A New High (Or Should That Be Low?) In Government Incompetence?

One of the central tasks of government in the 21st century is to arrange for a stable and secure circulation of money. This is true of every government in every country in the world - except Scotland, which curiously has no government-sanctioned paper banknotes, only notes issued by seven retail banks. If the perception arises that the government can't issue money in a competent, trustworthy fashion, people will have to take refuge in other items of value. Fortunately, such a collapse of a nation's currency only happens in countries like Zimbabwe, where hyper-inflation has completely destabilized the Zimbabwe Dollar, which is now no longer issued at all. Most other countries, especially those in the West, are still to be trusted to supply secure money.

One of the few powers explicitly handed to the American Federal Government by the Constitution is "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" (Article 1, section 8, paragraph 5). So what should we make of the following news?

"Because of a problem with the presses, the federal government has shut down production of its flashy new $100 bills, and has quarantined more than 1 billion of them -- more than 10 percent of all existing U.S. cash -- in a vault in Fort Worth, Texas."

This is incompetence of a degree rarely seen at this high, powerful level of government. In order to make banknotes safer, it has made them so safe that they cannot be circulated at all. And this at the grand, total cost of $120 million and with all the notes together representing a value of $110 billion.

And this ought to have consequences for the American Fed's second attempt at quantitative easing (QE2). Quantative easing involves pumping money into the economy to lower long-term interest rates, usually by buying debt, an analogue to printing money. But this failure to actually print that money should give us pause at the Fed's or the government's ability to accomplish their goal. Unless this is a deliberate mistake to undermine trust in the value of the dollar, thereby stimulating inflation and perhaps lowering interest rates. But I'm not knowledgeable of economics to know whether this would work or not. What I am sure of is that Barack Obama is not nearly clever and dastardly enough to pull of such a Nixonian deception. So it seems that this money printing debacle is just incompetence, plain and simple.

Espionage, Not Whistleblowing

I haven't blogged in the last week due to real life stuff that needed to be done and in the course of that week I decided to let the whole Wikileaks mania pass by without comment. I didn't really see the big deal about learning that Silvio Berlusconi is a womanizer and that Nicolas Sarkozy is an arrogant, aspiring Napoleon and that Vladimir (Batman) Putin is the real overlord of mafia-invested Russia and not Dmitry (Robin) Medvedev. Not really worthy of shouty headlines, we knew it all already.

But today, the new Aussie messiah of the internet-age, Julian Assange, from his hideout somewhere in the English home counties, has fired a broadside at the United States that defies silence. By releasing documents detailing facilities "vital to US security" he has crossed from part-time whistleblower to freelance espionage. What good does it do the free world to know that the US and Western Europe rely on a pipeline junction in Siberia for most of their natural gas and that critical Trans-Atlantic communications cables come ashore (Dutch language alert) in Katwijk and Beverwijk? Are we less free for not knowing all this?

By revealing these things, Mr. Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks crew are in fact making us less free by handing knowledge of how to threaten us to people who will gladly use that knowledge for their own nefarious purposes. If terrorists manage to strike at that pipeline junction or at facilities that make desperately-needed vaccines for typhoid or rabies, or - God forbid - get their hands on smallpox samples being used in a lab in Denmark, they can easily hold the free world at ransom or simply destroy things for destructions sake. And this does not just concern Islamic terrorists, but also anarchists in Western Europe and nationalist or communist radicals in Russia. In a dangerous world like ours, ignorance - and I hate to say this as a truth-seeking historian - sometimes truly is bliss. We sometimes need secret keepers to stand silent on the ramparts, aware of things that might terrify us and keep us awake at night.

Mr. Assange can now no longer hide behind the cover of whistleblowing. Releasing these latest cables would, in time of war, have been called aiding and abetting the enemy: a treasonable offence. Mr. Assange is in luck that he is not a US citizen, so he can hardly commit treason against that country, but he might well be charged with espionage, and he would do well to stay in hiding if he wants to remain free. Yet as far as I'm concerned, if he believes in the freedom and the importance of the word, he would give himself up now and, if required, go to the United States to face the consequences of his actions. If a brave man speaks up for what he believes in, he does not cower in the shadows afterwards, but advances "to the muzzles of guns with / perfect nonchalance!"

