Greg R. Lawson's Blog 2008-07-04T00:38:52Z http://gregrlawson.com/atom.aspx Quick Blog America's Days Aren't Numbered tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-07-03:e5a5f227-5c42-457d-b391-f953793bb4dc Greg R Lawson 2008-07-03T10:02:40Z 2008-07-03T09:52:00Z this piece was a bit uplifting.  A historian criticizes the virtual flood of books on the market today regarding America's decline.

Obviously, as readers of my blog know, I tend to be concerned about declining and am consistently warning of multiple threats, both within and outside the country, to the future of America's prosperity.  However, there is no doubt, that notwithstanding all of the challenges present, America is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world and is still such even as other nations are enhancing their own well being.

This piece is great by referring to how early Roman writers engaged in declinist talk long before the Roman Empire truly faded.  By implication, the author intimates we likely have long to go before we must really worry.

I think there is some truth to this, but we must take responsibility.  The biggest threat we face is our own inability to cope with real threats by facing them and having the will to do what is needed to overcome them.  America can survive practically anything a terrorist could do and could also survive practically any conflict with any current power on earth.  However, if the will is not there in the hearts of the people, a pinprick is enough to topple everything.

We are not the declined power... yet.  We still have it within our grasp to prevent that narrative and prove the authors of the burgeoning "America is on the Wane" industry very wrong.  The decision is ours.  ]]> The 60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-07-03:fe4836a6-0d09-4a22-9835-5cf032074a7d Greg R Lawson 2008-07-03T09:39:36Z 2008-07-03T09:39:00Z in this article are true, it is well past time.  The 60s were a divisive time in this nation's history and while some truly great things happened, most notably civil rights legislation, the extremism of the left and its Marxist underpinnings poisoned a generation of academics.  Its no irony that the article itself refers to Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind.  That was an excellent work that highlighted the intense myopia encased in intellectual utopianism that was the curse of that entire era.

I believe in questioning.  That is the philosophical way towards understanding.  But the left turned something inherently non-dogmatic into its own dogmatism when ultimate relativism was embraced as the one true thing.  I do not believe the left ever escaped that paradox, nor did they escape the naive view of human perfectability.  They embraced a "social consciousness" and notion of "progress" that took us where? 

There are harsh realities that the left refuses to acknowledge under the misguided belief that tolerance is ipso facto good.  Simply put, it is not always good.  Certainly ruthless intolerance and racism (the very things the left wanted to combat) should be pushed back against.  Yet, what they never acknowledged is that there are some things that can't be tolerated for a cohesive society to remain intact.  In their efforts to emancipate man from all forms of bondage, both real and those imagined, they also, unwittingly sought to destroy the only bonds that keep communities together.  They sought to replace tradition, family, and faith with enlightened ideals that fail to connect to the spirit of man. 

For all of those failures in thinking they wrought, it is hopeful that we can return a bit more to tradition, family, and faith.  We needn't go into a timewarp and go back to days of intolerance, but we most assuredly need to jettison the dangerous delusions of a utopia that knows not the truth of man.]]> A User's Guide to the Century tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-07-02:f738d879-a003-4116-9b62-7cc992e88b69 Greg R Lawson 2008-07-02T15:21:40Z 2008-07-02T15:10:00Z this article in the new issue of the National Interest makes for good and elucidating reading.

The piece in a nutshell can be summed up by this section:

"Our world is characterized by three dominant patterns: rapid technological diffusion, which creates strong tendencies toward technological and economic convergence among major regions of the world; extensive environmental threats resulting from the unprecedented scale of global economic activity and population; and vast current inequalities of income and power, both between and within countries, resulting from highly diverse patterns of demography, regional endowments of natural resources, and vulnerabilities to natural and societal disruptions. These characteristics hold the possibilities of rapid and equalizing economic growth, but also of regional and global instability and conflict."

His suggestion at the end of the article that the US should establish a Department of "Sustainable Development" is an example of leftish thought, but he raises legitimate issues that are adding the already existing challenges nation-states have been facing throughout history.  Indeed, the proliferation of technology has been an amazing benefit for the entire planet, but with all of its promise, it also contains seeds of conflict. 

