Blown Out of Proportion: Swine Flu Edition

A 15 year old comes home with his hair dyed purple and a a shiny new piercing in his ear. His dad is furious "Son," he says, "I said you could dye your hair and pierce your ear when pigs fly!" The son replies, "But dad, It's all over the news...the swine flu."
(this joke comes courtesy of Mrs. 8th Pillar)

Turn on the TV and chances are high that you'll end up hearing some warnings about the danger of the swine flu, or H1N1 for you pig farmers out there. The news is flush with comparisons to previous flu pandemics and warnings to stay away from anyone who happens to sneeze. Even Vice-President Biden is getting in on the fun, saying that he would not allow his family to travel on an airplane for fear of being infected. But is all this hullabaloo warranted? Should I really be stocking up on NyQuil, Kleenex, and ammo for my handgun? Is this the beginning of the end; a flupocalypse if you will?

NO!

Let's look at the facts and crunch the numbers. The Spanish Influenza of 1918-1919 (oddly named as it began at an army base in Haskell County, Kansas) killed 50-100 million people, or 2.5-5% of the world population, in a mere 6 months. Of these deaths, 675,000 were Americans, which, considering the pandemic started in the U.S., is not too shabby. A rapid U.S. Army expansion and poor sanitation helped spread the virus . When these troops went abroad they brought the virus with them, spreading it to other armies. Weakened and malnourished as a result of World War One, populations the world over were especially susceptible to the pandemic.

Since the Spanish Influenza, there have been two other major outbreaks. One in 1957, killing two million globally and 70,000 in America, and another in 1968 which claimed one million victims worldwide and 30,000 Americans. On any given year, roughly 250,000 people die from the flu.

The number of Americans as a percentage of total worldwide victims breaks down as follows for each of the three pandemics:
1918-19: .8%
1957: .035%
1968: .03%

Given that during each of these time periods, Americans made up more than 5% of the total global population, it is clear that the U.S. experiences very low amounts of comparative influenza deaths. This is mostly the result of the strong public health system in the U.S.

The conclusion is that even if the swine flu suddenly became deadly and widespread, Americans don't have too much to worry about. The U.S. is comparatively in the clear. However, because this is a blog (mostly) about international conflict, let us take the lessons learned from this influenza discussion and apply them to biological weapon terrorist attacks.

A lot of people make a fuss about how easy it would be for a terrorist to attack using biological agents. This is misleading at best. First of all, it is no cake walk to develop biological agents, let alone weaponize them. Like any good businessmen, the terrorists want the most bang for their buck. This is why they usually stick to tried and true methods like suicide vests and car bombs. In order for a biological attack to be worth their time, it would have to be highly infectious; otherwise, might as well use conventional explosives. But a highly infectious agent would spread globally and be impossible for the terrorists to control. Those most likely to be hurt the greatest are underdeveloped countries of the sort where terrorists tend to come from. It's quite a catch-22. Either use a controllable, non infectious agent and take great risks for no more payoff than a much less risky conventional attack; or try and develop something highly infectious which would likely hurt their own supporters far more than it would hurt Americans.

22 Minutes

How long is 22 minutes?
The amount of time it takes to bake a frozen pizza.
The amount of time it takes to run three miles.
The amount of time it takes to watch an episode of Seinfeld on DVD.
The amount of time it takes for talks between North and South Korea to break down.

The two Korea's held direct talks yesterday for the first time in over a year, lasting a measly 22 minutes. The talks come at a particularly tense time in peninsular relations. North Korea has kicked out international inspectors, reopened its nuclear production sites, and test fired (unsuccessfully) an ICBM.

The topic of these talks was the Kaesong Industrial Complex; a collaborative South Korean business park located in North Korea, using workers from both Korea's. The North Korean delegation walked out after only 22 minutes following a South Korean delegation question about the status of a South Korean Kaesong worker who had been arrested for supposedly criticizing North Korea.

In other North Korean news, Dear Leader Kim Jong Il has finally made a very public appearance after eight months of seclusion following a stroke last August. He gave a speech to the Supreme People's Assembly following his "re-election." The good news- he looks terribly frail. The bad news- he looks terribly frail. While it would be great if Kim Jong Il were no longer running North Korea, it's a question mark as to who his successor will be. It was rumored to be his eldest son, until he was caught trying sneak into Japan to visit Disneyland. Now, it's anybody's guess. And there is of course no guarantee of a smooth succession. Should the regime fall, there will be millions of starving North Koreans interacting for the first time with the outside world. Not exactly a win-win situation.

Torture? No way, we do that stuff to Americans...

NPR had a worthwhile segment today over the recently released "torture memos." These memos laid the legal framework for the Bush administration's policy of permitting so-called "enhanced interrogation." One memo in particular made interesting assertions. The memo in question, written by former assistant attorney general, current federal judge Jay Bybee, states that enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, slapping, and stress positions can not be labeled as torture because they do not cause prolonged psychological harm.

Bybee backs up his claim by pointing out that over 26,000 U.S. servicemen and women have been subjected to the exact same interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evade) school. One of the purposes of SERE school is to help members of the military learn to resist enemy interrogation should they be captured. Bybee believes that because these service members have not shown signs of prolonged psychological harm, detainees who are subjected to the same interrogation methods must not suffer from long-term ill effects either.

The flaw in Bybee's logic, as the NPR piece points out, is that attendees of SERE school ultimately have control over their situation in that if the interrogations becomes too much for them to handle, they can quit. Detainees have no such luxury. And it is a stressful situation coupled with a lack of feelings of control which typically lead to prolonged psychological harm. The two interrogation scenarios are thus not as comparable as Bybee thinks.

It will be interesting to see what if anything results from the Bush administration's attempt to codify and legalize torture. Already President Obama has specifically not ruled out prosecution of those former officials who had hand in promoting the use of torture, saying that the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.

Other countries are even considering the prosecution of Bush administration officials for crimes against humanity. Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge famous for his investigations and attempts to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in Spain, Chile, and Argentina, has expressed interest in trying six Bush administration officials for their work in creating a legal system which permitted torture in violation of international law. Will we see Americans on trial someday for crimes against humanity? Do we want to see Americans on trial in an international court? Good questions. Not sure of the answers yet.

That's How It's Done! Go Shiver Your Own Timbers!

Piracy off the coast of Somalia is a growing problem. The rate of hijackings has increased dramatically over the past few years. Last year, Somali pirates took control of a luxury yacht, with at least 20 french citizens on board. And I admit I thought it was pretty BA when French commandos rappelled in off helicopters to free the boat and capture some of the pirates. Not after today though; a new standard has been set, and its colors are red, white, and blue (an American red, white and blue. Not those wimpy French shades of red, white, and blue).

