Libertarian Leanings

Terror's new face

Amir Taheri describes it.

Meanwhile, part of the media has tried to link the Bombay attacks to al Qaeda. This may be saying too much or too little. As an organization capable of exercising operational control over any group, al Qaeda is all but dead. The best information available, plus the buzz in Jihadi circles, indicates that al Qaeda is still collecting some funds, especially in the Persian Gulf, and funneling part of it to militant groups across the globe. Beyond that, however, al Qaeda is more of a brand, a kind of franchise, and a source of inspiration rather than command and control.

In Bombay, the Jihadis used a new style of attack, consisting of a range of operations that are traditionally used one by one. They have seized control of territory, carried out suicide operations, conducted military-style attacks and seized hostages, all in the context of a single multiform campaign of terror.

This new style, a kind of smorgasbord of terrorist tactics served at one go, confused the Indian counterterrorist units and army elite. Terrorism is a mutating monster, and Bombay's experience could be repeated in other big cities across the globe. Counterterrorism doctrine needs to readjust itself for what is a major tactical change in the way Jihadism works.

It's not victory... not yet

So says the Washington Post about the situation in Iraq.  Today's editorial voices some concern about Barack Obama's predicament.  It seems the Iraqi parliament has taken the situation out of Obama's hands.

BARACK OBAMA recently reiterated his campaign promise to order up a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. But the Iraqi parliament has beaten him to it. Its ratification Thursday of a new bilateral military agreement with the United States not only establishes a timetable for the redeployment of American troops but delimits the missions they can undertake between now and the end of 2011. Mr. Obama has always said that his strategy was aimed at forcing Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their country and its security. In adopting and ratifying the accord, the government and parliament have taken a major step toward that goal.

The situation seems less distressing for the President-elect than it is for the editors at the Post.  I mean, what was Obama going to do anyway.  He's keeping Robert Gates at Defense, for crying out loud.  Do they think Obama kept him on so that he could yank the troops and undo everything he's been in charge of doing over the past two years?  Please.  It's all over in Iraq, the war has been won, the Status of Forces Agreement has been accepted.  But for Post editors it can't be a victory.  For Post editors it's denial.  Time to postpone the victory.

The Bush administration worked patiently and tirelessly to negotiate the new agreement, which will have the effect of removing Iraq from United Nations supervision on Jan. 1. Having all but destroyed his presidency through mismanagement of the war, Mr. Bush can now fairly argue as he leaves office that his successor will inherit an Iraqi mission that has been stabilized both militarily and politically. That's not the same thing as the "victory" Mr. Bush has often spoken of; Iraq could still unravel if its leaders or the Obama administration act unwisely.

Of course, this is Mr. Bush we're talking about, so it's not victory.  But it's close, so close that Post editors feel obliged to warn that Obama could still throw a wrench in it.  Perhaps a little patience would be in order.

There is now, however, a workable road map for winding down the U.S. troop presence in the country and for consolidating the new political system. Mr. Obama will receive this framework from the president and the Iraqi government he has spent the last two years campaigning against. Though we don't expect him to say so, Mr. Obama is fortunate that he was wrong, both about the surge and about the capacity of Iraq's leaders.

It can be safely admitted now.  Post editors concede that Obama was dead wrong about the surge, and wrong about Iraq's leaders.  But what was abysmally poor judgment during the campaign is good fortune now that the election is over.  The media propped this guy up all through the campaign, and apparently they're not done yet.  I'll boldly predict that among Obama's first presidential accomplishments will be the victory in Iraq that eluded President bush for the last five years.  That is, if the President-elect can just keep from screwing it up.  

Not to worry.  No matter what happens the press will compose history's first draft, of this historic administration, with Barack Obama as the hero of the Iraq war.   Victory will be declared right after the inauguration. 

Setback for Franken

The Minnesota canvassing board ruled not to accept rejected absentee ballots in the recount between GOP incumbent U.S. Senator Norm Coleman and the former Air America talk show host, Al Franken. 

Coleman is currently leading the recount by a narrow margin. This request to the board was considered a last-ditch effort by the Franken campaign to gain more ballots. Roughly 12,000 absentee ballots were rejected in Minnesota.

In the interim, both campaigns may increase the number of "challenged" ballots to try to put more votes in their column. Legal challenges are also expected by whoever loses the race after the final results are announced.

The headline calls this a "A Crippling Blow for the Franken Campaign" but with the legal challenges that are expected it won't be over until a judge makes a ruling.