We should continue charity and appropriately targeted foreign aid, this is both ethical and, when done right, strategically useful.  However, despite the real problems Sachs points out, we also need to retain the hard edge.   Convergence has happened in the past only to be blown apart by the unforseen.  Maybe one of Sachs' bogeys will be the cause of such an event, maybe it will be something else, and maybe, we just might get lucky and really have moved to a new level of human progress.  I for one am not holding my breath.]]> Medvedev Sweet Talks the EU tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-07-01:c34cc27f-4b24-4bec-8d21-4526d08ea4f9 Greg R Lawson 2008-07-01T09:42:17Z 2008-07-01T09:32:00Z as this article mentions, Medvedev appears to be far less bellicose and, as it relates to EU-American relations, may be shrewder than Putin.

While Putin's harsh rhetoric helped Russia puff out its chest and begin to feel a pride that it had previously lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such talk is not as needed now that Russia is swimming in oil and has all the diplomatic leverage that bestows upon them.  Now, it seems Medvedev is seeking to drive subtle, yet detectable wedged between the Europeans and America by not only continuing the criticism of missle defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, but by slyly criticizing America's role in global economic woes.  He directly attacked the entire notion of a special "Atlanticism."  That notion of tran-Atlantic comity was the basis for the Cold War alliances between America and Europe including the creation of NATO. 

It would seem Medvedev will use gas and subtlety to coerce and seduce his interlocutors as opposed to simply attempting domination.  Perhaps, the marriage between him and Putin will be more fruitful than imagined.]]> The New Economic Cycle tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-07-01:0ec734cf-0dea-4940-8452-44fcde97bec7 Greg R Lawson 2008-07-01T09:04:14Z 2008-07-01T08:57:00Z This op-edspeculates that the beginning of a new economic cycle is upon us.  In the wake of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and multiple other challenges, often brought through the paradoxically beneficial and destructive force of globalization, state regulatory power can be expected to increase.  Already the EU is enhancing their mechanisms of regulatory oversight that will reach into other countries such as America and Japan.

What does all this mean?  Does it mean the end of the Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman era of relative free trade and deregulation?  The author thinks it does as he envisions this as the dawning of a new cycle of history (not too different from historical cycles as outlined by the op-ed I referred to earlier by Gary Hart).

The amazing thing about all of this is that globalization is so often scapegoated.  Yes, there have been excesses, excesses that need to wrung out, but to empower states to begin a process that will likely lead to overregulation and statism seems to be taking us the wrong direction.  It won't make us wealthier.  Whether it provides more stability is an open question, though, history seems to show that any interim stability achieved will force even larger dislocations in the future.  ]]> Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-30:67577907-82d8-484e-a64b-00a2a7edef44 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-30T12:22:44Z 2008-06-30T12:12:00Z laments in the Wall Street Journal that the recent deal between the Bush Administration and North Korea is a sad state of affairs.  He criticizes the declarations made by North Korea and points out that the documents turned over are themselves contaminated with trace amounts of uranium.

Bolton ends by saying:

"The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse."

Coming from a former high ranking State Department official who served as the Administration's UN Ambassador, this is striking in tone.

I usually agree more with Mr. Bolton than I disagree, however, I do not see good choices at the moment.  Absent regime change (which would open a gigantic can of worms on the Korean peninsula), I don't know that we can do too much.  Yes, this agreement is probably more about saving face than anything that has the real likelihood of being tangible long-term, but, absent the military option, we can't do much more squeezing than we already did.

A military strike on North Korea may, in time, prove to be the only policy we can use to be certain their capacities are destroyed.  I think this is likely the only "permanent" solution.  However, until no options remain on the table and the threat itself moves from latent to actual, this is not the solution we can afford.

We do not have flexibility at the moment and it is that lack of flexibility that is putting us in a policy straitjacket.]]> Thinking the Unthinkable- a Nuclear Free World? tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-30:13869d53-4815-4b59-807b-87b73f88498e Greg R Lawson 2008-06-30T12:04:24Z 2008-06-30T11:43:00Z This New York Times piece describes the new movement afoot by the deans of the foreign policy establishment to seek a world without nuclear wepaons.  Some of these figures are pushing hard through a campaign of op-eds to major media outlets to get America to reduce (and eventually completely relinquish nuclear weapons) as was always the eventual goal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Some of these names are a far cry from starry eyed liberals, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn.  None of them are naive.

