in the gas market. 2011 was a record year for U.S. natural gas production, which now outstrips domestic demand by 119 billion cubic meters.9 This is excess is far greater than European demand, which currently amounts to 65 billion cubic meters.1 American shale gas is cheap, too: it is at the lowest price in a decade. This boom and low price is largely attributable to recent advances in shale-gas mining techniques that have opened up billions of cubic meters of gas up to drilling.10 Exporting this excess gas to Eastern Europe would be beneficial for gas companies and U.S. foreign relations: gas companies would make greater profits while the U.S. would keep Eastern Europe out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Further, Europeans citizens would benefit from U.S. gas: American natural gas costs $30 per 1,000 cubic meters11, while Russian gas shipped to Western Europe costs $500 per 1,000 cubic meters and gas shipped through Ukraine costs $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.12 If natural gas prices were lowered this dramatically, Europe’s economic recovery would speed up rapidly.

So what is it that stops the U.S. from exporting more gas to Europe? As usual, the answer is money. Natural gas must undergo an expensive liquefaction process before sea transport, while it can be left in its natural gaseous state for pipeline transport. Further, after a sea journey, natural gas must be regassified, a process that can only be done at expensive terminals that usually cost more than $1 billion13 to build.
In the long run, it is worthwhile to make investments in building regasification terminals in Eastern Europe because the expected monetary payoff to gas companies and political payoff to the U.S. government is so great. In the short term, however, stop gap measures must be taken. The U.S. can assist European nations in acquiring machines called floating regasification and storage units (FSRUs), natural gas tankers converted to serve as regasification terminals. FSRUs can be leased for an average of $70 million per year, an inexpensive price considering that one FSRU can regassify 3.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas, or 125 percent of Lithuania’s natural gas consumption. FSRUs are also much quicker to build than regasification terminals. Already, Lithuania, one of the first European countries to lease an FSRU, has seen its negotiating power with the Russian leadership increase after it leased its FSRU earlier this year.14
To do its part, Europe can start developing its own shale gas reserves and diversifying its gas sources. The EU sits on 2.168 trillion cubic meters14 of accessible natural gas. If the EU were to build facilities for extracting this gas, it could hypothetically eliminate the need for foreign supplies of gas. Further, the EU could turn to other sources of gas, such as Qatar or Mozambique, both of which have made enormous natural gas discoveries recently.15
The process of weaning Europe off of Russia’s teat may be dirty and expensive. But the end result, a steep drop in Russian influence in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, will be enormously valuable from a geopolitical standpoint. Once Russian influence is no more in Europe, true integration of Eastern Europe into the EU and the Schengen Area can begin, which will further bolster the EU and make it an effective counterweight to Russia. This would be particularly beneficial for the U.S., which has a prime opportunity to accelerate the recovery by bolstering the natural gas industry and to weaken its old foe. America would be a fool not to take it.

   Citations
1.. "FACTBOX - 18 countries affected by Russia-Ukraine gas row." Reuters 7 Jan. 2009:  n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. "Natural gas shortages slam many European nations." Tuscon Citizen 7 Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. . 2. Leahy, Eimear & Devitt, Conor & Lyons, Seán & Tol, Richard S. J., 2011. "The Cost of Natural Gas Shortages in Ireland, "WP397, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). 3. Murray, Alina. "Cold Weather Snap in Eastern Europe Kills More Than 650." MSNBC 2 Feb. 2012: n. pag. MSNBC. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. 4.European Union. EU-Russian Gas Relations in Perspective: Challenges and Opportunities. N.p.: European Dialogue, 2012. European Dialogue. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .  5. United States. U.S. Army. Russian Influence on Ukrainian Strategic Policy. By Defek G.  Webb. Charleston, SC: U.S. Army, 2011. Print.  6. Stnagarone, Troy. "Russia's North Korea Gas Deal." The Diplomat 15 Nov. 2011: n. pag. New Leader Forum. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .  7. British Petroleum. “Southern Caucasus Pipeline overview." 8. Reuters. "New Russian pipeline replaces oil by rail." Global Times 10 Dec. 2010: n. pag. Global Times: Discover China Discover the World. Web. 13 Apr. 2012..  9. United States. Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Overview. N.p.: Energy Information Administration, 2012. Department of Energy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.  10. Osborne, Andrew. "Why natural gas is cheap and gasoline isn’t." New York Times 30 Mar. 2012: n. pag. NYT. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. . 11.United States. Energy Information Administration. Quantity and Average Price of Natural Gas Production in the United States, 1930-2000. N.p.: Energy Information Administration, 2000. Department of Energy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .  12. Osborne, Andrew. "Russia Firm Cuts Gas to Ukraine, But EU Hit Is Cushioned ." Wall Street Journal 2 Jan. 2009: n. pag. WSJ. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. . 13. "Lithuania leveraging a new LNG technology." STRATFOR 8 Mar. 2012: n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. 14. "European Union." CIA World Factbook. CIA, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2012. 15.LeVine, Steve. " For Alaska (and Qatar and Mozambique and Russia) China is the hub of hope." Foreign Policy 12 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Foreign Policy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.

Christopher Stevens: In Memorandum

2012-09-12T22:54:00.001-07:00

An artist's depiction of Operation Eldorado Canyon, in which U.S. aircraft attacked state terrorists in Libya with a single, high-firepower airstrike. Obama's response to the death of Christopher Stevens strongly resembles this operation.

The death of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, is a tragedy. That, hopefully, should be agreed upon by everyone. This tragedy should help us reflect on both how we interact with the world and how our counter-terrorism strategy is evolving.

We must first be clear about what happened in Benghazi. Crowds in Libya and Egypt attacked U.S. consulates roughly simultaneously. The mobs in Libya and Egypt were protesting over an internet video titled "Muhammed Movie Trailer" released by an Israeli-American Jew. The 14-minute video is an untrue, libelous and sick assault against the founder of Islam. Muslims thus ought to be disgusted by this video. The protests at the U.S. consulates seem to have been sparked by the belief that this video was broadcast on the American mainstream news media and that it reflected the beliefs of most Americans. Both of these beliefs are of course false, but what matters is not whether they are true, but how they came to be believed. It appears that an activist leaked the video to a reporter, who in turn spread it via Facebook to Libya and/or Egypt, where it quickly spread and went viral. Although the crowd in Benghazi that protested outside the U.S. Consulate was never peaceful (they scaled the consulate wall and burned an American flag), they were not what did Stevens in. The protest was infiltrated by insurgents, who attacked Stevens and his entourage with a rocket propelled grenade and automatic weapons. The insurgents possibly have links to Al-Qaeda, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There are a few things that are significant about this event. First, the fact that an insignificant video can be seen by thousands of Muslims as representative of prevailing American culture speaks to the fact that the U.S. has an image problem. Here, it is apparent that this image problem is not, as some claim, a result of the fact that the U.S.' primary means for interacting with the world is through its military. While it is true that America's main way of interacting with her enemies and neutral countries is through military force (or threats and shows of force), we no longer live in an area where states are the main global actors. Instead, groups of people, from Libya's National Transitional Council to the protestors in Tahrir Square to Al-Qaeda, are the main actors in the world. Most global individuals interact with the U.S. in one of two ways: through our culture (which includes not only our values, but also how we convey those values e.g. entertainment and the media) and our economy, namely through multinational U.S. corporations that sell to all nations, although the former is clearly more influential. While it is idealistic and pretty hopeless to ask the media to tone down the Islamophobia in order to protect American lives, it is the only real solution.

In remarks following Stevens' murder, Obama stated that he would "avenge" Stevens' death. Obama gave us a pretty clear indication of what he meant by that: two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, heavily armed warships designed for air defense and high-volume bombardment, were deployed to Libya. U.S. drone aircraft have also been spotted in Eastern Libya, where the attack took place. So Obama is planning to crush Stevens' killers with overwhelming force. The unilateralism of this operation and its reliance on a single, highly visible usage of heavy firepower (in contrast to a protracted counter-insurgency campaign like Afghanistan or a lower-profile targeted operation like the U.S. operations in Pakistan) seem reminiscent of the approaches Reagan and Clinton took to counter-terrorism, namely to the Eldorado Canyon operation in Libya and the attack on Tora Bora under Clinton. Does this mean that Obama is changing his counter-terrorism strategy from targeted killings to overwhelming force? Probably not, since deterrence by force (aka "shock and awe") has clearly not worked against Al-Qaeda. However, it is important to keep in mind that the the insurgents who carried out today's Benghazi attack are representative of the new face of global Islamic terrorism: local groups operating under the banner of Al-Qaeda to increase their publicity and get support from both foreign donors and local recruits. With that in mind, it seems that Obama is trying to send a message to these Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, many of whom have less resolve than Al-Qaeda itself (compare how much longer Al-Qaeda in Pakistan has held out to how long Al-Qaeda in Nigeria and the Philippines have held out): if you associate with Al-Qaeda at all, you will be wiped out. If this strategy is successful, which it probably will be since it relies on basic, tested theories of deterrence, it will mean the end of global terrorism, and thus of the ability of terrorist organizations to conduct global operations like 9/11. However, it will also serve to drive local terrorist groups, especially the less dedicated ones, underground, decreasing their effectiveness. While this would make it more difficult to root out these organizations, it would also take away our rationale for doing so: that they pose a threat to our security. In other words, if this strategy and Obama's current targeted killing strategy aimed at Al-Qaeda's leadership work, it will mean the end of global Islamic terror. Let's hope it works.

Ryan: a big shift to the fiscal theater

2012-08-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

Courtesy Gateway Pundit

I thought I would just throw in my two cents about Mitt Romney's VP pick of Paul Ryan. It seems clear that Romney is picking Ryan for two reasons: to offset his political inexperience and to shift the conversation towards the deficit.

Romney's primary reason for picking Ryan is to acquire a Washington insider. Although Romney does have some political experience, namely his governorship of Massachusetts, he has no experience on the national level. As he has tirelessly reminded Americans, he is a corporate man, not a career politician. While this may sell well to most Americans, who still view the private sector in a better light than the government, it means that Romney is unfamiliar with the nuances of political speech. He speaks bluntly and honestly more often than he should ("I like being able to fire people"), and is notorious for saying the wrong thing to the wrong crowd (insulting London on its Olympic performance while in London). Ryan, by contrast, has been in Congress since 1999. He is very familiar with political speech, and will probably help Romney cut down on gaffes.

The other reason for picking Ryan is to shift the focus of the campaign. This election has been a referendum on Obama's economic performance, as both candidates have made clear. Ryan's main claim to fame, however, is not his performance on the economy, it is his controversial budget. He is routinely described as a "deficit hawk." Romney's pick of Ryan seems like an attempt to shift the focus of the campaign from the economy to the deficit.

Militarism 2.0: South China Sea

2012-06-12T11:19:00.000-07:00


Chinese destroyer Qingdao enters Pearl Harbor in 2006. The fact that she was able to make this long journey demonstrates the high endurance of Chinese warships.

A specter is haunting Asia – the specter of war. Across the continent, from India to Japan, formerly peaceful countries are pursuing aggressive and occasionally expansionist policies. While expansionism is not new in the region, this time is different. Previous conflicts in Asia tended to feature one modern and well-armed nation conquering smaller and weaker ones, as in the rise of Tang China in the 7th century or Imperial Japan in the 20th century. This time, however, there are several different sides involved in a potential run-up to war. Aggressive statements from political leaders are just the public face of the looming crisis. The region is haunted by nationalism, energy disputes, and, most ominously, an arms race.

Arms Race

Since the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions are defined by the sea, this arms race is primarily naval. Although military spending in Asia grew at a slower rate than usual because of the poor state of the economy, Asian military budgets grew by an average of 2.3 percent in 2011.1 While this may not sound like a very large increase, it is significant because military spending in the rest of the world has hit a plateau, which makes Asia the region with the second biggest increase in military spending, after the Middle East.2 Asia’s military buildup is more visible over the long term, as spending has risen 69 percent since 2000, compared to a global increase of 49 percent.3 This is especially concerning because the U.S. and most of its Western European allies are cutting their defense budgets to rein in rising deficits.4

The two countries largely responsible for this jump in spending are also the world’s largest: India and China. By 2030, India plans to spend $45 billion on its navy and add 103 ships to its fleet; China plans to spend $20 billion and add 135 ships. India is the world’s largest arms importer, accounting for nine percent of all global arms trade.5

More important than just the numbers of ships India and China plan to acquire, however, is the types of ships they will build and weapons they are buying. Both countries have explicitly stated a desire to own “blue-water” navies,” (fleets that can fight and project power more than 200 miles from their home countries) and are thus investing in power projection weapons, particularly aircraft carriers. India is currently building two new 40,000 ton carriers, is planning to launch a 65,000 ton carrier by 2017, and has purchased $700 million worth of MiG-29ks (Russian carrier-based fighters).6 China, meanwhile, has just launched its first carrier, a refitted 33,000 ton Gorbachev-era ex-Soviet vessel and plans to build four more.7

Carriers are useful for projecting influence and fighting conflicts a long distance away from their bases, which makes them exceptionally well suited to power projection and controlling regions. It is worrying that China and India are expressing increased interest in these vessels, since it shows that they likely intend to establish firm spheres of influence in the region using threats of force.

American and Indian aircraft fly over the Indian aircraft carrier INS Viraat.