Gates will stay

If he is asked, Bush administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will stay on as the Obama administration Secretary of Defense, according to the Washington Times.  The Times also reported that Obama has made the decision to ask.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to remain at his post if asked by President-elect Barack Obama, sources close to the defense chief told The Washington Times.

Mr. Obama has also settled on the Republican defense secretary as his choice for the post, the Associated Press reported.

Mr. Gates has won bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill for the reduction of violence in Iraq and for his overall management of the Pentagon.

He would be in a position to help lead a smooth transition between administrations at a time when the United States is preparing to withdraw forces from Iraq and send additional troops to battle a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

His selection would also allow the incoming president to concentrate on the financial crisis without having to worry about upheaval at the Pentagon.

Mr. Obama reportedly made the decision to ask Mr. Gates to stay for at least the first year. The announcement was expected after the Thanksgiving holiday.

"It's a done deal," ABC reported Tuesday, citing a source close to the decision-making process.

WSJ: Summers is not a terrible choice

In the view of the Wall StreetJournal, President-elect Obama's choice of former Harvard President Larwrence Summers to head the National Economic Council at the White House was not terrible .  He understands that exorbitant taxes have a way of choking off growth, although he seems comfortable with near-exorbitant rates.  He also understands the root of our current economic mess.

This summer, as Fan and Fred melted down, he explained what went wrong:

"The illusion that the companies were doing virtuous work made it impossible to build a political case for serious regulation. When there were social failures the companies always blamed their need to perform for the shareholders. When there were business failures it was always the result of their social obligations. Government budget discipline was not appropriate because it was always emphasized that they were 'private companies.' But market discipline was nearly nonexistent given the general perception -- now validated -- that their debt was government backed. Little wonder with gains privatized and losses socialized that the enterprises have gambled their way into financial catastrophe."

It's heartening to see that Mr. Summers has managed to recover and prosper after the raging fems ran him out of Cambridge.  And it's encouraging to see that Obama seems to favor knowledge and experience over political correctitude in the measure of an economic adviser.

Wishful thinking

British income tax rates may be about to go through the roof. 

As widely predicted, Alistair Darling introduced a new top level of tax, which will be imposed on people earning over £150,000 a year. They will pay 45p in the pound, up from 40p, from April 2011.

Less anticipated though was the clawback of the personal allowance for higher earners, which will see some taxpayers effectively paying paying 60p in the £1, according to leading accountants. These changes will not just affect the 1pc of taxpayers earning more than £150,000 a year. It will potentially affect 650,000 people earning more than £100,000 a year. To further rub salt into the wound these higher earners will also pay an additional 1pc in National Insurance costs, giving an effective taxation rate of 61pc - a rate not seen since the late 1980s.

[...]

It is estimated that about 400,000 people will have to pay the new supertax, which should raise £2bn for the Treasury.

I hope that's a modest revenue estimate, since those 400,000 people will have other ideas, as indicated in the article.

"Those in this income bracket tend to plan their tax affairs more thoroughly, so they will be exploring ways to legitimately mitigate these higher charges."

Should this British tax boost go through, I don't suppose any of our Democratic leadership will notice that it won't do as much good on the revenue side as it harms the British economy.  Watch the high income Brits start moving to Ireland.

Maliki puts it on the line

Sami Moubayed, Forward Magazine editor-in-chief and Syrian political analyst, describes a last minute parliamentary scramble over the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the U.S.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, originally unenthusiastic about the agreement, now says he will resign if it is not ratified, and he wants it to pass by a convincing parliamentary majority.   A narrow victory, he fears, will deepen political divisions among Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis.

Iraq was given the right to say "no" to the Americans if they wanted to launch a war from its territory on neighboring countries. It was previously feared, by the Iranians and their Iraqi proxies, that the agreement would be used to legitimize the use of Iraqi territory to launch a war on Iran. Now that Iran is assured, Iraqi Shi'ites of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) can approve such an agreement. Not only is the UIA now lobbying for the SOFA - to please the Americans who helped bring it to power during the last parliamentary elections - Maliki also is threatening to resign if the agreement does not pass on Wednesday.

It will be fascinating to see how all this goes down with the Iraqi people, and for that matter, with the rest of the Arab world.  Mr. Moubayed sees the deepening divisions arising in the debate, but I suspect unity will win out in the end, and it will win out in a big way.  The debate has not been conducted in secret.

