Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Depreciating Dollar, and More from CRS
The Depreciating Dollar, and More from CRS
New or updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response, February 23, 2012
Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Current Policy and Conditions, January 30, 2012
Evaluating the Current Stance of Monetary Policy Using a Taylor Rule, January 30, 2012
Who Earns Pass-Through Business Income? An Analysis of Individual Tax Return Data, February 16, 2012
Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, February 24, 2012
Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, February 27, 2012
Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, February 1, 2012
Financial Performance of the Major Oil Companies, 2007-2011, February 17, 2012
The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response, February 23, 2012
Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Current Policy and Conditions, January 30, 2012
Evaluating the Current Stance of Monetary Policy Using a Taylor Rule, January 30, 2012
Who Earns Pass-Through Business Income? An Analysis of Individual Tax Return Data, February 16, 2012
Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, February 24, 2012
Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, February 27, 2012
Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, February 1, 2012
Financial Performance of the Major Oil Companies, 2007-2011, February 17, 2012
Obama, the Jewish lobby and the bomb
Obama, the Jewish lobby and the bomb
As Barack Obama prepares to face the pro-Israel lobby in America, he confronts one of the toughest choices of his presidency: whether to appease the warmongers. Much like the false pretexts of the Iraqi war, a picture is being painted that exploits Iran for political gain and is far from the reality of its nuclear intentions. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Feb 28, '12)
10 Reasons to Keep an Eye on AIPAC
10 Reasons to Keep an Eye on AIPAC
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the country. On March 4-6, AIPAC will hold its annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. The speakers include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich, and a host [...]
Energy Protectionism Is Not Good Policy
Energy Protectionism Is Not Good Policy
U.S. policymakers and pundits continue to treat energy as a “strategic” commodity, which is just a way of justifying inefficient government meddling in the industry sector. Before the 1973 Middle East oil crisis, the federal government tried to keep oil prices high to subsidize the oil industry.Will North Korea Stick to Deal?
Will North Korea Stick to Deal?
The Diplomat speaks with North Korea analyst L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, about the announcement today the U.S. had reached a nuclear deal with North Korea. How likely is it that this will lead to a resumption of the Six-Party Talks? It’s still early, but this agreement does hold forth the prospect of creating an environment in which the necessary steps and comprises necessary to return to the Six-Party Talks is possible. There’s clearly more to be done. If the freeze and other steps are implemented as announced, they represent classic necessary but not sufficient conditions for resuming the talks. It’s unimaginable that the talks could resume as long as North Korea was still moving forward with its uranium enrichment program, and testing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. With the freeze, and the positive reaffirmation of commitments to the September 19, 2005, joint statement of the ... Read More...
U.S., North Korea in Nuclear Deal
U.S., North Korea in Nuclear Deal
The recent rounds of negotiations between the United States and North Korea, hosted in Beijing, had seemed to go well. But according to news this morning they may gone even better than many had hoped for, with Pyongyang reportedly having agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. Commenting on the talks, U.S. negotiator Glyn Davies said: “I think we made a little bit of progress. I think what we have to do is evaluate and look at what it was that the North Koreans had to say to us, and then consult our allies and partners in the six-party talks.” The negotiations took place on February 23-24, and agreement also appears to have been reached on a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Wednesday that North Korea had also apparently consented to International Atomic Energy inspectors being allowed to confirm the moratorium on uranium enrichment and ... Read More...
Large Coalition Asks for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize to Be Rescinded
Large Coalition Asks for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize to Be Rescinded
By leading anti-war activist David Swanson, author of Day Break and War Is A Lie, who runs the websites DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org (formerly AfterDowningStreet.org)Dear Members of Stockholm’s County Administrative Board:
The signers of this petition include an array of peace groups and peace activists based in the United States. The undersigned wish to endorse and support the investigation that Stockholm’s County Administrative Board has reportedly begun based on it supervisory role over the Nobel Foundation and information received from Norwegian peace researcher/author Fredrik Heffermehl. We understand your Board has formally asked the Nobel Foundation to respond to allegations that the peace prize no longer reflects Nobel’s will that the purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations. According to Heffermehl, “Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace,…and it’s indisputable that (Nobel) had in mind the peace movement, the movement which is actively pursuing a new global order … where nations safely can drop national armaments.”
The undersigned non-profit peace organizations and activists base their endorsement of your inquiry on the following facts:
Alfred Nobel’s will, written in 1895, left funding for a prize to be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
After only a few years, however, a disastrous trend was begun of awarding the prize to government officials and political figures who had done more to promote war than peace. For instance in 1919, the Nobel “prize for peace” went to Woodrow Wilson who had needlessly dragged his own nation into the worst war yet seen; who had developed innovative war propaganda techniques, conscription techniques, and tools for suppressing dissent; who had used the U.S. military to brutal effect in the Caribbean and Latin America; who had agreed to a war-promoting settlement to the Great War; but who, in the war’s aftermath, promoted a “League of Nations” in the hopes of resolving disputes peacefully.