Pirates attacked an American ship today; the first such attack on an American ship off the coast of east Africa since Thomas Jefferson was president in 1804. The American crew failed to evade the pirates, who boarded the boat with grappling hooks and were armed with AK-47's. The crew disabled the boat so the pirates could not sail it back to Somalia, then hid in the ships steering compartment. From this point on details are murky, but somehow the crew managed not only to take back control of the ship, but also to take one of the pirates hostage. The pirates ran off on the ships lifeboat with a hostage of their own, the ship's captain. The crew attempted to trade hostages with the pirates, though the deal fell through after the pirate hostage had already been released. An American destroyer has since arrived on the scene and a navy plane recently spotted the lifeboat.

As cool as French commandos rappelling onto a yacht and sniping pirates from a helicopter are, its way more impressive when an unarmed crew manages to take back control of the ship and capture an armed pirate. America rocks.

A machine that can read minds?

Well, India thinks it has one. A woman in India was convicted of murder based mainly on evidence from a brain scanner, basically a lie detector on crack. This brain scanning machine is called The Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test. The test administrator makes short, detailed statements in the first person which recount the crime as it allegedly occurred. The accused is attached to the machine and does not say a single word during the test; his or her brain tells it all for him or her. The machine produces pictures of the brain activity. A higher level of activity in a particular region of the brain means that the person connected to the machine has experienced the statement the test administrator made. Hence, if the test administrator says, “I stabbed John on Tuesday”, and the test taker’s mind becomes very active in a particular area of the brain, it means that the test taker is remembering stabbing John on the day in question.

The U.S. has been researching brain based lie detection in order to use it in counterterrorism investigations. It is thought that this technology will eliminate torture. If we could read minds, harsh interrogation methods will no longer be needed because we will already know what is on the alleged terrorist’s mind.

If brain scans are used in court in the United States, it is thought that numerous amendments to the Constitution may be violated. Hence, this is a highly controversial area. Scientists across the globe are split on whether this technology is accurate. Some believe it to be 97% accurate; others believe that it is completely inaccurate. I am unsure if we will ever know whether it is accurate when used in the criminal prosecution system because criminals will not tell if they lied and actually committed the crime. Therefore, this machine is unable to be tested when it comes to criminals unless there is plenty of other evidence substantiating the crime. However, in that case, the brain scanner’s use will be unnecessary. Oh, what a dilemma.

There needs to be more independent studies conducted on this brain scanner; it needs to be reviewed by more scientists before it will gain credibility in the field of science, and in U.S. Courts. If credible, this brain scanner will transform the legal and counterterrorism fields.

Afghanistocracy. Or, Abhorrent Stability

A recent bill, passed by the Afghan legislature and signed into law by President Karzai, legalizes what in the West would be considered rape. The law states that, unless ill, wives in Afghanistan's small Shia community must have intercourse with their husbands should he demand it. Following Western attention and condemnation (President Obama called the law abhorrent), a review of the law's constitutionality has been ordered. However, the larger point remains; Americans will have to accept that the final product in Afghanistan may seem distasteful when compared to Western democracies.

Former President Bush spoke of a Jeffersonian Democracy in Afghanistan. President Obama speaks not of establishing democracy, but of establishing stability. Americans ultimately desire an Afghanistan free of terrorist safe havens. An unstable Western democracy will not provide this. A stable democracy, or a stable authoritarian government if necessary, will fare much better at preventing terrorists from launching attacks from Afghanistan. This may result in a U.S. backed strongman taking charge. An un-democratic leader with whom America can work is preferable to the chaos in which terrorists flourish.

An argument could be made that the short and medium term stabilizing benefits of an authoritarian government could lay the foundation for a future transition to democracy. Democratic governments are wonderful for their accountability and various freedoms. But the democratic process can also be used to take away freedoms, especially in countries just leaving periods of intense strife and without a history of rule of law to fall back on. Forcing democracy too quickly on a country grants strong powers to majorities perhaps not used to honoring minority rights. An authoritarian leader has the ability to provide the necessary stability, while slowly instituting democratic processes.

One thing COIN practitioners have picked up over the years is that a host government's military forces should not be organized to work like those of an occupying power. Taking Afghanistan as an example, the Afghan National Army (ANA) should operate and be organized like Taliban forces, not like the U.S. military. For starters, the ANA is in direct competition with the Taliban for the will of the Afghan people. The ANA can only win by beating the Taliban at their own game. If the Taliban are playing football, the ANA will win by playing football too and better, not by learning baseball. Also, the U.S. military has gone through several hundred years of design to be right for the U.S. It doesn't translate that easily to other nations.

Just as military structures don't always translate well, neither do political structures. The American system of government works in America because of the specific cultures and history found in the U.S. It can not simply be transported to another country with a far different background like Afghanistan and be expected to work. Democracy has to be contextualized. Afghanistan's specific cultures will influence how democracy eventually works there. Which may result in many more laws some in the West may find abhorrent.

Relations with Iran. Or, Aretha had it right this whole time, R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Say what you will about the President, but the man has a way with details. Over the past week or so there have been several interviews with administration officials, including the POTUS himself and SecState Clinton, during which they referred to Iran as the Islamic Republic of Iran. I don't recall hearing the country's full name used at all during the Bush administration; he preferred "Iran," "Axis of evil," or "threat to world peace." It's a very nice touch given that the U.S. is currently attempting to build a relationship with Iran based on respect rather than fear or bullying.

The budding U.S./Iran relationship hit a high note today when the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and the Iranian foreign minister held an impromptu meeting during an international conference on Afghanistan. Afghanistan may be the glue that could hold together a sure-to-be-rocky-at-best working relationship between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. for obvious reasons wants to see a stable Afghanistan. For starters, stability and a strong government could mean an end to Afghan terrorist safe-havens. The greater the stability, the less American troops would be needed and the more energies could be focused on other problem areas of the world like Israel or North Korea. A stable Afghanistan would likely ease some of the tension in Pakistan's border areas as well.

Iran too has its reasons for wanting calm in Afghanistan. The Taliban were fierce enemies of Iran from the start, and the two almost came to war in 1998. Iran also seeks an end to the mass poppy production in Afghanistan, as huge numbers of Iran's many unemployed are now addicted to drugs.

Teamwork between the U.S. and Iran has many potential dividends to yield. It is commonly accepted that Iran supplied Iraqi insurgents with EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrators)- a very deadly type of roadside bomb. Keeping the advanced weaponry at Iran's disposal out of the hands of Afghan insurgents would help keep coalition casualties down. Current land routes through Pakistan have come under frequent attack recently, and the impending closure of Manas Air Force Base in Kyrgyzstan, through which the bulk of supplies flows into Afghanistan, will leave the U.S. and its allies in search of additional resupply routes. Were relations to improve dramatically, Iran could provide an important overland resupply route into Afghanistan.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the U.S. and Iran find that they are able to work together on the Afghanistan issue, they may find it easier to work together on other pressing issues- such as Iran's nuclear developments. A little respect from the U.S. could go a long way.

