Warren's space

 The New America Foundation and Slate sponsored a fascinating seminar this morning on “Manhunt: From Saddam to bin Laden; What Social Networks Mean for Modern
Warfare.”  The presenters included Colonel Jim Hickey,
Commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fourth Infantry Division, U.S. Army that caught Saddam; “Matthew Alexander” (a pseudonym),
the Air Force interrogator of the captive who lead to the location and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq); and Scott Helfstein, PhD, Associate, Combating Terrorism Center, Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, United States Military Academy.

All of them stressed the importance of intelligence and of knowledge of the population in
which the military is operating for the success of counterterrorism/insurgency operations. Thus historical and cultural knowledge and relevant language skills are essential for understanding the population and gaining its trust and cooperation, and thus obtaining useful intelligence. Along with being the best equipped with military hardware, America’s military is one of the best trained. Significant delegation of authority to well-trained field commanders permits flexible reactions to conditions on the ground. I have always been highly impressed by the intelligence and quality of the American military officers I have met and this seminar underscored how critical the human capacity of our military is to its success.

The skills and knowledge needed in the field cannot be trained into or found in one person—a super soldier. Thus collaboration and information sharing among a number of people with different skills is essential. More resources should be devoted to
recruiting and training interpreters, for example. The interagency turf fighting and personality clashes between the Departments of Defense and State in Iraq, for example, undermined our effectiveness there.

Most fascinating for me were the comments by Mr. “Alexander,” whose interrogation of an
al-Zarqawi associate led to Mr. al-Zarqawi’s elimination as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. He expressed frustration that some political demagogues (my words not his) continue to call for “enhanced interrogation” techniques (torture) despite the generally held conclusion by the military (reflected in its field manual on interrogation) and interrogators like himself that such techniques are not effective in obtaining useful information not to mention in violation of the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is formally committed. He declared the call for the use of enhanced interrogation methods an insult to the skills of trained interrogators. “Imagine,” he said, “that American solders were told to use poison gases in their attack on the enemy. The suggestion that they could only succeed by violating international standards of warfare would be an insult to their skills.

By the way, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility’s investigation of John Yoo, the drafter of the Justice Department’s memo claiming to justify some forms of torture (sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc) found that he was guilty of “professional
misconduct” with regard to his advise on this matter (which could lead to his disbarment).
Earlier this week, that judgment was softened by the Justice Department’s David Margolis to “poor judgment.” I leave to legal scholars to debate the most appropriate characterization of the legal quality of Mr. Yoo’s conduct of his duties. The sad fact is that his ignorance of the substantive (as opposed to legal and moral) aspects of the subject he was advising on, so called “enhanced interrogation,” has done great harm to the United States. We are seen by much of the rest of the world and by many American’s as violating our treaty commitments and our standards of morality and we have in those limited cases
where such techniques were actually used, diminished our capacity to obtain useful information from interrogation.

An important element of U.S. strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and contain and preempt the Taliban is the empowerment of village militia in their own defense. I wrote about the virtue of this approach in November in http://tinyurl.com/ybmbfv3 in the context of a broader discussion of our strategic mistake in imposing an overly centralized government on Afghanistan in their new constitution we helped prepare. See http://tinyurl.com/yhq9ctx and http://tinyurl.com/yk8temx.
Today’s Washington Post publishes an important and balanced discussion of value and risks of this policy: http://tinyurl.com/ydl73mr

Correctly assessing the enemy’s motives is essential to
combating him effectively. If radical Muslim fundamentalists hate American
freedom, etc., they are at war with us in our homeland and we would be in a
very different situation requiring a very different strategy than I think we
are actually in. The suicide bomber who killed seven American CIA agents in
Afghanistan December 30 adds further evidence that such claims are false. A
U.S. drone attack in Pakistan killed the important terrorist leader Baitullah
Mehsud in August. “In a chilling videotape released posthumously Saturday by
the Pakistani Taliban and broadcast on regional TV channels, bomber Humam
Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, 32, called on Muslim holy warriors worldwide to
avenge Mehsud’s death by attacking U.S. targets. ‘We will never forget the
blood of our emir Baitullah Mehsud," Balawi said on the tape, using the
title that means leader of the Muslim faithful. "We will always demand
revenge for him inside America and outside.’"[1]
 What the bomber hates is America’s
intrusion into his part of the world and its attacks on his brothers, not the
American way of life.

