What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Qaddafi has responded to UNSCR 1973 by declaring a ceasefire but reports conflict as to whether clashes have ceased. Meanwhile, at least 40 protesters in Yemen were killed by security services there. The different treatment accorded the Saleh regime will likely prove to be a case study in realism.


• A Wisconsin judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the effect of the anti-union signed last week. Wisconsin state judges are elected.


• CBO dings Obama's proposed budget.


• House Republicans are okay with preserving farm subsidies but not with preserving food stamps. Farm subsidies are bad policy pursued by Republicans and Democrats alike however cutting food stamps instead of farm subsidies seems to undercut the Republican's budget-hawk seriousness. It also tends to support the idea that Republicans are, in my colleague's words, anti-people.

The Short List - March 18, 2011

• The UN Security Council has authorized military action to respond to Libyan government forces.  France has promised action to institute a no-fly zone will start soon.


• Violent suppressions has slowed opposition movement in Bahrain, while in Yemen today security forces and pro-government forces opened fire on protesters killing at least 10 people.  In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has announced billions of dollars for new handouts and is taking steps to strengthen his security apparatus.


• Mexico is defending the overflights by U.S. drones.

Libya: Courage, Prudence, and War-mongering

My colleague's apt poem selection today brought my mind back to Libya.  Reading some thoughts on the day, I found this piece by Max Boot impugning the manhood of President Obama for not acting decisively with force against Qaddafi.  Mr. Boot's war mongering and call to arms is quite honestly shocking in both the sophomoric criticisms of Obama's machismo and blind belief in American triumphalism.

Mr. Boot calls Obama's response "vacillating" and declares, "It is not far-fetched to imagine a Barack Obama Boulevard in Tripoli if the president finally finds the courage to act."  Such appeals to vanity belittle the realities of war and the costs of the use of force.  It is a paradigm that sees a single tool for all tasks, the hammer.

Mr. Boot outlines how easy it would be for the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone, "if we first neutralize Gadhafi's air defenses."  But of course, before they are neutralized, the must be destroyed which would likely necessitate putting American troops in harm's way.  Mr. Boot glosses over that part, lest we think the use of force is in fact a dangerous endeavor.

He tries to frighten us by declaring, "Given the way the U.S. and our allies have turned against Gadhafi, at least rhetorically, he could easily decide to seek revenge by returning to his old tricks. Considering that Gadhafi was responsible for the midair bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, among many other acts of terror, that is no idle threat."  Except the U.S. has not done anything but speak negatively of Qaddafi, a course of action that Mr. Boot spends his time decrying.  

Still, he erects more boogeymen when he says, " if he is able to keep power by force, it will encourage other Middle Eastern despots to emulate his example.... The Arab Spring could easily turn into a very dark winter that will arrest and reverse the momentum of recent pro-democracy demonstrations...the long-term winners will be al Qaeda and their ilk."  It is as if Mr. Boot believes the mere mention of Al Qaeda will compel people to act.  In truth, he draws some broad conclusions from a very specific situation, while entirely neglecting the on-going history of democracy through force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To be sure, there are many different views on what we should do about Libya.  Here at DCExile, Ben and I have disagreed about whether to intervene or to not intervene.  Leslie Gelb writes in TheDailyBeast.com that if Britain and France and the Arab League believe so strongly in their ominous warnings, they have the ability to act independent of the UN and the United States.  I am certainly frustrated by others seeking the shade of our military umbrella when it suits them, then shouting at us when they want to be in the sun.  Will Wilkinson also criticizes Mr. Boot, but comes down firmly on the side of a libertarian ilk, which feels too isolationist to me.

There are not easy answers to this problem, but Max Boot seems all to willing to embrace a bloody solution who's motivations lie in a misbegotten sentiment of American triumphalism while grossly ignoring our recent history with democratizing military adventures.

A Saint Patrick's Day for Libya

As the UN Security Council mulls a resolution authorizing a No-Fly Zone and “other measures” for Libya, and as Qaddafi presses the attack against rebels in both the East and West of Libya, I am reminded of Pearse’s words from The Rebel:

And I say to my people’s masters: Beware
Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people
Who shall take what ye would not give.
Did ye think to conquer the people, or that law is stronger than life,
And than men’s desire to be free?
We will try it out with you ye that have harried and held,
Ye that have bullied and bribed.
Tyrants… hypocrites… liars!

Pearse was executed in the wake of the Easter Rising some 95 years ago.

