Can't take it anymore, gotta blog

A fascinating piece of garbage from Leonhardt. But what else would you expect form a mathematician?

Wow, I've been wonderfully lazy with posting. A rare bout of apathy it seems. This must be because Iraq has been dominating the political scene. Not that I don't care, but when speaking foreign policy, few people actually rely on hard numbers. Most decisions are arrived at by carefully considering selective and incomplete versions of past history. Real statistical evidence is hard to come by, mostly because each event is so infinitely differentiable in character, it is difficult to compare individual aspects ceteris paribus. End result: I say one or two things about the marginal utility of troops and then I get bored.

Great quote from Mike Huckabee showing how supremely unqualified he is:

"We need to understand that this is, in fact, World War III. Unlike any other world war we've ever fought, this one is one we cannot afford to lose."

Yes, we would have been just fine with a Nazi Europe. I saw him on Meet the Press the other week. He was such an equivocator (more so than most other politicians) that it was painful.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/76338.html

It looks like the Brits are having a debate over whether they should replace their Trident nuclear missile system or not. I say, for their own sake, just decomission the bastard and don't replace it. If any of them are actually concerned about security, they know they've got more than a few at their disposal across the Atlantic. Furthermore, this sends a positive message to any would-be nuclear states, and eliminates a not-so-small point of hypocrisy in the British non-proliferation stance.

The real question here is whether this move could offer a credible incentive to another country to stay straight on nuclear weapons, a la the Missouri Compromise. I don't know that this measurably helps any other states, but hey, diplomacy doesn't always have to make sense.

From the New York Times:

“They start from completely different places,” said Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator who worked for Mr. Baker years ago and left the State Department early in the Bush administration. “Baker approaches everything with a negotiator’s mindset. That doesn’t mean every negotiation leads to a deal, but you engage your adversaries and use your leverage to change their behavior. This administration has never had a negotiator’s mind-set. It divides the world into friends and foes, and the foes are incorrigible and not redeemable. There has been more of an instinct toward regime change than to changing regime behavior.”

This quote and the Iraq Study Group Report taken as a whole highlight some very important facts regarding the administration's current foreign policy.

Refusing to negotiate with a nation simply because we are at odds with them or in order to leverage a concession out of them does not work. It only serves to isolate the country further, reducing the chance they they will eventually come around. This kind of black and white thinking does not lead to efficient policy outcomes. The dynamic produced by this faulty policy resembles that of a disfunctional relationship or a slip fault; tension builds and builds until it is let out in violent bursts. In almost all forms of policy, continuity is a good thing.

The Unites States can and must make concessions to other nations. There has been a subtle arrogance present in American foreign policy, and in fact, in the American psyche, that has brough out into the open during this administration. Politicians frequently, and with out the the appearance of thought, refer to our country as the greatest in the history of the world. The idea that there is a task that the Americans cannot finish or a foe we cannot defeat is considered blasphemous in most cirlces.

This country does have considerable military and economic power. However, our will to make sacrifice for the global good is rather limited. A report by Joseph Stiglitz, cited in the ISGR, predicted that the total cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion. If you work it out, this means each American will spend about 3% of their income on the Iraq war over an expected 5 years. However, given that the supposed benefits of this war would extend over a period more like 15-20 years, this number could equally be 1%. People spend 1% of their income on things like cable! Meanwhile, the human cost has been limited to a tiny fraction of the populace and their families.

At the same time, we are unwilling to make even miniscule concessions to certain nations we consider our enemies. It is thought that this would be a sign of weakness. Furthermore, if we are negotiating with our enemies, there is the danger that they could use "improper" techniques to leverage us, such as the acquision of nuclear technology. However, these things are on the table whether we are at the table or not. Closing our eyes does not make them go away.

Our foreign policy is hopelessly obsessed with very long term equilibrium variables such as strength and resolve. We are afraid to pull out Iraq for fear of it making us look weak or easily swayed; however, the damage has already been done. We already do look weaker. Being stubborn only proves that we are easily bogged down. Perhaps our purported strength was more valuable as a deterrent than as an actual physical tool.

Seeing Baker and Hamilton testify before the Senate was a blast of fresh air. We must see a return of the realists or else we are through.