War is always the enemy of liberty, even when trying to
defend it. Our constitution and common sense gives our president essentially
unlimited powers to defend the nation in times of war. Liberty has been
preserved by limiting the wars we fight and keeping them short. These days we
invoke the imagery of war (the war on drugs, crime, terror, etc.) far too often
and too easily for those of us who love liberty and the checks and balances on
government power that are a critical tool for persevering liberty. As Vice
President, Dick Cheney relentlessly pressed for more and more Presidential
power to fight terrorists in the mistaken belief that that was the only way to
win the war against al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. Even today he persists in
this dangerous, fundamentally un-American view. His fellow traveler in the Bush
Justice Department, John Yoo (the bad guy would wrote the opinions justifying torture
and other expansions of Presidential power) makes the case for the Imperial
Presidency explicit in his latest book “Crisis and Command.”[2]
This bears on the issues of trying terrorists in regular or military courts,
the use of warrantless wiretaps and similar powers.

Anyone who thinks that I am expressing isolationist views
has totally misunderstood me. My professional career at the IMF has been
devoted to sharing the cumulated wisdom of the developed world with regard to
monetary policy with the central banks of other less developed countries. This
includes explicit “nation building” in places like newly independent (from the
USSR) countries like, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova, and post conflict
countries like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Serbia. I
strongly believe that it is in America’s self interest and the interest of
every other peace loving country in the world to contribute to the building of
more law abiding, successful, and prosperous countries freely trading with one another.
I believe in this kind of “nation building.” I do not think this better world
can be promoted at the end of a gun or as part of an empire of the old or the
new American type neocons seem to want. President Bush was right to say that
Democracy is ultimately the best way to govern peaceful prosperous countries
that respect the just rights of individuals and their neighbors, and that
promoting democracy is thus in America’s interest. But his neocon friends are
wrong to think that viable democracy, as we understand that term, can be
promoted at the point of a gun. Many internal conditions are required before
democracy is likely to improve governance. The Imperial Presidency and the new
American Empire advocated by the Dick Cheney’s of the world are a bigger threat
to our liberties and well being than al-Qaeda.

With the benefit of hindsight after eight years of war in
Afghanistan and almost seven years of war in Iraq, hundreds of billions of
dollars gone up in smoke (per year), and the loss of thousands of American and
many more non American lives, many of us have doubted that it was in America’s interest
to undertake these wars. No one can seriously argue that they made us stronger
and/or more secure. As a result, American troops are now stationed in several
more countries, the primary reason for terrorist attacks against America (the
idea that they attack us because they resent our freedom and decadence is
laughable on the face of it).[1]
The two or more trillion dollars we have paid for these two wars could have
been spent to strengthen investment in American infrastructure and productive
capacity, which is ultimately the basis of our military and political strength
in the world. Afghanistan’s complex regional and tribal make up was poorly
understood and our plans to rebuild a more centralized government in
Afghanistan were ill conceived, facing us with high probability of failing to establish
an environment that serves any ones interests very well. And Al Qaeda can and
has easily moved elsewhere and we don’t have enough young men and women to send
to die in too many more places. But it is easier to look back and see our
mistakes, than to evaluate similar situations in advance. Enter Yemen.

Al Qaeda is once again operating in Yemen (remember the bombing
of the U.S.S. Cole October 12, 2000?). What should we do about it? Looking
ahead we see the dangers to us of Al Qaeda operating recruiting and training
areas in Yemen more clearly than we see the dangers of further stretching our
military into a country whose government is deeply hated by at least half of
the country creating an incentive to attack us (the foreign invader) that does
not now exist. We need to try hard to evaluate the costs and benefits of our
future involvement in Yemen with equal attention to both types of risks.

The Republic of Yemen occupies the Southern end of the
Arabian Peninsula. Somalia, the land of pirates and another potential haven for
Al Qaeda, is a short distance way to the South  across the Gulf of Aden. Its
size and population (0.20 million square miles and 23 million people) are
similar to those of Afghanistan (0.25 million square miles and 30 million
people). Its largely Arabic population is overwhelmingly Muslim almost equally
divided between Sunni and Shi’a. However, its Sunni and Shi’a population are
very unevenly distributed with most Sunnis in the South and most Shi’as in the
North. South Yemen, which only gained its independence from Britain in 1967,
was only united with North Yemen, which gained its independence from the
Ottoman Empire in 1918, in 1990.