DPRK Missile Launch

First, let me apologize to my 2 or 3 faithful readers. I've been quite busy as of late, and will likely remain so for the following week. After which point the posting should become semi-regular once more.

As for the good stuff, North Korea will likely be testing its newest ICBM in the first week of April. They claim the launch is to put a communication's satellite into orbit, though the real goal is to test the rocket's ability to carry an object ( e.g.- a nuclear weapon) into orbit. If successful, which given North Korea's history of failed rocket tests is a big if, it supposedly has the capability of striking U.S. territory.

NK has stated that they would consider the shooting down of their missile an act of war, to which the U.S. responded to by placing Aegis Destroyers in the region capable of downing the missile. Japan is joining the fun by also placing Aegis destroyers equipped with missile killing missiles in the area.

For a neat, yet technical, rundown of the rocket's potential capabilities based on the splash down zones announced by NK, see this post over at ArmsControlWonk. Otherwise, sit back, relax, and wait for the fun to begin sometime between April 4th and 8th.

Top 5...St. Patrick's Day edition!

1. Are The Troubles back in Northern Ireland? Probably not, though there have been some worrying signs as of late. First two soldiers were killed and two more wounded by members of RIRA (Real Irish Republican Army) on March 7th. Then, on the 9th, a constable was killed by members of CIRA (Continuity Irish Republican Army). This past Saturday, after police arrested several well known Republicans and were continuing with the investigations, groups of Republicans gathered and began tossing Molotov cocktails (or petrol bombs as the British call them- has a nice ring to it) at the police.

Loyalists should be commended, as there have been no counter-attacks thus far. All the major players from The Troubles have been calling for cooler heads to prevail; Loyalist-in-chief Ian Paisley, Sinn Fein head honcho Gerry Adams, and PIRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army) terrorist turned MP Martin McGuinness each condemned the newest round of violence.

My favorite quote from this whole mess?

Easily the most eerie aspect of the last couple of days for me has been the sound on my car radio of Martin McGuinness, allegedly once a senior IRA commander, sounding just like a Northern Ireland Secretary of State from the Eighties.

2. The Pope is at it again. Every time I want to take a break from talking about that guy with the funny hat, he goes and does something so crazy I just can't resist. His latest move? Claiming that condom use may actually make the African AIDS epidemic worse, and that abstinence is the only way to prevail.

Comprehensive research by the American Psychological Association (and many other groups) shows that abstinence only education and Comprehensive sex education have both been shown to delay sexual activity in youths. The catch is that those who receive comprehensive sex education remain abstinent for much longer than those who receive abstinence only education. And because they have little clue how to protect themselves or the importance of doing so, those who receive abstinence only education are far more likely to catch diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

Even if abstinence before marriage were something important (and that's one hell of a big "if"), the strange paradox is that more couples would remain abstinent if people in positions of authority like the Pope encouraged comprehensive sex education and condom use, rather than turn a blind eye to how the world actually works. The numbers don't lie. Dogma is fine and dandy, but helping people is better.

The Pope can have his dog and pony no-option-but-abstinence-show, but I can't help but wonder how many millions more will contract HIV/AIDS because the Pope lacks the courage to say "don't have sex, but if you do- make sure your soldier has his helmet on."

*Warning- from here on out, the Top 5 have nothing remotely to do with St. Patrick's day. What? Did you really think the Irish are that interesting?*

3. The Soviet Union Russia has announced a major rearmament program. Frightened by recent NATO expansions, instability on their border, and extensive equipment and tactical problems while kicking Georgia's bottom all over the Caucasus this past summer, Russia plans on spending $140 billion to modernize their military. As this BBC article points out, major increases in defense spending were less of a problem when Russia was making money hand over fist with oil sales. Now that oil is at $40/barrel, instead of the nearly $150/barrel from last year, building a new army might be easier said than done.

4. France is set to rejoin NATO's military command. President Sarkozy won a parliamentary vote today, permitting France to re-integrate into the NATO military structure. France pulled out of the NATO military command in 1966. Then President De Gaulle thought the move was the only way to ensure France's sovereignty and independence. France has continued to supply troops to NATO missions however, but ironically enough, because of De Gaulle's move has had no say in the decision making process. Sarkozy is pushing the re-integration as a means to increase French influence in NATO and to give France a say at how their troops are used. There will be little practical difference, as French troops have been tagging along on NATO missions for quite a while, but it is a show of solidarity with the alliance that is sorely needed at this moment.

5. A major change could be en route at the Pentagon. For years, U.S. war-fighting doctrine has called for the DOD to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. Such planning assumed the military would be engaged in conventional fights from which it could disengage once the fighting was over. However, the wars the U.S. are actually engaged in have vastly different requirements; mainly long term commitments of many troops. These long wars have placed quite a strain on the military in terms of both manpower and equipment.

The new idea is to rebuild the military so that it can handle many and varied operations; from fighting the conventional combatant to the counter-insurgent, and from peacekeeping to protecting U.S. territory. Or, as one defense expert puts it "a multiwar, multioperation, multifront, walk-and-chew-gum construct." Sounds interesting, and much needed. I'll be commenting more on this whenever the new plans are made public.

Hey, Wall Street Journal...get your own ideas

Last week, I discovered that SecState Clinton is basing major policy decisions on recommendations from this blog. Now, it has come to my attention that the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece today eerily similar to my post from yesterday on the economic woes of the Middle East and how they affect the peace process. See for yourself.

The 8th Pillar-"...any comprehensive Middle East peace plan needs to address the area's core economic needs if it is to be a lasting peace."

WSJ- "In order to succeed -- finally -- peace efforts need to create positive incentives. An economic peace process can create such a reality."

The 8th Pillar- "Provide jobs and opportunity however, and suddenly all these disaffected youths who want to remake the world quickly become invested in maintaining the status quo."

WSJ- "Yet despite strenuous efforts by Palestinian terrorist organizations to inflame the city (Jerusalem) with repeated attacks, income from tourism has been so rewarding that Jerusalemites coexist without too many problems."

While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, credit should be given where credit is due. Wall Street Journal- I'll expect to see my name in the byline next time.

The Catholic church is wrong. Again.

I swear I'm not purposefully picking only on Catholics. I find all religions distasteful. Catholics just make it easier to pick on them.

Last week, a doctor in Brazil performed an abortion on a nine year old girl. The girl was pregnant with twins after being repeatedly raped by her step-father over the course of a three year period. Though abortion is normally outlawed in Brazil, exceptions are made in cases of rape. An Archbishop for Brazil promptly excommunicated the Catholic doctor, the nurses and staff who assisted with the abortion, and the girl's mother. The girl herself was spared because the Vatican does not excommunicate minors. Also missing from the list those banished from the church over the incident: The step-father who raped and impregnated the young girl.

