Dr. Stanton, What Makes You Different?

Silly questions asked by students often require responses.  Being asked what makes me different caused an immediate response on my part--compared to what?  After quickly being informed as compared to my colleagues at Grove City College, I had to think quickly about which categories to confine my response.  Of course, my first statement was along the lines of "if you realize that I am different than my colleagues then you have already observed behaviors and can answer the question for yourself."

What makes me different?  Possibly my life before academia.  Probably my non-reformed theological position.  Most likely that I am cynical and outspoken.  Heck, I just consider myself to be a pointy-headed academic.

Haqqani Issue Part Deux

So, I talked to a friend somewhere down south who works for some organization.  Are we getting a picture here, I can not tell you who or what or where.  But, I can tell you some rumblings I had heard regarding the Pakistani's aiding and abetting the Haqqani network are in my honest opinion confirmed.

Namely, when the Pakistani's complained that the OBL raid occurred without their knowledge and consent inside their territory, we called them untrustworthy and they balked.  So, we "leaked" raid information to them for about three weeks.  We then observed the Pakistani military and intelligence "leaking" our leaks.

Hardly would any thinking person not think that the Pakistani's know that we know that they leaked our leaks.  So what does this say about the Pakistani's?  A) They do not care about our knowing they are complicit with the Haqqani because we have to move supplies into Afghanistan through Pakistan.  B) They do not care because we are soon to depart Afghanistan.  C) They are the most corrupt military/intelligence organizations on the face of the earth.  Or maybe D) all of the above.

So, what will the U.S. do?

The Haqqani, er...Pakistani Problem

I have kept some of my reading and researching time open to Central and South Asia since writing a paper about ethnic and tribal factions creating political consolidation problems in Tajikistan as an undergraduate in the mid 1990s.  So, it has probably been less surprising to me than some how issues of ethnic and tribal identity have kinked things up in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  One thing I have been fond of doing when trying to understand an area is to also study the history of particular countries and regions (while not a particular fan of saying ancient hatreds cause today's problems or of primordialist arguments regarding identity, I do find it interesting to note learned and repeated behaviors and changes in political and social structures over time).  These reading activities have led me to note the topic du'jour of the day: U.S.--Pakistan relations.

Everyone knows that last week Haqqani network terrorists/insurgents (what should we call them since they are transnationals and not native to the country in question?) were involved in attacks on U.S., NATO, and Afghani targets in Kabul.  Now we can read here that Admiral Mullen (chairman of the JCS) says it is Pakistan's fault that the Haqqani are active again in Kabul.  You can also read here that top officials of the U.S. govt are all starting to say "Pakistan must stop supporting the Haqqani network or else," (direct quote from the Foreign Policy article referenced above).

I wonder, however, just how successful our attempt at strong arming the Pakistani government will be given Pakistani perceptions of our relations with India.  Also, does Pakistan misperceive the ability to use Afghanistan as strategic movement and retreat space given an assault on Pakistan by India?  And finally, for anyone who read The Great Game and other histories of this region, how much does this sound like the late 1930s wrangling between Dost Mohammed, Ranjit Singh, Shah Shujah, and the strong arm tactics of Lord Auckland (then Governor General of India) used against Dost Mohammed?

Taxes and Obama's false math

I am on record with friends and family and in earlier blogs as saying a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases (read increased taxes) will be necessary to deal with the debt that the last generation and my generation have created.  These measures are needed to avoid making my children and grandchildren pay for our excessive spending habits.  Between Clinton's fake accounting, Bush led military efforts, idiotic bail outs by both Bush and Obama, and the disaster that is Obama's healthcare plan, we have simply spent way too much money as a government here in the U.S.  Now we must pay up.  But is Obama being factual and is Warren Buffet really talking about his income taxes when he says he paid less than his secretary?

A good article to peruse in considering this can be read here.  The facts do not appear to support Obama or Buffet in this matter.  Apparently most of the 46% of U.S. residents who will not pay any taxes this year (and many of these will actually receive returns on taxes without having actually earned an income to pay taxes on this year) are in the middle and lower classes.  And consider this from the Tax Policy Center and the IRS:

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

The facts simply do not support Obama.  While Buffet due to sheltering and taking advantage of take loopholes may have paid less than his secretary, this is not the case for most millionaires.  And if Buffet is so concerned, why doesn't he simply write a check to the government--he can do this, no one will stop him.

