Charlie Rose

robdverity  10/13/2009 08:06 PM Report

Richard Engel NBC 10/7/09

Due to delayed ‘activation’ of pertinent sites, taking second choice of several irrelevant choice(s).

Brian Glyn Williams and David Kilcullen, both orthodoxy spewing foils for the MI oligarches, were disingenuous to a fault. Especially Williams. To full of certitudes - an ipso facto disqualifier. Anathema! Richard Engel, two nights earlier, was much more credible.

Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani’s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don’t get it. It’s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.

Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.

As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we’re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.

Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of “Second, Do no (more) harm!” The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we’re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?

Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.

Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.

Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.

Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:

Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.

Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr

Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr

Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr

Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr

These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ‘vanquished’ 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.

Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years

Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.

Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don’t, they don’t. DUH!

Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they’ll own it.

Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.

WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!

So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!

With all these potential enemies (below), we can’t waste resources on a select few. And we can’t conquer the world - even though the list is long enough to warrant paranoia - we have to ramp up our intelligence, ramp down our arrogance, and pressure ME peace settlements.

Yemen and Somalia are probably more real threats anyway. Terrorism is not geography, it’s an idea. Like Engle said, when someone says he’s al Qaeda, he pretty much is (regardless of race, creed or location on the planet) We had to work at this world-wide disenchantment..Note the innumerable number of countries represented.

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sunnah, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Aum Shinrikyo, Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA), Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA), Gama'a al-Islamiyya (IG), HAMAS , Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islam/Bangladesh (HUJI-B), Harakat ul-Mujahadin (HUM), Hizballah, Islamic Jihad Union, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan , Jaish-e-Mohammed , Jemaah Islamiya Organization , Al-Jihad , Kahane Chai (Kach) , Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT) , Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ) , Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) , Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization, National Liberation Army (ELN), Palestine Liberation Front – Abu Abbas Faction, Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi Faction, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Al-Qa’ida, Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn), Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Real IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Revolutionary Nuclei, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Shining Path, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.

robdverity  09/15/2009 04:07 PM Report

Yeah, whatever REMant said, I think I agree. I think it might translate to my grandkids and theirs and theirs paying for Henry Paulson's, Bobby Rubin's, Ben Bernanke's and Larry Summer's et al yachts and tax-free havens in the Bahamas. Isn't Keynes based on plutocrats playing now and the otherwise paying (and paying, and paying) later?

REMant  09/15/2009 12:55 PM Report

Stewart is very wrong about Keynes for two reasons: 1. because nothing would have happened in a panic that will not happen over a longer time, regardless, which was proved in aftermath of the LBJ administration, and 2. you only make the problem worse by not allowing deflation. Austrian-types and other traditional economists have always made this argument. Deflation does not destroy capital, it destroys inflation; it does not destroy real growth, only parasitic or cancerous growth. And without its removal the patient cannot recover, no matter how many transfusions you perform, and at some point you are bound to run out of blood. Ideally, you would want only those who profited from the boom it to be hurt by the bust, and tho that is not always possible, deflation does reward labor and cash more than capital, which reverses what happens in an inflationary period.

Most of the economists OUTSIDE of Wall St I've heard on various TV shows in the past couple days believe that we may well be headed for bigger problems down the road, because we haven't done anything to correct the underlying situation, indeed have created an even greater moral hazard, and that nothing has been done about regulation, while they haven't even mentioned the public debt and the steady depreciation of our currency.

The Wall Streeters, and those connected with the Fed, as I've said before, tend to confuse mkt prices with wealth, and use the statistical record of past downturns as a guide - the only history they seem to know - to assume that a rise in mkt prices heralds a return to prosperity and re-employment, when all it shows is that money managers, who think as they do, are returning to the mkts in the fear of being left out. I doubt it is even "confidence." The price of stocks is of no real importance at all and at best this assumes a scenario where the dwindling pool of such wealthy asset owners provides the demand required for employment, but how can that be without a shift in the distribution of wealth that the rise in asset prices reveals hasn't yet happened? Do they really believe that it doesn't matter what kind of industry is being created? If the crash doesn't indicate some fundamental economic misalignments, I do not know what would.

Ideally, you would want regulation to be performed by every single consumer/producer - i.e, free trade or free market - just as the NY police dept might like as many citizens as possible watching out for crooks, but if you can't do that, then you want as many cops on the beat as possible, so I can't buy the idea that just one regulator is a good idea, provided that those individual watchdogs have access to power or opinion. However, the less easy credit that is allowed, or the higher the fractional reserve requirement, the more you can rely on the market to regulate itself, one of the main conduits for aggrandizement being removed, and as I understand some of the comments made that is one of the regulatory reforms being proposed.