Now, I could easily make some tasteless joke involving the child-raping step-father, scandal ridden Catholic clergy, a pot, a kettle, and someone not wanting to call someone else black, but I'll refrain.

I understand the church's stance on abortion. Trust me- I have several Catholic family members who have made it disturbingly clear just what the church has told them to think. Regardless of what a person believes regarding abortion though, surely it is wrong to punish the doctor but not the step-father. I'm sure some believers will argue that the step-father will receive his punishment in the afterlife. Well that's bull. I doubt that argument will give much solace to the young girl who has been raped since the age of six.

Intent matters. And from where I'm sitting, the church's official position is that it is alright to punish a doctor who in his heart wanted to help a girl out of an awful predicament, but that no punishment is needed for the man who had nothing but evil in his heart (assuming he even has one). Even if you think the doctor's act was a sin, his intentions were at least far better than the young-child-raping, still-able-to-attend-mass step-father.

Get it together Catholics and pull your collective head out of your fourth point of contact. No wonder the number of folks claiming to have no religion has doubled since 1990. Us heathens are on the march!

It's the economy, stupid

While I'm on a demographics kick, allow me to demonstrate one of the reasons why there are so many terrorists coming out of the Middle East. You know the old saying, "idle hands are the Devil's playthings"? Substitute "terrorist organization's" for "Devil's" and you may start to get the picture. In counties all across the Middle East, there are rather large amounts of youths. Unfortunately, there aren't jobs to keep them all busy. These are men (no, I'm not forgetting you women out there, but this is the Middle East I'm talking about here) who desperately want to work and earn a living. It's a matter of honor. But without an economy able to support their disproportionately large numbers, they are left disaffected. From there it's rather easy for some firebrand or ideologue to come along and convince these youths that the state of their economy (and whatever other woes plague society) are the fault of the Western oppressors. Especially when they offer a salary, as so many terrorist organizations do.

Here's a look at the population pyramid for the Gaza Strip. It's a similar story in countries across the greater Middle East.

In contrast, here is the population pyramid for the United States.

This is why it is so crucial that any plan to combat the type of extremism we are now facing in the Middle East addresses the widespread economic problems facing the region. Most people would rather go to work than blow themselves up at a discotheque. The West can't kill its way into the victory circle. Provide jobs and opportunity however, and suddenly all these disaffected youths who want to remake the world quickly become invested in maintaining the status quo.

How important is this issue? Very. To give an idea of what is looming, I'll end with Saudi Arabia's projected population pyramid for 2050. Again, it's the same all throughout the Middle East. I'll even give a hint- it involves lots and lots of young people looking for purpose in their life. If they can't fulfill that purpose with employment, I guarantee they'll find another outlet; one the West may not like very much. Diplomacy and treaties do help; but any comprehensive Middle East peace plan needs to address the area's core economic needs if it is to be a lasting peace.

Russia's Number 1!!! (and disappearing)

The number one user of heroin that is, at least according to Russia. Following a 70% increase in seizures of heroin when compared to last year, Russia now estimates there are 2.5 million heroin users out of a population of 140 million.

This does not bode well for Russia's demographics. Widespread poverty and rampant alcoholism have already left Russian males with an average life span of 61 years, and Russia is the only industrialized country to have seen a drop in average life spans. The total population drops by over 500,000 each year, though the state has tried their best to reverse this trend; a new holiday, Family Contact Day, has been created during which couples are supposed to remain home from work and do their part to repopulate Mother Russia.

Looking at population pyramids for Russia, one can see that by 2050, there are very few young; their pyramid doesn't actually look too much like a pyramid.

Obviously, such a change in demographics will be a disaster to Russia's economy in the long term, as there will be fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more elderly. This will likely also have large consequences for Russia's grand strategic outlook. Sooner or later they will have to come to terms not just that they aren't the power they once were, but also that they will not see a return to that power. Keeping such an outlook in mind though could lead to an increasingly confrontational Russia; one trying to gather whatever power it can while it has the ability to do so.

Top 5 on my radar

1. The biggest news of the day involves the International Criminal Court. For the first time in its history, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state. That warrant was issued today for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. The warrant cites two counts of war crimes and several counts of crimes against humanity, mostly in regards to the on-going violence in Darfur.

Al-Bashir responded by kicking several aid agencies out Sudan, including Medicins sans Frontieres and OXFAM. The move does not have global approval. A number of Africans outside of Sudan fear the impact the warrant will have on peace negotiations.

For my part there are a few other consequences I worry about. First would be a coup. The people of Sudan are aware of the pariah state al-Bashir has created out of their nation. This could be a last straw. Watch for increased acts of violent resistance to the government in Khartoum over the next few weeks or months.

Even without a coup though, I'm curious to see how this warrant will be served. Likely it won't be, and will instead become just a symbolic gesture. None of the options for serving it are too appealing. An invasion by Western forces, perhaps a French contingent- doubtful. An incursion by the Sudan People's Liberation Army with Western air and logistical support- doubtful and messy. Perhaps a coalition from the African Union moves in to take care of business- doubtful, but the best option of the three. It would be a good move for the African Union to step in and police up their own. Could have good long term consequences for the AU.

2. The Afghanistan election commission has rejected the dates for the upcoming national election set by President Hamid Karzai. In fairness to Karzai, these weren't the dates he actually wanted. He had originally wanted elections to be in August. This was viewed as the earliest there would be enough security to hold successful elections. Unfortunately, Karzai's term ends in May and the Afghan constitution doesn't address the issue of who would step in for the intervening months. Karzai's opposition wasn't too keen on him having the extra unconstitutional time in power and, after raising a stink, got Karzai to name May as the time elections would be held (side note- This was not wise of them. Elections in May don't give them enough time to campaign and the victory would likely go to Karzai. Elections in August would give them months to harp on the fact that Karzai is in office unconstitutionally).

These elections are awfully important. Political stability is a must in order for Americans to see any success in the upcoming troop surge into Afghanistan. These elections will have long term effects on Afghan stability.

3. Hugo Chavez, hot off the referendum win allowing him unlimited terms in office, has nationalized the American corporation Cargill. Chavez accused the company of trying to evade price controls. We'll be seeing more of this from Chavez in the near future. These actions allow him to show Venezuelans that he is doing something, and sticking it to the gringos while he's at it. Plus, as the economy tanks and oil prices stay in the doldrums, Chavez needs the resources so he can keep funding his 21st century socialism. Unfortunately for him, there are only so many companies out there to nationalize; his house of cards will collapse eventually.

4. Newly friendly China (People's Republic of China for you Communists out there) offered to negotiate with Taiwan (Republic of China for you Nationalists out there) to end hostilities. Relations have grown significantly cheerier between the two as of late. Flights no longer have to be routed through Hong Kong; instead, direct routes fly from China to Taiwan. Economic activity is flourishing across the straits. And to think, it was only a couple of years ago when China seriously considered invading Taiwan, conducting military exercises and staging hundreds of missiles on the coast, all while the U.S. was tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is promising.