The Short List - March 17, 2011

• Japan scrambles to prevent a nuclear meltdown.  The Japanese people face a dearth of candor and leadership.  The U.S.government's view on nuclear power has been restrained, compared to Germany.


• Laurent Gbagbo holds on to power in the Ivory Coast, despite sanctions.  Meanwhile, some are reporting a decisive move by Alessane Ouattara to attempt to claim power could sway the military to back him.


• Following yesterday's forced clearing of Pearl Square, Bahraini authorities arrested several member of the opposition today.  The Economist talks to an expert on the region about how this could go from bad to worse (audio).


• As the rebels face setbacks in Libya, the U.S. government has become more vocal in its call for the use of force by the UN.


• Reports are emerging, once again, that the U.S. would be open to negotiations between the Afghan government and some Taliban forces.  However, some Taliban leaders feel their hands are tied by Pakistan's ISI.


• The Environmental Protection Agency released a plan that would reduce mercury and other toxins from the emissions of coal power plants.  The Congressional Research Service reports coal-fired power plants accounted for 70% of sulfur dioxide, 50% of mercury, and 20% of nitrogen oxide emissions in 2005.

Food Trucks and Free Markets

I am admittedly a johnny-come-lately to things hip and cool.  I have never friended anyone on Facebook...ever.  So it should come as no surprise I’m well behind the eight-ball with regard to the new food truck craze in DC.  Apparently, beyond serving often delicious food, the trucks have set off a war in the city between brick and mortar restaurants and the trucks.  The brick and mortar places decry the mobility of the trucks, how they steal business for traditional restaurants, leach off the work of business improvement districts, and do that while avoiding sales tax.  The sales tax thing is actually coming under review by the DC city council, and apparently brick and mortar restaurants have a strong lobby so you might be able remove that complaint soon.

The complaint that rings hollow for me is the one where brick and mortar joints are losing business.  It seems like the brick and mortar restaurants don’t want competition, and hey, what business does, but if you’re losing business to food trucks maybe you need to reconsider your sandwiches.  In my non-DCExile life, I’m a pretty serious foodie with the refined palate one would expect from a kid who grew up in the Midwest and thought pork chops could only be safely served if encrusted in Lawry’s seasoning salt.  That said, I still enjoy good food.  I know what my options are around my office, and while limited they are relatively diverse.  I’ve got sandwiches, Thai, Chinese, burritos, pizza, burgers, all in the mix.  However, having worked in the same neighborhood for five years, that diversity has become pretty unexciting.  So when my coworker tells me the Red Hook Lobster Pound is sitting outside my building selling lobster rolls (at a not-cheap-for-lunch $15) I jump out of my chair and run to the truck.  That was money well spent, but the next day the truck is gone.  It hasn’t been back since.  And that’s the point of the food truck.  It competes for a day and then it’s gone.  The landed eateries in the area get my business most days, and yet there are complaints about losing business.

I’ll tell those eateries why they’re losing business.  I know what they have.  I’ve had their sandwiches many times before, but sometimes you just want a lobster roll and when that purveyor is outside you go pay him or her for deliciousness.  I don’t see my local landed eateries pushing the boundaries of their menus to provide a similarly intriguing option.  And then there’s the food truck that fails to deliver.

Just last week the Meathead truck was nearby so I checked it out.  The sandwich wasn’t very good.  It definitely wasn’t worth what I paid for it, and I don’t plan to go back anytime soon.  I would rather go to one of my landed eateries then go back to the Meathead truck.  Capitalism wow!  And that’s why I don’t care food trucks are stealing business from landed eateries.  Give the customers what they want or perish, such is the nature of business.

Originally, I started to research this to figure out why only the crappiest of food purveyors line the National Mall.  All of whom seem to have the same sign maker.  Was there a regulation against them?  I didn’t find one, but the article I link to above points to oligarchic collusion facilitated by city regulations on food trucks.  If you are a food truck, you have to be tethered to a depot for storage and stocking up.  Apparently there are only a few such depots in DC, and the owners have been known to strongly suggest that food trucks buy the food the depots sell or else face rising rents or an eviction that invalidates the food trucks license.   That’s the only hint of a reason food trucks aren’t all over the National Mall.  Get on it food trucks.

