Friday Newsletter: COIN in Afghanistan

Every week I write a short blog post that goes into a weekly newsletter that MoJo sends out via email each Friday. I've never reposted them here because I write these things on Wednesday night, and by Saturday they already feel ancient. But that's a little silly, no? So I think I'll start putting them up on the blog on Saturday morning so that people can comment on them if they want. Here's yesterday's edition.

Last week I was talking to a friend whose son is currently stationed in Afghanistan. He was pretty scathing about how the war is being prosecuted. We're supposed to be engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign there, he told me, which means getting soldiers out from their camps and into the towns and cities. They should be patrolling continuously, making their presence felt, and engaging with local leaders. But his son reported that none of that was happening.

That's only one unit, of course, and enlisted men are rarely privy to the bigger picture.  Maybe there's a reason this particular unit is twiddling its thumbs for the moment. Unfortunately, there's reason to suspect that the problem runs deeper and wider than that. And even more disturbingly, there's pretty good reason to think that even if the Army steps up its game, it won't do any good. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is currently planning a make-or-break offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, but a source there who's a firm believer in counterinsurgency doctrine has recently become profoundly disillusioned. In "A Counterproductive Counterinsurgency," a memo currently wending its way through official channels in Afghanistan, he says:

The idea of “counterinsurgency” appears to be a viable way for success on paper. Military units, along with NGO’s [non-governmental organizations], the Department of State, GIRoA [the Afghanistan government], and other government agencies work together to emplace the clear, hold, build strategy in key areas of the battlefield. Like communism, however, counterinsurgency methods are not proving to be effective in practice.

The history of foreign powers mounting successful counterinsurgencies is bleak. Too little force and you can't protect the local population. Too much force and you risk enough civilian damage to push them into the hands of the insurgents. It is, in T.E. Lawrence's famous phrase, like eating soup with a knife, and most practitioners can point to only one significant success in the modern era: the Malayan Emergency of the late 40s and 50s. Plus, of course, Gen. David Petraeus's famous victory in Iraq in 2007. But even that should give pause for thought. For starters, it's not clear yet that counterinsurgency has actually worked in Iraq: the government is less stable now than ever and violence is again on the rise. Beyond that, though, the success in Iraq was due not just to Petraeus's surge, but to what I call the Four Esses. The Surge was one of them, but it wouldn't have worked without the other three: the Sunni Awakening that turned tribal leaders against al-Qaeda in Iraq; the sectarian cleansing that displaced millions of Iraqis and purged mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad; and Muqtada al-Sadr, who declared a cease fire long before Petraeus arrived and, against all odds, stuck to it.

None of those things is present in Afghanistan, and so far the evidence suggests that without them we have little chance of replicating even the contingent success we had in Iraq. This is something that the Pentagon seems to be belatedly recognizing as it tries to downsize future operations. Counterinsurgency, says Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, "is a good way to get out of a situation gone bad," but it's not the best way to use combat forces. Afghanistan, unfortunately, is starting to look like the graveyard of empires once again.

Chart of the Day: Drill, Baby, Drill

This chart comes from Glen Sweetnam of the Department of Energy (he's the director of the EIA's International, Economic and Greenhouse Gas division). The black line represents the year 2011. After that, oil production diverges sharply from projected demand, and no one knows how we're going to make up the difference.

Sweetnam, by the way, is not talking about peak oil here. DOE subscribes to an "undulating plateau" theory, where oil production peaks and then stays more or less flat for a decade or so. Rather, Sweetnam attributes the production decline to a lack of investment. However, since new projects take years to come on line after they're funded, this is a fairly thin distinction in the medium run. If investment is lacking today, then Sweetnam's chart is probably accurate for at least the next few years.

What can be done? The possibilities are: (a) much higher oil prices to suppress demand, (b) a continuing recession to suppress demand, (c) amped up conservation and efficiency measures to suppress demand, (d) an increase in renewable sources of electricity along with an electrification of our transportation infrastructure, (e) biofuels, or (f) a switch to natural gas in place of oil — though I think the natural gas bonanza has been oversold, and in any case even if things go well it will take years for natural gas to seriously eat into oil consumption. I'm probably missing a few things, but this is basically the shape of the river. And all of them come with significant problems that I probably don't have to go into.

Just thought I'd share. (Via ClimateProgress.)

