What you can do for your country

A Economics Professor's Lesson in Socialism

I received this in an E-Mail so I am not sure of the source or accuracy, but the message is clear:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. 

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.  The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Any Questions?

What I want in our Next President #45 in 2012

As I dream about our next president, I have an outline of who I want.  I have been generally disappointed with our last 4 presidents.  Each has had positive qualities, but more negative then positive.  I would rather make a shopping list of what I want and see if someone can raise to the occasion to get my vote.  What do you have from your list of qualities?  I want a President.....

1. With real executive experience
2. Who has negotiated with legislators, but does not grovel like a legislator
3. Who has had to make decisions and take responsibility for the consequences
4. Who is a principled defender of constitutional government
5. Who recognizes public sector success depends on growth in the private sector
6. Who can say why he loves America, without a teleprompter
7. Who wants to kill terrorists rather than try them
8. Who sees their role in the international arena as the guardian of American interests
9. Who has real business experience
10. Who attracts a diverse set of the best talent, not zealots
11. Who listens to those that create jobs when thinking about job growth
12. Who listens to those that provide care when reforming health care
13. Who implements domestic reform that has proven success at a state level
14. Who does not refer to himself in every speech
15. Who says we, us, our instead of I and me
16. Who can control the special interests in their party
17. Who has a cabinet of people with private sector and public sector experience

Please leave your comments......

The President Does Not See 9/11 as an Act of War

Attorney General Holder has announced that he intends to bring the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in Federal Court in New York City.  AG Holder made this decision in part becasue he believes the 9/11 attacks were primarily against citizens, and therefore should be held in a federal court.

9/11 was an act of war by a non state actor, typically defined as terrorism.  The purpose of the attack was not to kill American citizens.  The attack was designed to weaken the United States ability to respond to the longer term efforts efforts by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to form a Caliphate in the Middle East.

Caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa) refers to the first form of government inspired by Islam. It was initially led by Muhammad's disciples as a continuation of the political authority the prophet established, known as the 'rashidun caliphates'. It represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah, and was the world's first major welfare state.

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are on a 50+ year journey, perhaps even longer if you follow Professor Bernard Lewis, to establish radical Islamic philosophy's into the world.  Their goal is to do this in the Middle East first, and then over decades (if not centuries) expand the reach of Islamic teachings and government through out the world.

Al-Qaeda believes that the West is weak.  They learned from Russia's invasion in Afghanistan, that a small force of warriors can take on a great army.  They believed that getting the United States to fight a battle in Afghanistan would result in a defeat of the Americans and power for Al-Qaeda.  Power that could be used for Osama bin Laden to drive the over throw of Saudi Arabia through Civil War.  Saudi Arabia is a teetering state.  The Royal family has been in power for too long.  Saudi Arabia is running out of oil.  My guess is that the secret Oil "Cheney meeting" in 2002 was really about Saudi's declining oil reserves, not some other collusion. Economic instability is a great basis for revolution.  Osama bin Laden sees Saudi as his target, not the United States.

Economic stability in the Middle East is a big concern.  The population in the Middle East is booming due significant reductions in infant mortality and elements of economic gain.  The problem however is there will be a lot of young adults in the 2018 time frame, without enough jobs.  So, if Saudi has less oil revenue and there are more young adults without jobs in 2018, the foundation of civil war in Saudi Arabia is set.

On 9/9/2001, Al-Qaeda killed the head of the Northern Alliance (Ahmad Shah Massoud ) in a decapitation maneuver.  Why would Al-Qaeda do this?  Because Al-Qaeda knew the United States would retaliate by invading Afghanistan.  A military strategy.  Killing Massoud would weaken a US counter attack.

Many have criticized the Bush Administration for not sending more troops and not being more aggressive in Afghanistan.  Beyond the fact that Afghanistan has never been effectively conquered (so why try), Al-Qaeda was positioning for a massive invasion of regular army troops from the US.  Instead, we attacked with Special Forces and other covert operations.  We attacked with these limited but highly effective forces to disrupt Al-Qaeda's strategy.