5. A South Carolina psychiatrist believes ecstasy can be used to treat soldiers with PTSD. Apparently, while high on ecstasy, soldiers are better able to dig deep into their emotions. One soldier who participated in trials had this to say: "It’s basically like years of therapy in two or three hours."

I won't get into the science of it, or if I think it could be effective. Let me just say that I'm not so certain it's a good idea to prescribe ecstasy to soldiers for a condition that can be easily faked. There may be a knucklehead or two who will try and take advantage of it. These are the same guys who miss alcohol so much in basic training that they pretend to be sick so they are prescribed a bottle of NyQuil- and then proceed to drink the whole bottle in one sitting. Free ecstasy is not a good idea.

Secretary of State Clinton reads this blog!

How else can you explain this, just two days after I recommend a diplomatic surge into Syria?

The U.S. government will dispatch two officials to the Syrian capital to explore Washington's relationship with Damascus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday.
"There are a number of issues that we have between Syria and the United States, as well as the larger regional issues that Syria obviously poses," she said.

Madam Secretary, I thank you for your loyal readership. You should know, Mrs. 8th Pillar is a huge fan. I look forward to shaping future policy decisions.

Relations with Syria

A U.N. special tribunal for Lebanon began today. Its purpose is to try those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Hariri was very popular among Lebanese; though not so much with the Syrians. He had pushed hard for an end to the 29 year occupation of Lebanon by Syrian forces. Unfortunately for Hariri, Syria wasn't so agreeable. Indications are that Syria helped orchestrate the car-bomb assassination of Hariri to nip in the bud calls for their withdrawal from Lebanon.

As so often happens though, Syria's meddling had the opposite effect. In what is known as the Ceder Revolution, large numbers of Lebanese citizens took to the streets demanding an end to the occupation. International furor over the assassination increased pressure on Syria's President al-Assad to withdraw. Several fellow Arab governments even demanded an end to the occupation. Seeing the writing on the wall, all Syrian personnel were out of Lebanon in less than two months.

Aside from the prospect of seeing justice achieved in a part of the world from which it is too often absent, the most interesting aspect of the tribunal will be how it affects Syria's relations with the rest of the world. Syria is a member of the West's rogues gallery. They have a solid working relationship with Iran, act as financier and staging area to a number of terrorist organizations, and are possibly interested in building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.

As of late however, Syria has shown an interest in rehabilitating their image. Most notably, President al-Assad recently disclosed that Syria and Israel have been conducting secret peace negotiations. This would be a big step, as the two are technically still at war and any agreement between them likely will involve an Israeli pull-back from the Golan Heights and a halt to Syrian assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas.

The special tribunal for Rafik Hariri's assassination has the potential to air much of Syria's dirty laundry. If Syria feels as though they are being scapegoated or unfairly treated, they may very well end the negotiations with Israel. Similarly, with the tribunal being Western backed, if it comes own too harshly on Syria the result could be an end to rapprochement with the West and a renewal of relations with Iran and North Korea.

The judges and prosecutors should do their job and seek justice. Worrying about whether and how the trial may affect Syria's relations with the world is beyond their mandate. However, someone will have to handle the fallout. That responsibility should fall on diplomats, and they need to be ready and waiting to resolve whatever complications arise out of the tribunal's proceedings.

Who's on first?

The state department recently named Dennis Ross as a special adviser for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. Those are fairly broad and non-standard regional descriptions, so you might be saying to yourself "Self, I wonder what specific countries that means Dennis Ross will be advising SecState Clinton on?" Fair question. Apparently some inquisitive reporter was wondering the same thing and decided to ask at a state department press briefing on Tuesday. Makes sense- if the state department just named Mr. Ross as a special adviser, then they must know which countries he will be advising on. Right? And surely the briefer will have more than some stock answer about strategic regional advice considering this is a fairly important foreign policy decision. Right?

QUESTION: What is he in charge exactly of?
MR. WOOD: Well, Dennis is –
QUESTION: Is it Iran? And if it’s not Iran – if it’s Iran, why is it not written in the statement?
MR. WOOD: Well, let me just start off by saying, the Secretary is very happy that Dennis Ross agreed to serve as her special advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. What Dennis is going to be charged with doing is trying to integrate policy development and implementation across a number of offices and officials in the State Department. And, you know, he is going to be providing the Secretary with strategic advice. He will be also trying to ensure that there’s a coherence in our policies and strategies across the region.
Let me be clear, he’s not an envoy. He will not be negotiating. He’ll be working on regional issues. He will not be – in terms of negotiating, will not be involved in the peace process. But again, he is going to be advising the Secretary on long-term strategic issues across the region.
QUESTION: Can you give us – well, what is the State Department’s definition geographically of Southwest Asia? What countries does that include?
MR. WOOD: Matt, I didn’t --
QUESTION: No, you guys named an envoy for Southwest Asia. I presume that you know what countries that includes.
MR. WOOD: Yes. Of course, we know. I just – I don’t have the list to run off – you know, right off the top of my head here. But obviously, that’s going to encompass – that region encompasses Iran. It will – you know, it’ll deal with --
QUESTION: Does it include Iraq?
MR. WOOD: Indeed, it does. He is going to be, again, as I said, providing her with advice – strategic advice, looking at the long term, the bigger picture and how we can make sure that our policies are coherent across the board in the region. And as I said, the Secretary is very pleased that Dennis has agreed to do this. He’s got years of experience in the region. And, you know, it’s a daunting task, but it’s one that she felt was necessary.
QUESTION: And so, does it include parts of the Middle East?
MR. WOOD: Yes.
QUESTION: It does? Does it include Syria, and it includes Israel and it includes Jordan?
MR. WOOD: Well, he’ll be looking at the entire region that will include, you know –
QUESTION: Where does that stop? I mean, you know, you have NEA which, you know, runs all the way to Morocco. So does it include –
MR. WOOD: Well, he’s going to be in touch with a number of officials who work on issues throughout this region.
QUESTION: Does it include Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, countries that are within the – within the Middle East or within the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, but are not necessarily technically part of Southwest Asia?
MR. WOOD: He will be providing advice to the Secretary on a – across that entire region, where appropriate, where she needs it, and that’s the position he will serve.
QUESTION: So he’s going to meet with the leaders in the region as well, so you said he is going to offer an assessment --
MR. WOOD: That’s right. At some point, he will.
QUESTION: -- including the Iranians?
MR. WOOD: Well, I’m not sure at this point. But again, our policy with regard to Iran is under review, so once that review is completed, we’ll be able to go forward vis-à-vis Iran. But until that time --
QUESTION: Well, was there a consideration at some point that you would have a special envoy for Iran? And why didn’t you now go in that direction?
MR. WOOD: Well, a decision was made by the Secretary that she needed broad strategic advice to look at a range of issues across the entire region that we just talked about. And it was felt that his skills could be better used to do that type of work, given the years of experience that he’s had dealing with the Middle East, other parts of the world. And so, again, as I said, Iran will be one of those countries that he will be, you know, looking at in his portfolio. But --
QUESTION: The military sometimes refer to parts of the -stans, Central Asia, as Southwest Asia. Are those included in your --
MR. WOOD: Well, look --
QUESTION: Can you find out? Because, I mean, this is --
MR. WOOD: We can get you that. Yeah, we can get you a breakdown of --
QUESTION: I mean, does this – is there a geographic limit to his portfolio, or is it really an issues-based thing so that he could be dealing with Morocco and Algeria --
MR. WOOD: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and Tunisia --
MR. WOOD: I would look at it, Matt, as more of a regional --
QUESTION: -- and Kyrgyzstan, and the -stans that are not covered by Ambassador Holbrooke? And does it include Turkey? Does it – you know, there are a lot of unanswered questions from – from the statement last night as to exactly what he’s going to be doing. I mean, I presume it’s all of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, that makes sense. But does it include Somalia, which is – you know, that there is – does it include – I don’t know --
QUESTION: Or is it (inaudible) Iran?
MR. WOOD: Your question is – you know, let me answer your --
QUESTION: It could be anything. Or is he limited by the geographic --
QUESTION: Or did you just not want to put Iran in the name, and so this is your clever way of doing that?
MR. WOOD: Can I speak now?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. WOOD: Thank you, and thank you. Look, it’s more – he’s going to be providing advice to the Secretary on a number of regional issues, and I would not try to limit Dennis’s advice to, you know, just those regions. He may have other – you know, he may have advice that he wants to give the Secretary on other issues. I don’t think we’re trying to narrow it here. If you’re looking for a geographical breakdown of those countries that he will be looking --
QUESTION: It would be nice to find out what the State Department considers to be Southwest Asia.
MR. WOOD: We can certainly do that for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