However, while this remains a laudable goal, readers of my blog know of my intense skepticism related to this issue.  It may (and may must be emphasized) be possible that if America gives up on weapons and so do the other major powers currently in possession of stockpiles, other nations may not move in that direction.  It may be possible to convince other nations through our actions that they don't need to spend precious resources looking to bulk up on the deadliest weaponry developed by man.  However, to this day and despite all efforts to stigmatize nuclear weapons, they remain a source of prestige and regional leverage (and in some cases such as  Russia, America, and to a much lesser extent, China, global leverage).

Even if people don't actually plan to use them, they offer psychological benefits to nations in tough neighborhoods like Israel, Pakistan, and, yes, Iran.  Security assurances in lieu of "real" components of deterrence just don't seem as solid to those who must legitimately worry about significant military threats as close as their next door neighbor.  This is why, despite the hopes for a nuclear free world, it just doesn't seem plausible. 

Who is going to take that first fateful step towards elimination as opposed to only reduction? 

I believe the best to be hoped for are global reductions that would limit the damage that could be inflicted and heighten the challenges for irresponsible actors to obtain them.  This combined with a more aggressive stance on deterrence may provide the type of flexibility necessary to reduce proliferation by raising the costs while reducing (though not eliminating) capacity.  It's not foolproof and it still leaves wide holes that those dedicated to ill will can take advantage of, but, we aren't living in a perfect world.  The best of the bad is not evil, sometimes, it is the only thing that can really be moral.

]]> Our Nation of Hand Wringing Hamlets tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-26:139ba7fd-a02a-48b4-bef2-13d758966973 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-26T11:03:11Z 2008-06-26T10:53:00Z This piece by Victor Davis Hanson, is entitled the "Can't Do Society."  With a name like that, it should come as no surprise that it is a heavy indictment of the society in which it is speaking, unfortunately, that society is ours.

Hanson rather bluntly asserts many (not all) Americans today are similar to little, vacilating Hamlets that, like Shakespeare's famous character, can't make up their mind.  In our case, its how to deal with energy: after all we could have drilled long ago in ANWR and off shore and helped alleviate current price pressures as well as started building new nuclear plants to shift from coal used for energy plants.  We didn't do it because we found excuses for inaction.

Today, nations like China and India don't find excuses, they simply do.  This is what Americans used to do themselves, but in our relative (and often absolute) comfort, we have forgotten how we used to do the very things that made us great.

Its a fairly searing, and, sadly, largely accurate assesment of where we are.  I hope that the younger generations now coming to power realize this and reembrace the "can doism" of the past. 

Hamlet may be a great figure of literature, but he should be no one's role model.]]> Coalition of the Ineffectual tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-26:bf25eb29-e1a2-4b68-9663-ae11db2a8b40 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-26T11:08:04Z 2008-06-26T10:41:00Z slams the coalition efforts to prevent the possible development of Iranian nuclear weapons.  I think most of his points are right on.  Contrary to what Obama and the Democrats say, President Bush has been extremely "multilateral" in dealing with Iran in his second term.  He has in most respects bent over backwards to work with the Europeans.  In the meantime, Iran makes clear through Ahmadinejad (and, even more worrisome, through the more intellectually astute Iranians like current Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani) that they will persist irrespective of the international community's desire.

I can't blame Iran, eventually developing nuclear weapons is in their strategic interest.  The point from our perspective is, it is clearly not in our interest for them to have it.  This is a fundamental divergence of views.  Meanwhile, all of our coalition partners, including Russia and China have their own, more pressing concerns with Iran (like developing their natural gas and oil fields), so they will issue countless "statements of concern."  I guess this qualifies as "engagement", but again, talking just to talk doesn't help.

I know Perle is known as a heavy hitting neocon, but how can any reasonable person disagree with the folowing?

"Art for art's sake is beautiful. Multilateralism for its own sake is not." ]]> North Korea- In the Axis of the "Not So Evil" tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-26:45a99f17-0dd3-498c-9c15-114c73774009 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-26T11:10:31Z 2008-06-26T10:31:00Z this op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that this policy is allowing us more access than we would have otherwise to information regarding what type of activities North Korea has been engaged in.

Also, on Friday, North Korea will blow up the cooling tower at their facility at Yongbyon.  This will look very nice for the cameras and seem to show that "diplomacy" within the context of the Six-Party talks is working.  However, there are reasons to be concerned about Bush's apparent downgrading of North Korea from its previosu position in the "Axis of Evil."

We still won't know about the North Korean uranium enrichment (most of what they are stopping deals with plutonium).  Also, while they are saying international inspectors will be given some access, we've been down that road before under President Clinton.  Consequently, this seems a lot like a PR stunt that may not have too much content.