I personally believe that our invasion of Iraq was a counter maneuver to disrupt Al-Qaeda's further plan to cause revolution in Saudi Arabia, and Al-Qaeda's desire to begin the process of a Middle East revolution towards a Caliphate.  In the 2000-2002 time frame we moved military resources out of Saudi Arabia to Qatar.  Bringing down Iraq, eliminated Saddam Hussein as a resources for Al-Qaeda in a future step of the Caliphate strategy.  Near term it gives us a place to base forces to enter Saudi Arabia or any Gulf state that Al-Qaeda trys to drive to Civil war.  Iraq as a free state also opens up, over time, another mature oil economy in the Middle East that has an economic interest in stability.

Al-Qaeda, stalled in Afghanistan and blocked in Saudi Arabi due to Iraq, and the immense US force structure there, reset their strategy to weaken Pakistan and maybe get a Nuclear bomb.  It also gets them out of Afghanistan, which is a looser to begin with.

I am not sure what is going on with the current Afghanistan strategy.  It is unclear there is any reason to send troops there, other than its hard to let it fall into chaos.  It has little strategic benefit.  Obama was a fool to suggest it did.  Now he does not know how to unravel his position.

So, back to NYC.  The attack on 9/11 was a military strategy focused on weakening the United States.  Viewed over the arc of the last 8 years, it seems the strategy may be working.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the key strategist is in that military attack.  For Holder to say 9/11 was primarily an attack on Citizens so KSM should be tried in a federal court, is to ignore:

• A frontal attack on the essence of our democracy
• 1000s of troops that have died
• Those that died in the pentagon
• The planned attack on the white house/congress
• The meaning of the Al-Qaeda threat in the long term

I guess we can try to hold a trial in Federal court for KSM.  Personally I think its stupid, difficult to pull off, and threatens key elements of secrecy.  In the broader sense, I can only hope Holder is doing this for some stupid political reason.  If he, and the administration, are doing this becasue they see 9/11 as a violation of federal law they are missing the bigger (very much bigger) picture.  Al-Qaeda, KSM, and the rest mean to limit the notion of democracy around the world.  They are making a direct attack on freedom and the stability of the Middle East.  Al-Qaeda made a military strike.  They did not break the law.  Holder and the President are acting either out of ignorance or political motivation.  Lets hope they understand the bigger picture because our democracy depends on it.

Jobs created or made up... Unprecedented level of transparency?

 
Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds
Errors, incomplete data, estimated positions go into federal report

FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53

The Chicago rules say to pick on folks to win your points; (Alansky's Rules for Radicals)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

It seems, as highlighted by a recent article in AP, that the administration should have followed the "...not institutions..." part of the Alansky rule set.  Institutions have fact's that in the end come out.  Institutions at some point fight back.  The AP article goes on.....

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."  But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.  More.....

Captialism a Love Story

 

I don't need Michael Moore to tell me people are greedy. Capitalism is not greed. Greed is a lack of morals. Morals can't be regulated. Immoral behavior will always find the cracks in regulations, but moral people will not. "In Go...d we trust" and "Under god" are observations that our democracy works best if we come to the table equipped with a moral compass.

What is more important personal freedom or universal care? A test for Obama

I think we can all agree that we want people who are sick to get better, to have access to good health care and to not suffer due to health ailments.  But can we also agree that we believe in personal freedom, the right to make decisions for ourselves? 

Yes, Canada, England, Europe, China etc all have some form of universal health care.  That is great.  They also have limitations to a free press, less innovation, bad economies and less freedoms.  The United States represents 26% of world GDP.  The next largest economy is 1/3 the size of the United States.  The United States went from a start up 230 years ago to the most powerful country in the world.  Did that happen because of the greatness of our government actions or the greatness of our people?  Should the United States follow the path of others, or set the course for others as we have since our inception.  Our personal freedoms and rights to see opportunity, gather and engage each other, partner and invest, and think and dream are just an element of what makes the United States truly unique.

The health care debate is a foil to help us reflect on our rights and personal freedoms.  The President tells us, (Paraphrase) "...Health care is a mess and we need to take immediate action or it will collapse...".  If true, that is bad.  Though it is unlikely true.  I am not sure I know of any period in our country's history where our ability to address a challenge lead to total failure.  We were close in the depression and the cival war, but only close. 