India and China are interested in another power projection tool recently: amphibious warfare ships, which can transport Marines and launch D-Day style assaults on beaches. India bought its first amphibious warfare ship, an outdated U.S. Navy vessel, last year and plans to acquire four newer ships,8 and China owns two modern (circa 2006) and domestically built amphibious warfare ships and plans to build eight more.9

Both nations are also investing in the crucial yet inconspicuous aspects of power projection: support vessels (underway replenishment ships, oilers, tankers, etc) and foreign bases. The Indian Navy has just acquired two new tankers and two underway replenishment and ammunition ships, and it has reportedly conducted underway replenishment operations.10 China has owned an extensive fleet of tankers and support ships since the ‘90s and has been stepping up the rate of exercises involving them after 2005.11 Much has been made of China’s “string of pearls,” a string of new naval bases and deepwater ports from Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Myanmar and Cambodia.12 While the Indian Navy does not yet have as many bases as China, it has built a new base in Madagascar, has berthing rights in Oman and Vietnam, and is negotiating with the Maldives to build a base there.13

Although most emphasis is placed on construction of power projection weapons, offensive weaponry is also being stockpiled by both nations.

India and China are building fleets of modern, stealth frigates and destroyers. These new surface ships are heavily armed and carry some of the most advanced electronics, including Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, which are nearly impossible to jam and can track far more targets than regular radars.14 The most important aspect of these new ships, however, is that they are high endurance: China’s Type 052 destroyers have a range of 4,000 nautical miles15 and India’s Delhi class have a range of 5,000 nautical miles.16

Acquisition of silent diesel-electric submarines and better armed nuclear submarines, both of which are purely offensive weapons, is also a priority for both countries. India is currently buying the latest submarines from Germany and Russia and is planning to launch 30 new boats by 2030,17 and China has added 42 boats of increasing stealthiness to its fleet since 1995, and expects to add a total of 75 boats by 2020.18

Finally, both countries are upgrading their missile inventories: India has equipped all destroyers and frigates with the stealthy, supersonic, mid-range (290 km), and powerful (armed with a 300 kg warhead) BrahMos missile. It is also deploying the short-range Dhanush ballistic missile, which is armed with either a 500 kg armor piercing warhead that can be used against ships or a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon, onboard its submarines and patrol craft.19 China has built the famed DF-21D, the world’s first ballistic anti-ship missile, which has a staggering 1,500 km range and is considered a serious threat to U.S. carriers.20 China has also acquired hundreds of regular anti-ship cruise missiles, including the Russian SS-N-27N Sizzler which an American admiral has said the U.S. Navy has no known defense against, as well as several satellites to guide long range missiles and air operations.21

Almost all Asian countries have found themselves forced to respond to this arms race. The three making the most significant fleets, other than India and China, are South Korea, Japan, and Russia. South Korea is planning to build 128 ships by 2030, although some of those are just replacing outdated vessels.22 Despite its constitutional ban on war, Japan has the strongest navy in the Pacific region, and it is investing heavily in new fighters, expensive anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs), networking technology, and additional “helicopter destroyers” (a euphemism for aircraft carriers). In 2010, Japan announced that it would build its first foreign base since WWII, a navy base in Djbouti, on the Indian Ocean.23 Russia China, Vietnam, and the Philippines is in the process of modernizing its navy to include two new amphibious assault ships, a new class of ballistic missile submarines (the largest ever built), and over 20 stealthy anti- aircraft frigates and corvettes. The Russian Navy’s latest strategic guidance document makes it clear that the focus of this buildup is the Pacific region, and most of the new ships will be deployed to the Pacific.24

The arms buildup is affecting all countries both in the heart of the region and far away from it; a few examples of this are listed below. The Royal Australian Navy, in the words of Australian Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, plans to “[Evolve] into a much more capable amphibious force, [bring] new air- warfare destroyers into the fleet, and [double] the size of the current submarine force,” in addition to plans to acquire the advanced and stealthy F-35 fighter and to potentially buy American Virginia-class nuclear submarines.25 Pakistan, understandably unnerved by the naval buildup conducted by its longtime enemy India, is investing in new basing infrastructure, more ships, and space and cyber weapons.26 Indonesia is rapidly increasing its military spending and is adding several new vessels to its fleet, including Chinese-built missile boats and ultramodern German diesel-electric submarines.27 Vietnam has begun stockpiling Russian anti- shipping missiles and Canadian maritime patrol aircraft, in addition to buying six very quiet submarines, two frigates, and a large troop transport.28 Even tiny Singapore is modernizing its fleet with the purchase of two Swedish submarines and upgrades to the rest of its submarine fleet.29

Rising tensions

Rising Tensions

This arms buildup is made worse by the rise in tensions in the region. Most of these tensions center around the South China Sea. Half of the world’s merchant ships, carrying about $2.5 trillion worth of oil and $2.5 trillion worth in other goods, pass through the South China sea,30 meaning that any nation with control over the South China Sea controls world trade and East Asia’s supply of oil. Throw in the fact that the South China Sea is estimated to contain about 15 billion tons of oil and natural gas plus vibrant fishing and sea salt industries, and the South China Sea becomes even more of a prize.31 Naturally, this has led to several nations, namely China, Vietnam and the Philippines claiming overlapping portions of the South China Sea.32 In terms of claiming territory in the South China Sea, China is the worst offender: it claims the entire sea, as well as what it calls the “first island chain”: Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and the Ryukyu Islands, which are part of Japan.33 Attempts to solve the boundary dispute diplomatically in the regional ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) forum have failed,34 which has raised tension by making Chinese officials believe that force is the only way to resolve the crisis.35

These tensions have occasionally led to crises and violence. In the most recent crisis, which is still ongoing, Chinese and Filipino warships have been in a standoff for over a month because the Philippines detained Chinese fishermen it claimed were fishing in its territorial waters. China is warning its citizens of a potential war, and has deployed five warships to the location of the dispute, including an amphibious transport dock.36 Previous disputes in the region of note include a 2010 incident in which a Chinese trawler rammed a Japanese Coast Guard ship and a 2009 incident where Chinese gunboats stalked an unarmed American surveillance vessel in the South China Sea and nearly collided with it. Notable violent clashes include a 2005 incident in which two Chinese warships fired on Vietnamese fishing boats China claimed entered their territorial waters, killing nine,37 and the 1974 Battle for the Paracel Islands between China and South Vietnam that resulted in South Vietnam losing a corvette and 53 sailors.38

Both the naval arms build up and the tensions in the South China Sea are attributable to two factors: rising nationalism and desire for national prestige in some countries, and the response to this nationalism by other nations. The best example of rising nationalism is China. The state-sponsored media regularly portrays the actions of other countries in a negative light, and occasionally calls for military action against foreigners, especially the U.S. and Japan. It tends to glorify China, and makes regular calls for reclaiming China’s “heritage” – hegemony in East Asia – from the West. Postings by Chinese civilians on social media, where nationalistic posts vastly outnumber dissident posts, even on social media not controlled by the government, show that the public buys into this sentiment.39 Japan is also experiencing a wave of nationalism,40 as very right wing candidates are gaining in power. Finally, Indian nationalism, particularly Hindu nationalism, is rising in the form of more Hindu terrorism and Mahanian calls for putting the “Indian” back in the Indian Ocean issued by members of Parliament and bureaucrats.41 Nationalism has led to a desire to assert the power of one’s country on the world stage, which partly explains the rise of aggressive, internationalist foreign policies in China and India. Most Asian nations have become alarmed by these aggressive policies and started arming, which has created the current situation.

Analysis

The United States needs to approach this situation with extreme caution. If the U.S. increased cooperation between its navy and one of its allies’ navies, or increased arms sales to an ally, it would just fuel more arms buildup from countries wary of U.S. influence tilting the balance of power in the region against them. It is thus in America’s best interest to act as a neutral arbiter in the region, deploying to any crisis zone to convince both parties to back down. Being a neutral arbiter of disputes would necessitate both strong offensive and defensive capabilities: offensive capabilities to crush the aggressors if a battle breaks out, and defensive capabilities to shield merchant vessels and allied warships from attack.

This also means that the U.S. will need to change the structure of the force it has in East Asia. Retaliation solely against enemy naval assets makes the most sense since it can quickly end a conflict without escalating it, so weapons that are primarily land-attack, namely Marines, amphibious warfare ships, and strategic bombers, should be moved out of harms way. This is why the Marine Corp’s new base in Darwin, Australia is so crucial: it is out of a potential combat zone, so troops and ships are completely safe there, yet it is close enough to the South China Sea, the heart of East Asia and the most likely location of a future conflict, that ships based there can deploy to a crisis zone quickly. If this base was expanded to include amphibious warfare ships, it could realize its full potential as a new, safe staging area for the United States in the Western Pacific.

The best policy is to not provoke war. The U.S. should pay attention to its actions in the region and be sure that they could not be seen as aggressive. However, these tensions demand a constant, strong show of force by the U.S. to prevent any armed conflicts from breaking out. However, the U.S. Navy alone has the power to police the waters of the South China Sea, cause tensions to cool down before they boil over and become wars, and protect our allies and defeat aggressors in the event of a conflict, so doing anything other than increasing American military presence in Asia is not an option.

Citations

1. “Military Spending 2011 Regional Infographic, Top 10 Military Spenders & More.” Army Technology. 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 17 May 2012.

2. ibid 1

3. “Global Fund for Women.” Militarism Facts. Global Fund for Women, 2010. Web. 17 May 2012.

4. ibid 1

5. Keating, Joshua E. “Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy. Dec. 2011. Web. 17 May 2012.

6. Scott, David. “India’s Drive for a ‘Blue Water’ Navy.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 10.2 (2008): n. pag. Print.

7. Thomas, Rich. “China Plans World’s Second-Largest Carrier Fleet.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 25 July 2011. Web. 17 May 2012.

8. “India Looking for Amphibious Ships.” Defense Industry Daily. 27 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 May 2012.

9. Lague, David. “Analysis: New China Landing Vessels Point to Pacific Rivalry.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 May 2012.

10. ibid 6

11. United States. Congressional Research Service. China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities – Background and Issues for Congress. By Ronald O’Rourke. 2012. Google Docs. Web. 18 May 2012.

12. ibid 11

13. ibid 6

14. AESA Radar: Revolutionary Capabilities for Multiple Missions. N.p.: Lockheed Martin, n.d. Print.

15. “Type 052 (Luhu Class) Missile Destroyer - SinoDefence.com.” Sino Defense. 1 Mar. 2009. Web. 17 May 2012.

16. India. Indian Navy. Ships in Service of the Indian

Navy. 2012. Web.

17. ibid 6

18. ibid 11

19. ibid 6

20. ibid 11

21. ibid 11

22. ibid 5

23. Werthiem, Eric. “World Navies in Review.” Proceedings Mar. 2012: 36-41. Print.

24. Fedyszyn, Thomas. “Renaissance of the Russian Navy?.” Proceedings Mar. 2012: 30-35. Print.

25. Griggs, Ray. “The Commanders Respond.” Proceed- ings Mar. 2012: 16-17. Print.

26. ibid 23

27. ibid 22

28. ibid 22

29. ibid 22

30. United States. Center for Naval Analysis. Institute for

National Strategic Studies. South China Sea Oil Shipping Lanes. Print.

31. “Rich Resources in the South China Sea.” China Oceanic Information Network. People’s Republic of China. Web. 18 May 2012.

32. Bayron, Heda. “ASEAN Meeting to Examine South China Sea Dispute.” Voice of America. U.S.A., 11 July 2011. Web. 18 May 2012.

33. Sato, Koichi. China’s territorial Claims at Sea: The East China and South China Sea. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Google docs. Web. 25 May 2012.

34. Weissmann, Mikael. “The South China Sea Conflict and Sino-Asean Relations: A Study in Conflict Prevention and Peace Building.” Asian Perspective 34.3 (2010): 25-69. Print.

35. Thearith, Leng. Is ASEAN Still Relevant? Phnom Penh: n.p., 2009. Print.

36. McElroy, Damien. “Chinese Media Warns of War with Philipppines.” The Telegraph. 10 May 2012. Web. 18 May 2012.

37. “Vietnam Protests Chinese Firing at Fishing Boats.” Intellasia East Asia News. 15 Jan. 2005. Web. 18 May 2012.

38. Ha, Van Ngnac. “Battle For Paracel Islands.” Battle For Paracel Islands. VNAF MA, 2005. Web. 18 May 2012

39. Grammaticas, Damian. “China’s Rising Nationalism Troubles West.” BBC News. BBC, 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 May 2012.

40. Kumagai, Hiroshi. “H. Kumagai: Rising Nationalism in Northeast Asia.” Universal Peace Federation. 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 18 May 2012.

41. Kaplan, Robert D. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.

Corruption in China as a force-multiplier

2012-04-16T19:42:00.001-07:00

Reports are coming out of intense corruption in the Chinese military. These come as no surprise, since China is a highly corrupt society to begin with thanks to the unusually close relationship between government and business that characterizes Chinese state-capitalism and China's ancient tradition of wealthy nobility being awarded government positions that dates back to the Qin Dynasty in 221 BCE. Corruption in the military hampers the effectiveness of communication and lowers discipline, while corruption in the civilian government keeps millions in poverty and creating a major wealth disparity between the rich Eastern cities and the poorer yet more populous West.