I may be wrong, and, truth be told, given all of the other events in the world, we definitely won't (and can't presently even if we wanted to) engage in a coercive disarmament of North Korea, but this agreement doesn't seem like it will work for the long-term.  But, it may be the best we can get.  If the Kim jong-Il regime realizes the benefits of cooperation, maybe, just maybe, we can avoid a distinctly unpleasant altercation on the Korean peninsula.  If he once again yanks our chain, we will have done more than act in good faith... again.  This may give us the flexibility for a more robust policy in the future. 
]]> A New Historical Cycle? The Age of Obama and Why Conservatism Must Win For the Future tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-25:1f7f1096-0a4e-4568-b3cd-1438ba52409e Greg R Lawson 2008-06-25T11:27:41Z 2008-06-25T10:54:00Z Gary Hart, former Democratic candidate for President in 1984, is actually a rather good writer and this article is a perspective that I think is gaining currency.  I also think he may be right.  We are now ready for a liberal revival unlike any since the rise of FDR. 

As Hart asserts, 1932-1968 was the age of FDR and 1968-2008 is the Age of Reagan.  Now he claims the next three to four decades may be the Age of Obama, if Obama develops a comprehensive plan of reform which is now needed to combat too much time in conservative consolidation (at least by Hart's definition). 

I think America is close to attempting this and is well along the way choosing the wrong road, the Road to Serfdom as Hayek would maintain.  If Obama wins, Hayek loses and America will become a soft-Socialist state like those of Europe.  The Republican Party may have made many errors and may well deserve much of the recent public negativity, but it is still the bulwark against the real threats that are out there.  I think, sadly, we have few leaders able to articulate why Republicans are more right than wrong.  While McCain offers some needed corrections to the brand and may save the GOP from a complete apocalypse on Election Day, I believe the conservative movement is losing the war.  I believe the road to socialism is being travelled extensively by many. 

I also believe it will take something large and dangerous to wake us up to confront the new dangers of the world.  The dangers of intense global economic competition, WMD attacks facilitated through international proliferation black markets, the rise of possible peer military competitors like China, domestic entitlements programs that are unsustainable, and global climate change.  The new buzzwords are "engagement", "cooperation", and "reintroduction."  Unfortunately, this papers over some serious divergence of interests between us and others.  America is the only nation with the power to effectively compel certain states to remain "in line."  This may sound arrogant, but I defy anyone to tell me who else is prepared and/or capable.  If we do choose to become a self centered, government subsidized population that is deaf to the the truth of real danger, we will not be prepared to assume the leadership so many casually claim we must embrace.

The essence of conservatism is to be careful where we go, not to dive into the complete unknown with a willful blindness.  Conservatism does not mean no progress, it just means that we weigh our choices and realize tradition often has great wisdom, often greater than mere progress for progress sake. 

I fear the desire for equality of outcome and a superficial understanding of "peace" is the currency of the day and it if it wins, we will all eventually lose far more than we comprehend at this moment of transitory challenge.

Woe be unto us and to the world, for when the devils outside gnash their teeth, we may not be ready and will pay in copious amounts of blood for our naive embrace of empty "change."  We do need change, but it must be appropriately calibrated.  While I have used this quote before, it bears repeating.  So again from Henry Kissinger's magisterial dissertation, "A World Restored":

"But the attainment of peace is not as easy as the desire for it. Not for nothing is history associated with the figure of Nemesis, which defeats man by fulfilling his wishes in a different form or by answering his prayers too completely. Those ages which in retrospect seem most peaceful were least in search of peace. Those whose quest for it seems unending appear least able to achieve tranquillity. Whenever peace—conceived as the avoidance of war—has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. Whenever the international order has acknowledged that certain principles could not be compromised even for the sake of peace, stability based on an equilibrium of forces was at least conceivable."

What principles does Obama believe cannot be forsaken even for peace?  If no answer is there, then we have embraced emptiness for our change and if that is the what the new historical cycle represents, it the cycle of our inexorable decline, not our rejuvenation. 

