With Nukes Failure Is Not An Option

The current situation in Pakistan is heading towards disaster. The Taliban, from Afghanistan and the border areas in Pakistan, are posing a grave risk to the state. The already weak Pakistani government is on complete verge of failure. (See CNN for instance http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/pakistan.swat.valley/index.html) A failure in Pakistan will have disastrous effects across the world.

First of all, a failure would negate the gains that have been made in the region since 9/11. Bush’s war in Afghanistan successfully removed the Taliban from power and, at one point, had them completely marginalized. Now under our new, ‘global-friendly’ leadership we are seeing a huge resurgence in their power. Certainly, not all of this is due to Obama’s faulty foreign policy. The fall of Musharraf and a myriad of domestic issues, such as the infighting amongst current moderates, play an enormous role in the current weak state of the country. However, a rebirth of Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and possibly Afghanistan) would be disastrous for the progress of the war on terror, the elimination of fanatical Islam, and establishment of global security.

The issue of global security is paramount. A re-failure to stem the Taliban’s ascent in Afghanistan would be bad enough. It would serve to undermine all the hard work over the past eight years. However, a failure in Pakistan is most certainly an existential threat to the U.S. Due to the nuclear capabilities of the country, a failure would mean there would be no accountability for Pakistan’s current nuclear stockpile. The Taliban would have access to nuclear warheads- to use themselves or sell to third parties such as Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, or any enemy of the free world. This threat exists even short of a failure of the state. The Taliban could easily seize a few unfortunately placed nuclear warheads without having to take down the state.

The world community has to address this issue in a much stronger and more forthright way. In the short run, everything has to be done to stabilize and strengthen the current government in Pakistan. Money and assistance should flow in readily. Pressure should be put on corrupt or disinterested bureaucrats. Most importantly, the world must put immense pressure on the Pakistani government to cease making conciliatory deals with the Taliban. The current deal of Taliban weaponry for sharia law is unacceptable. These deals only serve to postpone the fighting and allow the Taliban to retrench itself. The army must be convinced that it needs to fight in the North. They must do everything they can to remove Taliban strongholds. This includes Pakistani military action, but also increased coordination and facilitation of American cross-border attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan. The United States has to unapologetically go after targets in Pakistan, preferably with, but also without Pakistani assistance and blessings.

Furthermore, the world community must take steps to prepare for the worst case scenario of a government failure. The current government needs to be pressured to consolidate stockpiles of nuclear weapons away from the north. This will ensure that they are easy to account for and control. America must plan operations for an invasion of Pakistan. This, of course, needs to be a last resort; however, if the government fails the United States needs to secure Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile immediately. The Pakistani government needs to cooperate with the US (and the UN) to create ‘zero-hour’ contingencies- such as disclosures of stockpiles. [One necessary consideration is, of course, India- which Pakistan feels (incorrectly) is its number one threat.]

Pakistan is one issue where we cannot afford Obama’s ‘speak-humbly’ foreign policy. Every action must be taken to shore up the Pakistani government and decimate the Taliban. Right now, stability should be the sole goal. If not, we run the risk of facing catastrophic results.

The Obama Campaign

One of the driving forces behind Obama’s current failures is his inability to switch from being a campaigner to a leader. His foremost skill-set/tactic was that of being a great mobilizer and orator. He was able to latch-on to and stimulate the popular anger. He was able to inspire and incite new voting blocs- particularly the youth. Furthermore, he was successful in being able to point his finger at the establishment and pass blame. He was masterful at this and it pushed him straight into the White House. All of this is worth spending some time on and studying, especially if the new Republican establishment wants to be successful.

However, this seems to be the only amazing talent that Obama possesses. He has utterly failed to make the transition from campaigner to president. This can easily be seen in the AIG disaster, where rather than positioning himself as the President and leader of a failing economy, he jumped on the bandwagon of name calling and finger pointing. This tactic would have been potentially useful as a candidate, but as we have seen in the news, as President it has completely blown up in his face.

Likewise, we see this failed transition in his general management of the economy and his inability to be bipartisan. He has failed to draw Republicans across the aisle and has given near free reign to Congressional Democrats. He has failed to stand as a leader and offer the market strong ideas and confidence in our future.