I would argue, innovation and personal freedom have always been a correcting force for government failure.  Isn't that what democracy is about?  We the people have assigned some of our rights to the government because it is easier to manage.  We get to pick the managers.  And if they don't do a good job, we will fire them.  We only gave them some rights, not all.  We reserved all other rights to ourselves, and we are not going to give them up without consensus (i.e. constitutional convention).  Ronald Regan reminded us in 1961 about how subtle encroachment of the state can weaken our rights over time:

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." Ronald Reagan - 1961

With all the noise on health care and distraction of Nazis, socialism, the bill is not decided, republicans are racist, etc, part of my discomfort with the debate has crystallized around a WSJ article about the President regarding end of life care.  The President starts of the interview....

The President: "Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care—it's a related one—is what you do around things like end-of-life care."

Yes end of life care is tough, each of has had to deal with it in some manner (Wife, Child, Mother, Grand Parent)

The President: "...I just recently went through this. ....when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip.....

So now she's in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you've got about—maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that—you know, your heart can't take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you're just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible. And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just—you know, things fell apart.

I don't know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn't have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life—that would be pretty upsetting.

So the President seems to get that end of life care is tough.  He would have personally paid.  But then he goes to statism, questioning if "...a hip replacement when they're terminally is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question..."  Difficult question for who?  The government?  Society?  Its not their question.  Government, Society, everyone (except for the patient and maybe their family) has no right whatsoever to any part of the discussion.  None!  Nothing!  Nil!.  The constitution has provided no power to anyone to infringe on ones personal rights for what to do next with their life.

Recognizing the impact on cost of care, the President goes on:

The President: "Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicist. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

Guided by doctors, scientists and ethicist?  They will guide the decision about how we mange end of life decision on the economics of care?  Really?  What about the patient and their family?  The President says he would have "paid out of pocket for his grandmother", but wants doctors, scientists and ethicist to guide for the rest of us under the health care bill.  Did we ask for this help?  If we did not ask for it, why do we need it?  Probably because, the only way to run a government program is to cut cost, and the only way to really cut cost with out innovation is to pull the plug on Grandma.  (But he didn't say that right?)

What the health care bill contains and the degree to which the public option restricts funding certain treatments does not really matter if other options exist (secondary insurance and paying cash).  Practically it is hard to believe that the government will close down the right to supplement ones health care.  In a market economy though excessive government restrictions may very well shut down private options.  But what is outrageous is that the government thinks it even has the right to implement a health care program, using public resources, that restricts personal choice.  (all must opt in and follow the "Plan").  Furthermore, it is outrageous for the government to do anything that impinges on our rights to buy insurance (opt out) from other health care innovators.  Impinges includes restricting how other insurance plans can operate, who they enroll, what preconditions they accept, etc. 

The great thing about the "Market" is that people have the right to choose.  People do not have a constitutional right to government funded end of life care.  People have the right to choose if they want to use their resources to buy insurance and/or pay extra out of pocket for grandma's care.  They have the right to choose that independent of the government, doctors, ethicists, and scientists. 

In sales mode, the President keeps saying the choice for end of life care is between the doctor and the patient, not government or private insurance (making some veiled comment that somehow insurance companies already restrict rights).  Private insurance is really not currently involved in the decision.  They contribute, via a contractual relationship, to the decision in their willingness to fund a portion of end of life care, but they don't have ethicist making the decision for patients or ethicist deciding on a formulation for what can/can not be funded.  The calculus of what is paid for at end of life is a result of an economic decision between the insurance company and the patient.  And, really end of life care decisions are not the doctors prerogative.  I have had these conversations with regarding my mother with docotrs (sample size 1) and never found them steering me in any direction.  The Doctors left the decision to the patient and family.

I am pretty sure the President Obama is president of the United States, not the CEO of a new health care company.  I don't think he is a doctor, though he seems to think he knows how doctors should practice medicine.  Since he is president, he should focus on first preserving our rights to personal freedom i.e. "First do no harm".  In the context of Health care, he should preserve our rights to have a competitive health care market that maximizes the ability for patients to choose.  Health care should not be about society choosing/limiting our options through government regulations.  That might work for Europe, Canada or China, but the United States is made of different stuff. 