Although the Nobel peace prize came to be heavily, but by no means entirely, dominated by elected officials, yet some excellent award choices occurred in the ensuing years: that of Jane Addams as co-recipient in 1931, Norman Angell in 1933, and organizations, such as the Red Cross in 1944 (and again in 1963) and the American Friends Service Committee in 1947. It’s worth asking, however, why even more principled war opponents including Gandhi were never deemed worthy.
In 1953 the Nobel went to General George Marshall. In 1973 a co-laureate was none other than Henry Kissinger and whatever their merits, these were major makers of war who would almost certainly have also won the Nobel War Prize, were there such a thing. This insanity competed, however, with the bestowing in other years of the prize on leaders who were not holders of high office, not necessarily born to wealth, and not only opponents of war but also advocates of the use of nonviolent resistance to violence and injustice. Thus the peace prize went in 1964 to Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1976 to Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, in 1980 to Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, in 1983 to Lech Walesa, in 1984 to Desmond Tutu, in 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, in 1992 to Rigoberta Menchú Tum, etc.
The Kissinger style “peace” laureate, and the MLK type differed in that one was the path of peace activists who dedicated their careers to international fraternity and demilitarization and the other was the path of powerful figures and makers of war who had either shown some restraint in a particular instance or had appeared (accurately or not) to have acted on behalf of peace in a particular situation. Honoring both nonviolent human rights advocates and mass murderers has moved the prize away from advocacy for the elimination of standing armies and is at odds with the words in Nobel’s will as well as the early tradition of awarding the prize to true advocates of peace.
In 2006 and 2007, Muhammad Yunus and Al Gore took home peace prizes for work that, at best, bears only an indirect connection to peace.
Despite these previous examples of falling short of Nobel’s original intent in establishing the Peace Prize, at least from 1901 to 2008, no peace prize was given to anyone who had neither done nor even pretended to do anything significant for peace nor done any other good and significant thing that some people might believe would indirectly contribute to peace. That all changed in 2009 when US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama had just been placed in a position of great power promising to expand the world’s largest military, to escalate a war, and to launch strikes into other nations without any war declarations. He showed up to collect his winnings and gave a speech justifying and praising war. His acceptance speech rejected a previous laureate’s (MLK’s) speech as too peaceful.
The 2009 Nobel Prize recipient, President Barak Obama, did not even attempt to earn his award as some had hoped but has instead followed through on his speech justifying and praising war. This hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by many other people in the world, prompting 1980 Peace Laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel’s recent letter to the 2009 peace laureate bemoaning the fact that Obama is waging wars on behalf of the military industrial complex and “burying himself more and more in violence and devoured by the domination of power”. In addition to directly contradicting the terms of Alfred Nobel’s last will, the awarding of the world’s foremost peace prize to a militarist who states his intent to wage war, perniciously serves the opposite purpose.
We therefore commend your investigation of the betrayal of the award in order to re-establish criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize that is aligned with Nobel’s original intent. We also suggest your Board communicate with the Nobel Foundation urging them to rescind Obama’s award so that the Nobel Peace Prize does not serve to sugarcoat, obfuscate and enable more use of violence and military force, the exact opposite purpose for which it was created.
We will keep you apprized as more US peace groups and individuals sign this endorsement.
Endorse as an organization.
Endorse as an individual.
Undersigned:
Veterans for Peace (Leah Bolger, National President)
Minnesota Campaign to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions (Jack Rossbach, Director, who adds that MCBL was part of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 deservedly)
DemocracyorEmpire.org (Adrien and Ed Helm, coordinators)
New Hampshire Peace Action (Will Hopkins, Director)
Eagan and Burnsville (Minnesota) Peace Vigils
Dr. Michael D. Knox, Chair, US Peace Memorial Foundation (in his individual capacity)
Women Against Military Madness (Director Kim Doss-Smith)
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (Sibel Edmonds, Founder)
Grand Rapids Area Peace Circle (Vicki Andrews, member)
Vets for Peace, Itasca Chapter #148
Anti-war.com
Come Home America
Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, Global Exchange and CODEPINK (in her individual capacity)
Ann Wright, retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat who resigned in opposition to the Iraq war
Ray McGovern, veteran Army officer and former CIA analyst
David Swanson, peace activist-researcher and author of War Is A Lie
Military Families Speak Out- Minnesota Chapter (Mike Perkins, member)
Other links:
The Betrayal of the Nobel Peace Prize | Let’s Try … – David Swanson
The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted by Fredrik S. Heffermehl http://www.amazon.com/Nobel-Peace-Prize-Really-Wanted/dp/0313387443
“Puppet Obama prize an infomercial for war” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9TumJf3w6A
“Clinton, Manning among Nobel Peace Prize candidates” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/nobel-peace-prize-2012-nominees_n_1303614.html
Are Fossil Fuel Subsidies About to Go Green?
Are Fossil Fuel Subsidies About to Go Green?
Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz
President Obama is trying to renovate the country's intricate tax system. He won't succeed in time for the November election. But he might pull it off if he sticks around and can build on the existing bipartisan support to accomplish just that.For now, the framework that the president has established is as much a political proclamation as its is a budgetary or tax document. Obama would reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent -- to be paid in part by cutting or eliminating the breaks and subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. Manufacturers,...