Enhanced U.S. involvement in Yemen to eliminate or contain
Al Qaeda might take the form of intelligence gathering with or without the participation
of the Yemen government, military cooperation with and support to the Yemen
government (equipment, training, etc), or a military invasion ala Afghanistan
and Iraq. In evaluating the costs and benefits of these options, we don’t need
to wait to be surprised that the Yemen government is very unpopular with a
large segment of the population and that we would be taking its side against an
existing insurgency. We already know that. There has already been one civil war
between the north and south (1994). “Southerners contend that the government
has denied them their share of oil revenue, and has dismissed many southerners
from military and government jobs. A wave of protests has roiled the south,
prompting a government crackdown. Many members of the Southern Movement, a
loosely knit coalition, now demand secession. ‘We no longer want our rights
from the government. We want a separate north and south,’ said Ahmed Kassim, a
secessionist leader….”[2]
 “Al-Qaeda militants… are shielded
by tribal alliances and codes in religiously conservative communities that do
not tolerate outside interference, even from the government.”[3]
In short, in Yemen we would face many of the same sorts of problems we are now
facing in Afghanistan. Thus the cost of any significant involvement, especially
direct military involvement, in Yemen would be very high.

Limiting our Yemen activities to enhanced intelligence gathering,
whether covert or overt, would greatly reduce the costs and risk of our
activities. Occasional drone attacks on carefully vetted al-Qaeda personnel and
facilities in Yemen (though a few mistake are inevitable) would be no less
effective toward the objective of eliminating or containing al-Qaeda than the
full military invasion and continued operations in Afghanistan have been there.
Addressing the issues causing the insurgency, or “nation building” more
broadly, is a desirable long run strategy but is not promoted by the presence
of foreign military (ours or anyone else’s). An invasion would increase the
cost enormously with no clear increase in benefits. “‘If there is direct
intervention by the United States, it will strengthen al-Qaeda,’ warned Rashad
al-Alimi, Yemen’s deputy prime minister for security and defense. ‘We cannot
accept any foreign troops on Yemeni territory.’”[4]
There is substantial evidence that the presence of foreign troops on their home
soil is the most significant motivation for almost all suicide bomber attacks.[5]
We should not introduce that reason for Yemeni insurgents to attack the United
States, which is not now the source of their discontent.

But what about al-Qaeda? Shouldn’t we go after them in Yemen
(Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) with everything we’ve got? If we do, they
will just move somewhere else. . We bare the cost with no benefit. We will
better defend ourselves from al-Qaeda and the small number of other fanatical terrorist
who wish to punish the U.S. (rather than their own domestic enemies): by
improving our intelligence and its use to detect and deter terrorist plots,
strengthening our borders, and reducing our irritating and costly interference
in the lives of others.

The size of government tends to grow naturally if not checked. There are many reasons for keeping the government lean and mean (a distant memory, but still a good standard)—personal liberty, personal responsibility and the moral qualities it fosters, economic dynamism, progress and efficiency, and the list goes on. Government bureaucrats, however public spirited and well meaning, are simply not driven by the spirit that animates the private competitive entrepreneur and those he or she manages. Both the
public sector and the private sector respond to the incentives they face. One of the government’s more effective tools for “regulating” the private sector is to fashion laws and regulations that create incentives for private sector behavior that serves the long run public interest. That is what Adam Smith’s invisible hand of self interest and competition do quite well on their own most of the time but there can be gaps (externalities) the government can sometimes fill.

It is difficult to get the incentives right in the public sector. Political leaders may have the public interest at heart but getting reelected must come first and their constituency may have special interests other than the national interest. Bureaucrats rarely advance their careers by standing up or standing out. When government interference with and involvement in economic activity exceed the essentials, it often starts us down a slippery
slop of catering to special interests that is increasingly hard to resist. Three recent examples, illustrate this point.

In the area of financial sector supervision, some have charged that the government has not regulated bank and financial sector behavior tightly enough thus contributing to, if not causing, the financial sector crisis of last year and the recession of last year into this one. While “appropriate” supervision is desirable, America’s financial supervisors (just for banks this included the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision, and fifty state supervisors) suffer a number of weaknesses typical of government.