True to his word, State Department spokesperson Robert Wood was a little more prepared the following day.

QUESTION: Have your ace geographers been able to determine what Southwest Asia is and thereby figure out what exactly Dennis Ross’s mandate is?

MR. WOOD: I’m so shocked that you asked that question. Let me give you my best – our best read of this. From our standpoint, the countries that make up areas of the Gulf and Southwest Asia include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, and those are the countries.

The 8th Pillar- Entertainment Edition!

It's awards season, and I wanted to join in the fun. Though they walked away without any Oscars, I want to highlight two foreign films that received nominations.

The first is "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex." This film tells the story of the Red Army Faction's beginnings. The RAF was a leftist terrorist organization operating in West Germany primarily during the 1970's. This group provides a how-to guide for running a terrorist organization in a western nation.



The second movie is titled "Waltz with Bashir." It's an animated documentary following an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon War as he confronts his inner demons and hazy memories of war.



The final addition to the Entertainment Edition!, involves a lovely singing group out of my favorite former Soviet republic in the Caucasus- Georgia. As we're all aware, Georgia was pummeled this summer by the Russians. Depending on who you believe, Russia was either defending Russian citizens in South Ossetia or trying to show the Americans they're still the big man in the region. Either way, to use the technical military term, Georgia got spanked. Bad. But fear not lovers of freedom, Georgia has finally decided to launch a counter-attack. This year's Eurovision song contest is being held in Moscow. The Georgian entry features a song entitled "We Don't Wanna Put In." This is a not-so-subtle dig at Former Russian President and current Russian Prime Minister Putin. It has not yet been decided whether the official Kremlin response will be to drop the band out of a window , accidentally shoot them in the head, or poison them with Polonium- but with Putin involved, who knows...they may do all three.

Did the Tamil Tigers just pull a rope-a-dope?

A quick backgrounder for those not familiar with the Sri Lankan civil war. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or Tamil Tigers) have been waging a bloody insurgency against the government of Sri Lanka since the 1970's. The LTTE are fighting for a ethnically Tamil state to be carved out of the mostly Sinhalese Sri Lanka. Throughout the years the LTTE has been a force to be reckoned with; they have controlled enormous chunks of territory and have employed their own naval and air force assets in their fight for a Tamil homeland. The conflict has been extremely bloody, showcasing several horrific suicide campaigns by the Tigers (that's right folks, contrary to redneck wisdom, the most prolific suicide bombers in history are neither Muslim nor from the Middle East; they are secular Hindu nationalists off the coast of India). The Tigers use the tactic often enough to have entire military units of suiciders, called Black Tigers (Black Sea Tigers for those who strike through use of boats or scuba).

Recently though, the fight has been going extremely well for the Sri Lankan government. The LTTE have lost nearly all their territory, including: Kilinochchi, the administrative HQ of the Tigers during the last 10 years; the vital Elephant Pass; and the whole of the Jaffna Pennisula. In fact, the LTTE holds only approximately 100 square km and the Sri Lankan army is encircling the last town still under tiger control, Puthukkudduyirppu.

The cost of this success has been high, and borne mostly by Tamil civilians. There are concerns that the army is paying little attention to the well-being of the civilian population in their quest to eradicate the Tigers. Some 250,000 have been displaced throughout the north and east of the country. The free press has also become a casualty of the fighting, with journalists facing interrogation, abduction, and even death, with little to no action taken by the government to safeguard their rights.

The title of this post references the attack launched today by the LTTE's air force against the capital of Sri Lanka, Colombo. The Tigers have launched only a handful of airborne attacks, though just having the capability is fairly impressive for an insurgent group. Two LTTE planes managed to drop one bomb near the Sri Lankan air force HQ before being shot down or crashing kamikaze style in the city. I do not think that this is the beginning of a Tiger offensive; more likely, it is one of many LTTE death throes we will see in the upcoming weeks.

A new challenge for the government will begin as the fighting winds down. Even without the LTTE around, roughly 10% of the population is Tamil and feels persecuted by and distrustful of the Sinhalese majority. They reside in land that has seen fighting for much of the last 30 years. They have no economy to speak of, and with the LTTE gone, will have no administrative structures to fall back on. If Sri Lanka desires a lasting calm, they will need to build up the economic, political, and social structures of the Tamil people. Failing to address these issues will likely lead to more fighting.

Consequences of Obama closing Guantanamo

Last week, Interpol released an Orange alert at the request of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom wants assistance gathering intelligence and/or capturing 85 terrorists with known links to al-Qaeda. Nothing too newsworthy about the alert, except that 11 of the 85 had been recently released from American custody at Guantanamo Bay.

This only adds to the debate over what to do with the detainees when the base closes. In the long run, a few dozen released terrorists won't do much harm; at least not as much as would be done by leaving Guantanamo open. The detention camp has hurt this country, both in reputation and by fueling a new generation of terrorists. But there is no need to let obviously dangerous individuals roam free.

