As promised. Enjoy!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Shopping in Shanghai
Random things I want to remember, and musings about my research.
Shopping in Shanghai
-
▼
2006
(55)
-
▼
May
(23)
- The Pentagon wonders about China
- Friction in the Chinese Labour Market
- Greetings from Beijing!
- Off to China...
- Open Letter on Immigration
- Da Weaz on Bolivia
- Chopstick economics
- Open thread
- So much for starving the beast.
- Russia to increase military spending in response t...
- Sweden: An Economy With Safety Features, Sort of L...
- Scientific American: Does Globalization Help or Hu...
- Every Breath You Take
- Jeffrey D. Sachs: Lessons From the North
- As the reserve currency turns...
- Mish: Flipper Anomalies and a Flight from ARMs
- About time: China allows pension fund to invest ov...
- Myths and Realities of American Political Geography
- Serving the bottom of the pyramid in India
- A strong Gazprom is good for the world?
- Morales overplaying his hand?
- Good Ol' Japanese Know-how
- Benefits of trade coming to China's interior
-
▼
May
(23)
My favourite...
About Me
- Ami Ganguli
- Helsinki, Finland
73 comments:
Great Blog, Ami!
Thanks Lib! But really I'm still working to find the right balance of obscure economic topics (that I might actually know something about) and things that might interest you guys.
And soon this will become at least partially a travel blog, as I go on my summer adventure to China.
... Ami.
I hope you enjoy your trip to China! Sounds like a grand adventure.
Let us know if you notice any changes to the country. How free are the people to create their own businesses and determine their own future? As I understand it, their economic freedoms are getting closer to western countries.
I'm also interested in how many signs of US or European investment you see. How many Walmarts, KFC's, ESSO stations, etc. you notice. And how do the Chinese put their own spin on such operations?
But most important, Have Fun!
Brian: I'll report back on lots of economic topics.
The most intriguing thing I found on my last (and only) trip four years ago was the attitude towards Mao. Pretty much everything that Mao did has been reversed, except the dominance of the communist party itself.
Perhaps because of this need to preserve the party, Mao is still promoted as a great leader in China. I was never able to explore this properly when I was there before. Even here with my Chinese friends, I can't really get a proper feel for how they view him. His image is too much intertwined with Chinese patriotism.
I'll be there a lot longer this time and hopefully have time to build some real relationships with a broad cross-section of people. I hope I can get a better feel for the matter.
... Ami.
Ami, What are your thoughts on the US immegration policies? Especially as a liberal, how do you think the US can/should look towards immigrants? My wife said "We can't have high levels of immegration and welfare" How would you respond?
Stryker: I will be quite happy if the U.S. reduces the number of immigrants it accepts, since some of those people would then come to Canada and we need more. We've been trying to get our immigration number up to 1% percent of the population per year, but have been falling short.
While there may be immigrants who do poorly in the U.S. (I don't know the stats for your country) I suspect that most of them contribute much more to the economy than they take out.
Obviously you can't allow people to come to the country simply to collect welfare, but I doubt that's what's going on. If it is then that's a problem you really should address separately - it's a problem with your system, not with immigration per se.
Anyway, Canada has done very well by admitting large numbers of immigrants. Finland is struggling with the concept - they aren't really used to immigration, but I think that many are coming around to the idea that immigrants can contribute to the wealth of a country, both economically and culturally.
For an idea of the Canadian attitude towards immigrants, it's enlightening to check out our web sites:
Federal government: Choose Canada
Make a Smart Decision : Immigrate to New Brunswick, Canada
I find the New Brunswick site really funny. Most immigrants come to Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, so New Brunswick really wants to get in on the action, and they're into the hard sell.
... Ami.
Ami,
I tend to agree with you on the welfare part. I don't know about Canada, but I would think it would be cake to pull away immegrants from the US.
The issue I've seen isn't with the number of immegrants, or even assimilation, it is the illegality. I see that as the Governments' (plural for state as well as fed) problem. If they are going to make something illegal, they HAVE to enforce it (see Navigation Acts of late 1600's). I really Don't see massive numbers of Mexicans moving to NB, though.
-- now that's an ammusing thought.
Stryker: I understand you've got yourself in a difficult spot with the problem of illegal immigrants. But consider that this is something that developed over time due to poor policy choices. There was obviously great demand for labour, and a ready supply. Whenever you restrict something where there is both demand and supply you get a black market.
Cracking down on illegal immigration now after years of basically accepting the existence of a black market is going to cause problems for everybody. The immigrants are unhappy, the employers are unhappy. The only thing you gain is that, hopefully, your immigration laws are more credible in the future. Is there some other way to acheive this?
I can also comment a little on the "guest worker" idea: don't do it. If you want immigrants to be integrated productively into your society then you want them to imagine themselves spending the rest of their lives with you. That way they will make decisions based on this: getting an education, buying property, basically setting down roots. These roots are what will allow them to integrate successfully.
Unfortunately not many Mexicans come to Canada. I guess we need to do more marketing down there. I think it's hard for us to compete with the large hispanic community in the U.S. - it's just easier to move to a country where there's an existing population from your part of the world, and even friends and relatives to help you get settled.
I really love Mexican culture, so it's a pity.
... Ami.
Ami, There is also a country in the way (two if you're Texan ;-)).
You have a good point with the guest worker program and the black market.
AS for the employers, I've heard many stories of employers bailing out thier employees because it is cheaper/ better than using US labor. I certainly don't blame the employee for this. It just seems like we have to get a handle on what our policy is. You mentioned poor policy choices, I see a LACK of choices.
And how about you? You've left a country that is loking for immigrants to one that is unsure about them, and this summer you are going to a country that is has the largest polulation in the world. Do you like swimming up stream ;-)
have a good evening!
Stryker: Yeah, I like to do things a little backwards :-). I have this idea that I'd like to spend a few years in Asia at some point - perhaps after I graduate here.