]]> Revitalizing the Bush Doctrine? tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-24:3cb92e25-6275-4ef6-b1b2-c3790b968feb Greg R Lawson 2008-06-24T08:47:25Z 2008-06-24T08:13:00Z this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal seems to support, but it is interesting how current events in places like Zimbabwe (where thuggish leader Robert Mugabe is intimidating and killing opposition right before a run off election) and Burma are resuscitating the notion of western military intervention to get rid of regimes that destroy their own populations.  In other words, embracing the "Responsibility to Protect", which is a relatively new theory that conditions the supreme sovereignity of states that since the Westphalian state system emerged has been considered close to inviolable.

Note this section,

"International relations theorists, including prominent Obama adviser Susan Rice, justify these sorts of interventions under the rubric of a "Responsibility to Protect" – a concept that comes oddly close to Kipling's White Man's Burden. So close, in fact, that its inherent paternalism has hitherto inhibited many liberals from endorsing the kinds of interventions toward which they are now tip-toeing, thousands of deaths too late.

So let's by all means end the hand-wringing and embrace the responsibility to protect, wherever necessary and feasible. Let's spare the thousands of innocents, punish the wicked, oppose tyrants, and support democrats – both in places where it is now fashionable to do so (Burma) and in places where it is not (Iraq). If that turns out to be Mr. Obama's foreign policy, it will be a worthy one. It does come oddly close to the Bush Doctrine."

How strange would that be if a President Obama embraced the most significant concept of the now oft maligned "Cowboy from Texas?" 

At any rate, I have grown skeptical of our ability to do too much to change societies, at least within the a domestically politically palatable horizon.  The consequence of Iraq will likely continue to loom large and it may well be poor people like those in Zimbabwe who pay the price for years to come as the struggle to unshackle themselves from their own Saddam Husseins persist as Americans merely observe the news and shake their heads in despair.

]]> Russia to Send Arms to Afghanistan tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-24:06de4741-aac9-4f12-b489-55cf28a88612 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-24T08:11:35Z 2008-06-24T08:01:00Z least a little bit back.  It is interesting that the US is supporting Russian arms going into Afghanistan to oppose the resurgent Taliban and remnant elements of al-Qaeda.  However, in this article by a veteran diplomat from India, it is apparent the US is frustrated by the inability of NATO member nations to step up to the plate with appropriate manpower to reconsolidate control.

What is more interesting is what this all means for Russia as it slowly continues its reassertion of power and influence in its near abroad.  Not only is it challenging Georgia (over Abkhazia) and Ukraine over joining NATO, it continues to opppose US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and continues insinuating itself with Central Asian states.  According to the author, this is all part and parcel of their efforts to maintain influence in their neighborhood. 

As a sidebar related to diplomacy in general,  note this section referring to a prominent Russian commentator:

"We [Russia] and the Western countries have diametrically opposite definitions of success in our policy toward the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries. For Russia, success lies in strengthening of integration ties, rapprochement with its neighbors and a strengthening of cooperation. For the West, on the contrary, success means a distancing of these countries from Russia, a reorientation to external centers of power aimed at preventing 'a rebirth of the Russian empire'. When political goals are so diametrically opposed, it is impossible to speak of a common agenda."

What is striking in that statement is how it attacks in a fundamental way the notion that if we merely "engage" we can find solutions.  This may be true in certain circumstances, but clearly, when goals are "diametrically opposed", engagement can't paper over the differences.  For those like Senator Obama, this needs to be well understood.]]> Bismarck in the Kremlin tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-17:b484b33e-e266-4239-98d7-082862ee9b95 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-17T09:58:46Z 2008-06-17T09:56:00Z A solid piece from the Moscow Times on the struggle over foreign policy between the new Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.  It is not evident at this point in time where the most power lies and without doubt the old game of Kremlinology has returned and will continue for some time.]]> Nuclear Danger Grows as Oil Prices Increase tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-17:bc4c04dd-88bb-4002-9512-51ecc78fa88f Greg R Lawson 2008-06-17T09:51:25Z 2008-06-17T09:47:00Z This article from the Washington Times continues to make the case that nuclear proliferation is an ongoing and increasing threat.

Essentially, as oil and energy costs increase, more and more nations are looking at nuclear power to provide for those needs.  Clearly, there is nothing ipso facto wrong with a nation seeking nuclear power for domestic energy needs, America itself needs to continue to embrace this.  The problem is simply this, as the technology diffuses, the chances of it landing in the hands of a nation or non-state actor that is willing to use it increases exponentially.