On its face, this looks pretty good for the U.S. America is in the business of maintaining its hegemony, which it can do by keeping its challengers down. Corruption hurts China by hurting the Chinese economy, weakening their military, and increasing the possibility of a revolution by the poor West.

However, the U.S. has both a moral and realist responsibility to denounce corruption in China. Morally, the U.S. must denounce corruption because it unfairly hurts China's poor and kills millions, which no upright human being can allow. This in turn would increase America's soft power and moral standing in the world by showing other nations that the U.S. cares about helping the little guy. From a realist point of view, however, denouncing corruption by sending Hilary Clinton to China to give a speech saying something along the lines of "rampant corruption like China's makes a government illegitimate" would help speed along a collapse of the Communist Party. How would this work? First, it is highly improbable that any speech by a U.S. official, even by the President, would force China to change its corrupt ways. Corruption in China is too deeply entrenched and too ancient of a tradition to be ended by a speech. Further, despite the amazing volume of organizations, money, and laws (1,200 of the latter) that have been used to attempt to fight corruption in China, corruption has increased, not decreased.

While denouncing Chinese corruption is unlikely to deny the U.S. the benefits of this corruption, it will likely incite anger against the regime. Corruption in China is well-known, but most Chinese I have talked to merely regard it as a fact of life and not as an evil. It would not be particularly hard to show a large swath of the Chinese people who corruption hurts them because this is plainly evident in most parts of the country. If a speech by Hilary Clinton or another prominent, well-known American were to call corruption evil, it could incite some small-scale revolts against the Chinese leadership, which would in turn weaken China. Even if that does not happen, the end result is still good: China remains hobbled by corruption while the U.S. gets a new image as a moral crusader for justice.

How to stop Russia's rise with natural gas

2012-04-14T09:16:00.000-07:00

This is not an isolated event. Russia has halted Europe’s gas supply in 1999, 2006, 2009, and 2012, each time in the dead of winter. The 2009 shortage cost €1 billion in Ireland alone2, and the 2012 shortage caused 650 deaths in Central and Eastern Europe.3 Although the EU as a whole gets only 31 percent of its gas from Russia, many Eastern European countries get 90-100 percent of their gas through Ukraine, and Germany, the EU’s de facto leader, gets 42 percent.4 Besides denying thousands of people heat for the homes and offices and severely injuring economies, these gas crises have broader geopolitical implications. Ukraine gave half the ownership of its gas pipeline, its biggest source of revenue, over to Gazprom (the Russian state-owned energy agency) after the 2009 crisis. Further, Russia took over most Ukrainian mines and power stations, has sent in many Gazprom security police to guard the pipeline (actually heavily armed soldiers and drones), boosted cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian defense ministries, has secured not only a more favorable Ukrainian government but also a much longer lease on its critical Black Sea base in Sevastopol, and, most ominously, has begun implementing political reforms in Ukraine to make Ukraine more like Russia. Russia has also exploited the total reliance of Eastern Europe on Gazprom’s natural gas in mid-2009 when it set up a number of security and economic alliances that heavily favored Russia (think Warsaw Pact part II).5 When Turkey lost 67 percent of its gas in 2009, it cozied up to Iran to get gas from them. Turkey helped Iran build a major pipeline through Turkey, a pipeline that until very recently continued to operate despite sanctions on Iran.

Further, Russia is not nearly as dependent on the EU as the EU is on Russia. Russia is building new pipelines to China and the Koreas, and has recently completed pipelines to China in 2010, and to Turkey and the Caucus region in 2006.6, 7, 8 Demand from Turkey and China nearly equals demand from Europe,8 meaning that Russia can make up lost gas revenues from Europe by simply increasing gas supply to other countries.

Europe’s reliance on Russian gas stems largely from the fact that Europe has little gas of its own. However, it seems puzzling that European nations continue to rely on authoritarian and unpredictable Russia in light of recent events in the gas market. 2011 was a record year for U.S. natural gas production, which now outstrips domestic demand by 119 billion cubic meters.9 This is excess is far greater than European demand, which currently amounts to 65 billion cubic meters.1 American shale gas is cheap, too: it is at the lowest price in a decade. This boom and low price is largely attributable to recent advances in shale-gas mining techniques that have opened up billions of cubic meters of gas up to drilling.10 Exporting this excess gas to Eastern Europe would be beneficial for gas companies and U.S. foreign relations: gas companies would make greater profits while the U.S. would keep Eastern Europe out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Further, Europeans citizens would benefit from U.S. gas: American natural gas costs $30 per 1,000 cubic meters11, while Russian gas shipped to Western Europe costs $500 per 1,000 cubic meters and gas shipped through Ukraine costs $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.12 If natural gas prices were lowered this dramatically, Europe’s economic recovery would speed up rapidly.

In the long run, it is worthwhile to make investments in building regasification terminals in Eastern Europe because the expected monetary payoff to gas companies and political payoff to the U.S. government is so great. In the short term, however, stop gap measures must be taken. The U.S. can assist European nations in acquiring machines called floating regasification and storage units (FSRUs), natural gas tankers converted to serve as regasification terminals. FSRUs can be leased for an average of $70 million per year, an inexpensive price considering that one FSRU can regassify 3.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas, or 125 percent of Lithuania’s natural gas consumption. FSRUs are also much quicker to build than regasification terminals. Already, Lithuania, one of the first European countries to lease an FSRU, has seen its negotiating power with the Russian leadership increase after it leased its FSRU earlier this year.14

To do its part, Europe can start developing its own shale gas reserves and diversifying its gas sources. The EU sits on 2.168 trillion cubic meters14 of accessible natural gas. If the EU were to build facilities for extracting this gas, it could hypothetically eliminate the need for foreign supplies of gas. Further, the EU could turn to other sources of gas, such as Qatar or Mozambique, both of which have made enormous natural gas discoveries recently.15

The process of weaning Europe off of Russia’s teat may be dirty and expensive. But the end result, a steep drop in Russian influence in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, will be enormously valuable from a geopolitical standpoint. Once Russian influence is no more in Europe, true integration of Eastern Europe into the EU and the Schengen Area can begin, which will further bolster the EU and make it an effective counterweight to Russia. This would be particularly beneficial for the U.S., which has a prime opportunity to accelerate the recovery by bolstering the natural gas industry and to weaken its old foe. America would be a fool not to take it.

Citations
1.. "FACTBOX - 18 countries affected by Russia-Ukraine gas row." Reuters 7 Jan. 2009:
n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
"Natural gas shortages slam many European nations." Tuscon Citizen 7 Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
2. Leahy, Eimear & Devitt, Conor & Lyons, Seán & Tol, Richard S. J., 2011. "The Cost of Natural Gas Shortages in Ireland, "WP397, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
3. Murray, Alina. "Cold Weather Snap in Eastern Europe Kills More Than 650." MSNBC 2 Feb. 2012: n. pag. MSNBC. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
4.European Union. EU-Russian Gas Relations in Perspective: Challenges and Opportunities. N.p.: European Dialogue, 2012. European Dialogue. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
5. United States. U.S. Army. Russian Influence on Ukrainian Strategic Policy. By Defek G.
Webb. Charleston, SC: U.S. Army, 2011. Print.
6. Stnagarone, Troy. "Russia's North Korea Gas Deal." The Diplomat 15 Nov. 2011: n. pag. New Leader Forum. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
7. British Petroleum. “Southern Caucasus Pipeline overview."
8. Reuters. "New Russian pipeline replaces oil by rail." Global Times 10 Dec. 2010: n. pag. Global Times: Discover China Discover the World. Web. 13 Apr. 2012..
9. United States. Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Overview. N.p.: Energy Information Administration, 2012. Department of Energy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
10. Osborne, Andrew. "Why natural gas is cheap and gasoline isn’t." New York Times 30 Mar. 2012: n. pag. NYT. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
11.United States. Energy Information Administration. Quantity and Average Price of Natural Gas Production in the United States, 1930-2000. N.p.: Energy Information Administration, 2000. Department of Energy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
12. Osborne, Andrew. "Russia Firm Cuts Gas to Ukraine, But EU Hit Is Cushioned ." Wall Street Journal 2 Jan. 2009: n. pag. WSJ. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
13. "Lithuania leveraging a new LNG technology." STRATFOR 8 Mar. 2012: n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
14. "European Union." CIA World Factbook. CIA, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.
15.LeVine, Steve. " For Alaska (and Qatar and Mozambique and Russia) China is the hub of hope." Foreign Policy 12 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Foreign Policy. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .

How to contain Brazil

2012-04-09T01:12:00.000-07:00

As American presidential candidates and pundits alike yammer about the threat posed by a rising China, the rise of another potentially unfriendly superpower closer to home has been ignored. This nation is Brazil, the seventh richest country in the world1, ahead of Britain, and the third highest GDP growth rate2 from 2000 to 2010. Although Brazil is not nearly strong enough to challenge American hegemony, it is powerful enough to frustrate U.S. policies and actions in ways that harm U.S. interests. Therefore, the United States should not only take actions to convince Brazil to support the U.S., but it should also work to break up Brazil’s power.

Brazil’s rising power status is questioned by nobody. Brazil’s rise is a true success story; a fight against both an unforgiving geography and relentless inflation3 that kept the country in endless poverty despite high growth. Brazil’s rainforest geography, lack of easily accessible arable land (most arable land is deep in the interior rainforest) have provided significant obstacles to growth. The natural barrier provided by the Amazon ensures that all trade and thus all major cities are confined to the Atlantic Ocean, which further frustrates growth because the Great Escapade, a high wall of mountains, runs along the coast except for in a few small pockets, confining Brazil’s cities to these small pockets and thereby preventing transportation links between Brazilian cities and the development of economies of scale.3 Brazil shot up to prominence once the forests were cleared and roads built, creating farmland and enabling the rise of a middle class of small farmers.3 Further, the implementation of the Real Plan (named for the Real, the new Brazilian currency created by the plan) in 1994 brought inflation down from 45 percent in 1994 to one percent in 1996 by tightening monetary policy, floating the currency, and tying the Real to the dollar.5 While this destruction of inflation hampered growth by tightening credit and cutting deficit spending, the Real Plan vastly increased the purchasing power of most Brazilians, decreasing the poverty rate by 10 percent in two years5 and creating a consumer economy in Brazil from scratch. It is the largest country in South America, both in terms of population and wealth. Despite having growth decreased by the Real Plan, Brazil’s growth rate remains high, as mentioned before. Further, this growth appears to be here to stay: Brazil’s economy is largely based on agriculture, and its products, particularly soybeans (needed for tofu, food additives and animal feed) and sugar cane (used as biofuel and food sweetener) are in high demand and will likely remain so in the future.6 The Brazilian people’s high purchasing power, and the fact that the Brazilian poverty rate is plummeting, ensures the long-term health of the domestic consumption economy as a main driver of growth. Brazil has also discovered enormous oil fields: Brazil sits on 50 billion barrels of oil, enough to propel it into the top five oil producers by 2020,7 and some estimate that 70-100 billion barrels more are located offshore.8 Although Brazil slumped in 2011, this slump was largely the result of faltering consumer spending, a problem that can be easily overcome. Likewise, Brazil's inflation crisis, which is largely the result of excessive foreign investment from China, can be solved through tighter currency regulations. 14, 3

This wealth has translated to regional dominance. The Brazilian state-owned firm Petrobras controls the Bolivian natural-gas industry, the largest sector in the Bolivian economy, and almost all Bolivian agricultural products are shipped to Brazil. Large numbers of Brazilians have migrated to Paraguay, and Brazil is the largest investor in the Paraguayan economy, particularly in its energy sector. Brazilian cash drives Uruguay’s financial industry, the main driver of Uruguay’s economy, and Brazilians now own a majority of Uruguay’s farmland.3 All told, Brazil is the largest direct investor in Latin American nations and the most powerful country in the region, giving it the status of regional hegemon.

In the past, Brazil’s power has been checked by that of its neighbors, particularly Argentina. Argentina benefits from many large navigable rivers (which facilitate trade) and the fact that most of its territory is large arable plains, which facilitate not only large-scale agriculture but economies of scale and giant cities. Historically, these geographic advantages have played out in the way one would expect: Argentina wore the pants in the Argentina-Brazil relationship. Argentina dominated the Southern Cone region (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Southern Brazil) that formed the heartland of South America after Argentina’s victory against Brazil in the 1825 Cisplatine War. By dominating this crucial, resource rich region, Argentina rose to global prominence and was even able to challenge European powers, seen most recently in the Falklands War. Although modern Argentina is but a shadow of its former self, it remains the second most powerful country in South America and the only potential threat to Brazil.