Labour Big Beasts (and Me) Against Voting Reform

In May, Britons will be going to the poll in the first nationwide referendum for 36 years. No, not on anything to do with EU treaties, something all three main parties promised to hold referenda on at one point or another. Instead they will decide on whether to change the centuries-old First-Past-the-Post voting system to something called Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the first choice of any proponent of voting reform. Nick Clegg called it a 'miserable little compromise' and the referendum is the outcome of exactly that, a compromise hammered out to get the Lib Dems to support the Tories and thus get David Cameron into Downing Street.

That no one really wants AV is shown today by a number of Labour grandees emerging from Westminster Palace to join the no campaign, against the will of their leader Ed Milliband. Margaret Beckett, the former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the former Home Secretary, Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, now stand alongside Conservative heavyweights William Hague, the current Foreign Secretary and Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary in opposing reform. With Tory members of the Cabinet on this side, only the Lib Dems appear to be in full support of the measure. But we always knew they were such opportunists that even a 'miserable little compromise' will do.

I myself am opposed to voting reform. First Past the Post has worked perfectly well over the years and tends to result in a clear winner, something the British voter appreciates greatly. Even the five day long coalition negotiation after the last election was too long for many voters. So why would they wish to reform te system in a way that will favour smaller parties and thereby lead to a greater likelihood of coalitions and compromise among parties? The current system has also been adapted to suit the British voting landscape and the politically beneficial link between constituency and MP is best maintained by keeping it. And if the objection to First Past the Post is that it is not proportional than AV is not a solution - the votes of the minority will still not matter -, only Proportional Representation would be.

What worries me about today's articles by Ms. Beckett and Lord Reid is that they are decidely negative. Instead of arguing about what's good about First Past the Post, both former ministers have eyes but for what's bad about AV. I'm afraid that negative campaigning will have the effect of driving voters away. Being negative is never pretty and a positive message is always better appreciated. It may be good to start negative, because it is aggressive and let's one set the narrative, but sooner or later, voters will want to hear not why they should reject AV, but why they should retain First Past the Post.

The Gathering Storm on the Korean Peninsula

Today's shelling of a South Korean military base and surrounding civilian areas by North Korea can hardly have escaped anyone's notice. It is the last in a series of provocative actions by the communist Hermit Kingdom, which so far have consisted of cross-border exchanges of rifle fire and the torpedoeing of a South Korean naval vessel. In light of this, it is not unreasonable for the South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak to call for a stern - and possibly armed - response:

"Reckless attacks on South Korean civilians are not tolerable, especially when South Korea is providing North Korea with humanitarian aid," ... "As for such attacks on civilians, a response beyond the rule of engagement is necessary. Our military should show this through action rather than an administrative response" ... "Given that North Korea maintains an offensive posture, I think the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should unite and retaliate against (the North's) provocation with multiple-fold firepower," Lee said. "I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again."

Indeed, to attack a country's military infrastructure, not to mention the indiscriminate nature of the attack which did nothing to avoid civilian targets, is an act of war. Although in this case it is perhaps nothing more then a simple resumption of hostilities, since North and South Korea are still formally at war, the current situation being nothing more than a decades-long truce.

Nevertheless, South Korea should be aware that every response needs to be in line with the prescribed notions of just intentions, just conduct and proportionality under the just war theory. Furthermore, going to war with North Korea is not as easy as it should be considering the North's economic woes and the ongoing famine there. According to this Wikipedia article their armed forces consist of - if one includes reserves - almost 10 million men. Of course, North Korea also possesses at least a few nuclear weapons, which I don't doubt they will use as a last resort. And then there's China, which might or might not act in support of its erstwhile allies. All this should give South Korea pause and food for thought. Can they win a renewed armed conflict with their communist neighbours? If they, even for a second, believe the answer is no, then perhaps they should not start it in the first place. If, on the other hand, South Korea answers yes to this question, then today's attack is reason enough to go on the offensive. After all, given South Korea's overwhelming technological advantage, even the numerical imbalance between the sizes of the two armies should not be too insurmountable a problem.