But in the end I'll probably end up back in Canada. I love Finland, I enjoyed France, and I'm sure China will be great, but Canada is still home.
Good night!
... Ami.
Cracking down on illegal immigration now after years of basically accepting the existence of a black market is going to cause problems for everybody.
Isn't that the truth! The problem is, no matter what you do (and if you do nothing), you're going to upset a large number of people. There's just no getting around it.
The black market of labor wasn't created just in the US, however. Mexico, a country rich with natural resources and two large coastlines (making excellent vacation spots, from what I understand), shouldn't have a great deal of difficulty building a strong and vibrant economy to rival most nations, yet they haven't.
The ultimate solution would be to clean up the Mexican gov't and unleash opportunities in their country (but how do you create this outcome from across the border?). That would help to deflate the supply portion. With less incentive to jump the border, the costs of illegal labor would rise tremendously, to the point it wasn't worth it to employ illegals.
I heard the announcer on NPR (Daniel Shore?) this morning suggest that some people think that the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office "raises constitutional questions". Does anyone agree with that statement?
I'm especially interested in the opinion of those of you who tend to support the Democrats, like Lib or Indy Voter.
In my opinion, the suggestion that a congressman's office is off limits says that they are immune from criminal activity as long as it occurs in their office.
Sure, I agree that a Constitutional question is raised. Does the Executive have the right to investigate the Legislature? In this case, the Executive got authority to do so from the Judicial (i.e. there were warrants in this case), so I don't see a problem.
For those who cry foul, let's turn this around for a minute. Does the Legislature have the right to investigate the Executive? I'd say yes, given they get the authority from the Judicial (warrants, subpoenas, etc.). Neither branch has the authority to do so without the agreement of the third.
I don't see anything in the constitution that exempts congressmen from criminal investigation in any way.
This isn't a case of the President trying to usurp congressional powers. It's a strickly criminal matter. As you say, warrants were needed and obtained, but those warrants would be needed to search anyone else's home or office. Why should the fact that his office happened to be in the capitol building make anything different?
I'm trying to say there's the potential for abuse of this authority, but in this specific case, everything was done legally and certainly should be allowed if done in the same manner.
It's very interesting how the Constitution works when it comes to prosecuting crimes by elected officials. The President can't be tried for almost any crime while in office, while Congress can't be tried while the chamber is in session. As long as a lawful warrant was exercised outside of session, I don't see any way Rep Jefferson can avoid taking a fall for this.
Incidentally, Caroline finally responded on the "other" site.
I hadn't thought of the "inside session" argument, but I still don't think the intent of that applies. It's intent was to prevent blocking a congressman's lawful votes by arresting him.
I've asked Caroline to visit here. I hope she does. It always livens things up when she posts.
The "inside session" argument wouldn't have worked, anyway, because the raid was on a Saturday, and Congress is rarely in session on a Saturday.
Caroline's response was pretty typical. She said throw the book at Rep Jefferson, but also throw it at virtually all Repubs because of Mr Jack.
BH, I wrote this post about the Jefferson search Tuesday.
Incidentally, I don't "tend to support the Democrats" as you wrote. Historically I've voted for Republicans about 80% of the time when there were both R's and D's on the ballot. I am, however, thoroughly disgusted with the national Republican leadership - Bush in particular, but also the congressional leadership. That disgust applies to many of the Republicans' present policies, but also applies to their competence (esp. wrt Bush) and to their ethics.
Ami, when you get back from your vacation would it be possible to add the date to the time stamps printed for comments? On some of these longer threads it's sometimes time-consuming figuring out which comments have already been read and which haven't.
Thanks, and I hope you're enjoying your trip!
Hi IV,
Thanks for the pointer to your thoughts on this subject. I think your comments that "the Bush Administration has opened yet another constitutional can of worms" is a bit missleading. It's VERY unlikely that the FBI would notify the White House of ANY criminal investigation in progress unless it had a direct impact on national security. This was simply the FBI doing their job in the way they always do (IE: hear about a bad guy, investigate, set up a sting, get a warrant to gather evidence, turn it over to the DA for charges).
If this is the first time a congressman's office has been searched, it says less about the Bush Administration than it does about the corrupt congressman who's actions inspired the search.
And again, I don't see anything in the constitution that exempts congressmen from the same laws that apply to you and me. What constitutional protection was violated that opens a "can of worms"?
P.S. I know "Indy" stands for "Independent" but more often than not, you've tended to attack Bush and every other Republican and side with the Dems (at least in the short time I've been conversing with you). If being lumped with the Dems offends you, I won't do it again.
BH, that's an interesting thought about Jefferson, but he doesn't seem any different from Cunningham, or Ney, or Rostenkowski, or the guys who went down in the Tong Sun Park scandal, or, well, you get the idea. I was actually thinking that it reflected the Bush Administration's lack of respect for history (or tradition, if you prefer) to search a congresscritter's office when such a thing had never been done in 217 or so years. Certainly small potatoes when compared with ignoring the 4th Amendment, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it's just one more front where the Bush Administration has started an unnecessary fight (thus the title of the piece).
The FBI's stated rtionale for obtaining the search warrant seems pretty dubious, too. They claim they got it because Jefferson had refused to turn over certain subpoenaed documents. That bothers me somewhat. If Jefferson were withholding this information, i.e. defying a subpoena, then there were certainly other legal redresses available. In the short term, Jefferson could be cited for contempt of court and either be fined immediately or be jailed once Congress recesses. In the longer run an obstruction of justice charge could be added to the list of charges which will eventually filed against him.
Maybe there were other reasons the FBI felt they needed to search Jefferson's office, but I haven't heard them yet. I'd suspect that with Pfeiffer's cooperation, the $100K sting operation, and the search of Jefferson's home last summer the FBI already has more than enough to indict, and probably convict, Jefferson. This search, ending more than 2 centuries of tradition, has the feeling of being unnecessary as well as being somewhat gratuitous.
