US Trade Deficit

US trade deficit surges to $40.18 billion in December! Remember when (late 1960's?) the trade deficit was $12 billion for the whole year(!), and the Fed was terribly concerned because the trade deficit was close to exceeding our gold reserve? Well, at least we don't need to be concerned now about our gold reserve....we ain't got none!

In my opinion I'd like to hear some discussions on Import Certificates as proposed by Warren Buffett. Also, in my opinion, an increasing trade deficit, other than being just plain negative global PR for the US and affecting (increasingly disaffecting?) world confidence in us, provides evidence of decreasing manufacturing production (oh, really?), but most importantly signals the increase of off-shore, extra-national, movement of our manufacturing base (and loss of good paying jobs--oh, really). Some say that as a percentage of our GNP the trade deficit is not problematical; that this percentage of our GNP is fairly in line with earlier years. Yeah, okay, that's an understandable statistic. But you tell me, isn't an over $800 billion (big B) trade deficit a problem? Make that a BIG problem!

US Trade Deficit

US trade deficit surges to $40.18 billion in December!

Remember when (late 1960's?) the trade deficit was $12 billion for the whole year(!), and the Fed was terribly concerned because the trade deficit was close to exceeding our gold reserve? Well, at least we don't need to be concerned now about our gold reserve....we ain't got none!

In my opinion I'd like to hear some discussions on Import Certificates as proposed by Warren Buffett. Also, in my opinion, an increasing trade deficit, other than being just plain negative global PR for the US and affecting (increasingly disaffecting?) world confidence in us, provides evidence of decreasing manufacturing production (oh, really?), but most importantly signals the increase of off-shore, extra-national, movement of our manufacturing base (and loss of good paying jobs--oh, really).

Some say that as a percentage of our GNP the trade deficit is not problematical; that this percentage of our GNP is fairly in line with earlier years. Yeah, okay, that's an understandable statistic. But you tell me, isn't an over $800 billion (big B) trade deficit a problem? Make that a BIG problem!

Catastrophy in Haiti

This is off the polity track but just had to get in to express my feelings on the matter.

There was an earthquake of huge dimensional impact on the little Caribbean country of Haiti this past Tuesday. Huge loss of life; country's viability on the brink. Yet, the scene that caught my attention and evoked such deep sadness--and reminded me too of just how tenuous life is; that life is hard; that life is not fair; and that life is wonderful if you are safe from harm, have ample nourishment, are financially successful to some modest degree; and, you never know when that life will be taken from you--was the school house that collapsed....... and killed all seven hundred (700!) school children within!! 700!! Oh my! My heart skipped a beat and tears welled up to fill my eyes....I could hardly breath. Even now while writing this I am overcome with an emotion of extreme sadness....and once again those tears of the deepest feeling of loss begin to file my eyes. Were I a younger healthy man.....I know just where I'd be this day.

President Obama speech Defense

The below article was a comment placed on Tom Ricks' blog, The Best Defense, which took Ricks to task for his misunderstood and unappreciative review of the President's speech. I can only hope I'd been able to respond as well as kunino.

Hard to believe Ricks saw the speech

by kunino on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 3:06pm

I suggest, Mr Ricks, you take another quick look at the Obama speech -- it's there at whitehouse.gov -- and withdraw your careless remark that "[i]t was addressed to those who, like him, really didn't want to send more troops to Afghanistan". The president was looking into the eyes of a hallful of young men and women in the nation's uniform, some of whom will be sent to Afghanistan in the next year or two. Such are the ambitions of young officer cadets, we can be satisfied that many in that hall were eager to get out their in the field in Afghanistan. Do you suggest the president didn't know that?

You don't seem to have taken the president seriously. Evidently, the cadets did. Although this part of the event wasn't televised, the president mingled post-speech with some of those cadets, and answered their questions.

What WAS missing from this particular presidential war speech was the recently familiar Bush-era prancing of bemedaled heads of the military services, men too old and too senior to go to war, leaping to their feet and applauding enthusiastically, and it was all the better for that.

I also challenge your remark that the president's speech "was an ode to ambivalence, an aria of ambiguity, a rasher of reluctance". In my view,it was a sensible account of what can reasonably be expected to achieve in Afghanistan. None of the smirking, vague Bush rhetoric. Whether you respect Obama or do not, you have to admit that he's no blowhard. Makes a nice change. And his pointing to the importance of the financial cost of war was an honorable part of the history of martial understanding that goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. The Bush line seems to have been spend to the last dollar, protect the rich from taxes needed to pay for this, and fight on the borrowed Chinese dime.

Afghanistan "War" Perspective

I hope that everyone has an opinion on our adventure in Afghanistan, but that it is an opinion based on factual knowledge, sound reasoning, and through a thoughtful process. Here is what I believe.