President Obama is trying to renovate the country's intricate tax system. He won't succeed in time for the November election. But he might pull it off if he sticks around and can build on the existing bipartisan support to accomplish just that.For now, the framework that the president has established is as much a political proclamation as its is a budgetary or tax document. Obama would reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent -- to be paid in part by cutting or eliminating the breaks and subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. Manufacturers,...
Crippling Gas Prices Will Cost Obama Dearly
Crippling Gas Prices Will Cost Obama Dearly
Dick Morris, The Hill
IÂ hate to quote the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the chickens have come home to roost for President Obama as higher oil and gasoline prices swamp his reelection bid. Count the chickens. . .
IÂ hate to quote the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the chickens have come home to roost for President Obama as higher oil and gasoline prices swamp his reelection bid. Count the chickens. . .
The President Is Out of Touch on Energy
The President Is Out of Touch on Energy
Sen. Roy Blunt, Kansas City Star
As recent reports have noted, gasoline prices are on course to hit $4 a gallon by summertime "” more than doubling since President Obama took office in January 2009 and marking a record high for February.Higher prices at the gas pump hurt families and small businesses in Missouri and nationwide, delaying much-needed job creation and threatening our economic recovery.Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/28/3457514/as-i-see-it-on-energy-obama-is.html#storylink=cpy
As recent reports have noted, gasoline prices are on course to hit $4 a gallon by summertime "” more than doubling since President Obama took office in January 2009 and marking a record high for February.Higher prices at the gas pump hurt families and small businesses in Missouri and nationwide, delaying much-needed job creation and threatening our economic recovery.Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/28/3457514/as-i-see-it-on-energy-obama-is.html#storylink=cpy
Hamas Signals Break with Iran, But Is That Good for Israel?
http://globalspin.blogs.time.
Hamas Signals Break with Iran, But Is That Good for Israel?
By Tony Karon
.Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike
Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike
Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.
By Barak RavidIsrael wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
Attack On Iran Could Result In Attacks Here
The New York Times reports today that, "American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas."
Just what Americans and Israelis need. According to the front page piece, Israelis might have to endure a missile onslaught from Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, while we could see car bombs exploding in our cities and our troops coming under renewed terror attacks in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East.
An increase in car bombs set off against civilian targets in world capitals would also be possible. And Iran would almost certainly smuggle high-powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan, where they could be planted along roadways and set off by surrogate forces to kill and maim American and NATO troops — much as it did in Iraq during the peak of violence there.
Nonetheless, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), AIPAC has decided to make the Lieberman-Graham-Casey resolution — which would ban containment of Iran in favor of attacking its nuclear sites — the centerpiece of its upcoming Washington conference (which starts on Sunday with a speech by President Obama). JTA reports that the "resolution, which now has 35 signatories, is expected to top the agenda of items that AIPAC activists will take with them to Capitol Hill on March 6, the conference's last day."
There has been some speculation that AIPAC's inability to attract more than 35 co-sponsors on the resolution is a sign of weakness. I doubt it. I think it wants to start with a low number and then, following its conference, trumpet the spike in sponsorship from 35 to 80 or 90.
The case against a tariff on imported Chinese solar panels
By Jim Pierobon, February 29, 2012
Below The Energy Fix shares the case AGAINST a tariff on solar panels imported from China. The case FOR a tariff was published here February 14. Last October the US subsidiary of German-based SolarWorld, a manufacturer of polysilicon solar cells, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission alleging that China was selling solar cells in the US a low... » Continue...
Below The Energy Fix shares the case AGAINST a tariff on solar panels imported from China. The case FOR a tariff was published here February 14. Last October the US subsidiary of German-based SolarWorld, a manufacturer of polysilicon solar cells, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission alleging that China was selling solar cells in the US a low... » Continue...
How Helpless Are We in the Face of Rising Oil Prices?
By Geoffrey Styles, February 29, 2012
Oil is rarely not political, and with gasoline prices hitting record levels early in a presidential election year, we shouldn't be surprised that both the President and his challengers have focused on energy policy. President Obama gave what was billed as a major speech on energy at the University of Miami in Florida yesterday. After urging more students to study engineering--a sentiment I would... » Continue...
Oil is rarely not political, and with gasoline prices hitting record levels early in a presidential election year, we shouldn't be surprised that both the President and his challengers have focused on energy policy. President Obama gave what was billed as a major speech on energy at the University of Miami in Florida yesterday. After urging more students to study engineering--a sentiment I would... » Continue...
Solyndra’s Lessons: Challenges of the Global Energy Market
By Jesse Parent, February 29, 2012
In September 2011, Solyndra, a US-based solar panel manufacturer, declared bankruptcy. The Solyndra case illustrates the complexity of developing renewable energies. Many globalization factors influence the production and distribution of renewable energy, such as economics, politics, science and technology policy, and commodity markets, to name a few. The demand for energy... » Continue...
In September 2011, Solyndra, a US-based solar panel manufacturer, declared bankruptcy. The Solyndra case illustrates the complexity of developing renewable energies. Many globalization factors influence the production and distribution of renewable energy, such as economics, politics, science and technology policy, and commodity markets, to name a few. The demand for energy... » Continue...