It's interesting reading the partisan blogs on this topic, btw. For once they're singing the same tune, although each side is furious with the leadership of its own party.
Changing topics, you're not the only righty who's become fixated on the idea that anyone who despises Bush must be a liberal or a Democrat. Unfortunately for Bush, he's loathed pretty much across the board. Harris, for instance, reported that even conservatives give Bush negative job approval numbers in at least its last two polls (the 29% one and the month before that). Republicans so far are staying in the bunker with George, with approval numbers in the 60's or 70's still depending on which poll you're reading, but their approval numbers have also dropped from the 90% region where they were a year or so ago.
Here's someone else who takes a similar view of this past Saturday's raid.
IV,
One of the problems I have with your piece and with the George Kenney piece and similar postings is that they imply that the president had something to do with this. There is no way that the president knew about this or should have known about it. The argument that this is a constitutional crises instigated by Bush is ridiculous. This was career law enforcement doing their job as they normally do.
As for the FBI attempting other means to obtain the desired evidence, frankly they did. That's what the subpoena was about. The other alternatives you suggested may have worked as well, but I assume there was a concern about Jefferson either moving or destroying evidence (he's rumored to have diverted National Guard resources from rescue operations in order to move evidence from his home in New Orleans). But ultimately, even if he were jailed for contempt, it would require a search warrant executed by law enforcement to get the "documents and other items" from his office.
I do understand the concern about opening the door to abuse and intimidation of congressmen. It would be a sad thing for a president to use such tactics to suppress the legitimate actions of congress. But like Richard said, they did follow due process and involved the judicial branch of the government in order to authorize the search. There was no intent to influence legislation here (except by Rep. Jefferson selling his votes).
IV,
One of the problems I have with your piece and with the George Kenney piece and similar postings is that they imply that the president had something to do with this. There is no way that the president knew about this or should have known about it. The argument that this is a constitutional crises instigated by Bush is ridiculous. This was career law enforcement doing their job as they normally do.
As for the FBI attempting other means to obtain the desired evidence, frankly they did. That's what the subpoena was about. The other alternatives you suggested may have worked as well, but I assume there was a concern about Jefferson either moving or destroying evidence (he's rumored to have diverted National Guard resources from rescue operations in order to move evidence from his home in New Orleans). But ultimately, even if he were jailed for contempt, it would require a search warrant executed by law enforcement to get the "documents and other items" from his office.
I do understand the concern about opening the door to abuse and intimidation of congressmen. It would be a sad thing for a president to use such tactics to suppress the legitimate actions of congress. But like Richard said, they did follow due process and involved the judicial branch of the government in order to authorize the search. There was no intent to influence legislation here (except by Rep. Jefferson selling his votes).
BH, I suppose the issue of what Bush himself knew and when he knew it is one where we'll have to disagree. I certainly can't say with certainty that Bush was aware of it or conversely that he wasn't aware of it.
However, I find suggestions that the first-ever search warrant executed on the official offices of a member of Congress was merely routine police work carried out by rank-and-file special agents of the FBI to be ludicrous. There were a great many agents involved in the raid, including a number who had no previous involvement in the case or knowledge of its particulars, so it's a very good bet that the FBI Director was personally involved in the decision to proceed. It wouldn't surprise me if the Director's boss, AG Gonzales, also was involved. And bioth the FBI Director and AG Gonzales qualify as senior members of the Bush Administration.
As to whether this was a deliberate assault on Congress' prerogatives and perquisites by the Bush Administration or just another poorly thought out action by the Bush Administration brain trust, I simply don't know. Past actions of the administration can be cited to support both conclusions.
I see that Bush has ordered the materials seized to be sealed for 45 days while the administration and Congress figure out what a proper legal - and political - resolution to this standoff can be worked out.
On a new topic, what does everyone think of Bush's appointment of Paulson to be the new Treasury Secretary? Is this a good change, bad change, or very little change?
My own feeling is that it is very little change. Paulson perhaps will have better public ralations skills than Snow, but I don't expect much to actually change in Treasury policies or procedures.
I wouldn't expect any policy changes, because the person setting policy isn't changing. It's always been Pres Bush, and it will continue to be until '09.
It seems Canadians aren't immune to Islamic terrorism. They were lucky this time:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14738950.htm
Everyone's probably heard it already, but Zarqawi has been confirmed killed in an airstrike. Thoughts on what this means in Iraq?
I don't understand your thinking here Richard. How could this possibly affect the situation in Iraq?
I expect it to have the same kind of effect that capturing/killing the head/2nd in command of a crime ring. Initial reaction will probably be heightened activities (more murder attempts and kidnappings, for instance), but long-term effects will decrease their strength.
Regardless of what you may think, we're winning the battle to replace Saddam with a viable gov't. The Iraqi gov't is taking more and more control of security measures (not fast enough for my tastes), and as long as they are steady in their approach (and we are steady in supporting them, since it appears few other nations are at this point), they will create the first major democratic republic in the history of the ME.
Just curious, Lib, but what is your opinion of UBL and whether it's important for us to ever capture/kill him?
RichardM,
You have been saying the same thing regarding our 'success' in Iraq for 3 years. The situation continues to deteriorate and you just won't face it. Sad.
Catching UBL is important and would be fantastic, just as catching Zarqawi was important and is fantastic. But neither one of those things will be able to salvage the situation in Iraq. They are irrelevant to the grassroots insurgency that is present there. The insurgency that you keep believing will disappear if you just clap louder.
First, Lib, I'm glad you see Zarqawi's death as a good thing, as you'd see UBL's capture/death as a good thing. However, what makes you think I believe the terrorists will just "go away?" I said that I expect it to get worse before it gets better.
Make no mistake, Zarqawi and Al Qaeda are losing in Iraq. Why else did they shift from focusing only on Coalition forces to focusing primarily on trying to incite a civil war against the elected gov't? Why was a gov't able to be elected and form in the first place?