Recognizing the threat posed by Argentina, Brazil has undertaken a number of successful measures to ally itself with Argentina. The two countries consider each other to be in a “strategic alliance,” and their militaries collaborate extensively.9 Brazil and Argentina have collaborated on designing military aircraft, and their militaries frequently drill together. Most importantly, the two countries have shared details on their top-secret uranium enrichment plants with each other. Further, Brazil supports Argentina in Argentina’s claim over the Falklands Islands, Argentina’s biggest foreign policy issue.10 However, the main way in which Brazil has formed a cohesive power block in South America is economically, through the Mercosur trade agreement that involves Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay i.e. Brazil and the Southern Cone nations. Mercosur is a free-trade organization with a standardized external trade policy, similar to NAFTA or ASEAN. Mercosur has led to great amounts of trade and migration between Brazil and Argentina, deepening their ties. Mercosur is also the main means by which Brazil controls the Southern Cone: while individual deals brought local nations into Brazilian suzerainty, Brazil sets the common foreign policies of the region through Mercosur.10

With its one major enemy removed, and its status as regional hegemon fully secured, Brazil stepped on to the world stage. Brazil leads the UN mission in Haiti, has tripled its foreign aid budget since 200811 and has participated in 27 UN peacekeeping missions. However, Brazil’s stint in the international arena has been anything but beneficial to the U.S. Historically, Brazil has been unfriendly to the U.S.; Brazil worked with the Chinese and the Soviets during the Cold War and refused to oppose Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Brazil refuses to cooperate with American demands, seen in Brazil’s unwillingness to pacify its neighbors or crack down on drug lords in neighboring countries.12 Another major source of friction between the two nations is an incident in which Brazil negotiated with Iran in 2010, despite explicit U.S. instructions not to interact with Iran. Economically, Brazil has been working to exclude the U.S. from South America through economic integration unions such as Mercosur and was the main opponent of the Free Trade Area of the Americas in addition to raising tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods. Further, Brazil has worked to actively oppose U.S. actions. Brazil has opposed American anti-drug lord operations in Colombia and has even insisted that any American military actions in South America be approved by Brazil first. Brazil has also opposed most recent U.S. foreign policy, particularly the War on Terror, the invasion of Libya and the U.S. attempt to pass a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria. Overall, Brazil’s attitude towards the U.S. is one of suspicion: Brazil regards the U.S. as an obstacle to its rise and thus is unfriendly towards the U.S.13

The United States ought to undertake a two-pronged approach to protecting its interests from Brazil. First, the U.S. needs to reach out to Brazil in order to show the Brazilian government that American interests and values are aligned with those of Brazil. Value-wise, both countries are Western-style republics that value democracy and liberty. Brazil benefits from the security provided to it by U.S. hegemony and is made wealthy by the freedom of navigation the U.S. Navy provides. The U.S. should try to convince the Brazilian leadership, through state visits and possibly through incentives such as subsidies for sugar-cane based biofuels from Brazil, that U.S. hegemony benefits Brazil. Second, the U.S. must try to peacefully frustrate Brazilian regional hegemony. This can be done in two ways: by assisting South American nations that are opposed to Brazil and by creating an alternative to Mercosur. Already, Brazil’s rise has hit opposition from several South American countries, particularly Venezuela, Colombia and Bolivia. The U.S. can reach out to Colombia by providing more assistance in attacking drug operations there and by increasing trade to Colombia, which would pull the country away from Brazil. Likewise, U.S. investment in developing Bolivian resources, particularly in the emerging and strategic lithium industry, could make the U.S. Bolivia’s main trading partner and thus bring Bolivia out of Brazil’s shadow. Although Colombia and Bolivia are the two pieces of low-hanging fruit, efforts to strengthen ties with South American nations to weaken Brazil’s grip on the region must be made with most South American countries. The centerpiece of this weakening of Brazilian hegemony should be the creation of an alternative to Mercosur. Mercosur is already faltering, as it is becoming obvious that the organization exists solely as a means to further Brazilian power and not to promote free trade.3 If the U.S. were to create a free-trade organization in South America incorporating the Mercosur countries and other South American nations, this would tie South America to the U.S. instead of Brazil, especially if this free-trade organization was more of a free-trade organization than Mercosur is. Inevitable Brazilian opposition to such an organization can be circumvented by offering membership to the other Mercosur nations first, and then letting peer pressure kick in.

Brazil’s rise cannot be halted, nor should it be. However, Brazil’s economic strength need not imply regional hegemony, a fact that can be ensured by increased U.S. involvement in South America.

Pictured above: A Brazilian oil platform, the first to tap the massive and newly discovered "sugar loaf" deposit off of Brazil's coast. Platforms like this one will catapult Brazil into the ranks of the world's largest oil producers and ensure Brazilian economic growth for decades.

Citations

1. "Brazil." CIA World Factbook. CIA, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2012.

2. International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, September 2011. N.p.: n.p., 2011. IMF.org. Web. 6 Apr. 2012.

3. The Geopolitics of Brazil: An Emergent Power's Struggle with Geography. N.p.: STRATFOR, n.d. Print.

4. Clemons, Benedict. The Real Plan, Poverty, and Income Distribution in Brazil. N.p.: IMF, 1997. Finance and Development. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. .

5. Pielow, Christian. "Brazil – A New Future." The Executive Search Blog. Blue Steps, 9 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2012.

6. "Filling Up the Future." The Economist 5 Nov. 2011: n. pag. The Economist. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. .

7. "A Big Oil Discovery." The Economist 12 Feb. 2008: n. pag. The Economist. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. .

8. Shifter, Michael. "Argentina-Brazil Relations." World Politics Review. Trend Lines, 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2012.

9. "Brazil reiterates support for Argentina, denies any blockade to the Falklands." MercoPress 1 Feb. 2012: n. pag. MercoPress South Atlantic News Agency. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. .

10. Varas, Augusto. Brazil in South America: From Indifference to Hegemony. N.p.: FRIDE, 2008. FRIDE. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

11. "Speak Softly and Carry a Blank Cheque." The Economist 15 July 2010: n. pag. The Economist. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

12. Alberto Moniz Bandeira, Luiz. "Brazil as a Regional Power and Its Relations withthe United States." Latin American Perspectives 33.3 (2006): 12-27.JSTOR. Web. 7 Apr. 2012. .

13. Hakim, Peter. "Why the US and Brazil Can't Get Along – A Story of Turf, Ideology, and Interests." Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica (Mar. 2011): n.pag. Inter-American Dialogue. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.
14. "Brazil News." The New York Times 7 Dec. 2010: n. pag. The New York Times. Web. 6 Apr. 2012.

U.S. Navy and small craft: Part II

2012-04-04T22:54:00.001-07:00

In my last post, I explained why small boats are not as big of a threat as many pundits claim. My post may have came across as categorically opposed to all small craft. That is not the case. Instead, I shall argue that small vessels have a big role in our modern Navy, and how they can best serve our fleet.

Previously, I showed how small craft are not particularly good at combating larger vessels. However, small boats are not limited only to harassing larger ships, they can serve some very important purposes as well. These roles have historically included tasks such as patrol of the littorals, fleet scouting, counter-piracy operations, acting as a courier, escorting ships, and interception of couriers. Of these, interception of couriers (particularly drug-running craft today) and counter-piracy operations are probably the most relevant today, since scouting and patrol of the coast are already handled by aircraft and the Coast Guard, respectively, and courier operations are more effectively carried out by invisible submarines or fast jets. Although escorting convoys is an important role warships must play, it is not particularly relevant in this time of global maritime peace.

These requirements for a small warship (counter-piracy and interception of drug-runners with a minor focus on convoy escorting) are further compounded by the nature of the modern U.S. Navy. The Navy operates around the world, which requires all of its boats, including so-called littoral craft, to be able to sail in the open ocean to reach far-flung crisis zones. Further, the wide variety of threats that the Navy faces means that any warship that Navy launches must be multirole.

In addition, the need for a small warship to counter-act the threats of piracy and drug running is immediate. The Navy regularly trumpets that it exists to further freedom of the seas, and right now, the only impediment to freedom of navigation is piracy. The Navy's current fleet, which was largely designed to defeat the Soviets, is wholly inadequate for this task: most Arleigh Burke destroyers are not even equipped with the helicopters or boats necessary for stopping pirate skiffs. Further, pirate craft (and by extension, drug running vessels, which are even faster than pirate vessels) have proven that they are capable of outrunning and out-maneuvering Navy ships. The Navy's huge, billion plus dollar destroyers are also far too expensive for the task of countering piracy or drug-running.

Of course, the Navy is always several steps ahead of me: the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, which has produced two rival ship classes: the Freedom class and the Independence class, has created vessels to address these needs. Although the two ships have received an unreasonable amount of hatred in both Navy circles and on the internet, I shall argue that they are the best boats we could have purchased, for their purpose.

The LCS ships are well suited to the tasks of countering piracy and drug traffic. Both are fast, clocking in at 47 knots for the Freedom and 44 for the Independence. This makes them the fastest ships in the Navy, and as fast as some of the boats they attempt to defeat. [1] Further, the ships are highly maneuverable: both are equipped with independently-steerable water jets, which allow the LCS to turn on a dime, an ability that has been demonstrated in sea trials. [2]. The ships are also seaworthy enough to make long voyages on their own, owing to their high stability in choppy seas [3] and their ranges of roughly 1,500 nm. [4] The ships are equipped with the latest detection equipment, and carry 1-2 helicopters as well as Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIB) for intercepting pirate, terrorist, or drug running boats.

What makes the LCS unique, however, is their weapons systems. Besides the usual weapons (a naval gun, machine guns, and a CIWS system) the ships are customizable, that is, their main armament can vary depending on the situation at hand, with customization taking less than 48 hours [3]. This allows the LCS to be a minesweeper one day, a subchaser the next, and an air-defense corvette the day after. This customization allows the LCS to fulfill its requirement of being multirole while avoiding the need to carry weapons of all types and thus be a jack of all trades: decent at everything but good at nothing. The success of customizable warships has already been demonstrated with the Royal Danish Navy's Absalon class support ships: large amphibious support vessels that have been used successfully in counter-piracy operations. [5].

Critics assail the Navy for not purchasing the excellent corvettes and patrol boats already on the market, an offense they say is particularly heinous since many corvettes and patrol boats are made here in the U.S. They further point to how useless the LCS would be if forced to fight warships from another nation. However, these arguments miss the point of the LCS: if the Navy wanted a corvette or a patrol boat, it would have bought one. Patrol boats are built to defend the coast (a task taken care of by the Coast Guard and Air Force in the U.S.), while corvettes are intended to fight in a fleet against other ships or land installations, in a manner similar to missile boats or torpedo boats. The LCS is supposed to be a fast counter piracy and drug running ship that can serve as an corvette or minesweeper in a pinch. The LCS is quick, maneuverable, and small (both in terms of overall size and draft), giving it the advantages of a patrol boat in combating small craft. At the same time, it is long range and powerful, giving it the advantages of a corvette. Finally, it has its own, unique advantages over other vessels: its capabilities are not as spread thin as those of a corvette because of its customizability.

In effect, the LCS is the perfect warship for its role. It saves money by taking the role of numerous other ships: minesweepers, fast attack craft, subchasers, patrol craft, etc. It excels in what it does because of its maneuverability, powerful armament, and speed. It can sail great distances in open seas to protect merchant vessels in times of war. And it fills a big gap in U.S. naval capabilities by providing an effective means of defeating fast speedboats and pirates.

Cites
1. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0918/p05s01-woam.html
2. http://archive.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060612/ships.shtml
3.Navy Littoral Comabt Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress. Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs. Congressional Research Service, 29 April 2011
4. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
5. http://politiken.dk/indland/article691125.ece

U.S. Navy and small craft: Part I

2012-03-23T23:09:00.002-07:00

Every few years, the naval brass fret about a new supposedly unbeatable threat to U.S. naval supremacy. In the late '90s, it was diesel-electric submarines. In the last decade, it was Chinese anti-shipping missiles. And right now, the fear of the moment is Iranian small craft. Much of this fear was sparked by a highly-publicized 2002 war game that predicted that the Navy would lose catastrophically in a battle with Iranian small craft. While the methodology of said war game is dubious (see my earlier post on Iran), something still needs to be done to improve the capabilities of the Navy in combating small craft.

It is always prudent to consult history, particularly here. Small warships are as old as naval combat itself, but until recently, small vessels were unable to challenge larger ships because they lacked sufficient stability and freeboard to sail in the ocean, as well as sufficient firepower to even dent the armor of larger vessels, they posed no threat to large surface combatants. This changed in 1866 by the invention of the torpedo, which allowed small boats to successfully defeat much larger battleships. The subsequent introduction of the torpedo boat in 1877 created a panic in naval circles since it was believed that swarms of torpedo boats would allow tiny nations to lay waste to huge, expensive fleets, forever upsetting the balance of power. However, as Mahan observed, these boats were akin to fire-ships in that they were effective at striking fear into the enemy but not very effective at sinking ships. Torpedo boats suffered from the same fates as earlier small craft, plus some new ones: they were dangerous in open waters, had short ranges, could only engage enemy ships effectively at short ranges (at which point they would be ripped up by low-caliber guns), and were too small to carry advanced aiming devices or range finders, a fault that doomed them to inaccuracy. Indeed, early torpedo boats were almost total failures: torpedoes boats in the Russo-Japanese war only sunk one ship that had already been rendered crippled and immobile by battleship fire, and improved torpedo boats in WWI still only sunk one cruiser in the entire war. The destroyer, originally built to defend fleets against the torpedo boat, had largely replaced the torpedo boat by WWI since destroyers were more seaworthy, had a longer range, carried better detection equipment and, most importantly, had guns and depth charges to provide adequate defenses against submarines, aircraft, and surface ships. This trend continued through WWII, where torpedo boats were hampered by increased fleet speeds (which denied torpedo boats the speed and agility advantage they had long relied on) and long-range patrol aircraft, which could detect and defeat torpedo boats before they even came close to an enemy fleet.