Treasury Yield Descending Signals Slowdown
Treasury Yield Descending Signals Slowdown By John Detrixhe and Daniel Kruger - Feb 29, 2012 8:55 AM MT
The $10 trillion market for US Treasuries is signaling that the economic recovery may be poised to weaken even as consumer confidence rises toward pre-recession levels.
Yields (USGG10YR) on 10-year Treasury notes, the benchmark for everything from mortgage rates to corporate bonds, fell as low as 1.89 percent yesterday, down from this year's high of 2.09 percent on Jan. 23, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The yield averaged 2.76 percent in 2011 and 3.19 percent in 2010.
Debating the Next War.
|
Leaving Afghanistan By Haviland Smith
Rural Ruminations (http://rural-ruminations.
Leaving Afghanistan
February 28, 2012
By Haviland Smith
Reasonably careful attention to the news media, shows that writers and talking heads are increasingly surprised that things are not going our way in the Middle East. Recently a number of commentators have expressed surprise that Iraq looks to be sliding toward chaos and indignation at the recent killings of some of our advisor/soldiers in Afghanistan.
We have now been in Afghanistan for over a decade. That is twice as long as we were involved in World War II – and longer than any foreign war in our history. We went to Afghanistan to redress the attack of 9/11. We then completely took our eyes off the ball and invaded Iraq, an act that may well turn out to be the greatest foreign policy gaff in the history of the United States.
We went into Afghanistan on the premise that we were fighting the Global War On Terror (GWOT) and in fairly short order we had completely eliminated Al Qaeda from the Afghan countryside. By 2002, GWOT/Afghanistan was all over. In 2003, we invaded Iraq, destroying whatever planning continuity we may have had for Afghanistan. And guess what happened. As time dragged on, the struggle in Afghanistan ceased being a counterterrorism program and became a counterinsurgency with Afghan people rising up against us. The Bush administration avoided acknowledging that. They purposefully continued to call it counterterrorism. It’s easier to get sympathy and support fighting terrorists than it is fighting insurgents.
The problem here is that, according to the US Army’s own experts, a counterinsurgency program requires 25 troops for every 1,000 indigenous residents, which would have meant a commitment of 850,000 US troops to effectively combat the Afghan insurgency. So, by 2011, ten years in, we were fighting an insurgency with a force that was one eighth the size required by the facts on the ground.
How did we manage to get to the point where we are so roundly disliked by the Afghans? A look back on our behaviors in Afghanistan show a pattern that clearly was not designed to win Afghan hearts and minds. The torture and abuse of Afghan prisoners at Bagram began in 2002 and came to public light in 2005. Helicopter and drone attacks have regularly caused collateral civilian damage. Afghans have seen American soldiers urinate on Afghan dead. And most recently, we have been burning Korans, which is an incredible sacrilege in Islam.
This is certainly not to say that we have purposefully committed these acts. Clearly, the haze of war, cultural ineptitude and plain old stupidity are co-responsible. What is fact, however, is that we are the foreigners in Afghanistan and we have been there for over a decade. The average Afghan, if he remembers at all, thinks we came to get rid of Al Qaida. And we did, by 2002 at the latest. So they ask, why have we stayed?
Growing Number Of Americans Can't Afford Food, Study Finds
Growing Number Of Americans Can't Afford Food, Study Finds
Globalist Bookshelf > Global Society The Waning of the American Dream
 | |
 | |
The United States is beset by several critical and increasingly threatening liabilities. Its gridlocked political system, dominated by vitriolic partisan discourse, has sharply reduced America's ability to deal meaningfully with its mounting and eventually unsustainable national debt, to repair its decaying infrastructure, and to address problems in its economic system. |
U.S. Considers New Message on Iran
- MIDDLE EAST NEWS
- FEBRUARY 28, 2012
U.S. Considers New Message on Iran
By CAROL E. LEE and JAY SOLOMON
WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the U.S.'s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more forcefully outlining potential military actions, and the "red lines" Iran must not cross, as soon as this weekend, according to people familiar with the discussions.- US Considers New Message on Iran
Wall Street Journal - 1 day agoBy CAROL E. LEE and JAY SOLOMON WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the US's public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more ...
U.S. Considers New Message on Iran - Legal News - FindLaw
legalnews.findlaw.com/article/07QW5tBciR2F2?q=Barack+ObamaBy Carol E. Lee And Jay Solomon WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the U.S.'s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to ...
Israel – Iran Military Comparison
Israel – Iran Military Comparison
Posted on 02/29/2012 by Juan Colehttp://www.juancole.com/2012/
With all the hooplah about a possible Israeli attack on Iran (which I view as rather unlikely), it is worthwhile revisiting the issue of how weak and how much of a nothing the Iranian military is compared to powerhouse Israel. Statistics mostly 2011 from Global Firepower. Note that some comparisons are invidious, as with Israeli reservists, who are quite professional and Iranian reservists, who typically are not. Or, comparing Israeli fighter jets and other aircraft to old broken down Iranian ones is silly. If Israel’s and Iran’s air forces were close enough to tangle (they are not), Iran’s wouldn’t last a day.