Through personal choice we have created the most prosperous country in the world, driving unbelievable levels of innovation and opportunity.  The WSJ interview with the President signals that he is a man that believes Doctors, Scientists, and Ethicists can shape the best decisions on our behalf forgetting that its individual freedom that made us great.  He needs to choose between Statism and personal freedom.  I have.  We can innovate our way through this problem if he gets out of the way.  That would be the honorable path to universal health care.

Clunkers, what have we learned....

I am a bit unsettled on the whole global warming thing, unsure of the facts, and unclear of mans impact on the whole thing.  I don't like big government, the bailouts, or Government intervention in free markets (except in case of safety and defense).  So, when Government decided to bailout GM etc, I thought a cash for clunkers type program might be the best of a bad situation.  Seeing what had worked in Germany in stabilizing their auto industry with a government rebate program, it struck me that if the political will was "Help GM" and "CO2 matters", then with that crap hand, the best play was subsidize demand directly (cash for clunkers) instead of a direct subsidy to supply (i.e. bailout GM).  I was wrong.

Here is what I think I have learned:

• The Government exhibited limited skill in forecasting demand for the program.  This is more unsettling given the government's parallel assertion that they know how to make health-care more efficient. They can screw up a $1B clunkers program, US Postal Service, VA hospitals, and Amtrak, but they will get health care right for sure.
• People have cash that they are willing to spend, given the right motivation. This suggests that the uncertainty of taxes, cap-trade, health care, economy, etc is halting demand, not lack of resources or productivity.
• The high demand for the program may have been a function of the uncertainty over the programs lifespan, i.e. just until November and no more than $1B.  Plus the need to clear lots for 2010 inventory.
• It appears the $4500 may have gone in part to inflating the market rate for cars.  Buyers have a hard time in this kind of market flux differentiating a good or bad deal.  Price information asymmetry favors sellers over buyers (in Katrina this was called price gouging, apparently legal with Government as investor).  Potential inflation on car prices makes sense as exhibited in the solar PV market.  In solar PV, the government has offered a 1/3 tax break on investment.  Shortly thereafter the wholesale cost of solar arrays went up.  This is explained in part by price elasticity of demand (via government subsidy) and constrained supply (Charge more than normal clearing price). 
• The sub-prime car market is being hurt.  This market is comprised of these that can't afford a new car.  They need a car to go to work, etc.  If they are unemployed, the car lets them search over a larger radius for work.  Since all the "Clunkers" are being destroyed, some 220K (perhaps in the end as many as 700K) cars are being removed from the second hand market.  Supply/demand says the cost of used cars should therefore go up.  
• The spare parts market is being constrained (Supply down).  Since the engine is destroyed in the clunkers program, the practice of conservation (Trying to reuse good parts) is disrupted.  Under the program, the engines need to be melted down and re-forged.  Perhaps a big energy waste.  With fewer second hand parts, again the lower tier buyer in the market will see prices go up having to buy new rather than used parts.
• The program is temporarily disruptive.  For new car dealers, there is a surge in demand leading to partial bumps in employment, but no long term persistence of jobs.  The supply chain of used and spare parts is temporarily harmed.  This kind of demand flux makes the life of small business more difficult as they try to balance uncertain demand with labor and cash flow challenges.  Why should a small business invest in an uncertain economic future?
• The claims of the program are uncertain.  Edmund's (car market experts) claimed the top sellers were SUV Cross overs and pickup trucks.  The government (not car market experts) claimed the best sellers were small sedans.  Someone is cooking the books (transparency anyone?), and its unclear why.  It may not serve the government's interest to suggest SUVs and pickup trucks are being bought, because those have less than perfect mileage.  Demand for SUVs and trucks makes sense in that people in more rural areas, with no other form of public transportation and in need of more robust vehicles, would be participants in the clunkers program.  The difference in Edmund's vs. Government numbers might be explained in defining car models.  Pickups and SUVs are defined in part by a wider range of engine models, so a F150 truck appears as 5-10 different vehicle variants.  A Honda accord appears as 1 or 2 variants.
• The biggest question is why do cars get a special subsidy and nothing else, maybe we all should have been given our $4,500 back and used it the way we saw best.