Postwar, small vessels again underwent a renaissance. The invention of the guided missile, coupling with the shrinking of electronics, particularly radar, gave rise to the missile boat, a type of fast, short range boat designed to sink larger ships with swarm tactics and then escape speedily. Some larger missile boats could even carry close in weapons systems (CIWS) to defend against enemy missiles and SAMs to protect against aircraft, which ought to have taken away the main liability of torpedo boats: their extreme vulnerability. Initially, it looked as if missile boats were the huge threats that torpedo boats were supposed to be. This is illustrated by several events, especially the famous sinking of the Israeli frigate Eilat by an Egyptian Osa-class missile boat in 1967; the destruction of four Pakistani ships, including a destroyer and two large merchantmen, by Indian missile boats in 1971; and the sinking of five Syrian missile boats by six Israeli missile boats at the Battle of Latakia (the first battle between two fleets of missile boats) in 1973. However, it must be borne in mind that in all three of these engagements, the losers were primarily obsolete ships that lacked defensive countermeasures. The effectiveness of countermeasures, particularly CIWS guns and missiles, has been well demonstrated: the successful use of electronic countermeasures and chaff by the Israelis at Latakia and the effective use of CIWS missiles to defeat anti-ship missiles by the Royal Navy in the Falklands War provide two good examples. Finally, missile boats are still extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks from aircraft and surface ships. To wit, NATO helicopters made short work of the Iraqi Navy's missile craft in the Gulf War, and the U.S. Navy destroyed three Iranian speedboats and one Iranian gunship with aircraft and ship launched missiles in Operation Praying Mantis while taking no casualties.

So the threat posed by Iranian speedboats may not be so dire after all. However, the fact that Iranian speedboats could potentially pose a threat means that the U.S. Navy must create a means by which to defeat this threat. A strategy for defeating Iranian missile boats must be both offensive and defensive: that is, the Navy must be able to both sink Iranian boats and defend itself against attacks by them.

The offensive aspect of fighting Iranian boats is mostly already taken care of. Combat air patrol can be expected to detect incoming Iranian craft and fire on them. However, because Iranian missile boats are small and fairly stealthy, they may be difficult to detect from high altitudes. Thus, it would be prudent to devote a small portion of a carrier's combat air patrol to low-altitude searches for Iranian boats. As the success of helicopter operations against Iraqi missile boats in the Gulf War demonstrates, helicopters can provide a valuable defense against missile boats. However, a helicopter is useless if it is not armed, so the Navy must have its anti-submarine and patrol helicopters carry some kind of light anti-ship missile such as the AGM-65 Maverick (I choose the Maverick because it is currently in U.S. Navy inventory and since its effectiveness against small craft was already demonstrated in the Gulf War) while in the Persian Gulf. Further, surface ships can effectively defeat missile boats using their light guns and anti-aircraft missiles. However, surface ships are useless if they do not detect Iranian craft, so it must be ensured that all Navy ships are equipped with the very latest sensors, and that these sensors are always on.

The main area of concern regarding Iranian missile boats is defense. U.S. Navy vessels are equipped with highly advanced CIWS and electronic countermeasures, which ought to provide adequate defenses against Iranian boats. All Navy ships ought to be equipped with these CIWS guns and electronic countermeasures (ECM). Some ships that currently carry CIWS and ECM ought to carry more of it, particularly the Arleigh Burke flight IIa destroyers (which only carry 1 Phalanx CIWS gun, and ought to carry 2 to give them protection fore and aft) and the Nimitz, Enterprise and Gerald R. Ford class carriers, which all could benefit from more CIWS guns and missiles located in more locations on the ships, to give the carriers 360 degree defensive coverage and redundancy in defenses so that if one CIWS system fails, another can take its place. Also, the U.S. Navy needs to avoid the fate of the INS Hanit (an Israeli corvette hit by a missile because she forgot to activate her countermeasures) and keep ECM and CIWS ready to use at all times, in addition to keeping sensors running at all times to ensure long-range detection of enemy combatants. Finally, to prevent "swarm" attacks, in which vast numbers of small boats overwhelm larger ships by forcing the latter to expend all of their defensive weapons on endless waves of boats, the Navy needs to upgrade all ships to carry AESA radar, which can track more targets than current radars can. Further, U.S. warships ought to carry more ammunition for all of their weapons in order to not get overwhelmed by large numbers of enemies.

Thus, the supposedly lethal threat of Iranian speedboats may not be so scary after all. History has shown that small craft never live up to expectations. The Navy currently has the means to defend itself against any number of small craft attacks, and it can be expected to do so in the event of a conflict. It is probably now time for the naval brass to start looking for the next unbeatable threat to naval supremacy.

It was ok to kill al-Aulaqi

2012-03-12T23:12:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of controversy lately surrounding Attorney General Eric Holder's speech in which he defended the Obama administration's killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi. Holder argues in his speech that due process does not imply judicial process, i.e. a trial, since judicial process is not specified in the Constitution. Although he is correct, since the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that due process is liberty, not judicial process, this is a highly unwise argument to make, since many Americans view due process as referring to judicial process. Holder regrettably ignored the many valid and popular justifications for the legality of the killing of al-Aulaqi.

One argument leveled against the Obama administration is that al-Aulaqi was merely a terrorist sympathizer, not a combatant, so his killing was not justified under the laws of war, which only permit the killing of enemy combatants. This calls for a little background information. Al-Aulaqi, a former radical Islamic imam and al-Qaeda propagandist, was also a direct planner of terrorist attacks. In the failed Christmas Day Bombing of 2009, al-Aulaqi not only advocated for the attack, but he helped plan the attack and supply the perpetrator. As RAND counter-terrorism expert Seth Jones said, "Al-Awlaki actually helped get him [the bomber] in a jihadi camp, helped him get access to the underwear bomb and then actually walked him through [it]. He wanted [the bomber] to wait to explode [the bomb] over American airspace." He further instructed the bomber on how to evade capture. In addition, Al-Aulaqi had communicated regularly with Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man responsible for the deaths of 13 U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, and had not only encouraged Maj. Hasan to carry out the attack, he gave Maj. Hasan his personal blessing to carry out the attack. In the words of al-Aulaqi, "[I] blessed the act because it was against a military target." Going further back, one can see ties between al-Aulaqi and 9/11. In early 2000, al-Aulaqi met with several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Khalid al-Mihdhar, both al-Hazmi brothers, and one other unidentified hijacker. In February of that same year, al-Aulaqi made four calls to Oman al-Bayoumi, who assisted the hijackers, although the FBI is confident that Nawaf al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were using al-Bayoumi's at the time. Ominously, al-Aulaqi After the attacks, al-Aulaqi admitted to the FBI of having met with Nawaf al-Hazmi several times, although he did not tell the FBI what they discussed.

Although the above is already a fairly damning implication of al-Aulaqi in terrorism, the acts detailed above are only those in which al-Aulaqi had a direct involvement. His indirect involvement, in the form of radicalizing Muslims and then inspiring them to do terror, has had a far greater impact: he inspired or aided the Times Square bomb plot, the 2010 British Airlines bomb plot, and the 2009 Little Rock recruitment office attack, to name a few. Although some claim that al-Aulaqi acted as a journalist or commentator when he advocated violence against Americans (in the same way that O'Reilly is considered a commentator instead of a combatant despite his calls for war with Iran), this claim ignores al-Aulaqi's direct involvement in inspiring people to kill (many terrorists have cited al-Aulaqi as their inspiration), his recruitment campaigns for al-Qaeda, the fact that he both advocates and plans terror in his speeches (one of his most famous pamphlets, 44 ways to support jihad, calls on Muslims to finance and join jihadi organizations and to undergo weapons training), and his membership in al-Qaeda. These facts, particularly the last one, mean that al-Aulaqi is more similar to a military recruiter, military chaplain, or senior officer than to a journalist. These clear ties to al-Qaeda make it hard to argue that al-Aulaqi is a civilian.

There is also the legality aspect. Critics of the killing of al-Aulaqi argue that it is illegal to kill a U.S. citizen without due process. However, because the U.S. is at war with al-Qaeda, al-Aulaqi's organization, al-Aulaqi is effectively an enemy combatant. U.S. law allows for the killing of the killing of enemy combatants regardless of their citizenship, so this killing was justified. Although it can be argued that the U.S. could just call anyone a terrorist and thus justify killing them, al-Qaeda is a serious enough threat to justify calling them an enemy, as Maj. Matthew Machon and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights explain, "Statman claims that the United States is entitled to classify operations against al-Qaeda as war...based upon two specific criteria: (a) the gravity of the threat posed by al Qaeda and (b) the impracticality of coping with this threat by conventional law-enforcing institutions and methods. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report on Terrorism and Human Rights in 2002 appears to agree[s] with the assessment of Statman." Maj. Machon is right on both fronts: al-Qaeda has killed over 5,000 Americans, and intimidation of juries and witnesses by terrorist groups plus the difficulty of finding 100% conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda membership makes trials of terrorists almost impossible.

Part (b), the impracticality of law-enforcement, applies particularly well to al-Aulaqi's case. His location in Yemen, deep in the heart of an al-Qaeda stronghold, would have made his capture difficult if not impossible. Trying al-Aulaqi would have just given him an opportunity to rant about his political beliefs for hours, and the fact that he is not a trigger-puller but a support-member in al-Qaeda would make him difficult to convict, especially since civilian courts have a tendency to clear terrorists of their charges (see: Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani).

Finally, al-Aulaqi will not set a precedent for killing Americans. In the U.S. Civil War, the Confederates were all former U.S. citizens, and yet they were killed. Indeed, some Northerners defected to the South, and yet some of them were still killed by Union troops. This precedent of the U.S. being allowed to kill Americans who try to destroy America has been around since 1861, and yet we have not been plunged into a fascist dictatorship. This proves that the U.S. only attacks organizations that pose a great threat to its security, and al-Qaeda is one of those organizations.

So to recap: al-Aulaqi was a confirmed enemy combatant who was directly responsible for several attacks on U.S. citizens and was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many others. His status as a combatant invalidates any claims he could have had to a civilian trial, and the impossibility of capturing him made the drone strike the only viable option.

One State in Israel?

2012-03-12T20:57:00.000-07:00

Hamas fired rockets leave Gaza for Israel.

There is a lot of debate in the media about what to do with Israel and Palestine. Terrorists and violent protesters in the West Bank and Gaza are fighting for Palestinian statehood, while Israeli security forces take actions to secure the safety of their citizens and their right to the area. The best solution to this crisis there would be to allow Israel to take over both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, since it would be a legal action that would help the Palestinians.

    First, the Palestinians have no right to the land. Legitimate rule is contingent upon the ability of the state to keep its people safe both from itself and from foreign powers. The fact that Israel is able to build all of its settlements in the first place without any action from the Palestinian Authority just goes to show that the Palestinian Authority is not strong enough to be considered the legitimate owner of the West Bank. The West Bank is governed by an ineffective and bankrupt state, the Palestinian Authority, that is unable to provide even the most basic health care and education to its people.1 The Palestinian Authority's corruption is largely self-caused, since poor relations between Hamas and Fatah caused the Palestinian Authority to become so bitterly divided between Hamas supporters and Fatah supporters that the government simply could not function. The Gaza Strip is governed by Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department, and with good reason: it massacres its political opponents2, uses civilians as human shields2, and has dedicated itself to the destruction of Israel.

    In addition, there would be numerous benefits to allowing Israel to take control over the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is a modern democracy with functioning legal institutions, rights for women, halfway decent education systems, welfare institutions, and some basic civil liberties and rights3. Israel has a booming economy that is entrepreneur driven3, so a unification of Israel and Palestine would help lift Palestinians out of poverty. Although there is anti-Palestinian discrimination in Israel, discrimination in Palestine is as severe or worse, although it is directed at different targets. For example, enforcement of Shari’a in some areas of Palestine have caused women there to have virtually no rights4, and the disabled are discriminated against equally heavily5. Israeli security forces can provide real law enforcement, and could effectively defeat terrorists. An Israeli takeover would dramatically boost the Palestine standard of living, and give them freedoms that a Palestinian state would not be able to offer. It is thus not surprising that polls show that most Arabs in East Jerusalem who have experienced the benefits of Israeli welfare, education and health care want to live in Israel instead of Palestine.6

    Contrast this with Palestine. The Palestinian economy is nearly entirely agricultural, with some small industries, making it barely a developing nation. The main barrier to prosperity there is costly and limited access to capital thanks to government policies, and nearly all economic growth has been caused by foreign aid instead of private sector development. The Palestinian Authority, the government that controls Palestine, is swamped with debts, causing it to cut welfare and raise prices on things like power. Unemployment stands at 25% in the West Bank and 40% in Gaza, compared with 5.6%% in Israel.7 Health care in Palestine is a failure: infant mortality is high compared to the rest of the Arab world, treatable non-communicable diseases are the leading cause of death, and thousands of Palestinians are forced to seek health care in other nations due to the lack of health care in much of Palestine.1

    Thus Israel should take the Palestinian territories under her wing to rescue the Palestinian citizens from the oppressive regime of Hamas and the useless Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and raise them up to a modern standard of living.