Iran Israel Military Comparison
Iran Israel Military Comparison (2)Iran and the Shape of Things to Come
Iran and the Shape of Things to Come
Mike Lofgren, Huffington Post, Posted: 02/21/2012 7:05 pm
Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend. (This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself) - French proverb
It is hard not to think of that Gallic witticism when observing recent international events. Aside from almost daily threats from the governments of Israel and the United States to attack Iran -- a violation of the United Nations Charter -- Iran has been subject to sabotage, violations of its airspace by military drones, and assassinations of its citizens. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising to hear news of attempted attacks on Israeli embassies in Georgia, India, and Thailand. Iran may very well be behind them.
Vatican Calls for Global Financial Reform
In a Foreign Affairs snapshot, Samuel Gregg, research director of the Acton Institute, comments on the Vatican's call for ethics in the global economy and its focus on capital controls that discourage international financial speculation. According to Gregg, the Church's social doctrine is grappling with how best to accommodate the growing divergence in interests between Catholics in developed nations and those in emerging economies. Visit Foreign Affairs »
Debating U.S. Options in Syria
As the debate over intervention or arming the opposition grows amid continuing violence in Syria, four CFR experts offer their recommendations on how Washington should respond to the crisis. Follow Elliott Abrams, Robert Danin, Ed Husain, and Micah Zenko as they weigh in on the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in Syria. Follow the Debate »
The Struggle for Religion in China
| The Economist writes that in an effort to safeguard control, hardliners and ranking officials in China's Communist Party are adopting more conservative lines. Polling data from 2007 indicates that one in six party members adhere to a faith, yet China's conservative wing forbids religious affiliation for party members. Fearful that religious tolerance in the political sphere will lead to ideological separation, China continues to tighten its grip. Read More from The Economist |
Empty Politics Pose Biggest Threat to U.S. Power: Clive Crook
Empty Politics Pose Biggest Threat to U.S. Power: Clive Crook
By Clive Crook Feb 28, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
Theorists of American decline are preoccupied with the surging growth of emerging rivals, especially China. That’s an important issue, I don’t doubt. But there’s a much bigger threat to U.S. power: the increasingly abject failure of the country’s own political class. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
Washington sees it as obvious and unremarkable that public policy has been in hibernation for the past few months and isn’t expected to wake up until January 2013. Of course the country needs tax reform. Yes, a budget would be good, maybe some longer-term spending plans that anybody could take seriously, too. But this is an election year. What do you expect? How long have you lived in the U.S., anyway?
One thing a foreigner like myself might naively expect is serious discussion of relevant policy options. That isn’t happening either. The contest for the Republican presidential nomination, which has the U.S. political class transfixed, is barely even pretending to be serious. In this election, the country has to make a “foundational” choice, says Rick Santorum. Does the U.S. want to follow the European welfare- state model, asks Mitt Romney, or stay true to its principles? Gosh, so much is at stake.
"Finding the Right Targets,"
The jargon these days is "ISR" (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), and it is a key function for drones, such as Reaper. In fact, it is the underlying reason for them. Surely, it must be, for as we have already seen, the MQ-9 Reaper is significantly more expensive to buy and operate than analogous manned aircraft (according to official Air Force and DOD cost data), it cannot survive in defended airspace, and it carries a meager payload of just two types of weapons. (See the discussion at http://battleland.blogs.
Today's part of this series addresses what turns out to be Reaper's extremely limited ability to find and identify valid targets. The simple fact is that some of the technologies Reaper uses for sensing targets is simply not working and in other cases longstanding problems have not been solved. How bad is it? See the discussion below comparing Reaper not to modern combat aircraft but to a primitive Cessna aircraft with sensor technology far cheaper than Reaper's.
Readers may also be interested to learn that this entire series on Reaper was peer reviewed by some highly qualified technical experts, including three serving DOD officials (and one retiree) with significant responsibilities for drone performance and/or operations. In each case, the experts specifically reviewed the material that follows on Reaper's "ISR" capabilities (and the analysis on crash rate to be published tomorrow). These officials had no quarrel with the series' analysis and findings, except to say in one case that a drone (other than Reaper) did not have difficulty tracking a human target once located and identified by other means. In commenting on the series summation, to be published Friday, this same commenter asserted "totally agree," all in CAPs.