What is Too Lenient in Sentencing of Terrorists?

Apparently too lenient is a 17 year sentence for Jose Padialla according to a U.S. Court of Appeals panel (read it here).  At the time of Padilla's conviction his mother announced they would appeal the sentence thinking they would get a lesser sentence--oops.  The panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that 17 years is too lenient.  The U.S. government prosecutors had asked for 30 years to life for Padilla upon conviction.

Padilla, you should recall, was arrested for conspiracy to commit a dirty bomb attack.  He was found guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism.  Is it appropriate to sentence such crime to life imprisonment?  According to U.S. legal codes, apparently this lengthy sentence is appropriate.  However, no real minimum sentencing guideline exists.  But the panel from the 11th Circuit apparently thinks they know the minimum guideline should be more than 17years.  Oh, should we factor in the 3 years that Padilla had already served without trial or filed charges, 17 years becomes 20 years.

Having met some terrorists face to face and coming away with a healthy distaste for this type of individual, I am fine with capture, trial, and stiff sentence.  But, in this instance I am not sure that the sentence is at all lenient.  Have you met anyone who spent 20 years in a supermax federal prison and came away from the experience happy/sane/...(insert your own words here)?  In 17 years Padilla will be about 60 years old, a convicted felon, and known possible terrorist.  What a resume, what a way to resume life in the United States.

One other issue I have with this reversal.  If Padilla's crime warranted life in prison, then we should remove him permanently from society.  Prisons used to be called penal institutions, we need to get over the "correctional" idea as no correction exists in prisons.  We penalize people for violating rules meant to safeguard society.  When the penalty is paid, the person goes back to whatever life they can salvage.  If the crime merits life, make it life.  Otherwise, be reasonable.  Padilla is partner to a great conspiracy to take the lives of citizens of the U.S.  He did not, however, ever take a life (that we publicly know of at present).  So, 17 plus the 3 already served seems reasonable.

Urquhart or Durham, Which Way to Go?

I have been skimming back through Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game.  I would consider this essential reading for anyone truly interested in understanding deep background and origins of contemporary conflict in Central and South/Southwest Asia.   I was struck by a segment of this work in light of current Russian affairs.

Should we be followers of the Russophobe David Urquhart and see a Russian plot for world conquest behind any Russian government activity? Or, should we see, as did Lord Durham, that the Russian position is one of balance between their own strengths and weaknesses that will not allow the Russians to pursue a truly voracious foreign policy?   This is an interesting question for the students and followers of Russian foreign policy and particularly Russian activity in the "Near Abroad" of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.  And, apparently this question is not a new question.

ANZUS at 60

On 1 Sept 1951 the ANZUS Treaty entered into force creating a trilateral agreement for the defense of the southwest Pacific region.  The big scare was the movement of China and or Russia into the region if the Korean Conflict turned into a disaster for the U.S. led UN forces.  All thinking aside, Korea did not turn out happily for the U.S. or UN forces, but did not turn into a disaster.  However, 60 years later concerns are growing again about China and the desire of Beijing to control the economic and political interactions of the South China Sea region and beyond. 

The U.S. and New Zealand had a treaty falling out in the mid 1980s because the U.S. refused to acknowledge whether or not U.S. warships were carrying nuclear weapons when entering New Zealand territorial waters.  Of course the U.S. warships were carrying nuclear weapons.  But, New Zealand is a nuclear weapon free zone--as if that would stop potential enemies (does NZ have any potential enemies?) from using nuclear weapons.  The ANZUS Treaty does remain in effect separately between the U.S. and Australia and between Australia and New Zealand. 

Last week Defense Secretary Panetta and Sec. of State Clinton met with their Australian counterparts to celebrate the treaty and discuss new implementations designed to be prepared for dealing with the potential of a Chinese threat (read a little about it here).  The new plan calls for forward location of equipment and frequent joint training, but not for new bases.  This plan is probably for the best considering issues with forward bases in South Korea and Japan.