Look, I'm willing to say things aren't peaceful over there, quite the contrary. However, I look at more than just death totals to determine how things are going. It's going more slowly than I'd like, but I haven't seen a single step back in the entire process (unless you count Fallujah, which I, in my limited knowledge, think was handled poorly). In fact, I've seen steps forward and improvements.
Need me to point out these steps? Ok, from the chaos it was under Saddam to an all-Iraqi, duly-elected gov't. From only Coalition forces keeping security to Iraqis starting to take over certain sectors, with plans for them to take over more. The pace it's happened at might not make it obvious, but those are HUGE steps above what the situation was when we overthrew Saddam.
I, for one, am incredibly proud of the troops and the job they've done in Iraq. They've taken a very tough mission and been performing marvelously.
"Ok, from the chaos it was under Saddam to an all-Iraqi, duly-elected gov't."
It was a lot of things under Saddam, but chaotic it was not.
"From only Coalition forces keeping security to Iraqis starting to take over certain sectors, with plans for them to take over more."
Do you have any verification this is actually happening other than the platitudes from the administration? Whenever I have looked at actual numbers, it is clear that NO progress is being made.
"I, for one, am incredibly proud of the troops and the job they've done in Iraq. They've taken a very tough mission and been performing marvelously."
Absolutely. The troops are performing their job tremendously. Sadly, they are under the control of a civilian administration that has no idea what they are doing and doesn't give 2 ***** about them.
"It was a lot of things under Saddam, but chaotic it was not."
I guess that depends on how you define chaotic. Saddam ruled with an iron fist, so in that sense things were orderly. However, his tactics were certainly random and brutal, and in that sense things were chaotic. I guess it depends on what angle you look at it from.
"Do you have any verification this is actually happening other than the platitudes from the administration? Whenever I have looked at actual numbers, it is clear that NO progress is being made."
Other than all the reports of Iraqi troops working more and more with our troops and the Iraqi PM talking timetables for turning over specific locations to Iraqi control and generally seeming pleased with the previous requests he's made (and apparently gotten) (or was it the prior PM?), no. However, I think all of those things show a gradual takeover by Iraqis, as well as several other nations pulling out troops and there being no talk of the US having to increase forces on the ground to compensate (in fact, there's talk of drawing down).
"Sadly, they are under the control of a civilian administration that has no idea what they are doing and doesn't give 2 ***** about them."
And yet, when polls are done of just military personnel, Pres Bush's approval ratings are much higher than his general approval polls (don't have them handy). Go figure.
Completely off topic:
Does anyone else follow futbol? (Or soccer for those of us in the US.)
If so, any predictions for the winner of the World Cup?
I think it will come down to Germany and Brazil with Brazil the likely winner. I'd like to think the US will get into the quarter finals, but I think we'll get out of the "group of death" but will be beat by Brazil early in the brackets. We didn't get an easy draw this time.
Just in case anyone missed it, Rove will not be prosecuted with respect to Valerie Wilson.
In response to RichardM's post on Daly Thoughts that reads as follows:
----------------------------------
“Your reading of it would have to hinge on the idea that they sent all available troops last time and all available troops this time (or, if not all, at least the same fixed percentage in both cases), yet this is nowhere indicated in the article.”
If they have had 75,000 troops just sitting around, not doing anything, for the last year, then they’re better off than I thought they were . I seriously doubt that’s the case, however. 75,000 troops is more than half of the total US troops, and if that’s what they have to spare for this mission, they well may be on par or surpass our number of troops, though doubtless they aren’t on par with them yet.
“Don’t you think a more likely reason for the increase in troops used is that, as the story indicates, the mission failed last time?”
Sure, I’ll say I don’t think the last sweep through Baghdad wiped out the terrorists, and because of that, they’re nearly doubling the number of troops this time. The point is that they have these troops in the first place. You seem convinced their forces are insignificant in size and activities, but I’ve already pointed out that, just on this mission alone, they have more than half as many Iraqi troops as we have forces in total in Iraq. Training is suspect, but we’ll see how effective they are in this mission.
-----------------------------------
"just sitting around, not doing anything", "if that’s what they have to spare for this mission"
You're offering false choices. During major drug sweeps of US cities, the number of officers on the street is often increased significantly, but I doubt you would argue that the rest of the time the 'extra' officers were sitting around doing nothing or that those officers were just spare forces the rest of the time. Obviously during a major operation, people are temporarily shifted from other duties and/or working extra shifts. You can't judge the total size of a military force by its participation in any given operation.
"Training is suspect"
That's exactly the crux of the problem. If we can't leave until they are ready to handle things on their own, then we need specific benchmarks to judge their progress by. Without that, it's a meaningless concept.
In response to RichardM's post at Daly Thoughts that reads:
-------------------------------
“Your reading of it would have to hinge on the idea that they sent all available troops last time and all available troops this time (or, if not all, at least the same fixed percentage in both cases), yet this is nowhere indicated in the article.”
If they have had 75,000 troops just sitting around, not doing anything, for the last year, then they’re better off than I thought they were . I seriously doubt that’s the case, however. 75,000 troops is more than half of the total US troops, and if that’s what they have to spare for this mission, they well may be on par or surpass our number of troops, though doubtless they aren’t on par with them yet.
“Don’t you think a more likely reason for the increase in troops used is that, as the story indicates, the mission failed last time?”
Sure, I’ll say I don’t think the last sweep through Baghdad wiped out the terrorists, and because of that, they’re nearly doubling the number of troops this time. The point is that they have these troops in the first place. You seem convinced their forces are insignificant in size and activities, but I’ve already pointed out that, just on this mission alone, they have more than half as many Iraqi troops as we have forces in total in Iraq. Training is suspect, but we’ll see how effective they are in this mission.
------------------------------
"If they have had 75,000 troops just sitting around, not doing anything", "if that’s what they have to spare for this mission"
False choices Richard. In US cities during major drug sweeps, the number of officers on the streets are significantly increased. Those 'extra' officers weren't sitting around doing nothing the rest of the time. And they're not 'spare' officers. During a major operation people are pulled off other duties and/or work extra shifts. That's why it is impossible to judge the total force of a military by looking at a few particular operations.