Feel like this post got away from me so, let’s review.  A battle is a-raging between food trucks and brick and mortar restaurants for your hard-earned lunch dollars.  The restaurants are complaining that business is being stolen away without trying to make what they make better.  Red Hook Lobster Pound = awesome.  Meathead = not awesome.  Food truck depots are exploiting city regulations to compel tourists to eat crappy hots dogs when they’re checking out the Washington Monument.  Who’s hungry?  To find the food trucks near you go here.

The Short List - March 16, 2011

• Japan's woes continue, as a second reactor may have ruptured.  In an unprecedented televised address, Emperor Akihito called on the people of Japan "to overcome these difficult times."  The New York Times considers the fragility of modernity in the wake of catastrophes.


• Security forces in Bahrain have routed protesters out of Pearl Square.


• The US has begun sending drones into Mexico on intelligence missions, according to new reports.  The program had be kept secret because of restrictions in Mexico.


• Egypt disbanded the old state security system, with a new system removing a repugnant visage of the old regime.


• Gen. Petraeus told a Senate committee yesterday that progress is being made in Afghanistan, and a scheduled draw down of troops beginning this summer appears on schedule.


• The House passed a continuing resolution on the budget that cuts $6 billion and would ensure the government remains open through April 8th.  The Senate is expected to pass the bill before Friday, when the current CR would expire.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Japan's nuclear crises persists. Markets worldwide have reacted very negatively.


• Libyan rebels lost Brega (again) and may or may not have lost Ajdabiyah to pro-Qaddafi forces. The G-8 did not endorse a No-Fly Zone over Libya and the UN Security Counsel appears to be moving slowly or not at all on the matter. France has expressed dismay but, interestingly, could avoid the international legal problems detailed here in unilaterally intervening as it now recognizes the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya.


• Bahrain seems to be spiraling out of control even as GCC forces have deployed and a state of emergency was imposed.


• Quick Cali special election for Harman's seat.

To Not Intervene in Libya

Intervention in armed conflict confined within the borders of one country makes me nervous.  My colleague, Ben, recently advocated for Western intervention in Libya, and while it is clear the rebels need assistance, I’m still leery of coming off the fence.

From out a different time comes this reflection on US foreign policy in October 1959:
The Western conception of Democracy seems to me the only one that is worthwhile from the viewpoint of the human condition, of human rights, and freedoms.  Its superiority resides in the fact that it places Man at the summit, while Communism reduces him to the state of a slave to an all-powerful State...But the weakness of Western Democracy is its failure to deliver social justice...In most countries where they build up military forces as a rampart against totalitarian, freedom-hating communism, our American friends close their eyes to the violations of Democracy perpetrated by the governments concerned - violations which lead to a system no less totalitarian than the one they are fighting against, and without the latter’s advantages...The West must try to understand that.

This passage struck a chord with me in the context of the Arab Spring.  The issue of when and when not to intervene is not a new one, but our posture has evolved over time.  However, there is one lesson we can learn despite this evolution:  When the West picks a side and backs it with weapons and violence, they tend to destroy that which they sought to protect.  Western, or American, involvement can quickly illegitimize a rebellion.  It can rally the ambivalent to the government’s side, seeing Western involvement as a violation of sovereignty.

Even when we are successful at covertly supplying rebels, the outcomes can be hard to predict.  Case in point: American interventionism in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s.  In Afghanistan we dumped weapons and when we felt we had “won” we left Afghanistan to sort itself out.  So what are we to do?

The US does best when it supports peaceful protests.  When we work through diplomacy, when we don’t supply guns, the results tend to be more favorable. You saw this in Egypt and Tunisia. We deftly navigated a complicated diplomatic minefield, which led to relatively bloodless revolutions. The final outcomes remain unknown, but few think the situation in Egypt or Tunisia would have been better if the US had intervened militarily.  Clearly in Libya we lack the carrots we did in Egypt, and diplomacy is only effective if the sticks remain on the table.  However, I remain hesitant of military intervention.  I would freely admit there may not be a situation where I would change my mind.

As to the speaker above, he was Sihanouk, the despotic ruler, and one-time king, of Cambodia.  In his own efforts to root out leftist opposition, he ignored all manner of human rights and was eventually deposed in a coup.  When the US intervenes militarily the consequences are uncertain, and often don't fully precipitate until years later. Sihanouk decries the way the West builds up military forces and doesn't use them, but the use of force has a ripple effect far more unpredictable then civil disobedience and diplomacy.