I'll call our adventure in Afghanistan a "conflict" for easy reference because I believe "wars" are between nations; neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are nations. In Afghanistan (and Pakistan) we are pursuing international criminals who have, and still are, committing crimes against humanity. We need to continue this conflict and enhance/increase our efforts toward the annihilation of Al Qaeda and the demise of the Taliban.

We, with our allies, must continue the pursuit of Al Qaeda-Taliban (AQ-T) until there is no longer an AQ-T or it is no longer a presence of consequence. If that requires us going into Pakistan to "acquire" AQ-T then so be it. Certainly, Pakistan's agreement and assistance in acquiring AQ-T is highly desirable--but not absolutely necessary; we must be rid of AQ-T.

How will we know when AQ-T is no longer a presence of consequence? Obviously there is no objective way to know this (a certain period of time without an incident is not absolute evidence of none or a reduced presence of AQ-T) but a strong subjective human intelligence of empirical evidence of demise or deminishment would or could lead to a positive assessment.

President Obama has laid out a strong plan, a firm enabling policy, to end our Afghanistan presence. This plan is essentially a continuance of President Bush's surge initiative but with the addition of a plan segment to increase Afghan security through the training of increased numbers military and police. When the Afghan are prepared to defend their country and protect the continuance of the Afghan government then we should, and must, leave.

Military Tribunals or Federal Court--Continued

I am just hung up on the rationale (such as it is) being used to decide the court in which to try terrorists. My thinking goes like this: A military tribunal should have jurisdiction over military people and their superiors or non-military entities who have allegedly committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. So, those who would be under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal would not actually be tried by the tribunal just because they are captured on the "battlefield" or are POW, they would have had to be charged with committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) holds that crimes against humanity can be tried by a military tribunal (The IMT used the category of crimes against humanity as the basis for convicting war criminals). The IMT defines the perpetrators of crimes against humanity as "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." Also, crimes against humanity, as opposed to war crimes, were also defined as criminal acts committed against a population at any time---during times of war, and during times of peace. Well, the perpetrators, including planners, of 9/11 certainly seem to fit in the category of crimes against humanity.

However, every so-called terrorist picked up on the "battlefield" does not warrant being tried as a war criminal or for crimes against humanity; association with a so-called militant entity or being a soldier for a sovereign nation at war does not a war criminal make--crimes must be shown to have actually been committed.

Definitions of war crimes (From US CODE: Title 18, para. 2441):

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

Military Tribunals or Federal Court

Act of War I am having trouble getting a good grip on this question: Who should have jurisdiction over perpetrators of violence against the United States, a Military Tribunal or a Federal Court? Perhaps a corollary question might be, what is an "Act of war?" I have no problem with a military tribunal having jurisdiction over the perpetrator of violence against the United States when the violence is an act of war. The crux then becomes, what is an "act of war?" And, must the U.S. actually declare war against the perpetrator(s) in order to try the perpetrator(s) in a military tribunal? So, if that be true, then if the violence is not determined to be an act of war it must just be a criminal act and hence be tried in a Federal Court. Now, if only Congress can pass a Declaration of War, does it also follow that it must be Congress who decides if the violence is or is not an "act of war?" In that, I believe so. So, just what constitutes an act of war? Was the bombing of the Murrah building (Oklahoma City) by an American citizen an act of war? I'd think not. It was an individual committing a criminal act--wasn't it? Was there ever any conjecture over it not being a criminal act? Don't think so. And of course McVeigh was tried in a Federal Court. But, was flying airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City, also by individuals, albeit not U.S. citizens, but individuals who were citizens(?) of a foreign country (They were Arabs but did not attack the U.S. under auspices of Saudi Arabia), a criminal act or an act of war? Now, they were associated with a cohesive group, a named entity not specifically identified with or representing any country. Can an individual(s) not acting under the auspices of an autonomous, sovereign country commit a bonafide "act of war" against a sovereign nation? Now, the bombing of Pearl Harbor most certainly was an act of war, Congress said so--it was a heinous act by one nation against another--and it led to a Declaration of War. So, say this, was 9/11 an act of war or just another criminal act; a heinous act of terror either way? Hmmm, did the U.S. declare "war" on Al Qaeda? Or just terrorists, or terrorism? Can you actually declare war on an individual or a group of individuals? Just how would you be able to tell a terrorist (or a "terrorism"?) from someone else? How can you tell the difference between one who is "in" Al Qaeda from some nondescript muslim (Arab) bricklayer? Or can we, as a nation, just dance along the yellow brick road making decisions this way, that way, as we feel the wont at any time? I think we should first qualify an act of violence as the first order of business. Is it an act of war or is it a criminal act? Let Congress pass judgement and the rest is easy. You then define, deleniate the parameters of the enemy and then go get him, it. Comments would be appreciated.