As an aside, what does this potential conflict mean for Britain's decision to scrap its aircraft carriers? Con Coughlin writes the following in his Telegraph blog:

This morning’s deeply worrying eruption of hostilities between North and South Korea shows just how quickly conflicts can arise, and underlines the importance of having a carrier strike capability to respond to them.
Whenever Tony Blair was faced with an international crisis, his first question was invariably, “Where’s the carrier?” Gen Richards was himself a beneficiary of the protection afforded by carriers when he commanded the British military contingent that was sent by Mr Blair to intervene in Sierra Leone’s bloody civil war.
But if tensions on the Korean peninsula boiled over to the point where Mr Cameron felt obliged to intervene, he would find his military options were severely limited following what now looks increasingly like his reckless decision to scrap Ark Royal and her Harriers.

Indeed, in this case, an aircraft carrier in the area would have given Britain the choice of whether to put pressure on North Korea or, in the event of war, to at least back up South Korea. The presence of Britain and the United States in the area would also mean that China would have more to consider than its relations with South Korea and Japan should the Middle Kingdom intervene. It might even lead China to abandon the hepless North so as not to damage economic relations with the US, Britain, and through the latter, Europe. It is not to late for David Cameron to reconsider the scrapping of the carriers. HMS Ark Royals is still under sail and can be despatched to the Far East within days.

New Al-Qaeda Terror Tactics

Dutch weekly news magazine Elsevier reports (Dutch language alert) on its website that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is changing its strategy from large-scale terrorist attacks a la 9/11 or 7/7 to smaller strikes like last years failed underwear bomber and last months air-freight bombs. Al-Qaeda has realized - some years after the rest of the world caught on - that 9/11 attacks are rather difficult to pull off succesfully. These small attacks are cheaper and easier to plan so Al-Qaeda can, with equal resources, plot more attacks. And by the fundamental laws of probability a few of these attacks should succeed. It is almost impossible for Western security and intelligence services to stop each and everyone of them. Moreover, a succesfull small-scale attack will have disruptive effects disproportionate to its costs. A single bomb exploding in a western shopping centre, train, or airplane will lead to people adjusting their lives out of fear. After two or three, they will start avoiding crowded places all together. So for a fraction of the cost and effort of planning 9/11, Al-Qaeda will have caused more chaos and sowed more terror than on that September morning.

Like I said this strategy - called 'the strategy of death by a thousand cuts'  or 'Operation Internal Haemorrhage - is being implemented by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This subordinate affiliate of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is overtaking its parent organisation as the main perpetrator of terror attacks. With the disruption of Al Qaeda's activities by the military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the junior group is becoming the greatest threat to the Western world. It makes sense for Al-Qaeda - whose organisatory system is cell-based with each cell being independent of the others - for such a subordinate group to take over if the main (Afghan-based) group is compromised. The change of strategy by AQAP should be a signal for the West to rethink its own counter-strategy. While the War in Afghanistan should continue - and as I wrote yesterday even stepped up - Yemen should become a new front in the larger War on Terror. It is imperative that AQAP is not given the opportunity to implement its new strategy.

The first signs that this is a serious new threat are visible in Germany where reports about impending attacks have led security forces there to ramp of surveillance of train stations and airports. But other islamic terror threats remain. Security services are also warning of 'Mumbai-style' attacks, with heavily-armed gunmen storming a building looking to kill as many people in a surprise attack before security forces can react. Warnings about this have been given by German government officials (Dutch language alert) who hinted that the Reichstag may be the likely target. A similar plot is seen as imminent by British authorities, who have drawn up contingency plans in case the Houses of Parliament come under attack.

All this shows that, although it has been relatively quiet on the terror front in Europe and the United States recently, we can not rest easy, content that no attacks will take place and that islamic terrorism is being contained outside our borders. Like they say in second-rate thrillers and horror films just before someone gets killed: "it's a little too quiet". We may be in the calm before the storm and when it finally comes, that storm may rage more violent than before.