Today's third part of the series, "Finding the Right Targets," is available at http://battleland.blogs.time.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Leadership tips from Hollywood's top directors
Leadership tips from Hollywood's top directors
The best Hollywood movie directors tend to be eccentrics who've figured out how to focus their peculiarities in the service of their artistic vision, writes Lillian Cunningham. Woody Allen's neurotic public persona belies his calm, soothing on-set leadership role; Martin Scorsese's passion lets him blend planning and improvisation; and Steven Spielberg is able to run the show but still delegate and collaborate when necessary. The Washington Post
The best Hollywood movie directors tend to be eccentrics who've figured out how to focus their peculiarities in the service of their artistic vision, writes Lillian Cunningham. Woody Allen's neurotic public persona belies his calm, soothing on-set leadership role; Martin Scorsese's passion lets him blend planning and improvisation; and Steven Spielberg is able to run the show but still delegate and collaborate when necessary. The Washington Post
The Mossad Has Long Given Marching Orders to AIPAC
The Mossad Has Long Given Marching Orders to AIPAC
AIPAC’s Washington policy conference next month is drawing intense scrutiny and unprecedented resistance. AIPAC has worked quietly for years to tripwire the United States into war with Iran. Soon it will “ask” Congress and the president to define “nuclear weapons capability” as the threshold for war, essentially demanding an immediate attack.Matt Stoller: Towards a Creditor State – One in Seven Americans Pursued by Debt Collectors
Posted: 28 Feb 2012 12:16 AM PST
By Matt Stoller, the former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. You can reach him at stoller (at) gmail.com or follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller.
I went through the Federal Reserve’s Quarterly Release on Household Debt and Credit released today, and there were two notable trends. One is that the amount of consumer debt is declining, but that delinquency rates are stabilizing above what they were before the crisis. And the second is in this graph, which is that the number of people subject to third party collections has doubled since 2000, from a little less than 7% to a little over 14% of consumers. Ten years ago, one in fourteen American consumers were pursued by debt collectors. Today it’s one in seven.The experience of debt collection can be chilling, as this 2007 ABC News report suggests.
Consumers around the country have taped threatening phone calls from collectors who have called in the middle of the night, used abusive language and have threatened to have people fired from work or thrown in jail. All of these tactics are illegal under federal law.One of the characteristics of the new social contract ushered in by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama is the increasing power of creditors to govern outright, from tax farming by banks to the use of credit checks to access employment opportunities.
There are now thousands of people legally jailed because they aren’t paying their bills, ie. debtor’s prisons have returned. Occasionally elites let it slip that this is not an accident, but is their goal – former Comptroller General David Walker has wistfully pined for debtor’s prisons overtly (on CNBC, no less).
The second of my series on the MQ-9 Reaper drone by Winslow Wheeler
The second of my series on the MQ-9 Reaper drone at Time's Battleland blog is on the subject of cost and some measures of performance.
The conventional wisdom, widely reported in the press, is that drones, such as Reaper, are cheaper to buy and operate than manned aircraft. That "wisdom" is badly misinformed. The cost comparisons are not even close. Read on, below this introduction.
Comparisons to manned aircraft on other performance dimensions are a--somewhat--mixed bag. See also below regarding endurance, payload and survivability.
Find the first part of this series--on Reaper basics and pundits' rhetoric on drones--from Monday at http://battleland.blogs.time.
Tomorrow's part of the series addresses the performance dimension of Reaper (and drones in general) that many regard as their most important and their biggest advantage over manned aircraft: the ability to find and identify targets. Fasten your seat belt.
And now, on the cost -
The MQ-9′s Cost and Performance
The MQ-9′s Cost and Performance
Because of Reaper’s nature, unit-cost estimates can be tricky. Various media reports cite a per-unit cost from $4 million to $5 million. They are quite incorrect.
Because they are integral to Reaper’s ability to operate, the ground components for it must be included, and a Combat Air Patrol, or “CAP” (i.e. the specified Reaper operating unit), consists of four air vehicles, not one. Accordingly, the Air Force factsheet for Reaper cites a unit cost not for one air vehicle but for a Reaper CAP (“four aircraft with sensors”) at $53.5 million in FY 2006 dollars (which would be $60.3 million in 2012 dollars).[1] But even that Air Force fact sheet calculation is incomplete.
It does not include development and other costs that are included in DOD’s summary Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs). The latest SAR available (from December 2010) shows a cost of $11.3 billion (in 2008 dollars) for the then-planned total purchase of 399[2] individual Reaper air vehicles and associated ground equipment.[3] In contemporary 2012 dollars that comes to $12.1 billion, which calculates to $30.2 million for each individual Reaper and its share of ground equipment, or $120.8 million for a complete, operable CAP of four.[4] (Given the infrequency at which Reaper flies in comparison to typical combat aircraft, the four Reaper calculation is apt for comparing to manned aircraft. This issue is discussed more in later parts of this series.)
The actual cost for a Reaper unit is $120.8 million in 2012 dollars. Given the newly announced reduction in Reaper production rates, the elements that Reaper uses but charged to other programs (summarized in Part 1) and the statement that some additional ground control stations may be bought, the $120.8 million unit cost is an underestimate; however, the data are unavailable to know by how much.
Reaper unit cost is well above that of the aircraft frequently compared to it: the F-16 and the A-10. The Air Force’s “factsheet” on the F-16C cites an $18.8 million unit cost in 1998 dollars (or $27.2 million in 2012 dollars);[5] GAO cites F-16C unit procurement cost, not including R&D which is not readily available for inclusion, at $55 million per copy.[6] For the A-10, the Air Force factsheet cites no estimate for the unit cost,[7] but GAO cited a total program unit cost (including R&D) at $11.8 million in 1994 dollars (or $18.8 million in 2012 dollars). There have been modifications to the A-10 since that GAO estimate, even if they were to double the cost of the aircraft, it would remain a fraction of the cost to buy a Reaper unit.