Banking supervisors did not foreseeing the housing and financial crisis any better than anyone else (how could they!!). “In May 2006, the nation’s fourth-largest bank, Wachovia, signed a deal to buy Golden West, one of the largest mortgage lenders in California….  The next month the board [of Governors of the Federal Reserve] unanimously approved the deal. The Fed wrote in its approval that it had “carefully considered” the warnings about Golden West and concluded that Wachovia had sufficient capital to absorb losses and effective systems for assessing and managing risks…. Two years after Wachovia closed its
deal for Golden West, regulators told the company it could no longer survive on its own. A hasty sale to Wells Fargo was arranged with the help of billions of dollars in federal tax breaks.”[1] The Federal Reserve and other banking supervisors did not lack adequate
supervisory authority in this instance. The problem was that they did not use the authority they had satisfactorily. New powers (though a few may be useful) would not over come these weaknesses.

Regulators rightly work closely with those they regulate, but are too easily captured by the perspective and interests of the regulated. In the extreme, regulars can fail to use regulatory tools and measure available or even mandated. The FDIC is required by law to intervene when a banks capital falls to less than 2 percent of its risk weighted assets. The fact that the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is in danger of running out is proof that it has
failed to fulfill this mandate. [2]

A quit different example comes from the area of military procurement. Obviously we need a strong military and get a much better deal for the taxpayer by developing and buying military systems and hardware from the private sector. But consider how difficult it is for the government to judge objectively what is needed and who can prove it best.  I already commented on Lockheed Martin’s attempt to keep the unwanted and unneeded F-22 in the military budget http://tinyurl.com/yfvzdv5. The Defense Department finally won on this one with the passage of the defense appropriation bill Dec 20^th without the F-22. The battle for the new U.S. Air Force tanker plane contract rages on (again) between Boeing’s and Northrop Grumman’s offerings. It is a brave Congressman who considers the
national interest over the jobs impact in his congressional district. Boeing, for example, once produced almost all of its airplanes and their parts in the Seattle Washington area. The move of its headquarters to Chicago and the scattering of its manufacturing and assemble plants to as many locations around the country as possible was certainly not motivated by economic efficiency.

These obvious challenges to efficient government have now hit a new low. “Insurance giant Mutual of Omaha will see less of a hit from a $10 billion-a-year industry-wide tax on health insurance providers, under the terms of a deal worked out between Senate Democratic leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.).[3] This was part of the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid arranged for us taxpayers to pay in order to buy Senator Nelson’s vote for the Healthcare bill now almost sure to pass the Senate (Nelson was the 60^th vote needed to block a filibuster). “Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits.”[4] Richard Cohn, who supports the bill, noted that “The bill has turned out to be a mosh pit of selfishness.”[5]  “Reid didn’t even attempt to offer a reason why Medicaid in Nebraska should be treated differently from, say, Medicaid across the Missouri River in Iowa. The majority leader bought a vote with someone else’s money….  Why doesn’t every Democratic senator demand the same treatment for his or her
state? Eventually, they will.”[6] “As news of the agreements proliferated, Republican senators went to the floor to protest. “This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific states’ senators
cannot be considered equal protection under the law,” argued Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.).  Her Texas colleague, Sen. John Cornyn, took issue with White House strategist David Axelrod‘s claim that such deals are “the way it will always be.”[7]

The problem is hardly limited to health care “reform.” Despite promises not to interfere with the business decisions of GM after the government took over its ownership, Congress could not restrain itself from forcing GM to keep open some of the dealerships GM wanted to close. “One United Bank in Massachusetts got aid after Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) inserted language into the bailout bill that effectively directed Treasury to give the
bank special consideration.”[8] “Reid said when asked about the fairness of it all. ‘So this legislation is no different than the defense bill we just spent $600 billion on.’ That would be the bill with more than 1,700 pet-project earmarks. ‘It’s no different than
other pieces of legislation,’ Reid continued.”[9]

Sadly he is right. Obama the candidate promised to end earmarks. Under Obama
the President they have gotten worse. There is only one way to roll back and
keep such abuses in check, which threaten to bleed us to death from a thousand
little cuts, and that is to keep the government lean and mean—keep it out of as
much of the economy and our private lives as possible. And eternal vigilance.