Sarkozy Threatens to Leave the Euro

Megan McArdle passed along an El Pais story yesterday saying that French president Nicolas Sarkozy threatened a week ago to abandon the euro unless Germany agreed to a French plan to rescue Greece. This didn't seem to pass the smell test to me, so I skipped past it. But today the Guardian confirms it:

Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to abandon the euro unless Angela Merkel dropped her hostility to the EU's €750bn safety net for the single currency, sources in Brussels and European capitals said yesterday...."It was a standup argument. He was shouting and bawling," said one official in Brussels. "It was Sarkozy on steroids," said a European diplomat. "He's always very energetic. This time he was very emotional, too."

....Diplomats at the time reported that the summit was going very badly and would continue through the night. But it ended half an hour later after Sarkozy abruptly announced he was leaving. "Sarko said: 'For me it's over. I'm stopping this if we can't agree,' " said a diplomat.

I doubt that Sarkozy was even nominally serious about this, but as Megan says, this is a big deal anyway. It shows both that dissolution of the euro isn't entirely unmentionable and that Germany's opposition to the Greek bailout was stronger than anyone thought. The former, I suppose, was inevitable, and the latter actually makes it more likely. As Paul Krugman says, it's hard to think of any other solution to Europe's problems. Even defaulting completely on its debt wouldn't really help Greece much at this point.

Question: is there any way to artificially "adjust" a country's exchange rate in the eurozone? I don't see how, but maybe there's some clever synthetic way of accomplishing the same thing as a currency devaluation without leaving the euro. Has anyone heard of such a thing?

Green Cards Once Again Green

Here's a post from The Corner's resident immigration guy:

It's Finally Green Again! [Mark Krikorian]
Here's the redesigned look of the green card:

It hasn't actually been green for decades, in part, I think, because of bureaucratic stubbornness — they weren't going to give in to some silly nickname. They seem to have thought better of that, which is good.

I'm genuinely curious: why is this good? In fact, why does anyone care one way or the other if a green card is actually green? Has this been some pet peeve of the anti-immigration community for years? Inquiring minds want to know.

Basketball Trivia

In the history of the NBA, 24 players have won five or more championship rings. Of those, 23 won most or all of them as a member of one of four dynasties: the George Mikan Lakers, the Bill Russell Celtics, the Magic/Kareem Lakers, and the Michael Jordan Bulls. Who was the 24th?

Friday Cat Blogging - 14 May 2010

Yesterday was just a beautiful day here in Southern California, so the cats were out playing in the garden. Inkblot was sniffing around the flowers, occasionally looking up to ask why someone kept pointing a giant glass eye in his direction. Domino sat serenely with the sun hitting her directly enough that you can actually see her face in this picture, not just a furry black blob. And today? It's looking just as good. Have a nice weekend, everyone.

More on the Long-Term Unemployed

Just a quick additional note about long-term unemployment — i.e., those who have been unemployed more than six months. Normally, the long-term unemployment rate is considerably lower than the short-term rate, and tracks roughly equal with the rate of the medium-term unemployed (those out of work 15-26 weeks). The chart snippet on the right, with long-term unemployment in red, shows this. So if this recession had followed the usual pattern, long-term unemployment would have peaked a few months ago at about 2% of the labor force and would now be down in the neighborhood of 1.5% or so. Instead, it's at nearly 4.5% and still climbing.

Here's what this means: if this recession were following the usual pattern, total unemployment would have peaked several months ago not at 10%, but at around 7% or so. This is just a back-of-the-envelope figure after looking at the raw BLS numbers, but it's in the right ballpark. And that's a huge difference. Unemployment of 7% is bad, but it's not catastrophic.

I don't yet have anything deep to say about this. I'm still just noodling over the data. But as this makes clear, the depth of our current recession is almost entirely due to the fantastically high and unprecedented amount of long-term unemployment. I don't know if that's cause or effect or something in between, but it's important.

Protecting the Oil Industry

If drilling for oil has the potential to cause vast damage, then the drillers of oil need to have the financial wherewithal to repair that damage when it occurs. That's the kind of personal responsibility the Republican Party stands for. So Republicans certainly wouldn't object to raising the liability cap for offshore drilling accidents so that taxpayers aren't the hook for the costs. Right?

You underestimate the Republican party. None other than Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski stood up to object. Yes, the senator from the state that got hammered by the Exxon Valdez spill objected to raising the liability cap.