What should have been done

• I will state the obvious, the government should not have bailed out GM and there shouldn't have been a clunker program.  But, I will leave this option out because its not how the current government works.
• If the government were truly worried about CO2, they should have put the program in place indefinitely.  Or until a certain amount of CO2 savings were achieved.  By having an indefinite end point, we would not have had a disruptive perturbation (or a wonderful photo op).  The economy would have worked things out in a more natural manner and there would have been more price transparency.
• The amount of the subsidy probably should have been increased to bring more people into the market.  The balance of the money should have been taken away from promises to GM and Chrysler.
• Cars should have been disassembled rather than destroyed 
• To get the best price, buyers should otherwise wait until the program is over and car dealers are once again hungry
  
   

Obama's healthcare horror (Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's)

Camille Paglia wrote a great article in Salon, critical of the health care plan.  Critical from the sense of, Health Care is an import issue to address so don't waste the opportunity to do it right.  She goes on to outline how the President is being poorly served by his staff and congress.

As an Obama supporter, she describes her frustration with the hard push to agree on a health care plan despite limited debate.  She contrasts the "Its in there don't worry" repose of government despite the fact that there are 5 competing health care bills, no one of which is near settled.

I believe the anger we are seeing in town halls is pent up frustration, from the Stimulus bill on.  Statements like "The economy is getting better because of Stimulus", when less than 10% of stimulus has been deployed, makes you wonder if the rest of stimulus is needed.

I am frustrated that the president says "If you like the health care you have now, you can keep it", when HR3200 outlaws Health Savings Accounts, which is my current health care plan.  I am not sure who to believe or trust when there are so many blatant contravening facts and assertions.

Ms. Paglia does a good job capturing the frustrations of many.

Obama Says "CBO not Telling the Truth on HealthCare" - Elliot Richardson where are you

Well, in an effort to push health care, it seems the only Truth is what comes out of the mouth of Senator Reid or the President, everyone else is not telling the truth or is a partisan.  Reported in todays Washington Post, President Obama "Urged Congress to push past growing doubts......"

As you likely know, the Congressional Budget office, an organization intended to review and assess the impact of legislation, stated something to the effect that the current health care bill moving though congress would likely increase the cost of health care and increase the deficit.  The CBO issued a 17 page report making several important observations:

.....Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for legal residents to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which some individuals and families could receive subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing insurance; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; make modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and impose an income-tax surcharge on high-income individuals....

....CBO’s and JCT’s preliminary assessment of the impact on the federal deficit for the bill as introduced is summarized in the following table. The enclosures with this letter provide estimates of the changes in the nonelderly U.S. population with health insurance coverage, the primary budgetary components of the bill’s major provisions related to insurance coverage, and a detailed table of the other provisions’ impact on federal direct spending. The estimated impact of the provisions related to health insurance coverage is based on specifications provided by the committee staff, rather than on a detailed analysis of the legislative language....

Even with a bunch of other revenue increases and savings from other government programs CBO concluded...

...According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.....

This report from the CBO was signed by Douglas Elmendorf, a former Clinton administration economist who was appointed to lead the CBO by the current Democrats in Congress.  So, the democrats appointed the guy bearing bad news.

As written on the CBO website....

CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with:

Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and

The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process. So, what

As Reported by MSNBC....

"The New York Times writes that the Congressional Budget Office’s Douglas Elmendorf “told Congress that the health legislation proposed so far would not curb the federal government’s runaway spending on medical care and that lawmakers would need to take more forceful action to meet Mr. Obama’s goal of controlling costs. The testimony by Mr. Elmendorf before the Senate Budget Committee drew criticism from Democratic leaders, highlighting their rising frustration over the difficulty of paying for an overhaul. Asked about the testimony by Mr. Elmendorf, a highly regarded economist, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, snapped derisively, ‘Maybe what he (Elmendorf) should do is run for Congress.’”

And as reported in the Washington Post and other outlets President Obama said "That's Simply Not true" in regard to the CBO's assessment and its forecast of deficits.

So apparently the President and Senate Majority leader, believe the Democrat's appointed head of the CBO should either run for congress or stop lying.  I know its not the CIA lying to congress but can we stop attacking the messenger.  Apparently the President and Reid, both partisans, know more about economics than an Economist (Elmendorf).

One would have hoped that maybe Reid and the President could have said "The conclusions by the independent assessment arm of the Congress, the CBO, has raised some concerns about the affordability of health care.  The Bill is still evolving.  We look forward to their future assessments and will work hard to successfully address the CBO's concerns".  I mean, isn't that a bit nicer way to say you disagree with someone. 