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Massachusettes v. EPA, a global warming case. A group of states including Massachusettes and New York are suing the EPA for failing to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, owing to the fact that CO2, through a series of physical proceses, causes atmospheric and oceanic warming, higher ocean water levels, and land loss to the states. They say the EPA's interpretation of the standard giving it authority to regulate is impermissibly inconsistent because other compounds such as methane and certain sulfur compounds are classified as air pollutants, while CO2 is not.

The basic argument of the EPA is that the harm is not caused in the air, but elsewhere. Or perhaps, more to the point, that global warming itself is not literally an "air pollution agent." Scalia retorted that sulfer compounds responsible for acid rain would then fail the same test. However, it seems that there was separate legislation under the Clean Air Act that addressed sulfur. My thought on this is that it at least sheds light on the thinking of congress at the time, that something in the air that indirectly causes harm can still be regulated.

Here's the transcript, it's worth a read:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-1120.pdf

MR. MILKEY (to Scalia): Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

This is certainly not an example of an obvious case. I'm not going to try and impinge the integrity of any of the justices or say that they have any particular slant in this case, as they all acted in a very principled manner. In fact, whenever I read SC breifs, I always come out very impressed with Scalia's performance (and humor), in spite of what many of my compatriots might say about him.

This issue may ultimately be moot as we have a Democratic congress coming in soon that seems intent on enacting climate change legislation. In fact, this case is really only refereeing the greater political battle going on over climate change. It deals largely with questions of standing, authority, and administrative minutae.

More later on whether I support cap-n-trade or carbon tax.

A note about US troop deployment. Currently, there are 145,000 US troops deployed in Iraq. Troops levels in Afghanistan seem to be at around 40,000. That is 32,000 NATO troops, of which 12,000 are US, and 8,000 US troops under US command. Iraq and Afghanistan also happen to have similar population sizes at around 29 million.

At first glance, it seems that to achieve an efficient allocation of troops, the marginal utility of moving a troop between the two nations should be zero, that is, the marginal utilities of adding a troop to either one should be equal. This analysis would seem to imply a redeployment in Iraq, to a more defensive position, coupled with the transfer of, say, 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

However, one must account for risk-aversion in national priorities. If we try to divide our forces between two nations, there is a not small probability that we will fail in both. If we focus only on one, then the probability of double failure drops dramatically. I'd imagine many people would prefer one sure thing to a double failure, especially as the situation in Iraq looks increasingly hopeless, while the situation in Afghanistan, though slipping, is within our capability to repair. This logic could justify an even larger troop tranfer.

Barring a large increase NATO troops levels, this could be the last best choice.

My prediction, and this might be clouded by my preferred outcome:

House: Dems take control. This is kind of a no brainer. I'm not sure by how much, it doesn't really matter.

Senate: We go 50-50. Dems pick up Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia. Republicans hold Rhode Island and Tennessee. The result, King Chaffee.

As the only Republican to vote agains the Iraq war, Chaffee seems like a good independent man. See The Washington Note for lots of info on him. I predict he may even go true Independent once elected. Though, had he done it before the election, he would have been a shoe in. I guess he made the wrong call early on.

I saw Barak Obama speak at a Deval Patrick rally here in Boston the other day. I must say, he's a very charismatic man. He knows how to work, nay milk, a crowd. This rally was mostly young people, and knowing that, he touched upon issues important to us. He worked in his book, The Audacity of Hope, talking about how difficult it is to go into civics, given how easy it is to concentrate only on your own happiness. Much like entrepreneurship, the risk and job insecurity drives most people away. He also discussed energy dependence and the importance of alternative and renewable energy sources. I'm guessing he has picked up on Tom Freidman's hankering for a presidential call-to-arms on renewable energy and deemed it a good idea.

As for an '08 run, I say he could do it. Presidential politics in this country is a strange but simplistic game. He's got the charisma. If he can fend of accusations of being inexperienced, then he should be golden. I think people want a black president and are ready to vote accordingly. Some say his brief congressional record could be a boon. I would say it is at best neutral.

Also, I saw mentioned a theory on a Democratic takeover of Congress. It goes that, if given control, they probably wont make Iraq too much better. They will certainly get the troops out of harms way, but as for what will happen to the Iraqi state and people, it's anyone's guess. The big downside though, is that they will end up having to share responsibility for what happens in Iraq until the '08 election. I doubt this is a good reason for Republicans to actively try to lose Congress, but it is certainly a reason not to be dissapointed if it happens.

Full Steam Ahead. I love that new slogan. It's so idiotically brilliant, I can't take it.