Naked No-Fly Zones

On Friday, Gen. Wesley Clark penned an Op-Ed in the Washington Post arguing against U.S. intervention in Libya. While I disagree with his conclusion—as I noted here, I advocate for covert military support for the Libyan rebels as an initial matter—Gen. Clark raises some excellent points. Among them:

In Libya, Gaddafi has used and supported terrorism, murdered Americans and repressed his people for 40 years. The American public may want to see him go. But his current actions aren't an attack on the United States or any other country. On what [legal] basis would we seek congressional support and international authorization to intervene in a civil war? Do we have the endorsement of the Arab League? A U.N. Security Council resolution?

(emphasis mine).

International law evolves through custom and through treaties. Custom is defined by state practice—the actions of one or more states in a particular situation, the justifications put forward by those states, and the reactions of the rest of the international community. In Libya, instituting a unilateral (or even a multilateral) No-Fly Zone without a U.N. Security Council Resolution—or at least a determination by NATO that Qaddafi is threatening the alliance—risks rolling back 80 years of international law prohibiting aggression.

Once, war as a political tool was common place. The power to make war at will was seen as the prerogative of every sovereign. (In fact, what differentiated fully- and quasi-sovereign states was the lawful ability of the one to make war in contrast to the other.) That era faded with the signing of Kellogg-Briand Treaty in 1928. The end of the lawfulness of aggressive war was confirmed by the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II. And, since then, states that have taken offensive action against other states have sought to justify that action almost universally on some other legal basis—general self-defense but sometimes protection of nationals or humanitarian intervention—acknowledging, implicitly, that to engage in offensive war would be illegal.

The problem with imposing a No-Fly Zone over Libya without U.N. sanction is that doing so is certainly an act of aggressive warfare. What else could it be with French recognition for the Libyan rebels, threats from the United States, and demands from other Western states that Qaddafi must leave? Clearly, the West has decided on a political course of action—the removal of Qaddafi—and, by imposing a No-Fly Zone, seeks to effect that course of action.

Worse, an unsanctioned No-Fly Zone would be an act of aggressive warfare widely accepted if not praised by the international community. As such, it would serve as dangerous precedent to any state that might find it convenient to wage war against a neighbor to settle a border dispute, accumulate more land and resources, or merely distract its own populace from troubles at home. Notwithstanding Kellogg-Briand, the U.N. Charter, or the Rome Statute, this customary restoration of lawful aggressive warfare may well undercut the modern international order, legal and otherwise.

The Short List - March 15, 2011

• In Japan, the steady march of bad news continues with 2,722 people reported dead and thousands more still missing, while nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi lurch toward meltdown.


• Iran has blasted Saudi Arabia for sending troops into Bahrain, and state-run media called it an invasion.  Iran's Foreign Minister said, "People [of Bahrain] have some legitimate demands and they are expressing them peacefully.  It should not be responded to violently."  Apparently it's do as a say not as I do for the Iranian government.  The U.S. wonders how to react to Saudi Arabia, an erstwhile (and oft unreliable) ally.


• Ten Republican Senators have sent a letter to Sen. Reid saying they will block any non-budget legislation.


• The National Rifle Association has declined an invitation to be part of a discussion on gun safety hosted by the Department of Justice in the wake of the Tuscon shooting.


• A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll indicates just 29% of independents trust Republicans to deal with the economy, a drop from 42% in January.  Additionally just 31% of those polled believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting.


• The peculiarities of the Brazilian labor market (print/audio).

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• The Libyan No-Fly Zone battle has moved to the UN. Meanwhile, pro-government forces are pressing the rebels on multiple fronts. The rebels, for their part, managed to lose then retake Brega. 


• Japans nuclear woes are worsening. Fear of radiation exposure is threatening the nuclear power industry in the United States and Europe. This causes DCExile to revise its advice from a month ago to short gasoline. Fossil fuels will be a good bet for a while. Light sweet crude remains over $100/b.


• Politico compares Sarah Palin to Al Sharpton. While Politico means this as a negative comparison, DCExile cannot help but observe that Al Sharpton, though possessing many faults, was a civil rights leader. Sarah Palin has done, well, nothing. More on this later.


• And, Laurent Gbagbo has barred UN aircraft from flying Ivory Coast.

We're Not Broke

This post will inevitably lead to extended debate in comments about the proper role of government, but it's worth noting regardless.