Reaper is not cheaper to buy than aircraft it is compared to; it is multiples more expensive: from two to six times more costly.[8]
Nor is Reaper cheaper to operate, despite initial appearances. Air Force flying hour cost data shows Reaper to cost only $3,624 per hour to fly in 2011 for what the Air Force terms “operational” flying hour costs.[9] That compares to the much higher hourly cost to fly A-10s or F-16s: $17,780 per hour for the newly modified A-10C and $20,809 for an F-16C. However, because each Reaper flies a large number of hours in the air, the math suppresses the per-hour Reaper number. If the calculation is for total maintenance costs over the course of a year for a Reaper unit, the relationship changes: at a per year cost of $5.1 million, per individual Reaper, and at $20.4 million per CAP, the Reaper shows itself to be well above the cost to maintain and operate over a year for an individual A-10C (at $5.5 million) or an F-16C (at $4.8 million).[10] Annual operating unit cost for a Reaper unit is about four times the annual cost to operate an F-16 or an A-10.
Infrastructure: Much of those higher costs are driven by the infrastructure needed to operate Reaper, which has an extensive infrastructure on the ground: the GCS, satellite link, and the local control unit for take offs and landings. Most of this support is not analogous to manned aircraft. For example, without a control tower and its personnel, a manned aircraft remains capable of landing, and without centralized mission control, they are able to perform their missions quite effectively. (Indeed, many argue convincingly that micro-management of manned aircraft by a central command seriously degrades effectiveness.)
Reaper’s infrastructure necessitates at least 171 personnel for each CAP: these include 43 mission control personnel, including seven pilots and seven sensor operators, 59 launch, recovery and maintenance personnel (including six more pilots and sensor operators), 66 Processing Exploitation Dissemination personnel for intelligence and its support (including 14 more maintenance personnel) and three “other equipment” personnel.[11]
As some say, drones like Reaper are not “unmanned;” hence the term “remotely piloted vehicle.”
Endurance: Reaper’s ability to loiter over the battlefield for long periods (attempting to collect intelligence, find targets, and engage them) is much longer than manned combat aircraft; however, there are some limitations. Reaper, like many aircraft, must trade off gas (and loiter time) for munitions and cannot take off with a full load of both. General Atomics, and many media reports, assert day long endurance, even 30 hours,[12] but that is with no munitions adding weight and drag. Others, such as DOT&E and Global Security note the trade-off between fuel and weapons and that actual endurance is “approximately” [13] 14 hours (or “up to” 14 hours[14]) for a Reaper carrying weapons. Nonetheless, this lesser loiter time is a multiple of what manned aircraft perform, even with mid-mission aerial refueling. An A-10 might have a prolonged mission of four hours, usually less. (CBO reports an Air Force assessment of a limit of 12 hours for the pilot of a single seat aircraft;[15] however, that is very uncommon and may only realistically pertain to U-2 reconnaissance aircraft.)
Survivability: Reaper (like Predator) is fundamentally incapable of defending itself. It lacks any ability to sense threats 360 degrees around itself; while it can “see” below and somewhat to the sides, it is through a “soda straw” (depending on the setting of the sensors). If it does observe a threat, it is incapable of doing anything effective about it; not only is it quite slow, but with a high aspect ratio wing varying from 55 to 86 feet and a frail airframe unable to withstand more than a mild two “G” maneuver,[16] it is incapable of agile movement to get out of the way of immediate threats. If it attempts high angle maneuvers, it may lose its link to satellite or ground control, which has in the past caused crashes. It is also unarmored to survive a hit. Reapers (and Predator) have been equipped with Stinger air to air missiles for a theoretical air-to-air capability, but with so little external awareness and no ability to maneuver, it is a meaningless “capability” adding little more than weight and drag. (A Predator has been reported to have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage an Iraqi aircraft in 2003 with a Stinger missile; the Predator was destroyed by the aircraft it attempted to engage.[17]) As analysts have commented, Reaper is survivable only in a “permissive” environment, which in truth means an absence of air defenses. (This problem also explains why Reaper and Predator are reluctant to venture below 10,000 feet where they can become vulnerable to man portable guns and early vintage man portable air defense missiles.)
Reaper compares poorly to manned combat aircraft on survivability. The A-10, for example, was thought by some to be vulnerable to modern air defenses of the sort above Iraq and Kosovo that it successfully engaged and survived. In operation Desert Storm in 1991, A-10s were highly survivable, even in the presence of Iraq’s densest and more effective defenses; there, the A-10 had an attrition rate of 0.5 aircraft for every 1,000 sorties,[18] a rate that GAO found to be a statistically insignificant difference from the higher survivability rate of the F-117 stealth attack bomber.[19] In the Kosovo air war, the A-10 had a higher survivability rate than the F-117.