"Training is suspect"
That's exactly the crux of the problem. You feel that we can't pull out until the Iraqis can handle things themselves. But without specific benchmarks set up to explicitly state what that means and chart progress, this concept is meaningless.
(Blogger ate my first post, but I think I've recreated what I wanted to say.)
Lib, I get the concept of transfers and such, but if 75,000 are being used in this single operation, that means they have at least 75,000. 75,000 isn't an insignificant figure in and of itself, and it's likely higher than that, since they wouldn't abandon every position elsewhere just for their sweep of Baghdad.
As for their training, I called it "suspect." I should have said "unknown," but you get the point. I agree with you that there should be benchmarks for progress, as well as knowing what we're training them for. Part of the controversy concerning Iraqi troop levels has been (A) defections once they got their first paycheck, and (B) what tasks we were training them for. I suspect (don't know, but suspect) the original training was focused almost exclusively on police forces, not military troops.
Oops, I guess it didn't eat my first post. Well, both say the same thing so, other than being a bit confusing, it's OK.
"I agree with you that there should be benchmarks for progress, as well as knowing what we're training them for."
Great. I hope that you and people who share your view will fight for such things (call your senators, etc.), mention it when you are around like-minded war-supporters. It is only people like you who support the war that can make a difference on this issue.
So...are you going to respond to my pointing out that, in order for the Iraqi gov't to field 75,000, they have to have at least 75,000, and that 75,000 is a substantive number of troops? This disproves your assertion that they are an insignificant number.
As for the independently-capable, did you hear about the 450 or so raids that were done based on information gathered from Zarqawi's death house? Some 170 of those raids were carried out by Iraqis alone, while the rest of them were joint ventures. To me, that indicates a certain level of competence (though I'd feel better if all of them were done by Iraqis).
RichardM,
How can you assert that the number 75,000 alone is indicative of anything? You have no idea if this is an increase or decrease, how this compares to the number employed under Saddam or in similar situations, and you have no idea how well-trained or effective those 75,000 are. I didn't respond because I thought it was kind of clear that a single data point without any context is not useful information.
Similarly, the number of raids carried out by Iraqis alone is not useful by itself. We need to see an abatement or at least a containment of the insurgent activity (which is definitely not happening yet). Without that, raids are meaningless. For all you know, they are creating more insurgents, not fewer.
It is trends that matter.
I did some looking online to try and corroborate the 75,000 number and also to find some context and comparisons we might be able to use. What I found is quite a bit of dispute over the number itself. Do you have any corroboration of the 75,000 number, such as an official statement of the force size or even any other article citing it?
"How can you assert that the number 75,000 alone is indicative of anything? You have no idea if this is an increase or decrease, how this compares to the number employed under Saddam or in similar situations, and you have no idea how well-trained or effective those 75,000 are. I didn't respond because I thought it was kind of clear that a single data point without any context is not useful information."
What I'm saying is that 75,000 (which is an understated figure for the total Iraqi forces, as they haven't taken every person they have)isn't an insignificant number, regardless. I'm not comparing to the Saddam era, because we didn't start with what Saddam had, we started from scratch after the invasion (remember that we disbanded the Iraqi army?).
I'll grant that we don't know how good their troops are. I agree that there should be some sort of metrics (however, how would you quantify competence? The number of violent acts is more indicative of the enemy's resolve, not the competence of troops opposed to them), but being able to act independently demonstrates a certain level of competence.
As for references to the 75,000 number, was the link I left at the "other" site insufficient? If so, what would you take? The article directly referenced the troop level, and I seem to remember this was part of an announcement coming out of the Iraqi gov't.
"I'll grant that we don't know how good their troops are. I agree that there should be some sort of metrics (however, how would you quantify competence? The number of violent acts is more indicative of the enemy's resolve, not the competence of troops opposed to them)"
Aha, I believe we have reached the crux of our disagreement. You wish to seperate the strength of the force from the strength of the force they are opposing. To me, these are inextricably linked. That is, it would not matter if there were 2 million trained Iraqi soldiers if they are not able to quell the insurgency.
"As for references to the 75,000 number, was the link I left at the "other" site insufficient? If so, what would you take? The article directly referenced the troop level, and I seem to remember this was part of an announcement coming out of the Iraqi gov't."
If you Google it, you will find that the 75,000 number in the official statement is stated as "75,000 Iraqi and US troops" or as "75,000 Iraqi and multinational forces", depending on the particular article. In your original article, I believe an anonymous source was responsible for the number 75,000 and gave the impression that that was solely the number of Iraqi forces. The later, official announcement seems to indicate that that is the total combined force count. I just thought that since you felt it was a significant number, you would want to look into its accuracy.
I will see if I can find the source on it, but I read that 50,000 of these troops were coming from the interior ministry (presumably they are Iraqi forces only), with the other 25,000 coming from local security forces (and presumably Coalition forces as well, but it wasn't too distinct).
As far as separating the force size and capability from those they face, I feel that it depends on what you're measuring as to whether it's valid or not. If you're only goal is to see if they can stand on their own at this point, then your assessment is correct (I presume they can't, which may or may not be the case). If, however, you are looking for whether this is improvement over the point where we overthrew Saddam (which I consider 0, as we basically fired the entire military), I think it's appropriate to just look at the security forces, irrespective of the size of their opposition.
Ah, didn't take too long to find this. The second paragraph points to an unnamed source as outlining where the forces are coming from.
Also, I would like to correct myself on something I said earlier. I said that all 452 of those raids had Iraqis in it, with them going solo on some 170 of them. Well, I did the math on it, and it appears that there were 54 raids that must not have had any Iraqis in them, making it just over 11% that were carried out solely by Coalition forces.