President Obama was understandably under a lot of pressure to close the detention center following his campaign rhetoric, and he was right to make it a high priority. But perhaps he should have had a plan first.

Venezuela's big choice

The people of Venezuela are voting today on a change to their country's constitution. The change, if approved, will abolish term limits for elected officials; effectively granting Hugo Chavez full dictator status. Though voters rejected a similar measure in 2007, polls show that this election will be close.

Mr. Chavez rose to prominence in 1993 when, as a Colonel in the Venezuelan armed forces, he led an failed coup attempt. After several years in prison, Chavez ran for president in 1998, ultimately winning with 56% of the vote. He ran on a platform of helping Venezuela's many poor, the support of whom he still enjoys at ridiculously high levels. Since first being elected, Chavez has twice been reelected, has emerged victorious from a recall referendum, and survived a coup attempt in which he was captured.

Chavez is known the world over for his political antics and showmanship. He hosts a weekly radio program called "Alo Presidente" (Hello, Mr. President) during which he speaks for hours at a time. Topics range from his perceived victimization by America to the evils of capitalism, and from his life as a child to his daily schedule as president. As president, Chavez enjoys putting on a show to make a point; the list of countries Chavez has broken diplomatic ties with (mostly only for a few weeks at a time) is long. It was Chavez who stood in front of U.N. General Assembly and called George Bush a devil who smelled of sulfur. This has earned him many disciples throughout Latin America, where leftist governments praise Chavez for standing up to the West.

But regional governments support Chavez for more than his big mouth; he also doles out huge amounts of money to prop up his fellow leftists. This was less of a problem for Venezuela when oil prices were at record highs. But with the recent decline, Chavez is going to have to make some difficult choices between cutting support for like-minded governments or cutting programs in the quest to implement his "21st Century Socialism."

Venezuela's oil requires extra refining and fetches less on the open market than oil from the Middle East. And it's not just the price drop hurting the country's finances (now at less than half of last year's average); Venezuela's production capacity has dropped by nearly 1 million bpd over the last decade, due mostly to Chavez's redirection of research and exploration funds from the state owned oil company into social welfare programs. The country suffered from 31% inflation last year, and has already had to dip heavily into their currency reserves. On top of all the economic problems, Venezuela has also become one of the more dangerous countries in the world, with a murder rate that has more than doubled since Chavez came to office.

My hunch is that the people of Venezuela will not abolish term limits today; though even if they do, I don't think it necessarily means Chavez will become president-for-life. As already noted, Chavez owes much of his support to the large numbers of rural and urban poor in Venezuela. These people give themselves to Chavez because of his expansive social programs; programs which he can no longer finance. Despite Chavez's slight authoritarian bent, there is a thriving opposition in Venezuela. If the poor begin flocking to them, Chavez will have to step down or call out the army to stay in power. Unfortunately he may be more inclined to pick the latter of the two.

***UPDATE***
Well, apparently my hunches don't amount to much. By an approximately a 54%-46% margin, Venezuelan voters did away with term limits. This should be interesting.

Perks of the Westminster system

There are a two aspects of the British parliamentary system of government I would like to see here in America. The first is the practice of having a shadow government. In the Westminster system of government, the ruling party gets to decide which members of parliament will hold important positions in the government- who will be Prime Minister, who will receive positions in the cabinet, etc. Taking the U.K. as an example, Labour won the last election, therefore their leader, Gordon Brown, is the current Prime Minister, and Labour MPs hold all the cabinet positions. This is not that far removed from our own system in that traditionally the President draws on members of his own party to fill cabinet positions.

A shadow government allows for the opposition party to have their say in how they would run the government were they in charge. Sticking with the U.K., the Conservatives, after placing in second during the last election, are now the official opposition party. As such, their leader, David Cameron, is the shadow Prime Minister. He has filled a shadow cabinet with fellow Tories. This provides the Conservatives with an opportunity to give the public a clear picture of what a Conservative government would look like: which policies it would endorse; which MPs would head each department; how it would be different than the current actual government.

It's obviously not a perfect translation to our system of government. Lots of details would have to be hammered out. The benefits are alluring though. Instead of focusing all their energies on trying to make the party in charge fail, the opposition party could have an outlet to promote their own policies and show the public what the alternative choice would be. The increase in dialogue between the parties and the people they want to represent would be fascinating.

Part deux of my hypothetical British invasion would be starting something similar to Prime Minister's questions. Every Wednesday for half an hour, the British Prime Minister stands in front of his fellow MPs and takes questions. Any topic. No prior knowledge of the questions. For starters, it's highly entertaining; Involving much wit and quick thinking. More importantly though, it keeps the Prime Minister accountable for his actions and decisions.

During the presidential campaign, John McCain promised to institute something similar if he became President. It wouldn't be too difficult a proposition. Once a week (or every two weeks, or every month) the President could appear before the Congress and answer questions from both parties regarding new plans and initiatives, or the state of the government. Anything really. Think of it as a State of the Union address, except not mind-numbingly boring.

The biggest benefit is the excitement a President's Questions could bring. It's not just policy wonks who are interested in Prime Minister's Questions in the U.K. Everyday people watch and discuss the weekly verbal sparring. There seems to have been a surge in interest regarding politics in this country (though I'm not sure if it's due more to people loving Obama, or hating Bush), and something informative, interactive, and entertaining like President's Questions could really capitalize on the momentum gathering right now in this country.

Will Joseph Ratzinger be to the Vatican what George W Bush was to the White House?

Apparently enraging the entire Islamic world wasn't enough for this Pope. He has now moved on to the Jews. First, Pope Benedict XVI reinstated the Tridentine Mass, which calls for the conversion of Jews from darkness to Catholicism. Now, the BMOC at the Vatican has un-excommunicated four Bishops, one of whom is a holocaust denier.

If I may, Mr. Pope, allow me to give you some flippant advice. As the head of a church the leader of which (at best) turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities during WWII, and who is yourself from Germany, and who was a member of the Hitler Youth (even if unenthusiastic about it), perhaps you should have given it a little more thought before rehabilitating a holocaust denier.

On a slightly more serious note, there is more to the title of this post than both Bush and Benedict XVI knowing how to stick in the collective craw of millions of Muslims. They both also followed an immensely popular predecessor (Clinton and John Paul II). And from what I understand Benedict XVI shares W's love of yes men. Recent reports indicate that the Pope has surrounded himself only with men of similar opinion and inclination. This has increased criticisms from many sources, surprisingly enough even from within the Catholic church. Several European Cardinals have publicly criticized the Pope, going so far as to call his decision "disastrous" and saying they have lost faith in Benedict XVI.

I know at least one Catholic reads these ramblings of mine. I would be curious to hear some lay Catholic responses to this situation. If I were one, I would be questioning whether Benedict XVI is the right man to have the power of making "infallible" decisions for the church.

