Posts tagged iraq
From Sunday’s NYT. They’ve been doing this for years. Take a moment to reflect.
A Year in Iraq and Afghanistan
By IAN LIVINGSTON, ALICIA CHENG and SARAH GEPHART
IN 2010, the United States and its allies continued to shift the military focus from Iraq and to Afghanistan. American troop levels in Iraq fell by half, from more than 100,000 troops in January to under 50,000. In Afghanistan, a surge of mainly United States troops brought numbers to roughly 140,000, from near 100,000 at the beginning of the year. As shown in the chart (based on data from the Pentagon, icasualties.organd American allies), in 2010 there were 696 fatalities in Afghanistan and 56 in Iraq.
The death total in Iraq was the lowest of any year in the war by a significant margin, down by 85 from 2009. Nearly two-thirds of the deaths there were not related to combat, and most of the hostile deaths occurred in isolated incidents. Though overall violence levels in Iraq have not improved markedly over the last year, they at least seem fairly stable as Iraqi security forces take on more of the burden.
The fighting in parts of Afghanistan was intense, and 198 more allied troops died there than in 2009. Many of the fatalities occurred in Helmand Province, where some 15,000 American and NATO troops began a major offensive in February; homemade bombs and small-arms fire caused the vast majority of the casualties. While 2010 finished as the deadliest year of the war effort thus far, there is no question that Afghan and Western troops have made great strides in stabilizing the insecure provinces in the south and east of the country.
Ian Livingston is a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Alicia Cheng and Sarah Gephart are partners at mgmt. design in Brooklyn.
Lunchtime Read: We Have a New National Security Strategy
We have a new national security strategy. Unveiled a few days ago. NYT has the high points:
Mr. Obama also defines national security more broadly than his predecessor did, making the case, for example, that reducing the deficit is critical to sustaining American power. He emphasizes issues like the economy, education, climate change, energy and science. In that way, he tries to draw a broader theme linking his presidency to the notion of a “new foundation,” the phrase he previously has used as a slogan for his domestic program. “Our national security begins at home,” the strategy says.
Still, for all its self-conscious rejection of the Bush era, the document reflects elements of continuity. For example, it does not disavow using the state secrets act to withhold information from courts in terrorism cases, although it argues for prudent and limited use. It also insists that “we will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades.”
The document does not make the spread of democracy the defining priority that Mr. Bush did, but it embraces the goal more robustly than is typical for Mr. Obama, a reflection of a struggle within his administration about how to approach a topic that became so associated with Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama commits to “welcoming all peaceful democratic movements” and to “supporting the development of institutions within fragile democracies.” But he also broadens the goal by saying, “We recognize economic opportunity as a human right.”
It lays out a vision of a “stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia” but promises to “promote the rule of law, accountable government and universal values” within Russia and “support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.” And it reaffirms that the United States is “building a strategic partnership” with India and that “we welcome Brazil’s leadership.”
The bottom line, argued Ms. Rice, is that the security of the United States is inextricably linked to that of people everywhere. “By necessity, we need to build to the greatest extent possible cooperative relationships not only with traditional allies but with new partners,” she said.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather just read it myself. Enjoy.
We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Powerpoint. And More Goldman
The Times has a story this morning on the way PowerPoint has become deeply ingrained in planning and strategy for the military. This (crazy) slide is one example that’s been kicking around the web for a while.
Like an insurgency, PowerPoint has crept into the daily lives of military commanders and reached the level of near obsession. The amount of time expended on PowerPoint, the Microsoft presentation program of computer-generated charts, graphs and bullet points, has made it a running joke in the Pentagon and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
MORE THOUGHTS ON THE GOLDMAN HEARINGS
Two additional things. One, a friend of mine was making the point that it’s the government’s, specifically Congress’ fault! They make the rules. He pointed to this article to make his point. To a certain extent, he’s right. There was a wave of bipartisan deregulatory zeal that swept across our government over the last 30 years (not just concerning Wall Street). Congress/Prez smashed Glass-Steagal (which was working OK), enacted the commodity futures modernization act, etc etc. Further, we worshiped at an altar of free market triumphalism, led by high priests such as Rubin and Greenspan (who recently have said “I’m….kind of sorry for being wrong”). And consumer credit standards were allowed to get far too loose. But how did we get there? It wasn’t without help. There was a firm, long-term effort by the industry to weaken and eliminate the rules which had provided stability and cozy, but not crazy profits. Instead, they pushed for the changes which brought us the casino-like highs and lows that we’ve experienced over the last 5 years. The degree of regulatory capture is stunning. We need only look at Geithner and Summers, who now are leading the efforts to put the genie back in the bottle. While the government has some blame, they definitely didn’t do this alone- they were pushed.
The second argument my buddy made was that “we’re supposed to maximize profits”. Why are we being punished for doing well? I agree. that’s the sole reason for GS and others to exist. Their incentives cause them to look for, inflate, and profit from any sort of bubble that arises. And they all tried to cash in on the mortgage market with varying degrees of success. However, they didn’t face the true social costs of their behavior. That is to say, the externalities (the mortgage crisis and near collapse of our economy) fell squarely upon someone else- they taxpayer. So I say (and this is the most important part of these Goldman hearings) these docs and testimony shine a light into the heart of darkness at the center of Wall Street. We need an aggressive regulatory regime to limit the ability of these actors to repeat this activity. This would be the ultimate phyrric victory for Blankfein and Co. They were the smartest guys in the room, and successfully called the subprime bubble. But their hubris and greed may lead to a regulatory regime that cuts ROCE for the industry by a third or more. This, by the way, would probably be a net positive for our society. We don’t necessarily need or want a hyperactive financial sector. After all, look what good all the “innovation” in the synthetic CDO space did for us.
Viniar, Blankfein on deck. Can’t wait.
Weekend Reads
I get Vanity Fair, courtesy of the previous owners of our apartment. I pretty much ignored it reflexively, given its title. However, as I began to skim a bit, I began to see that I had made a mistake. They actually have some outstanding reporting on a variety of topics. Their coverage of the financial crisis has been outstanding. Examples here, here, and here.
So for your leisurely weekend reads, here are a couple great pieces from this month’s edition. The first is a lengthy profile on General David Petraeus. He’s basically revolutionized US military strategy, developing the counterinsurgency techniques that will decide our success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a beast. GI Joe meets Rhodes Scholar. It’s long (took me 30 minutes this morning), but that’s what the weekend is for.
Long read #2 is Tiger Woods.
It’s interesting timing as TW is in the hunt here on Master’s weekend. This has some more salacious detail, but it also offers some revealing info about TW, his dad, IMG, and the lifestyle he was living. Hard to believe, but he really seems like a monster. I wonder- if he wins this wknd, is it back to business as usual? The American people have a famously short memory, and this “shame and redemption” story arc he’s been riding is as American as apple pie. I also was interested to see Michael Jordan’s fingerprints at the crime scene. We all know MJ was (is) a sociopath (see “The Jordan Rules”), yet I’m a huge fan. Funny the way that the 2 most transcendent athletic stars of our lifetimes are both compulsive gamblers/womanizers/just not very nice people. Hmmmmm.