Well if you start from 0 then we have infinity% improvement with even a single fighter, so that hardly seems like a reasonable measure. I think we have to start with when the army was first formed and compare its progress since then, not just in size but in effectiveness.
Also, the article you just linked to is the same one you originally linked to, with the sourcing on the 75,000 number being an anonymous official. After that appeared, an official statement came from the Iraqi government with the same 75,000 number in it, but with the indication that that 75,000 was split between Iraqi and non-Iraqi forces, not Iraqi forces alone, but giving no details on the precise split. If you do a Google News search on ' "75,000" Iraqi ', you will see what I mean. I assume you would give more credence to the official statement rather than the anonymous sourcing in the article you've linked to.
Well, ok, I can accept that the starting point should be from when we first started forming the Iraqi army. Do we know how many troops they had then? Do we know how many they have now? Perhaps that's your point, that we don't know. You seem to assume that, since we don't know, it must be very little progress. I see them taking on a significant number of tasks both independently and in lead roles, and I assume that means improvement.
As for the 75,000 and where they come from, I'll grant that they certainly aren't all Iraqis. Per the anonymous source, I'd say, at a bare minimum, it's 50,000, since I don't think the Interior Ministry has anything but Iraqis n their forces. As for the rest, it's unclear how many are Iraqis and how many Coalition. If you're more comfortable with 50,000, then I'll go with that.
50,000 is still 1/3 of the total Coalition forces in the area. Not as good as 1/2, but still a substantial force.
"You seem to assume that, since we don't know, it must be very little progress."
Of course. The information we get is filtered through the White House. If they had great signs of progress, they would be touting them. Even you, who has faith in the basic decency of this administration, must believe that the White House would like to be in better shape politically on the Iraq issue.
I'm surprised you're happy to accept the 50,000 number. If I recall, that's getting pretty close to the number of them deployed in last year's operation and at one point, it was the increase between the two time periods that you were emphasizing.
Gotta point out that the Interior Ministry isn't part of the armed forces in Iraq. They're responsible for the police. They've got some elite units that have military-type training but they're separate from the Iraqi Army.
Also, it's those same elite Interior Ministry units which are the home of most of the death squads operating out of the Interior Ministry. I don't find it particularly reassuring to find that 2/3 of the troops in the Baghdad crackdown are coming from the Death Squad Ministry. I certainly hope they're not operating independently of US troops.
That's interesting, Indy. I had no idea there was such a distinction. Do you happen to know if those forces are being trained by the US army? That is, are they who (or part of who) is meant by "when they stand up, we will stand down" or are they distinct? (I'll Google it myself to try and find out, but I thought you might save me some time if you happen to know offhand.)
Richard,
I realize that the last paragraph of my last post to you (before Indy's post) reads like a 'gotcha' and I really don't mean for this debate to turn into that. I just want us to try and figure out what is going on over there and how long we can and/or should sustain a military presence. Since we come from opposing ideological viewpoints, if we can find some kind of common ground, then this should give us the best shot at seeing the reality of what is going on without it being filtered through our own lenses.
So anyway, that's what I'm hoping for. You can ignore the 'gotcha' part of the last post, since it really isn't productive.
Lib, most of the stand up / stand down rhetoric has referred to the reconstitution of the Iraqi army, but obviously establishing a professional and effective police force is part of the mission. The numbers about how many brigades are at what readiness level which get tossed around every few months refer to the army.
Within the Interior Ministry there are (iirc) at least three separate commands. The largest command is your basic police, who have more military training than a typical US cop but certainly don't equate with a SWAT member in skills; this group is the poorest trained of the police groups and the least infiltrated (at least in %) by the militias and death squads. There are two other groups - the elite groups I mentioned - which were both heavily infiltrated by militias under the previous government, and these are the groups associated most with the Shia death squads. I don't recall which militias were most involved with which group, but I think one of the two was pretty much a Badrist enclave. When you hear something about "police commandos" in a story it's one of these groups you're hearing about.
Here's the wikipedia article on the Iraqi police. There are three groups within it, but the third group is the border police rather than a second paramilitary outfit.
Ah, last year's forces...They weren't 100% Iraqi either, were they? One year later, they are using twice as many troops, with at least 2/3 being Iraqi, and likely much more. Maybe it's reasonable to assume a similar split in forces being Coalition versus Iraqi, but I suspect there was a higher percentage of Coalition forces in the mix last year. I have no numbers to prove it, but that's my suspicion.
I haven't quit emphasizing the increase from last year to this, incidentally. Even if you go under the assumption that last year was all Iraqi (a poor bet, to say the least) and this year only the Interior Ministry contributed Iraqi forces (another very poor bet), you are still looking at an increase of 33% (37,500 to 50,000). Again, however, there's no way that this worst-case scenario is the case, and the reality is something better.
As for the WH "filtering" all the info we get, why would we only be hearing about terrorists killing soldiers and civilians if that was the case? Why don't we hear more about the schools that are opened, the new water treatment facilities that are built, and several other good news stories that we only hear from returning soldiers if that's the case? The media isn't a friendly org to the Bush WH, and never has been.
Indy, that's a very interesting point about where these forces are coming from. I've heard of the "Death Squads," and you're absolutely right that, if they came from anywhere within the Iraqi forces, it's from the Interior Ministry. I wonder how prevalent they are (perhaps very, perhaps their sensational nature makes a few sound greater than they are).
Please be careful of using information found on Wikipedia as absolute fact. Anyone can write or modify a Wiki article on any subject (with a few exceptions on locked articles). While the community tries to keep abuse to a minimum, the authors have a huge oportunity to provide editorial slant and it's not a completely reliable source.
"The media isn't a friendly org to the Bush WH, and never has been."
You're completely wrong on this. The media has rolled over for this white house like never before. They even fully admit it when pressed. I can't even believe that anyone still believes that ridiculous "liberal media" BS after the last 10 years. You're just totally wrong about this.