Watching the weekend debate, which was broadcast live on Iraqi TV, one gets a feeling of how polarized Iraqis have become. The 44 members of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the 30 members of the Sadrist bloc, 11 members of a small Sunni bloc the Iraqi Dialogue Front, and the 15 members of the Fadila Party, are all likely to vote negatively, if a deal is not struck in advance with the prime minister.

Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis are all into hard bargaining for the political power that can be secured in exchange for supporting the agreement.  The Iraqi people, and perhaps the rest of the Arab world, are watching as Arab democracy plays out on TV.  It's hard to imagine this having anything but a lasting impact.  It's huge.

Taheri predicts passage

Amir Taheri predicts that the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the U.S. will pass the Iraqi Parliament with more than a two-thirds majority.

With the SOFA so obviously popular in Iraq, Tehran has softened its opposition to it these last few days. Most Iraqi observers now expect SOFA to pass with more than a two-thirds majority.

The agreement opens the door for officially ending Iraq's dispute with the United Nations, which started with Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Iraq would be released from UN sanctions, regaining its full sovereignty.

It also gives Iraq three years during which it will hold two crucial sets of elections. Local government elections, to be held on Jan. 31, will allow a new post-Saddam generation of leaders to secure a popular mandate. Parliamentary elections, to be held in 2010, should foster the emergence of proper parties competing through political programs rather than sectarian lists of candidates.

Beginning in January, SOFA gives Iraq three years in which to complete building its new democratic army. By mid-2009, the new army should have replaced all foreign troops in urban areas while the remaining four of the 18 provinces come under Iraqi government control.

The pact will deny America's various enemies - from al Qaeda to the Khomeinist regime - an opportunity to claim that they forced the Americans out of Iraq. It also will enable America to consolidate its victory in Iraq by ensuring that the democratic institutions created since 2003 are safeguarded in new elections.

The US had two key objectives in Iraq:

* To dismantle what was left of Saddam Hussein's war machine, ensuring that it wasn't rebuilt and used against Iraq's neighbors or other nations.

* To restore to the people of Iraq the power that had been confiscated from them by the Ba'athist dictatorship.

Both have been achieved, ensuring a clear US victory - although many in Washington seem to believe that it would be impolite or impolitic to admit that. It is one of those ironies of history that Barack Obama, who opposed toppling Saddam Hussein, now inherits this victory.

America also benefits from the fact that, by signing SOFA, it shows that it isn't a fickle friend - that its commitment to allies isn't cast aside as a result of a change at the White House.

I think Taheri is overly generous to the incoming Oval Office Occupant.  Obama would be quite content to cast our Iraqi allies aside, but he's been boxed in, first by the victorious surge troops, and now by the S.O.F.A.  It will gall the Democrats mightily to know George Bush has achieved what he set out to do.  It should be entertaining to watch the ways in which their denial manifests itself. 

Waxman

The ascendancy of Henry Waxman over John Dingell as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee could have unfortunate consequences for business and the economy. 

Like George Miller, Barney Frank and the other liberals produced by Vietnam and Watergate, Mr. Waxman belongs to a cohort whose power has been checked -- one way or the other -- by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton's New Democrat tendencies, the Republican sweep of 1994 and George W. Bush. Now with a new Democratic President and a crisis to use as a lever for a sweeping expansion of government, they aren't about to let an old warhorse with scruples about the costs of regulation interfere with their moment to govern.

We should add that Mr. Dingell is hardly some business apologist. At Energy and Commerce in the 1980s and early 1990s, Mr. Dingell would burn the paint off the committee room walls with his interrogations of energy, insurance and drug company executives. The irony is that Democrats have found, in Mr. Waxman, an even more extreme antibusiness tribune, who will no doubt use his new powers to go after any concern that turns a profit but refuses to pay his party the obeisance of campaign cash and regulatory submission. In short, the Democrats have ousted the dean of the House for the spleen of the House.

I have always been impressed by Waxman's incredible partisanship.  We can be certain his chairmanship's new powers will be wielded for the benefit his party.

Home sales

Maybe we've hit bottom.

For the Boston area, which includes Cambridge and Quincy as well as New Hampshire, the median home sale price in the third quarter saw a 10 percent decline — to $373,400 from $414,700 in the third quarter last year. Compared with the second quarter, however, prices increased by roughly 2 percent. The median sales price in the second quarater was $366,100. The median price is where half of the homes sold for more and half sold for less.

My emphasis above.