Israeli Elections

The Israeli elections are finally upon us. I for one am excited to see how Kadima fares in their first real election test (I don't consider 2006 to have been a real test- they still had that new party smell and were enjoying the Sharon sympathy bump). Tzipi and crew have been trailing the Netanyahu led Likud in polls leading up to the election, though exit polls so far today show a slight Kadima advantage.

The results of this election could make for an interesting twist in the Israeli-Arab peace process: President Obama has shown a healthy amount of interest in the region (Calling all the major players on his first day in office, granting his first interview to an Arabic news outlet, appointing George Mitchell as Special Envoy); Sarkozy has been his hyperactive self in trying to broker cease fires when conflicts erupt, with more or less positive results; Turkey has been eager to show off their clout. The current mess of the Palestinians has to be cleared up, but who would want it to be easy anyhow, right?

The prospect of Netanyahu having another term as Prime Minister intrigues me the most. I can't help but think he's the right person for the job. During his stint as Prime Minister, Netanyahu showed a willingness to engage the Palestinians in serious negotiations (even if Wye River remains un-implemented). His remarkable banking and other economic reforms while Finance Minister lead me to believe he could help Israel weather the global financial crisis.

I seem to want to analogize Netanyahu to Nixon and Reagan. I've heard it said that Nixon was the only man who could have reached out and opened relations with China. He had cut his political teeth on the House Un-American Activities Committee. His time as a Senator was largely one big anti-communism tirade after another. Had a person without Nixon's staunch anti-Communist reputation tried to open relations with China, they would have been attacked as being a pinko sympathizer. But no one could accuse Nixon of such things. Likewise, Reagan was no friend of the "Evil Empire" and he had the arms race to prove it. His reputation left him well suited for warming the relationship between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. A man with a lessor anti-communist track record could not have done it.

Back to Netanyahu, whatever one may think of him, it would be hard to call the man a friend of the Palestinians. Which might leave him ideally placed to advance the peace process. An interesting prospect at least; I'll just have to wait and see how many Israelis agree.

The path to victory is lined with fields of wheat

One key principle for running a successful COIN campaign is to separate the insurgents from the support of the population at-large. An insurgency enjoying high levels of public support will have an easier time hiding, recruiting, resupplying, and staging for attacks. Insurgent groups without broad support cannot convincingly claim to legitimately represent the wishes of the people.

British actions in Malaya during the 1950's provide a striking example of counter-insurgents acting to separate an insurgency from the people. Under the Briggs Plan, the British forcibly relocated 500,000 rural Malayan into concentration camps. Though angered at first, the Malayans soon came around as their standards of living increased and they were given money and ownership of the land inside the camps (they had previously not enjoyed ownership of the land on which they had resided). The Briggs Plan separated the population from the communist insurgents on two important levels: physically and mentally. Physically, because the insurgents no longer enjoyed the ability to hide among the people, nor could they receive resupply from the population (many starved). Mentally, because in the battle for hearts and minds, the guerrillas could not compete with the quality of life or ownership of land offered by the British.

Though it would be politically impossible in Afghanistan to put people into concentration camps (and would not be a successful strategy for this particular conflict anyhow), the same principle of needing to separate the people from the insurgents remains true today. For years, poppy production has linked the two. Poppies are a cash crop and the number one export in Afghanistan. Their cultivation and subsequent use in the drug trade provided $500 million to the Taliban and other criminal groups in Afghanistan last year.

After years of increasing poppy production, the numbers are finally starting to turn around. A number of factors are responsible for the change, including: changing weather conditions; the market value of opium falling by 20% over the past year, and by nearly 50% over the past two years; government pressure (over half of the farmers claimed this reason as most important in their decision to stop cultivating poppy plants); and a USAID program promoting the planting of wheat (COIN is not just a military issue- it involves economic development and civil administration among a whole host of other stability operations).

Past efforts to destroy or discourage poppy production failed to provide an alternative for poverty stricken farmers. Wheat now provides that needed alternative. USAID provides seed, fertilizer, and irrigation to the farmers, who in return grow wheat instead of poppies (the success of this program has been helped by the 50% increase in the price of wheat. It will be interesting to see what will happen when wheat prices decrease and opium prices increase).

Though not quite the same level of separation achieved by the British in Malaya, there are still many positive benefits to be realized in Afghanistan. First and foremost, the decrease in poppy production will put a dent in the Taliban's finances. Instability and lawlessness will also be lessened as more and more people rely on legal means providing for themselves. And as the guerrillas were necessary middle-men for the selling of Afghan poppy harvests to the outside world, at least one mental link between the people and the insurgency will also be cut with the farmers no longer seeing themselves as needing to rely on insurgents for an income.

Sustaining this decrease in poppy production could have fantastic long term effects on Afghanistan's stability. The increase in wheat fields may not be the type of surge military leaders had in mind, but they should accept and take advantage of it nonetheless.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck…it may not be a duck

There is a tendency for people to want to overuse the terrorist label when describing criminal acts. Case in point is the recent bombing of a doctor in Arkansas. The good doctor was leaving his home when a bomb exploded, severely injuring him. The local police chief was quick to call the event a terrorist attack. While horrible, it is almost certainly not an act of terrorism.

Here's the definition of terrorism I learned many moons ago:

"Terrorism is an organized strategy for bringing about political, social, economic, or religious change, characterized by the use or threat of violence to coerce or otherwise influence an enemy. It is usually carried out by non-state or clandestine agents lacking in political power and material resources and is difficult to retaliate against. By striking sporadically and without warning, terrorists deliberately seek to create a climate of fear, which gives their attacks an impact disproportionate to the resources invested in them. Terrorism is ultimately a form of communication targeted at multiple audiences."

I keep shaking it, but my magic 8-ball tells me the chances are slim that this doctor in Arkansas was targeted by terrorists. More likely, he is the victim of some horrendous criminal act.

This only warrants attention because throwing around the terrorist label does nothing but help terrorists. The whole point of terrorist acts are to- wait for it- spread terror. They seek to instill fear in the population. Terrorists are naturally weaker than their enemies; if they were stronger, they could employ conventional military tactics and not have to resort to small-scale, sporadic attacks. The effects of fear are much more powerful than any single attack could be. Flying is a safer form of travel than driving; however, following 9/11, huge numbers of citizens elected to drive where they previously would have flown. This resulted in an extra number of deaths on the nation's roadways many times more than that of the 9/11 attacks. Fear of additional terrorist attacks provided an excuse to invade Iraq; an excursion which served as a huge recruitment boost to a number of terrorist groups.

Labeling criminal acts as terrorist only makes people needlessly afraid of terrorist attacks. So please, all you Barney Fife's out there, resist the temptation to label crime as terrorism. We don't need to do the terrorist's work for them. All the security measures in the world don't matter if we elect to hand terrorists free wins.