The reason we don't hear about the schools opening and all the rest is that the numbers actually look terrible. When the numbers (electiricity shortages, schools open, hospitals, etc.) are looked at things were actually better under Saddam. That's why the stuff you get on your right-wing websites is all anecdotal instead of hard numbers. ('Yay we opened a school.' 'Really, a new school where there wasn't one before?' 'Well no, this school was running before the war, but we reopened it only 3 years later.' Do you really think that's the kind of thing the White House wants talked about in the general population? Most people aren't Freepers and they can see the facts for what they are.)
"Even if you go under the assumption that last year was all Iraqi (a poor bet, to say the least) and this year only the Interior Ministry contributed Iraqi forces (another very poor bet), you are still looking at an increase of 33% (37,500 to 50,000)."
Ahh, so at the rate of an increase of 13,000 per year, they should be able to take over in ...? See the problem?
Richard, have you seen the US embassy report from Iraq? (If you don't know what I'm talking about then the answer is no, since you would definitely know what I am talking about if you had seen it.) I tried to find any mention of it on the right-wing websites and couldn't. So I'm just curious to know how widespread the information is to those of you on the right.
"You're completely wrong on this. The media has rolled over for this white house like never before. They even fully admit it when pressed. I can't even believe that anyone still believes that ridiculous "liberal media" BS after the last 10 years. You're just totally wrong about this."
"Fake, but accurate," anyone? I hear you claim a media bias, but how do you prove it? I can point to the % of news anchors who voted for Gore and Kerry (90% range). I can point to some very odd phrases being repeated by several news outlets ("towel-snapping" comes to mind to describe Pres Bush). Does that prove liberal bias? No, but it makes the idea that there's a bias towards Pres Bush very hard to believe.
We can take several stories and see how they're reported. Take the economy, which is doing so well that the Fed is trying to slow it down to ward off inflation. If the press is pro-WH, where's the weekly (or nightly) reminder? Instead, the picture is painted as everyone's one paycheck from the soup kitchen. Take virtually any news story, and I can almost guarantee that the press is ignoring some positive points for the WH (such as Valerie Wilson wasn't covert, as she'd been outed several years before in the Aldrich Ames spy case).
As for Iraqi troop strength, you've gone from saying "Well, they don't have much of any troops," to "Well, they aren't increasing their troop levels," to "Well, the increases aren't significant." That 12,500 number is based off of very poor assumptions, as I've already pointed out. It's a basement figure, and likely very understated. In addition to what I've already outlined, you'd have to assume that (1) Iraqis haven't increased their regular duties in that year (a poor assumption), (2) Iraqis didn't increase the number performing those regular duties (another poor assumption), and (3) Every single additional person trained during the last year was added to this Baghdad sweep. Their influence is growing (not as fast as I'd like, but it is), they are taking more duties, they are assisting more and more in activities, and it takes a larger number of people to maintain that new network.
Oh, I forgot to tell you what I think is the media's bias. I'm not fully convinced it's liberal or conservative, but more sensationalism than anything. In their view, doom-and-gloom will sell better than positive news. It's akin to the "sex sells" mentality of Hollywood (which is also false, but that's a different discussion altogether). They see more money from pessimism than optimism.
"As for Iraqi troop strength, you've gone from saying "Well, they don't have much of any troops," to "Well, they aren't increasing their troop levels," to "Well, the increases aren't significant.""
What a ludicrous mischaracterization of my position. My point has consistently been that there is no evidence of the kind of progress that would be necessary for us to succeed. I would think you would be embarrassed about not changing your position when it was shown that the number was wrong. That's why I gave you that out above, so you could save face and we could still discuss the issues. But instead you decide to pretend that I am the one who has been forced to retract or change my position when I have been pretty clear throughout that the issue is not the specific number of troops, but the level of effectiveness. Why have you chosen to argue this way?
The fact is, there is no evidence of the kind of progress that is necessary. In fact, there is much evidence of the situation deteriorating. (Again, did you see the embassy report?) Yet you keep cheerleading. It's beneath your dignity, or ought to be, to be so credulous.
"Take virtually any news story, and I can almost guarantee that the press is ignoring some positive points for the WH"
So. That doesn't mean that on balance they haven't been very favorable to this White House. They have generally been very forthcoming in admitting that after 9-11 they gave a lot of lenience to the WH that they wouldn't normally to other presidents and that this led into the pre-Iraq War coverage being less than dogged in its pursuit of truth. See the mea culpas from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others. As for the economy, most Americans don't judge the economy based on the same factors as the Fed does. The judgement that the economy is poor is coming from polls, not from newscasters making claims.
"They see more money from pessimism than optimism."
Not true. Sensationalism sells, but optimism during wartime is a huge moneymaker for television news. That's why the 'statue falling' was covered like crazy, even though it turned out in later analysis to be a poorly-attended, staged event.
Anyway, we are getting off track with this side issue of the media. You can keep addressing it if you wish, but I have said my piece on the matter.
"The fact is, there is no evidence of the kind of progress that is necessary. In fact, there is much evidence of the situation deteriorating.
The situation in Iraq was going to be tough from the beginning. You have a minority (the Sunnis) who have been in power for decades, living well at the expense of the majority. Of course there's going to be resentment when they're put on a more even playing field. The flow of Al Qaeda forces into Iraq doesn't help, either. What will make this ultimately work is convincing the Sunnis that it would be better to out the Al Qaeda terrorists than it would be to harbor them. If you think that's something you can do in three years, while simultaneously rebuilding the gov't, you're wrong.
Ah, but you're arguing not for success, but for "progress." Do we know how large the foreign Al Qaeda forces are? Are they converting more Sunnis, growing their local support? Per Zarqawi's assessment of their situation (shortly before we killed him, based on tips we hadn't been getting before), they're losing, and they need help. If this report came just from the US gov't, I could understand the reluctance to accept it. It came from the Iraqi gov't as well, however.