This is not Pelosi saying the CIA lied, but at some point we need an Elliot Richardson moment where someone stands up and calls out congress and the president on the sham they are shoving down our throat, called healthcare reform. 

Obama orders review of alleged slayings of Taliban in Bush era vs. Horse Soliders

If you have read Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan you will be outraged by the statement that the President intends to investigate the actions of General Dostum in the death of 1,000 Taliban prisoners, while also investigating the Bush administrations unwillingness to press charges of some sort at the time.

You may not know, but Dostum is a colorful General in the Northern Alliance, working on various sides of various issues and often for himself, as warlords do.  This event is with respect to the prison riot that erupted after the Taliban started to collapse in the fall of 2001.  That is the prison riot where an American CIA agent was killed by the Taliban prisoners.

For background, a small team of US special forces and CIA agents went into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, right after 9-11 and teamed with what was left of the northern alliance (Dostum and others) to take down the Taliban.  They fought against the Taliban in some of the most unconventional ways - taking on Taliban Tanks while Dostum's guys and CIA were on horse back, calling in JDAM GPS guided weapons from B52s built in the 60's, using a satellite hand held radio.  Special Forces, CIA, and the Northern Alliance did what the Russians had failed to do, take over Afghanistan.  And they did it in months.

Franks and others had wanted to delay 6 months and deploy 50k-100k troops to do what these guys accomplished in a short time before winter came.  Under the Franks plan thousands more would have died, on both sides.

The Horse Soldiers, as they were called, exhibited the best traits, true American spirit, working closely and respectfully with local leaders like Dostum to adapt to the regional realities.  The book contrasts the success in Afghanistan to the difficulties in Iraq, where our policies were less integrated with regional politics and realities.  Afghanistan and taught us that working with marginal characters like Dostum is a lesson in respecting others.  Isn't it Obama that keeps telling us to think about other people and their cultures?  I suspect the Bush team understood that, and that's why Bush did not investigate the deaths related to the prison riot in greater detail.

So the prison story goes a bit like this...

There are two types of Taliban, Afghan and non Afghan.  When an Afghan Taliban gives up he pledges allegiance to the Northern Alliance, and won't switch sides unless there is some other lost battle.  The non Afghan Taliban will never surrender.  So, Dostum beat the hell out of a key Taliban leader on the battle field.  The Taliban surrendered.  So Dostum had to take the radicalized non-Afghan Taliban and stick them in a prison (Because its easy to find a prision for 1,000 people in the middle of a bombed out country).  The Afghan Taliban were all let go after pledging allegiance to Dostum.  Well it appears, this surrender was actually a ploy of sorts.  The non-afghan Taliban prisioners all kept their weapons (long story, read the book).  And after some time staged an uprising to take over the prision.  Dostum was not fully prepared.  His troops shot their machine guns from the prison turrets and killed hundreds of prisioners, but they kept coming.  The Taliban had no intention of surrendeirng.   The fight lasted several days.  Ultimately they had the last of the Taliban cornered in a lower level, pooring kerosene in to burn them out.  When that did not work they redirected an irrigation system to flood them out.  Something like 35, of more than 1,000 killed, were still alive and surrendered.  One of those was that jerk John Walker Lynn.

This was a war.  Dostum is a questionable character, but in a Jack Bauer kind of way.  Hell Jack was probably there.

More importantly, if you listen to the guys who were in the book, you get a much better insight into what wars of the future might be like and how we need to work with local factions to achieve victory without putting 100k troops at risk.  This is a dumb investigation.  It works against the the lessons from the battle.  Some things should just never be investigated.  There is no way to judge the actions of someone in the battlefield 8 years after the fact.  And for those that talk about civil rights, what about the rights of the 10,000 troops that would have died through a conventional American invasion?

I suspect there are other reasons for the investigation, as a matter of fact all the new investigations (Dostum, CIA, unwarranted this or that).  If your poll numbers start going down, take on the the other guy (Bush) and start blaming him.  Economy not doing well, can't blame Bush its the Obama plan.  But you can go after Bush about war Crimes.  He is supposed to be the President of the United States not a tourist in Ghana.  Does he really have time to dedicate to fixing Ghana?