Drones and Pakistan

Seems like every drone strike in Pakistan is targeting some 'high level' AQ or Taliban target or leader.

Really, I do not have a problem with drones launching attacking in Pakistan. Just like I do not have a problem with 'hot pursuit' missions that also cross the border. Once the Pakistani's start getting their business in order, then they can start complaining about 'sovereignty'. You do not see Germany launching cross border raids into France, or the US launching raids into Canada do you? No you do not. Because France and Canada are effective in policing their own state.

However, I agree with sharing some intell on the drone strikes with Pakistan and Afghanistan both. Well, anything in Pakistan that does not involve the ISI.

The US needs to develop out intell capacity inside Pakistan, so we can more effectively target militants there. The Pakistani military has been developing contacts and humint in the region for a while now. As well as engaging in combat. Seems like it is a good match. They provide intell on targets to hit, and we bring the resources to hit them.

Even if it is CIA and not US commanders in Afghanistan that are coordinating the attacks.

For all intents and purposes, it looks like the tactics may be succeeding. Militants being pushed back into Pakistan. Both further away from Afghanistan, which means they'll have to travel further to get there which means there is more time for them to be found, and taken out inside Pakistan by Pakistani forces. But they will also be pushed into less hospitable areas. Which should lead to better intell and a degredation of their ability to do much of anything.

Hit the red areas hard to drive the insurgents into the pink areas where they are separate from their support structure. And in having to build up a new one, they are more vulnerable.

UPDATE:
Got another one.

And the population starts to turn.

It was going to happen sooner or later...

Wahhabi-Salafis gaining a foothold in Lebabnon.

I just never thought it would be by co-opting a political figure!

Talk about making a HORRIBLE decision... To boost his religious credibility... Yeah, that worked out AWESOME for Saudi Arabia! Oh wait...

The Wahhabi-Salafis just want a legitimate power they can latch on to, so they can turn the screw when they need to. Try try and bend the process to their will.

Straight Wahhabi-Salafi or Islamist parties NEVER do will in elections on their own (unless they're the only viable opposition **Hamas** to a corrupt and dangerously incompetent party **Fatah**, or they simply take over the entire government power structure after any of the other secotrs that could had been destroyed by the overthrown government **Iran**). They require someone to give them an in...

And Hariri is giving it to them?

I would be too!

Syria is 'astounded' there were traces of weapons grade uranium found at the site the Israelis blew to bits a while back.

Is that the same kind of astonishment as the 'outrage' the expressed at the bombing the US conducted a few weeks ago?

I think so.

Their reaction to both was muted. The former I think because they did not want to attract attention to their bad activities.

The latter, probably because they implicitly wanted the US to take out the Wahhabi-Salafis. Could Syria take another Hama? Maybe, by why would they want to? Why risk it? Why not let the US take care of it for you?

UPDATE:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Taxing in a recession

Economic expansion requires capital investments to propell the economy above what it was.

Largely, the upper class are the only folks with the kind of money to invest to start new, large businesses.

So in periods of economic growth, it would make sense to lessen the taxes on this group at the expense of the middle class.

However, economic stabilization requires consumption. Starting a new business is more costly then propping up an old one. Assuming the capital can even be raised to start a new business.

The upper class is a very small segment of the populace, the middle class are the consumers. They make or break an economy by throwing money around.

In periods of economic decline, isn't it better to tax the rich more to give the middle class a break so they can help stabilize the economy?

I mean, the rich would get taxed largely on income that is not vital to their survival, while the middle class is given a break on income that is vital to their survival.

So the rich get richer in good times, and take a hit bad times so they can get richer again in the good times that are to follow.

Although, the financial implosion of hedge funds and the stock market may pose a new wrinkle. I've always viewed these as more or less 'fake' sources of wealth. Real wealth, money, infrastructure that lasts. A billion in the bank is a billion in the bank. But a billion in the stock market? A billion in a hedge fund? As we've seen, it can turn into 1 million in a matter of hours. All that 'wealth' simply vanished. Without much to show for it. Basically, this may be a much harder hit to recover from then in the past.

Does any of that make sense?

Iran's current economic problems

Here's an epic piece from Middle East Quarterly on the history of the Iranian economy.

More on the current problems. And it was published a month ago, when oil prices were higher.

This is really the main reason I do not see states like Venezuela and Iran as threats (Russia can also fall into this category, but with the sheer size of the nuclear arsenall and military they get an exemption). To be a credible threat, the enemy needs a leg to stand on. And while a vibrant booming economy is not always a requirement (Russia), without one, I dont see a state a s threat into the future.

God supplements the Tribe?

No, not THE Tribe, but the community.

Interesting piece from Slate on religion, atheism and morality.

A strong community can supplement for the presence of God in the way it makes people behave. Which makes total sense. What is a religion, but a much broader community? But instead of 'peer pressure' social pressures to conform to whatever norms have been established, religion has an omnipotent being and one whopper of a punishment.

The piece has some nice data and comparisons.

Tequila Diamonds v Cancer

You read that right. Tequila Diamonds v Cancer.

Rainforest yields... some kind of miracle?

I do not know how else to describe a naturally occurring fungus that produces diesel fuel from eating cellulose.

At most it is a Festivus miracle.

But restores hope that all of these exist in the Rain forest:
-Love Potion #9 Anti-Love Potion Omega
-Fountain of Youth
-Cancer Cure

At least for me.

Foreign Policy Dead Zones

Not mentioned much in debates, but still on the horizon.

Foreign Policy as a list a a blurb on a few crises around the world, and what it means for us.

Although, I would've added the recent uptick in violence in Eastern Congo to the list. That has the potential to be much more devastating then anything that is going on in Darfur or Somalia. With more local impact. A couple decades ago, Congo was both fought in and fought over by essentially every country neighboring it. Not to mention the fallout still persisting from the Rwandan Genocide. But it's international impact will be negligible. Which means it will not get noticed.

No Credit = No Power?

At least fancy-pants new power plants.

Financial Times reports on pending bankruptcies.

Essentially what we might end up with is a few companies controlling large swathes across the country. Hooray for deregulation!

This is only going to further exacerbate the problems I reported on earlier, where the only entities that may be able to assemble the capital to invest in new power stations (nuke, renewable) are going to have to be HUGE. Like governments, or the colossus that Exelon is becoming.

Voters like Pretty Women?

So basically, you are telling me that Hillary Clinton would essentially be President now if she spent $150,000 on clothes?

Also: next thing you know, scientists will be telling us that pretty women get more free drinks at bars.