And what was her argument? If the liability cap is raised, that might exclude small oil companies from being able to get the insurance and financing necessary to drill offshore. After all, only the oil giants could afford $10 billion. That is to say: only the oil giants can afford to clean up after themselves.

You're not dreaming. That's really the argument. Murkowski wants small, independent oil companies to be able to privatize the profits of offshore drilling but offload the financial risks to the public. And she frames it as avoiding a "Big Oil monopoly" on drilling. She's just defending mom-and-pop oil shops! The gall is breathtaking.

That's David Roberts. On a historical note, this is pretty much how the nuclear power industry is treated too. Back in 1957, when no one knew just how dangerous nuclear plants were, insurance companies were unwilling to write open-ended policies for them. Congress, however, didn't want that to get in the way of nuclear development (too cheap to meter, after all!). So they required plant operators to buy the biggest policies they could, and then put taxpayers on the hook for any damages above that.

Oh wait. No they didn't. Actually, they set up a $10 billion insurance pool funded by the industry. Taxpayers were on the hook for anything above that, but at least the industry as a whole was responsible for the first $10 billion. If Murkowski is so worried about all those small oil companies, maybe she should support the same kind of fund for offshore drilling. But I guess that would be socialism. Or something.

Expanding the House

Bruce Bartlett argues that congressional districts are too big and that we should pare them down by increasing the number of congressmen:

Conservative columnist George Will has argued that increasing the size of the House would obviate the need for campaign finance restrictions. It is the huge size of congressional districts that requires mass communications, such as costly television advertising, which drives the need for vast sums of money requiring congressmen to spend so much time fundraising.

....Some will say that greatly increasing the size of the House will make it into a zoo, as if it isn't already with so many thousands of staff people, constituents and lobbyists wandering around. When one looks at other countries, it's interesting to see that most have lower houses of their legislatures that are larger than our House of Representatives even though their populations are much smaller than ours.

....It's not realistic to even think about going back to congressional districts with 30,000 people — that would require a House of Representatives with more than 10,000 members. But neither is it feasible to continue raising the size of each congressional district infinitely. At some point, an adjustment needs to be made. I think the reapportionment that will follow this year's Census is as good a time as any to do it.

This is a pretty common suggestion, but here's my problem with it. Right now, each member of Congress represents about 700,000 people. That's obviously too many to allow old-fashioned shoe leather campaigning. But what would it take to get back to that? I live in a city of 200,000, and even at that running for mayor or city council is only barely a shoe leather operation. If you want members of Congress who truly represent their neighbors because they actually know them, instead of members who just know how to raise money and schmooze with local power brokers, you'd probably want districts no bigger than 150,000 or so. That would require a Congress of about 2,000 members.

Would that be a good idea? Maybe! But I think that's about what it would take. Once you get above 200,000 people in a district, I think you've hit a tipping point: it doesn't really matter how much bigger they get. Once mass media is the only way to keep in touch with constituents, the only question left is which kind of mass media to use. And who really cares about that?

So: would a Congress with 2,000 members be worth it? On the bright side, it would be harder for lobbyists to influence. On the down side, it would make party discipline even more of a joke than it already is. And we'd have to build a new Capitol building to house this seething mass of pols. Color me unconvinced.

Car Dealers Preying on the Military

It's nice to finally have some heavy firepower on the side of consumer finance protection. Literally:

Car dealers, a well-organized small-business lobby with members in nearly every legislative district, have swarmed the Senate in recent weeks clamoring to be exempt from the legislation's proposed protections against loan scams. But in a letter released Thursday, a top Pentagon official said soldiers need to be protected from "unprincipled auto lending" so they can concentrate on their primary mission: "protecting our great nation."

"Soldiers who are distracted by financial issues at home are not fully focused on fighting the enemy, thereby decreasing mission readiness," Army Secretary John M. McHugh wrote Wednesday to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). Top Pentagon officials don't usually weigh in on non-military legislation. But they have complained that shady car loans have been particularly harmful to military personnel — often young, inexperienced consumers who have other worries when they walk into car lots near military bases.

Stephanie Mencimer wrote a really good piece last year about the way car dealers routinely scam service members. It's worth a read. And maybe give Sen Sam Brownback (R–Kansas), sleaze's biggest defender, a call after you've finished it.