To Struggle in Afghanistan or Submit to Certain Defeat

As the leaders of the 28 NATO member states meet in Lisbon this weekend to discuss the future of the mission in Afghanistan, the real issue at stake is the credibility of NATO's - and the West's - commitment to the War on Terror, so grandly declared almost a decade ago. I know this might sound like a exaggeration, but by setting a fixed date for the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014, NATO is sending the signal to the terrorists that all they need to do to return to power in that country is to be patient. And that same signal will be heard the world over. The virtue of patience will be richly rewarded wherever terrorists hide. Just wait and the West will go away.

Fixed withdrawal dates are never a good idea, unless they are backed up by overwhelming forces in the time till then. If the objective of the invasion of Afghanistan was the removal from power of the Taliban, thereby denying Al Qaeda the support their main state-sponsor and the capture of Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al Qaeda members, then withdrawing in four years time only to have the Taliban return to Kabul will mean that the United States and NATO have suffered defeat at the hands of a rag-tag insurgency. No matter the way Washington spins it, no victory will have been achieved if this happens. The only way to achieve victory is by a troop surge reminiscent of the one in Iraq. But I doubt this will happen. Instead of sending more troops, countries are withdrawing already. They are tired of the seemingly unwinnable conflict. Naming 2014 as the deadline for troops to leave Afghanistan simply fits into this picture.

The BBC quotes a spokesman for President Karzai:

"A journey that has a clear sense of destination is a much easier journey than a journey into the unknown."

A fair sentiment indeed. Yet what is forgotten here is that the destination was known from the outset of the war, only the road to be taken was uncertain. The road now turns out to be harder than imagined and so the journey is being cut short before the true goal is reached. Per ardua ad astra (through hardship to the stars) used to be a noble sentiment but now it seems we will have aimed for the stars but fail to reach them. The hardship is apparently too much and the struggle is not worth it. So there won't be an increase in troop numbers and NATO submits to defeat in 2014 by setting a deadline now and this raises the question: why remain in Afghanistan at all if in four years time the West will leave whatever the state of the country? If victory matters not, David Cameron should follow the example of the Netherlands and withdraw tomorrow.

Yes! God! Yes! Trump for Prez!

Oh sweet Lord, I almost couldn't contain my excitement when I read this: Donald Trump might run for President of the United States in 2012 as a Republican!

"Would I rather be in the race or not be in the race? I can tell you, I love what I'm doing. I'm having a great time what I'm doing.  I'd rather not be in the race,” he said. “But it could be fun because I'd like to see some positive things happen for the country… I'm going to make a decision probably by June.”

What could be better than having The Donald versus The Sarahcuda in the primary, only for the winner to duke it out with The One in the election! It'll be a more awesome election season than 2008 - and it'll be a year-and-half long affair too, seeing as Palin has already as good as committed to running in 2012 and Trump will make his final decision in June 2011.

So what would Trump bring to the election? Well, for starters, he's a billionaire, so he can outspend all his opponents (unless Mike Bloomberg runs as well) in this election by a country mile. So that's 1-0 to The Donald! Second, he can say 'you're fired' every time he wins a primary or a debate, something nobody does with the same flair and panache. 2-0! Third, while most politicians are known for their somewhat lacklustre hairstyles, Trump tops 'em all with his unflappable helmet of hair (or is it a toupet? No wait, I didn't write that, don't sue me). And that's 3-0! Next, if elected, he could do a television show to select his cabinet, or why wait, maybe he could do a televised Vice-President competition. 4-0 ... this is starting to look like a cake-walk! Fifth, he'll rename the White House, The Trump House and clad it in gold, because one can never put too much gold on a building! Five - Nothing! Sixth, Trump'll be the first President to have stood in the WWE Wrestlemania ring! 6-0! Finally, he, unlike any other potential candidate, is truly a self-made man. You see, Trump almost went bankrupt in 1992 and worked himself back to the top again! That's 7-0 before the election has even started and I'm invoking the mercy rule! Game Over! Trump Wins!

The only way The Donald could still lose is if either Chuck Norris or Barney Stinson - or both, or is that too much to ask? - decides to throw his hat in the ring! Here's to hoping!