Cites
1. Mataria, Awad, et al. Heath in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 5. N.p.: n.p.,
    2009. Print. 5.
2. Under Cover of War: Hamas Political Violence in Gaza. New York City: Human
    Rights Watch, 2009. Print.
3. Oren, Michael. "The Ultimate Ally." Foreign Policy. Washington Post, May-June 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2012. .
4. Facts on Violence Against Women in Palestine. Jerusalem: MIFTAH, 2005. Print.
5. Amro, Nuereddin. "From discrimination to an inclusive future for the visually handicapped in Palestine." Strong Voices. N.p., 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Feb.2012. .
6. Diehl, Jackson. "Why Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens." Post Partisan.Washignton Post, 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. .
7. "West Bank." CIA World Factbook. CIA, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2012. .

North Korea's clever ruse

2012-03-04T18:43:00.000-08:00

Three days ago, North Korea agreed to cease its nuclear and missile tests, as well as to let International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) inspectors visit its nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon. This announcement has been hailed as a revolution in North Korean-U.S. relations. That may not be the case.

First of all, this is no dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program. North Korea's nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere, and testing isn't entirely necessary for the endurance of a functioning nuclear program. The U.S.' last test was in 1992, Russia's last one was in 1990, and neither India nor Pakistan has tested a weapon since 1998, yet no one would claim that any of those countries have poor quality nuclear programs. There are ways to test nuclear weapons without actually detonating the weapon (for example, by testing each individual part to ensure that it works), and it seems probable that the North Koreans will do this. Further, missiles can be tested by reconfiguring them as space-launch systems and then launching satellites into orbit, so North Korea's missile tests may not even be halted.

Second, North Korea's promise to allow IAEA to visit the Yongbyon site is meaningless for a number of reasons. There may be a number of hidden nuclear facilities in North Korea, and even if there are not, Yongbyon is just one nuclear facility, so the expected results from these IAEA inspections will most likely be negligible. Regardless, there is no unique benefit to these IAEA inspections, since Yongbyon has been subject to annual inspections from American nuclear physicist Dr. Sigfried Hecker since 2004.

Finally, the only benefactor from this deal is Kim Jong-un and his regime. Kim will be popular at home since he has secured at least 242,000 tons of much needed food aid for his people without sacrificing the popular nuclear program, breaking a decades-long famine there; and he will be popular abroad because this deal makes it look like Kim is giving up his nuclear program and putting the interests of his people before his own. Meanwhile, North Korea is as confrontational as ever, evidenced by Kim's threat of "divine war" in retaliation for South Korea's military exercises that have started today. The U.S. has just lost one of its biggest bargaining chips with North Korea, food aid, and North Korea will gain undeserved international respect for appearing to have sacrificed its nuclear program. This is the biggest failure in U.S.-North Korean relations in recent history.

Women's Rights are Human Rights

2012-01-25T00:42:00.000-08:00

To most men, the idea that women’s issues affect them seems absurd. Why, boys ask, should I care about women and their rights? To many, the plight of women is too remote for them to care; women’s issues are seen as applying to women only, and thus men refuse to care about them.
However, even when one overlooks important issues like justice and liberty that make paying attention to women’s issues imperative for men, it is still important for men to care about the issues women face because of economic and social reasons.

First, this is supported by economics. Since women make up roughly half of the population, discouraging women from taking up jobs halves the workforce, thereby hurting the economy. Not only that, but it lowers the chances of a brilliant female inventor producing a gizmo that solves one of the many problems of our world.

    In a 2009 paper entitled "Women's Liberation: What's in It for Men?,” UCLA researchers Matthias Doepkey and Michele Tertlit demonstrate that from a purely economic perspective, granting women greater freedom is beneficial for the economic welfare of men.
    “Women’s rights are closely related to economic development,” Doepkey and Tertlit wrote. “This is true both across countries, where women have most rights in the richest countries, and in time series data: women have slowly improved their legal position in parallel with fast improvements in the standard of living.”
    Thus granting more power and independence leads to more wealth overall. Greater independence for women economically can reverberate in the home, creating benefits there as well. Working mothers are positive role models for children because they exhibit not only a strong work ethic seen in few other people but an ability to be both strong and compassionate.

In addition, the fact that women represent 54 percent of the population means that extending rights and freedoms to women could double the possible output of society in any number of ways. Allowing women to serve on the front lines in warfare, for example, would open the doors for some highly talented female soldiers to enter our army, thereby increasing the strength of our military.

    Even boys who are well off have a stake in the empowerment of women. By perpetuating a male-female dichotomy (the idea that men and women are completely divorced from each other and thus at odds), those who perpetuate sexism end up hurting themselves. By trying to raise themselves above women, men create for themselves the idea of the “macho man” to distinguish themselves from women. By pinning this label to themselves in order to raise themselves above women, the sexist invites his own set of stereotypes: the stereotype of the brutish, beer-swilling, impervious to emotion, and almost sub-human man exemplified by characters like Homer Simpson. Unfortunately, these negative stereotypes are applied to men in general, thereby hurting themselves. Sexists can then use this as a justification for discrimination against women, perpetuating the ugly cycle of sexism and intolerance.
    This macho mindset invented by men to justify oppression of women comes with its own host of problems, almost all of them borne by men. Macho ideas of violence being the way to settle problems lead to violence that is borne almost entirely by men, and the accompanying higher prison rates for men that come with higher violence rates. The idea of male toughness manifests itself in the belief that men should be emotionless, which can cause emotions to boil up inside a person, eventually causing them to be overwhelmed.
    All these arguments, of course, just address the impact of women’s rights on men. By their very definition, women’s rights campaigns further the causes of equality and liberty for all persons. All people deserve rights, so any morally upright man ought to recognize that denying women equal rights is akin to denying blacks or Native Americans rights. No one who calls themselves a decent person can ignore the plight of women, which is arguably the biggest issue facing the world today. For example, the violent, macho mindset of male dominance fuels war because it perpetuates the belief that combat is an acceptable solution to problems. In addition, denying women the ability to work or succeed in business removes more than half of the potential innovators and laborers from the economy.
    The positive effects of women’s empowerment can be felt at the high school level as well. Many girls are intimidated by the aggressive nature of class discussions, which causes valid and important opinions to be left out of discussions.
    Unfortunately, men cannot instantly become ardent feminists, even after reading this article. To achieve such a radical change in men’s mindset, constant reminders of the necessity of recognizing women’s rights issues are needed. The school happens to be the perfect environment for this. Even a minuscule fraction of the time spent by students in class, if used effectively, could help bring about an acceptance of women’s rights concerns amongst the male population of Palo Alto High School. Ideally, these lectures about women’s issues would be done in freshman world history, or sophomore contemporary world history, since sexism is a global problem.
    If more men can start realizing that women’s rights issues affect everyone, their mindsets might start to shift. Even if the only change that comes out of women’s rights being preached in history class is that some students are more polite to women, that will be a victory for humans of both genders across the globe.

observation on the economy

2012-01-23T19:02:00.000-08:00

Below is a list of every major American panic (recession or economic collapse in modern parlance) in the 18th and 19th centuries. See if you notice a pattern.

Panic of 1796: Lack of regulation led to the bursting of the land bubble in 1796, causing a financial crash. The crash soon escalated into a depression that caused economic hardship in both America and Britain.
Panic of 1819: Unregulated overspeculation in Western lands led to economic collapse and depression.
Panic of 1837: Caused by overspeculation in Western lands by unregulated "wildcat" banks. Western expansion briefly stopped because millions lost their wealth, and millions in government funds were lost when several hundred banks collapsed.
Panic of 1857: Too much grain production, overspeculation in land and railroads, and inflation caused by inpouring California gold caused a major economic crisis that is widely considered to be the first international economic collapse, since it was felt throughout all of Europe and in America.
Panic of 1873: More railroads were built than were necessary, causing many railroad financiers to go bankrupt on their railroad investments. Further, lack of regulation in the gold markets allowed Jay Gould and James Fisk to acquire almost all of the market by bribing government officials. When Gould and Fisk began to pull their money out of gold because of a miscommunication, the market collapsed. This panic was so severe that it was known as the Great Depression until the actual Great Depression of the 1930s.
Panic of 1893: Unregulated overspeculation and overbuilding in railroads caused the railroad bubble to burst. This is identical to the cause of the Panic of 1873. This was the most severe depression of the 19th century, with millions losing their jobs.

If you don't see it, here's the pattern that I get from this data: every American economic crisis and depression of the 18th and 19th was caused by unregulated speculation, followed by that speculative bubble bursting catastrophically. Usually, the culprit was overspeculation in land (i.e. real estate), or in the last 20 years of the 1800s, railroads. So opponents of regulation may want to read up on their history, because under-regulation has a tendency to cause massive economic collapses every two decades or so.

Thoughts on Iran

2012-01-22T23:13:00.000-08:00

Iran's been in the news a lot recently, so I will share my humble opinion on Iran. Note: I am a Jewish Zionist, so this will be more than a bit biased.

Before anyone can have a reasonable discussion about foreign policy, it's necessary to know what we (the U.S.) wants. In the case of Iran, we want four things: oil, democracy in Iran, a market for U.S. goods, and no Iranian nuclear weapons. The first three make sense on their face, but we need to analyze the third one a bit more. After all, we didn't slap sanctions on France when it got its nuclear weapons.

We're scared of Iranian nuclear weapons for three reasons: First, they could obliterate Israel. Second, they could give their weapons to terrorists. Third, they could use their nuclear weapons to gain leverage and influence, both in the Middle East and abroad.

The first outcome is highly unlikely. Although most pundits consider Iran to be an undeterrable "rogue state" led by maniacs with one goal, that could easily describe Mao's China or the Soviet Union, and yet neither ever initiated nuclear holocaust upon getting their weapons. The Soviet Union, which existed for the sole purpose of spreading Marxism-Leninism at any cost to its own people, never initiated nuclear war. Neither did Mao Zedong, who famously stated "When 900 million are left out of 2.9 billion, several five-year plans can be developed for the total elimination of capitalism and for permanent peace. It is not a bad thing," in other words, that nuclear holocaust is a good thing. Iran's leadership is very rational and self interested, and they will continue to behave as such in the future.

With that in mind, the probability that Iran gives nuclear weapons to a terrorist group is very low. Even the most loyal terrorist organizations can often turn against the nation that sponsors them, as in the case of the U.S. funded Mujaheddin turning into Al-Qaeda. Further, the uranium in a nuclear weapon can be traced back to its source using modern nuclear forensics techniques, so any attack using an Iranian supplied bomb would be immediately identified as an attack by Iran, leading to a swift and deadly retaliation by the west. No self interested state would allow that to happen.
The main concern with a nuclear Iran, then, would be Iran becoming a major regional power and using its influence to spread terrorism, cause instability, and promote undemocratic and unfriendly regimes throughout the region through the use of coups and revolutions. Iran has been trying to do this for a long time, evidenced by its support for Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad, Iraqi anti-government militias, and the 2011 attempted Shiite uprising in Bahrain. American military might has a record of providing credible deterrence against potentially harmful regimes, and it can continue to do so in the future. Thus, more troop deployments to the Middle East, coupled with more exercises, can help to credibly deter a rising Iran. Further, more financial and diplomatic aid to U.S. allies (and neutral countries) in the Middle East can strengthen U.S. allies in the region and bring neutral countries over to our side. Thus, in the event that Iran attempts to overthrow a friendly regime, the friendly regime will be stronger and better equipped to defeat an undemocratic uprising. To stop terrorism, small groups of U.S. special operations troops can be deployed to terrorist hotspots to train local forces and root out terrorist cells, in a fashion similar to the highly successful Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines.

However, recent events, such as Iran's ultimatum warning the USS John C. Stennis not to return to the Persian Gulf, or this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/us-warns-top-iran-leader-not-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2), which claimed that the U.S. Navy would lose against the Iranian Navy, make the deployment of troops to the region look like a dangerous option. These fears are misguided. Although Iran has been making a lot of noise about how it won't tolerate any U.S. forces in the Gulf, the USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group entered the Gulf this morning without incident. Further, the day after Iran issued its ultimatum to the Stennis, her crew reported that the Iranian warships and aircraft in the Gulf were not stepping up their patrols (as would be expected if the Iranians actually planned to take action against the Stennis. The crew of the Stennis reported that the Iranian warships were returning to port, exactly the opposite of what would be expected. The 2002 Navy computer wargame cited by the New York Times as evidence that the Iranian navy would win in a fight over the Straight of Hormuz was highly flawed: the simulation glitched, allowing the Iranian patrol boats to both teleport and regenerate.

Note that I'm not advocating war with Iran. I advocate increased military exercises and deployments to the Persian Gulf region. War with Iran would be a disaster because it would cost an unreasonable amount of money, hurt our image abroad (which would erase our soft power and fuel terrorism), and probably not even work.

Further, sanctions have failed. Economic sanctions have mostly hurt the Iranian people, and have allowed the regime to skillfully paint a picture of unwarranted U.S. aggression that increases support for the regime, the exact thing we don't want. Besides, sanctions hurt the economies of Europe and our East-Asian allies by denying them the oil their economy relies on.