Did you hear the news about those 452 raids netting some 750+ terrorists and killing around 180? The noose is tightening around them, Lib, and we no longer see them able to strike at the Iraqi political leaders (I remember several of the ones in the transitional gov't either being targeted or being killed, but haven't heard of that happening for quite some time). They're having to turn on Iraqis, because they just don't have the ability to strike at anyone else. They are desperate, and their only hope is that we'll run before we drive them out.
"Per Zarqawi's assessment of their situation (shortly before we killed him, based on tips we hadn't been getting before), they're losing, and they need help."
'The document, released Thursday, could not be independently authenticated.'
'The document appears undated and does not mention Al Qaeda by name, but was found on "some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location" prior to Zarqawi's death'
Really, is this what you want to hang your hat on?
It seems to me that you will grasp at any straw that is available to convince yourself that supporting this war is OK. This is no way to approach something so serious. Our soldiers are dying. You take the approach that we ought to spend their lives because we might be able to accomplish something good, even though there is a chance as well that we might make things worse. Don't you think that their lives merit the opposite approach, that is, not putting them in harm's way unless we are certain it is necessary?
Are there any moments that you have questioned your support of this war at all or is it 100% all the time "It's the right thing to do"?
"Did you hear the news about those 452 raids netting some 750+ terrorists and killing around 180? "
Of course, but since it is without context or verification that these 'terrorists' were indeed such, I don't think getting excited about it makes sense.
The embassy report paints a much different picture than the one you are painting in your mind. Sadly, it seems not to be available to you on your limited news sites.
Lib, that embassy cable (not report) hasn't gotten much coverage in the news. I've seen it posted on two newspaper web sites - WaPo and one from the UK (the Independent, iirc) - but haven't seen any references to it in news stories, even from WaPo who posted the cable. It certainly paints a very bleak picture of conditions in Baghdad for local embassy employees.
I wondered while reading the cable whether it was legitimate, however. It seemed a trite subject for the US Ambassador to personally authorize a cable on, and the language was pretty direct (something I've seldom seen in diplomatic communications - or any government communications for that matter). Also, a number of the complaints included were those I've read wrt other Iraqis who aren't working for the US, so I was surprised that the embassy would feel a need to repeat them. Lastly, the date of the cable, one day before al-Zarqawi's death, seemed a bit odd.
So, I wonder whether the reason that the cable isn't being reported on is because there's doubt about its authenticity. I found it very odd that WaPo posted the cable but had no accompanying story pointing to it (or at least any story I'm aware of).
Hmmm, you're right Indy. This requires more scrutiny. I'm going to look into it tomorrow when I get a chance. Thanks.
OK, I checked it out, and I think it must be real because of the following exchange (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/18/le.01.html):
"BLITZER: The Washington Post published a fascinating cable today, a report written by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to the State Department -- it was signed by Ambassador Khalilzad -- in which it painted a very, very grim -- you read this cable...
SNOW: Yes.
BLITZER: ... a picture of what's going on in Iraq right now. I know that many have complained that the news media is only focusing in on the negative, but here the U.S. embassy in Baghdad paints a pretty stark picture of what's going on right now.
Let me just read a line for you. "Beginning in March and picking up in mid-May, Iraqi staff in the public affairs section have complained that Islamists and/or militia groups have been negatively affecting their daily routine," and it goes on to the harassment and the threats and the killings that have been going on. It's a pretty damning indictment of the current situation.
SNOW: No, it's actually a reflection of the realities there. And...
BLITZER: And the reality is gloomy.
SNOW: Well, that's taken in mid-May. Here we are, we are a month later, and I just told you, you've got 50,000 Iraqi troops that are now focusing on those problem areas in Baghdad.
The president didn't go there with rose-colored glasses, Wolf. We've been at Camp David the day before and received briefings from Generals Casey and Abizaid and from Ambassador Khalilzad. He had talked with scholars, some of whom have somewhat bleak views of what's going on.
And again, whatever the bleakness is, whatever the facts may be on the ground, the most important thing is you figure out how to win. And that has been the focus of the president's efforts. You can't do that by reading polls.
What you have to do -- and cables like this help add context and texture to the overall picture -- but this is not a president who's looking with rose-colored glasses"
--------------------------------
I think Snow is pretty much confirming the cable's authenticity. Also, other newspapers are beginning to cover it now. You can make your own judgments about why it has barely been covered on television news and the oddity that Blitzer didn't correct Snow on the assertion that the cable was from mid-May (the "mid-May" in the excerpt details when the complaints 'picked up', not when the report was sent, which was in June).
Thanks for the reality check though, Indy. I was just accepting it at face value before and that's never a good idea.
I'd also say that qualifies as confirmation of authenticity. Also, if Blitzer is bringing it up in an interview then there's someone in the conventional media that's paying attention to it.
I assume this is the "emabassy report" you've been talking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf
If so, it reads as a list of annecdotes that emphasises the steps embassy employees have taken to avoid becoming targets of the terrorists. Most of it is pretty specific to embassy employees rather than the whole Iraqi population, but I was most interested in the steps taken to secure power and neighborhood security (which seemed to apply to all of the city).
It's interesting and points out some problem areas that need work, but it's hardly proof of a deteriorating situation.
'The document, released Thursday, could not be independently authenticated.'
It was found on a thumb drive in Zarqawi's pocket. It also is similar to other Zarqawi letters to Al Qaeda that have been intercepted. To me, those are strong indicators of authenticity.
Tell me, Lib, how much of Iraq is in "turmoil?" The understanding is that only the "Sunni Triangle" remains as a safehouse for terrorists, and that's the way it's been for quite awhile. Yes, that's still a problem, but their control is slipping, little by little.
As for only engaging in a war if you're guaranteed success: Success can never be guaranteed in war, and if you set that as a criteria, you would never go to war. While I could hope for a world where that's a reasonable solution, it isn't this one. Am I confident that we'll succeed, and that success in Iraq will make the world in general safer? Yes. Am I certain that's the case? No.
I'll move all future postings to the new open thread, so please respond there.
Post a Comment