In a column at The Washington Post today, E.J. Dionne asks "What if we're not broke?"  He could have saved some space by simply saying, "We're not broke."  Mr. Dionne really spends his time in the column going over, once more, all the reasons we aren't broke, why the Republican push to severely cut non-discretionary spending is about ideology, not fiscal responsibility, and the irresponsibility of taking any tax increases off the table entirely.

If it sounds like a song on repeat, that's because it is.  However, you have to keep saying it to combat the factually incorrect talking point that the nation is broke.  Is there a looming, long term fiscal crisis?  Yes.  Will cutting $60 billion dollars do anything to avert that?  No.  Once more with feeling.

The Short List - March 14, 2011

• The earthquake that shook Japan last week continues to impact the country as there are fears of a nuclear meltdown.  Japan's Central Bank has taken steps to ease the markets.


• In Libya, pro-Qaddafi forces appear to be beating the opposition forces, while France presses for a no-fly zone.


• Bahrain's ruling Sunni minority have called for forces from Saudi Arabia to help put down protests in the small island nation.  There were reports submitted to SecDef gates that Iran had told the majority Shiite protesters to reject a government offer of dialogue.


• Violence worsens in Ivory Coast, and the Economist speaks to one of its correspondents on the ground in Abidjan (audio).


• State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley has resigned after comments he made concerning the treatment of suspected Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning.


• The EPA continues to come under withering criticism from Congressional Republicans for trying to protect the environment.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• The damage from today's massive earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan appears to be relatively confined. A Japanese nuclear reactor is threatening to melt down, however.


• The Obama Administration and its hangers-on continue to death-hug Mitt Romney.


• Wisconsin Recall?


• Shocking. Congress still historically unpopular despite wave election.


• And Rep. Giffords is making a tremendous recovery.

Clapper’s Condemnation and Western Dithering

James Clapper opined yesterday that Qaddafi was likely to outlast the Libyan rebels currently battling him for control of the oil rich North African nation. For his remarks, Clapper was widely condemned and the White House admonished him, claiming that he offered a static rather than dynamic assessment of Libya. Clapper, though, was probably giving a more accurate assessment than many in the West would like to admit.

The Economist reports that, while many Libyans rush valiantly to the front, the Libyan Army units that early on defected to the rebellion have remained on the sidelines, unmoved by the slaughter there erstwhile civilian comrades endure. In the face of such prevarication on the part of the armed forces, and the ferocious counterattack launched by pro-Qaddafi force in recent days, it is difficult to see support for the rebellion by the West to be anything but a fool’s gamble. How can even well-equipped untrained civilians be wagered upon by the West when the Libyan army refuses to do the same?

Yet, there is reason to believe that supporting the Libyan rebellion is the least-bad—even the best—option available to the West. There can, at this point, be no mistaking that the West intends for Qaddafi to be ousted one way or another. Indeed, Western states have said as much—the United States and Britain have called for him to immediately step down, France has extended recognition to the rebels. There is no salvaging Qaddafi-ite Libya’s position in the international community nor the relationship between Qaddafi and the West. What remains are varying degrees of hostility that culminate with outright war between the West and Libya. Thus, the West is left with the choice of taking no action and accepting the continuation of Qaddafi—to say nothing of the slaughter of Libyans—as a fait accompli or taking some action to push the Libyan rebels towards victory and, hopefully, the moribund Libyan defectors off the sidelines.

Merely accepting Qaddafi’s continued rule is a non-starter. The hostility between the West and his regime, as well as history of covert adventurism, makes his presence a threat to the West and to the region. Instead, providing the Libyan rebels with some covert assistance in the form of weapons, training, intelligence, and logistics may not only bolster them in the face of what will only be an increasingly brutal crackdown by Qaddafi but it may also help to get defected Libyan army units into the game—and, encourage other units to likewise defect.

Career soldiers—and generals, particularly—are practical people. They are trained to read the balance of forces, at least on a battlefield, and make decisions that are likely lead to ultimate survival if not success. Libyan army units which have now been relegated to the sidelines of the Libyan civil war will remain there so long as they think it is likelier than not that the Qaddafi regime will survive and that their treason will not be punished, ultimately, by death. Similarly, those units that have remained loyal to the regime will continue to press the attack—or at least not defect—so long as they think the odds are in favor of the regime’s survival. A measure of Western support for the rebels may set off a domino effect of pushing the rebels towards viability, forcing the defected Libyan units into the fight, and enticing currently loyal units to make common cause with their comrades in Benghazi.