So what would work? The only policy that has seemed to work so far is covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program, such as Stuxnet or the "accidental" explosion of Iran's nuclear facilities earlier this year. However, a better solution would be to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. This cannot be done with the overtly hostile current regime, regime change is thus needed. The problem of encouraging regime change in Iran is the high probability of a repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution (U.S. funded!) which put Khomeini and the current regime in power. To avoid this, we need to covertly fund an opposition group in Iran that aligns itself with U.S. interests. From what I hear from Iranian people, such groups exist. If we can cause such a group to become powerful enough, they could overthrow the government, giving us an ally in the region.

Thus, we could achieve all four of our objectives in Iran fairly easily: lifting sanctions secures our oil, a revolution would spread democracy and give American businesses a market to export to, and increased troop deployments would stop Iranian regional hegemony in its tracks.

Citations:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/maoterror.htm
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/the_martyr_state_myth
Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, and Program Needs; Joint Working Group of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Counterstrike: The untold story of America's secret campaign against Al Qaeda, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker. Times Books, 16 August 2011.
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/category/wordpress_tag/iran_sanctions

U.S.-China War

2012-01-22T21:35:00.000-08:00

Everyone these days talks about a potential war between the US and China. Thus, it would be beneficial to find out what such a war would actually look like.

To understand what a China-US war would play out, we must understand why such a war would be fought and what actions either side would take. The most commonly predicted scenario is a Chinese attack on Taiwan, which would involve a massive first strike using missiles aimed at defeating US forces in the reason. The scenario that the Chinese consider to be “most probable” would involve a US attack on the mainland, presumably to hold on to their status as the world’s sole superpower for a bit longer.(1)

In the first scenario, the Chinese would presumably launch a massive surprise attack on US bases in the region using ballistic missiles with submunitions, attack US naval forces with submarines and missiles, and launch an amphibious invasion of Taiwan.

The amount of missiles and aircraft the Chinese can throw at the local US bases would mean that these bases would be disabled even if air defense systems operate as planned.(3) However, the short scramble time of US jets (around 8 minutes)(4) means that most jets would be able to immediately retaliate. The US has around 500 fighters (5) in the region, while China has about 1000 (2), however the superiority of US aircraft and pilots means that the USAF will wipe out most of the Chinese force in the initial combat.(6) However, since the American planes will lack airbases to return to, and since American tankers are highly vulnerable, most US fighters will crash. Thus US air superiority will depend on aircraft carriers, although their opponent, the PLAAF, will be greatly weakened.

The Chinese will also make a point to attack American satellites on the first night of the war (7). Since the US army and Air Force rely heavily on satellite intelligence, they will not be able to operate as effectively as they have in the past. However, US forces will not be completely crippled without satellites, as their functions can be largely replaced by UAVs, shipborne communications, and portable ground radars. (8) The US also possesses advanced anti-satellite technology, which can also be expected to be used extensively. Thus both sides would be denied satellite use, which would again hurt the US more, although NASA and private space launch firms could quickly replace some satellites.(9)

China also possesses nuclear warheads and ICBMs capable of striking the US, although they only have 240 warheads and even fewer ICBMs. Nevertheless, both China (10) and the US (11) abide by MAD theory and have made it clear that they will not use nuclear weapons. However, if nuclear weapons were to be launched, the inferiority of China’s weapons (they are liquid fueled, making them easier to shoot down and less accurate), their slow response times (Chinese missiles are unfueled in their silos, meaning that their missiles would take three hours to launch, although poor detection systems would make the response time even greater. US missiles, by contrast, can launch in under two minutes, and benefit from an advanced detection system), and the huge size of the American arsenal (5,113 warheads) means that China would be obliterated, at comparatively little cost to the United States. Current US nuclear primacy also means that if a war became unwinnable, nuclear weapons would be on the table. (12)

The biggest variable in the war would be cyber warfare. Both sides posses some kind of cyber warfare capability, although only the US possesses industry disrupting technology like Stuxnet. However, the US is also the most vulnerable to a cyber attack, since their forces rely heavily on network-centric operations and UAVs (which can be hacked). In the event of a major war, the Chinese would have the capability to disable most of the US power grid, injure the economy, and somewhat decrease (though not cripple) the US army’s ability to fight. Whether or not they would be willing to do so remains unclear, but all signs point to yes, since there is no military reason why they would not, and politics would be much less of an issue in a war. The US could easily retaliate, however, and since their cyber warfare capabilities are more advanced. An American counter attack would probably result in a crippling of Chinese communications (which are not secured), network-centric warfare operations, power grid, and probably economy. Thus, the US would benefit most militarily from a cyber war (since network-centric fighting is not vital to the US war effort, and since a loss of communication would be far more devastating to the Chinese than a loss of network-centered warfare capabilities would be to the US), although China would benefit most overall (since the destruction of the US power grid and crippling of the economy would reduce support for the war and make the country unwilling to fight).(13)
However, most of the war will be fought at sea. (14) The Chinese would most likely manufacture crises in the Middle East through Iran (and its terrorist network) to tie down US carriers. It would then deal with the much smaller US force in the region using ballistic missiles (specifically the DF-21D), ship and submarine based anti-ship missiles (AShM), submarines, and naval mines. (15)

The primary concern for US fleets is said to be the DF-21D long range ballistic anti-shipping missile. However, all US fleets include at least one ship equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense, which has been proven to be effective against missiles that fly much faster than the DF-21D. Most scholars agree that Aegis will be effective against threats such as the DF-21D, so China’s ballistic missiles should pose little threat to US naval forces.(16)
China also possesses regular AShMs, which can be fired from aircraft, surface ships, submarines, or land based batteries. The USN has two means of air and missile defense: fighters on patrol and the Aegis Air Defense System. Since the fighters will be involved with air superiority duties, the task of air and missile defense will fall to Aegis. Aegis is a complex system centered around the AN/SPY-1 radar, considered to be the most powerful shipborne radar in the world. The system integrates long range SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, Enhanced Sea Sparrow missiles and RIM-116 RAM missiles for close in defense, and Phalanx automated autocannon turrets for extreme close in defense. The system has proved effective in most (80%) (17) test engagements against missiles that simulate both cruise and ballistic missiles.(18) Although there are concerns that the Chinese may be able to overwhelm the system with an unending wave of attacks, Aegis is capable of engaging up to one hundred targets at once, although a new AESA-type radar (AN/SPY-3) will increase that number. (19)

However, China has one missile capable of defeating the Aegis system: the Russian 3M-54E Klub cruise missile. It flies stealthily along the surface of the water, and then launches into a supersonic sprint moments before impact, giving the target ship almost no reaction time. The US navy has stated that they lack a means of defeating this missile (20), although the Chinese only have 50 in their inventory (21), meaning that the US can just attack the ships carrying said missiles.

The Chinese also posses extensive amounts of naval mines. However, the US navy possesses extensive anti-mine technology, which it used to great effect in the Gulf War. Further, the few mines that did strike US ships did little damage, and most ships were able to continue operations while sustaining mine damage. (22) Current US mine countermeasures technologies and experience with using these technologies (23) means that mines will at best be a nuisance that could force the US to expend valuable ships mine hunting instead of carrying out combat operations.

The biggest threat to US naval supremacy is submarines, specifically diesel-electric submarines. Modern diesel-electrics are almost completely silent, can swim in shallower waters than their nuclear counterparts, and are far cheaper. The US navy has consistently lost to both modern (such as the Dutch Walrus class) and outdated (such as Australia’s Collins class) subs in exercises. The US Navy also lacks any effective means to train to detect diesel-electric submarines.(24) China has 52 diesel-electric boats, and has both copies of the advanced American Mk. 48 torpedo and the Soviet supersonic Shkval torpedo, both of which can easily sink a carrier.(25)

Finally, although land forces will probably not be a factor in a US-China war, they are worth noting. The USMC is the world’s finest Marine force, in terms of quality of leadership, soldier quality, and technology. Thus the Marines would probably be able to land in either China or Taiwan easily. (26) Although the Marines are presumed to be superior to the PLA, they would be outnumbered so dramatically that any Marine assault would be quick to fail. Attempts to land Army transports would require total sea superiority, which could not be guaranteed due to Chinese submarines. Thus an American land assault would most likely end in complete and total destruction.

So, with these factors in mind, we can imagine a US-China war in which China strikes first would look something like this:
Chinese forces strike first en masse, destroying US airbases, satellites and sinking several ships. The PLAAF is defeated within several days or weeks by naval aviation, local fighter squadrons, and fighters from around the world. US air supremacy allows for two things: ensuring protection of US fleets from AShMs, and pummeling the Chinese forces in Taiwan. China also initiates a cyber attack that destroys most of the US economy and power grid, although the attacks are repulsed quickly. Retaliatory American attacks on Chinese industry, coupled with conventional attacks on Chinese shipping and bombing of industrial centers eliminates public support for the war. After several months, the American public become war-weary after seeing the extreme casualties inflicted upon them by the Chinese. The Chinese government, seeing the damage done to its navy and its economy, decides to pursue peace. The talks come before a US amphibious invasion of the mainland, and although the option is kept on the table, it is a bluff by the US, since such an invasion would most likely be a failure. A treaty is signed, but only after extreme losses in both blood and treasure to both sides.

The other side: US declares war on China
The US government lacks (to my knowledge and the knowledge of the Internet) a plan to actually invade China, since doing so would be economic and political suicide. However, if such an attack were to occur, it would most likely be intended to overthrow the Communist party.
With that as the main objective, indiscriminate killing of civilians would not be an option. Instead, cyber warfare and traditional psychological warfare (PsyOps) would open up the Internet, radio and news to Chinese civilians while spreading propaganda. Meanwhile, airstrikes and cruise missile attacks on radar installations, air defense centers, and government structures. The hope would be for the Chinese public to revolt against their government to spare the US the need to mount an amphibious invasion.

This strategy would probably backfire, for several reasons. First, the Chinese military is designed with one purpose: prevent an invasion. The Chinese navy consists mostly of small missile boats designed to operate only in the littorals (coastal regions). So while these boats would have little effect on a US force defending Japan or Taiwan, they could be a major nuisance to an invasion force. They have an impressive amount of short range ballistic missiles that would easily rout any force that attempts to attack targets there. China also lacks any targets that if destroyed would cripple their air defense system.There is a possibility that such targets exist, but they are classified, however evidence seems to show that China’s radar installations are too widely dispersed to be taken out by a single blow. (27) Further, China has an advanced air defense system that would frustrate any prolonged air campaign in the country.(28)
Second, the Chinese populace seems unwilling to rise up against their government. Support for America is already very high, so PsyOps would have little effect. The Chinese government has reliably crushed democracy demonstrations in times of war or peace, which would deter any possible revolution.

So while a Chinese attack would eventually fail, albeit at high cost to both participants, a US attack would also fail, although for much different reasons.

Citations
1 If it comes to a shooting war..., Victor Corpus, Asia Times Online, 20 April, 2006 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html
2 Air Combat Past, Present and Future, John Stillion and Scott Perdue, RAND Project Air Force publication, August 2008.
3 Norad on Heightened Alert: Role of air defence agency rapidly transformed in wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Linda Slobodian, published in The Calgary Herald, 13 October 2008
4 http://www.af.mil/publicwebsites/sitecmd.asp?id=8 USAF forces in the Pacific
5 Adam Baddeley (February 2011). "The AMR Regional Air Force Directory 2011". Asian Military Review.
6 IBID #2.
7 IBID #1
8 Desert Victory: The War for Kuwait, Norman Freidman, September 1991, Naval Institute Press.
9 Anti-satellite (ASAT) Capabilities of US Missile Defense Systems, David Wright and Laura Grego, Disarmament Diplomacy December 9, 2002.
10 China’s Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence Sr. COL Yao Yunzhu, PLA. Air & Space Power Journal, 1 March 2010. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj10/spr10/yao.html
11 Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, COL Alan Parington, USAF, Airpower Journal, Winter 1997 http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/AIRCHRONICLES/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html. and Obama Endorses Mutual Assured Destruction, Ron Pistaro, 11 July, 2009.
12 The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy
13 HOW CHINA WILL USE CYBER WARFARE TO LEAPFROG IN MILITARY COMPETITIVENESS, Jason Fritz, Culture Mandala, V ol. 8, No. 1, October 2008, pp.28-80
14 How We Would Fight China, Robert D. Kaplan, Atlantic Magazine, June 2005. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fight-china/3959/2/
15 IBID #1
16 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, Ronald O’Rourke (Specialists in Naval Affairs), CRS report for Congress, 8 April, 2010.
17 Air Defense: Teaching Old Aegis New Tricks, Strategy Page.com, 20 March, 2010. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20090320.aspx
18 Aegis Cruiser Intercepts Two Simultaneous Targets on Missile Test, Defense Update, 27 April, 2007. http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/news/270407_aegis_bmd.htm
19 Fact File: Aegis System, US Navy, 2 November 2011 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=200&ct=2
20 Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against ‘Sizzler’ Missile, Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg, 23 March 2007, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home
21 China’s “Peaceful Rise” in the 21st Century: Domestic and International Conditions, Suijin Guo, Ashgate Publishing ltd., 2006
22 IBID #8
23 21st Century U.S. Navy Mine Warfare, Maj. GEN Thomas Benes, USMC, Anne Sandel, June 2009.
24 Diesel-Electric Submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Latest Annoyance, Grace Jean, National Defense, April 2008, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx
25 The PLAN Submarine Force, Sid Trevethan, May 2004.
26 Marines.com
27 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, DOD, FY04 (presumably 2004).
28 China’s Air Defense Missile Systems, Carlo Kopp, Defense Focus.