Payload: One of the biggest improvements of Reaper over Predator is increased payload: 450 pounds for the Predator (specifically two Hellfire missiles), compared to an internal payload of 750 pounds (for sensors) and an external (wing mounted) payload of 3,000 pounds for Reaper (for weapons and/or fuel tanks).[20] However, the weight carrying ability of the individual wing hard points limits what is in fact carried.[21] While the Reaper is credited to be able to carry as many as 16 Hellfires[22] or four 500 pound laser guided bombs, CBO notes that a typical payload “varies up to” four Hellfire missiles and two 500 pound bombs.[23]
Despite being credited by many as also employing 500 pound GPS guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs, DOT&E reports that “ongoing developmental challenges precluded operational testing and fielding” Reaper with JDAMs.[24]
Reaper’s maximum payload is a fraction of what A-10s can and do carry. Rather than the Reaper’s maximum 3,000 pound payload (or a typical payload of two Hellfires and two 500 pound laser guided bombs), the A-10 has a maximum payload of 16,000 pounds and is credited with carrying up to eighteen 500 pound bombs (guided or unguided).[25] F-16’s, as bombers, typically carry two 2,000 pound bombs and additional fuel.[26] (Some asses F-16’s at four 2,000 pound bombs or eight 500 pound bombs.[27]) However, this crude analysis of simple weight does not adequately measure the difference between Reaper and an aircraft such as the A-10, or even lesser aircraft. This analysis ignores other very important issues, such as the nature, variety and delivery methods the A-10 can employ. And, it ignores what many credit as the A-10’s most effective weapon, the GAU-8 cannon for which Reaper has no counterpart. With its lesser weapons payload, Reaper is unable to loiter over the battlefield and employ weapons for more than a very limited number of targets. Even five Reapers would not match the air to ground capability of one A-10.
However, one must also consider the relative ability to collect intelligence and find a target (and to distinguish if it should be attacked). This is an area where drone advocates assert real superiority over manned aircraft.
Next: The Reaper’s Ability to Hunt Down Targets
Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
Endnotes
[1] See p. 2 of http://www.af.mil/information/
[2] The 399 count includes the 396 bought under procurement account funding and three bought under research and development funding.
[3] See p. 11 of the DOD Summary SAR for all Major Defense Acquisition Programs for December 2010 at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/
[4] In the- year dollars, the program is $12.496 billion for 399 air vehicles, or $31.3 million each, or $125.3 million for a CAP.
[5] See the Air Force’s “factsheet” at http://www.af.mil/information/
[6] See p. 9 of February 24, 2011 letter to Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Howard McKeon, Government Accountability Office, “Tactical Aircraft: Air Force Fighter Reports Generally Addressed Congressional Mandates, but Reflected Dated Plans and Guidance, and Limited Analyses,” GAO-11-323R, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
[7] See the Air Force fact sheet at http://www.af.mil/information/
[8] Reaper, like virtually any DOD acquisition system, has also its cost overruns: GAO estimates that, as of 2010, Reaper unit cost increased 32 percent (from $508.7 million for 33 aircraft to $2,406 million for 118 aircraft). See p. 6 of “Defense Acquisitions: DOD Could Achieve Greater Commonality and Efficiencies among Its Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Government Accountability Office, March 23, 2010, GAO-10-508T, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/
[9] The flying hour cost data is from Air Force flying hour cost spread sheets available from the author on request.
[10] Some will find it strange that an A-10 costs more to operate per year than an F-16, but the A-10 has been flying significantly more hours per aircraft, and the conversion to the new “C” model has also increased costs.
[11] See slide 4 of “The Way Ahead: Remotely Piloted Aircraft in the United States Air Force,” briefing slides presented by Lt Gen Dave Deptula, Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, undated, at http://www.daytonregion.com/
[12] See General Atomics fact sheet at http://www.ga-asi.com/
[13] P. 245, “FY 2011 Annual Report,” Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, December 2011, Department of Defense, at http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/
[14] See Global Security website at http://www.globalsecurity.org/
[15] P. 29 of CBO’s “Policy Options” at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
[16] See Table 4 of Integration of UAS in the Civil Airworthiness Regulatory System: Present and Future, C. Cuerno-Rejado, R. Martinez-Val, E. Garcia-Julia, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spanish Civil Aviation Authority, at http://oa.upm.es/9504/1/INVE_
[17] P. 5, CRS, “U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems,” at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
[18] P. 651, Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume V, A Statistical Compendium and Chronology, Washington D.C. 1993.
[19] See pp. 99-102 of “Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air campaign,” General Accounting Office, July 1997, GAO-97-134, at http://www.gao.gov/archive/
[20] P. 219, DOT&E 2010 Annual Report, at http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/
[21] See discussion of the wing hard points at http://www.globalsecurity.org/
[22] P. 35, CRS, “U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems,” at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
[23] Pp. 4 & 16 (footnote #5), CBO, “Policy Options” at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
[24] P. 245 of DOT&E 2011 Annual Report, at http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/
[25] Air Force fact sheet at http://www.af.mil/information/
[26] Air Force fact sheet at http://www.af.mil/information/
[27] P. 1, CBO, “Policy Options” at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.
_____________________________
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
301 791-2397 (home office)
301 221-3897 (cell)
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
301 791-2397 (home office)
301 221-3897 (cell)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)