]]> "Mission Doable": Israel Considering Striking Iran tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-17:6f878349-0aa5-4c99-9eeb-878576322363 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-17T09:45:08Z 2008-06-17T09:41:00Z According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Israel is coming to a consensus over the need to strike Iran, possibly soon, in order to forestall the development of nuclear weapons.  Given the existential danger Iran does represent for Israel, no one can be surprised of this possible action.

This is one of the thorniest problems in the world, the bottom line is this- as long as Iran appears to be moving towards possible weaponization and allows its President (even if he is only a figurehead) to engage in Nazi-like antisemitism, Israel may well have its hand forced irrespective of American desires for diplomacy.]]> Smugglers Passing Along Nuclear Secrets tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-16:e27bd583-568d-411c-b745-af2de19a8511 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-16T15:36:45Z 2008-06-16T15:29:00Z This story regarding Swiss smugglers who had advanced designs for small nuclear devices is sobering and reflects the virtual Wild West that is present in the world as it relates to this technology.  How will any non-proliferation regime really stop this?

Here is the scary part:

"An international smuggling ring that sold bomb-related parts to Libya, Iran and North Korea also managed to acquire blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon, according to a draft report by a former top UN arms inspector that suggests the plans could have been shared secretly with any number of countries or rogue groups.

The drawings, discovered in 2006 on computers owned by Swiss businessmen, included essential details for building a compact nuclear device that could be fitted on a type of ballistic missile used by Iran and more than a dozen developing countries, the report states...
 
These advanced nuclear weapons designs may have long ago been sold off to some of the most treacherous regimes in the world," Albright wrote in a draft report about the blueprint's discovery...

The A.Q. Khan smuggling ring was previously known to have provided Libya with design information for a nuclear bomb. But the blueprints found in 2006 are far more troubling, Albright said in his report. While Libya was given plans for an older and relatively unsophisticated weapon that was bulky and difficult to deliver, the newly discovered blueprints offered instructions for building a compact device, the report said. The lethality of such a bomb would be little enhanced, but its smaller size might allow for delivery by ballistic missile."

Again, the problem is that it is not just state based actors we have to worry about, but greedy businessmen looking to make money. 

]]> New Air Force Chief of Staff tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-16:47ef5e9b-da41-449b-a307-bc62edf22dc8 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-16T10:28:23Z 2008-06-16T10:23:00Z An interesting article by Max Boot on the newly appointed Air Force Chief of Staff.  Norton Schwart, a former cargo plane pilot and former deputy commander of Special Ops is the new Chief of Staff (after the previous one was fired by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for negligence in dealing with nuclear materials per recently published and high profile gaffes).

Boot says this is a distinctive cultural shift for the Air Force.  Here is how Boot puts it:

"Senior officers tend to favor the platforms they operated as junior officers. Bomber pilots like building more bombers, and fighter pilots like building more fighter aircraft. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but a good case can be made that the reign of the fighter jocks has led the Air Force to spend too much money on fighters at a time when they are growing less important. The Department of Defense is buying two expensive fighters — the F-22 and the F-35 — that were originally conceived for air-to-air combat even though the United States has not lost a single plane in traditional dogfighting since the Vietnam War....

With an officer whose background is in transportation and special operations chosen to head the entire Air Force, a cultural revolution is well under way. Fighter planes and their pilots will not loom as large in the future as they have in the recent past."

]]> Saudis to Increase Oil Output tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-16:7acb09e3-ae08-4cdf-9f75-715acfd39cc9 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-16T10:19:29Z 2008-06-16T10:15:00Z are looking to increase their capacity for producing oil by up to 500,000 barrels a day.  While not likely to push all the way out on capacity, increasing its potential is an overaoll positive.  However, there is concern that if Saudi Arabia increases its capacity, there may be cleavages within OPEC as many OPEC nations are more limited in their capacity to enhance production.

Obviously, anything that gets oil to the market is good. While is definitely time to look at alternatives (and this is happening more and more now due to market mechanisms), oil still is the lifeblood of the global economy and the American economy.  We should watch this closely.]]> The Irish Say No to European "Constitution" tag:gregrlawson.com,2008-06-16:eee89ce3-ccde-45ff-82c6-968849633e00 Greg R Lawson 2008-06-16T10:13:29Z 2008-06-16T10:09:00Z Ireland voted no to the treaty and sice every EU member must ratify it in order for it to come into effect, this means that negotiations will have to restart. 

While not completely devastating to the European integration project, this certainly is a step backwards and highlights the ongoing difficultes associated with achieving the European "Dream."]]>