Why we need more ships

2012-01-22T20:32:00.000-08:00

There are two problems facing the economy right now: unemployment and the deficit. Meanwhile, both the Navy and experts at the Department of Defense maintain that we need at least 313 [1] ships for our navy to remain the most powerful in the world, compared to the current total of 286. As the main focus of our geopolitics shifts to the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, one thing becomes apparent: we need more ships. Thankfully, we now have an opportunity to kill three birds with one stone.

Even with recent advances in technology, shipbuilding remains a labor-intensive industry. For example Ingalls Shipbuilding, a mid-size shipyard in Mississippi, is the largest private employer in the state, employing over eleven thousand workers. [2] Like most other heavy manufacturing industries, shipbuilding creates additional jobs as local services, like restaurants and gas stations, needed to support the shipyards. In the case of Seaspan Marine corp., in British Columbia, the construction of a shipyard that employed 1,000 residents created an additional 3,000 jobs nearby. [3]

Despite the common perception that heavy industry jobs are low paying and require no expertise, modern shipbuilding requires mostly skilled workers, such as shipwrights, electricians, and millwrights, which all require years of training and are highly transferable trades. The industry also requires highly skilled workers, such as marine and computer engineers and health officers.
However, much of the benefit of shipbuilding is very indirect. Ships require an enormous supply chain of parts, most of which are located in the United States. Thus shipbuilding creates enormous amounts of jobs in a way that few other industries can. [4]

The benefits to national security of more warships are obvious. Nevertheless, merchant vessels are also required for our security. In a future major conflict, which most experts expect to be naval, losses to US merchant shipping would be severe, and there is no guarantee that foreign shipyards will be willing to rebuild American shipping. Also, in a conflict ships in the United States Merchant Marine can be called up to transport troops and supplies. Further, technologies developed in merchant shipyards can and do transfer to improving military ships (such as high speed ferry technology being used in the Independence class Littoral Combat Ships), and merchant shipyards can be repurposed for building, refitting and repairing navy ships.

How this creates jobs and would increase national security seems clear. Reducing the deficit, however, is not quite as clear. The addition of a great number of jobs means a great amount of tax receipts. Although the expense required to build shipyards and ships will be great, the tax revenues will eventually surpass the initial investment.

There are several possibly criticisms of such a policy, namely that shipbuilding can be replaced by other heavy industries that the US already dominates, and that foreign shipyards, namely those in Korea (who produce the majority of merchant vessels) will undercut American shipbuilding.
What sets shipbuilding apart from other heavy industries like automobiles and aviation is that while the US currently dominates most other industries with little threat from foreign nations, shipbuilding is one of the few industries where the US lags. GM and Boeing are still the largest companies in their field, but only one American-flagged vessel has been laid down in the past decade. Since this industry is so critical to our national security and our prosperity (90% of trade travels by sea) we must keep it strong. Also, the complexity of ships means that their parts chains are larger than those for other industries, spreading the benefits further.

While it is true that most merchant ships are now built in Korea, there is little reason this has to be the case. America has a long history of shipbuilding, and currently has several massive shipyards, albeit for military vessels. All that is required is an influx of capital from the federal government.
Thus, I propose two fairly simple things: provide funds and incentives for the construction of merchant shipyards on American soil and give shipbuilders an incentive (both monetary and in the form of guaranteed protection from US Navy warships) to register their ships under the American Flag.

Citations1 http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,187044,00.html Navy Surface Force in Deep Trouble
2 http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/is/about_us/about_us.html Ingalls Shipbuilding
3 http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Shipbuilding+boom+creates+demand+qualified+workers/5718883/story.html Shipbuilding boom creates demand for qualified workers, The Vancouver Sun, 16 November, 2011
4 http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V41N3 We Must Build More Navy Ships

China really is a threat

2012-01-22T20:29:00.000-08:00

Recently, I read an interesting article in the New York Times titled “To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan.” The premise of the article was that the US should stop protecting Taiwan in exchange for cancellation of debts owed to China. The author raises an interesting point in the article: our main interests abroad are economic.

“He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess,” Paul Kane, the author of the article and a former Harvard professor and Marine, wrote.
So I must ask: is he right? Should the US “go soft?” Here it is useful to look at the current policies of the government before analyzing it theoretically.

In their annual budget report, published in November 2011, the US Department of State wrote that the mission of the United States abroad was to, “Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere."[1]

So we can see that the United States currently does not act in an economically self-interested way, it currently aims to help those around the globe. The question is: should it?

Those who support Kane will argue that under Locke’s theory of the social contract, which formed the basis for our society, governments primarily have an obligation to their people.2 However, it is interesting to note that governments must conform to the will of the people, not just to their interests, because we must first consult with the populace to know what their interests are. So it would be a misconstruction of Locke to say that we must place economic goals first.

In addition, this was adopted as our political philosophy back in the day when our government was too weak to be concerned about anything other than our own survival. Today, as the world’s most powerful nation, we are in a greatly different position. We have the ability to uphold goods such as democracy, liberty and free trade around the globe. Regular people have an obligation to be just, so the same principles should apply to governments.

In the case of China, we clearly have values and interests, including economic interests, that do not overlap with those of China. China is an authoritarian state that has been attempting to spread its influence around the region. The spread of China’s anti-human rights, anti-freedom model of government would not be desirable for our interests. Another policy of China’s that we should aim to stop is the attempt by China to assert its dominance over the South China Sea [3], through which 50% of world trade flows. [4] Almost all of our oil also flows through this region, and re-routing it would send the price of oil up drastically. [4] Even disregarding the fact that freedom of trade and navigation our two of our biggest goals internationally, giving a foreign country that does not share our values and believes that the U.S. is evil and ought to lose its hegemony control of our oil lifelines would not be desirable.

Economic interdependence is rarely a deterrent of war, as best illustrated by Britain and Germany in 1914 [5] (the two countries were each other’s largest trading partners on the eve of the war, but differences in values and desires to dominate the Earth led to war). For most people, defense of national values tend to surpass prosperity as their greatest interest. This is seen in many wars throughout history where civilians voluntarily put themselves through hardship to continue fighting.

Cites
1 http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm#mission United States Department of State Mission Statement
2 The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age, Mark Hulliung. September 2007, American Political Thought. ISBN: 978-0-7006-1540-7
3 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/s-china-sea-control-others-question-beijing-wary-india-tests-the-waters/877491/ S China Sea control: Others question Beijing, wary India tests the waters – Indian Express
4 http://www.siis.org.cn/en/zhuanti_view_en.aspx?id=10116
5 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/papa.htm Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 4, Spring 1996

SCU final results

2010-12-13T01:30:00.000-08:00

Three days later, Santa Clara Invitational is finally over. Although Paly didn't win the tournament, we brought home some serious metal. Here's the results:
We cleared 7 novii into elims, and of those, two (sidharth and Andrew) got into semis! We also cleared three varsity lders into elims, with Ben (me) and Sosi dropping in octas, but Himmat Singh dropping in quarters after having a bye in octas. 3/4 of our speechies cleared to finals, and how they did remains unknown. Alex and Greg in policy both cleared to quarters.

At last count, Himatt was 5th speaker overall, Ben 10th and Sosi 11th. Greg Dunn in Policy also won 1st speaker!

Even though we didn't win the tournament like we used to, it was still a good weekend for Paly debate.

more scu

2010-12-11T22:19:00.000-08:00

Second day is over! Finally! We had at least 4 hours of trig homework/doing nothing between each round, but we have survived! Here are the stats/updates:Ben (me) and Himmat Singh are definitely going to elimination (playoff) rounds, and we are currently unsure about Sosi and Haelin, both of whom did very well. Freshman Kevin Zhang came extremely close and missed elimination rounds by a hair in his final round. 3/4 of our speechies, inlcuding Kat and Elena in duo and Isabel in OPP broke to FINALS. It looks as if Paly will dominate this tournament again, continuing our long-standing tradition.

SCU refresh

2010-12-11T13:38:00.000-08:00

Paly debate is rocking the Santa Clara debate tournament. Palo Alto has a long history of winning this tournament, and we expect to win it again this year. Ben Hawthorne (me) is going undefeated so far (YAY!), and the rest of Paly isn't far behind. It appears as if we're going to send at least 6 people to the elimination rounds. Paly's policy squad is also doing well, with Alex Lenail and Greg Dunn going 3-1.

Right now, we are in the middle of a four hour break in between rounds (FOUR HOURS!! We will only debate 3 rounds today!)The reason for our terribly long break between our rounds is because the speechies have to go to their rounds. Speaking of which, Paly speech is also rocking Santa Clara, with Kat and Elena having done either 1st or 3rd in their round, and Rebecca doing the same.

We have 30 minutes until our next round. I'll keep posting stats as the day goes on. Photos of us are coming soon.

In defense of the bandwagon

2010-12-01T16:32:00.000-08:00

With the recent overwhelming victory of the SF giants in the world series, there has been a great backlash against so-called "fair weather fans", i.e. those who only root for their team when they are winning. Equal hate has been directed against those who jump on the bandwagon to root for their team, even though they can hardly name a single player.
Admittedly, I fall into the category of bandwagon fan. I am incapable of naming more than a handful of players on the Giants (or any other major-league team), but I was a huge fan as the Giants won the series. As one of these, I can say that those who bitterly fight bandwagon fans are ruining sports, both for the bandwagoners and themselves.
Sports have never been intended to be for an elite club only, one who memorizes the Giants roster while checking their fantasy football, baseball and basketball teams. Rather, sports are there for the masses, including those who can't name a single football play but love to watch the Cardinal crush opponents. Sports have always been the circus part of the "bread and circuses" appeal to the masses (circuses refers to Roman chariot racing, not Barnum and Bailey). Sport fanatics trying to exclude those who don't diligently follow every game are trying to defeat the purpose of sport, public entertainment.
Finally, there's no problem with "fair-weather fans", those who only start watching their team when the team is winning. This is perfectly reasonable. Nobody likes a terrible team, not even the diehards who boast about following the Giants even while they were losing. It's unreasonable to expect someone who has better things to do than watch sports their whole life to follow a team even when doing so gives them no enjoyment.
Sport-diehards doing nothing but hurt themselves when they tell everyday folk who don't follow sports obsessively that they aren't
"real fans" and make them stop following the sports.

Somaly Mam and Patriarchy

2010-11-29T22:47:00.000-08:00

Mam was sold into sexual slavery at age 14 by a man she knew only as “grandfather”, although he was not related to him in any way. “Grandfather” was in fact Mam’s owner, and her his slave. For the next decade she was a sex slave, better known as a prostitute, forced by her pimp to see an average of six clients per day. If her clients were dissatisfied with her, they would beat and rape her, before giving her back to her pimp, who would torture her, usually by covering her with maggots. When she was in her early 20s, Mam escaped, and decided that she wanted to dedicate her life to helping those she left behind. In 1996, she founded AFESIP (a French acronym for Acting for Women in Distressed Situations), which has already saved over 6,000 girls from sexual slavery.

It is indisputable that Mam, who has survived the years of rape, torture and brutal oppression to rise up to bravely fight the rich and powerful brothels, is a hero. And it’s also indisputable that the sex trade, and the trade in humans in general, drips with evil. The sex trade industry, which relies on the general oppression and degradation of females to bring in money, makes over $36 billion per year, making it the second largest source of cash for organized crime.

The abomination of sexual slavery brings up an interesting question: how on Earth do they get away with it? Hasn’t the billions of dollars worth of foreign and thousands of UN peacekeepers been enough to stop this atrocity? Unfortunately, the UN armies and legions of good-intentioned aid workers like Mam have been only treating the symptoms. The root of the problem lies in one of those big words radical-feminists love to throw around: The Patriarchy.

In feminist jargon, the Patriarchy refers to the status quo system of male dominance over women. Many scholars trace the orgin of Patriarchy back to the days of Abraham, where they say it originated because women had the burden of child birth and raising the children, and thus were excluded from the “God-Israelite” covenant outlined in the Torah. The male dominance quickly took off from there, with women’s rights shrinking at an alarming pace. Soon, male dominance become just a part of life, no more extraordinary than breathing. Mam regularly mentions this in her autobiography, stating that things like women not being allowed to choose their husbands and women being treated as chattel as “just the way things were”.

Although most want to believe that we left this “age of dominance” in 1919, with the passage of the 19th amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote, Mam’s story proves that much of the world still regards women to be second class citizens. Even the United States, the self-proclaimed “Most Christian Country on Earth”, boasts a booming prostitution industry.
Despite their endless whining about the endless harms of Patriarchy, few feminists will volunteer to offer a solution. This is understandable, however, seeing how deeply entrenched in society the Patriarchal system is. Most major world religions and even governmental systems (Aristotle’s most famous treaty of government contends that the state evolved from the Patriarchal family, although most scholars try to ignore that part) are rooted in Patriarchy. Nothing short of a violent revolution, followed by a complete gutting and rebuilding of society would be required to eliminate the Patriarchy. It looks unlikely that the Patriarchy will go away, since it is so deeply entrenched in society. Does this mean that the efforts of people like Mam are in vain? No, since she is brave enough to bring the issue to the table, putting her miles above most.