This has hurt him deeply. Overall, America’s confidence in Obama has fallen. What America liked in him during his campaign was exactly his ability to campaign (this is also why he beat Clinton). America liked that he disparaged the past eight years. He is now showing that there really was no substance to this form. That, as most McCain supporters saw, there was no depth to his ideas. I liken him to a cocky college freshman, who struts onto campus, head filled with pride after having been a high school senior for a year. Just like the freshmen, Obama talks a big game, thinks he can take on the world no problem.

We are now entering those first finals- when the reality is beginning to sink in. Obama has fortunately pulled back in his campaign styled rhetoric and showing a little more presidential flair. Hopefully, this sticks. I don’t want any further damage done to this country. But I doubt that he has the abilities to serve as the leader this country needs. Maybe he’ll learn in the next few years- but I think he is more likely to be Jimmy Carter II than the Great Changer that he campaigned on.

Welfare Moms and Bailout Banks

Unfortunately, it has become far too acceptable, in modern American society, to expect government handouts. Through a long history of increased government assistance and programs, society has developed an inflated notion of entitlement. This problem is clearly seen in two nearly dichotomous phenomena in the news today- Nadya Suleman (the invitro-welfare mother of 14) and the economic bailout. In both instances, we see the excess of government “entitlements” run rampant.

The key parallel is that in both instances the government is serving as an enabler of poor behavior. By serving as an overinflated safety net, the government is encouraging future individuals or groups to behave in a similar fashion. Clearly, Suleman has seen no incentive to stop having children despite her past (and current) status of being on welfare (which she ironically denies is welfare). Likewise, what incentives will future investment bankers have to avoid taking on too much risk (or more properly, mispricing risk)? The government’s actions today essentially limit the downside risk an individual or group can face. This risk assessment is naturally a huge factor when an individual or group is making a decision. If they foresee less risk, because they know the government will bail them out, they will be more willing to make risky, poor decisions. This in turn spirals downward, increasing the role of the government and negating the individual’s personal responsibility.

Do not make the conclusion that I am calling for a complete end to social welfare or that I believe the government should completely be laissez-faire in dealing with the economic crisis. I don’t believe either. What I do believe is that government policies should be more principle-based (rather than rules-based). This is particularly true in the case of welfare. Abuse of the system should be punished harshly; thereby, precluding people from taking advantage. Welfare should only be available to those who absolutely need it AND who are taking steps not to need it any more. Abusers such as Suleman should not only be precluded from collecting any form of government aid but should be punished for their abuse. It would be worthwhile to consider charging her with child abuse (in regards to her current children and for purposefully and irresponsibly bringing 8 new children into the world when she does not have the means to support them). [The doctor who performed the procedure should at a minimum have a moral, if not a legal responsibility, not to perform elective procedures that will become a burden on the state- but this is a separate discussion]. Government resources should be used for the truly needy, in a more discretionary fashion that allows greater scrutiny in distinguishing between abusers and the truly disadvantaged.

Likewise, the economic bailout needs to be focused in more general fashions. I do believe that the government has a role to play in righting the economy. But, it does not mean just throwing away money to failing industries. The auto industry is a prime example. Giving a largely unrepentant, inflexible, and poorly structured industry a vast some of money only incentivizes it to continue its broken ways. What reason would GM have to make radical new changes if it gets money when it messes up? Furthermore, by supporting the old dinosaurs we squash the new upstart innovators that may have better and more efficient products and methodologies (and those we don’t squash will just set up shop in other countries). There will certainly be costs if the auto industry fails- but a few short term costs are much better if they enable a long term fix. We suffer more harm by building on a broken foundation rather than just tearing down the building and starting anew. (This is partially our own fault by having policies which encourage anticompetitive industries that are too heavily reliant on two or three companies).

The bottom line is that the government has to step back- let people and corporate entities fully assess the risk of a situation without the promise of bailout from Uncle Sam. If each actor knows they might have to fend for themselves, they’ll take the appropriate responsibility to make sure they are heading down the right path. Maybe it is simply tough love- after all, we would all ridicule a parent for doing their child’s homework because the child struggles. Sometimes failure is necessary to ensure that individuals learn the correct way to act, and thereby prevent future failure.