Go to any event on nation building in Washington these days, and you'll hear endless bickering about whose fault it is Iraq hasn't gone better. Maybe it's DOD's fault for commandeering the planning process. Maybe it's the State Department's fault for not letting Ahmed Chalabi be more involved. Maybe (this is the current favorite) we need a new Goldwater-Nichols Act to unify the bureaucracies behind the sorts of nation-building missions we find ourselves in in Iraq.
During a recent event at the US Institute of Peace, both Marine Corps Major Ben Connable and Matt Sherman, a former CPA official, blasted the State Department for not providing sufficient personnel for the mission in Iraq. As it happened, Bob Deutsch, the deputy senior adviser to Secretary Rice for Iraq policy was in the audience, and, well, let's just say the sparks flew. A rough transcription of part of Deutsch's comment is below:
We don’t have a colonial office in the United States. And the kind of---when I hear the criticisms of the civilian side of the government, that the State Department doesn’t have a whole bunch of police trainers that we can send out, that we don’t have a whole bunch of people who know how to run electricity companies, who know how to run oil companies. The Department of Energy doesn’t have people to send out to run oil companies. We don’t have a colonial office. And if we are going to do nation building, in Iraq or elsewhere, we’re going to need one. And I agree that that is a decision---that Secretary of State has made some decisions that we’re going to move the foreign service in directions with our transformational diplomacy in that direction. But it would have to be a larger U.S. government decision that we’re going to do that---which has all sorts of bureaucracy and fiscal implications that I’m not sure we’re prepared to buy off on.
I'm not sure whether to be reassured by the senior adviser's tepid invocation of "bureaucracy and fiscal implications" that he's "not sure we're prepared to buy off on" as the primary obstacle to setting up a colonial office, or alarmed by the fact that he suggests that Secretary Rice has "made some decisions" that the foreign service is going to be "moved in that direction."
At any rate, it's sure a great time to pick up Chris Preble's and my Policy Analysis on the topic of building a nation-building office into the State Department.
Slate has a great piece up on the use and misuse of statistics by reporters.
The magic number for journalists covering the identity theft beat has been $48 billion—the estimated annual losses suffered by identity theft victims—which carries the Federal Trade Commission's imprimatur. . . . Fred H. Cate, a law professor and director of Indiana University's Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, notes that if the estimate were accurate, it would wipe out up to half of the banking industry's $103 billion profits in 2005. "If those numbers were true, we'd have a banking crisis on our hands," he says.
When I worked on the Hill, I came to recognize a similar dynamic at play: There were things everyone believed and no one questioned. I called them "political facts" because the source of the fact was consensus rather than any measurement or observation. Repetition of political facts in Members' speeches and floor statements just made them all the more true.
A political fact relating to identity fraud is that it is a stranger crime, often a product of data breaches, that is conducted mainly over the Internet. It sometimes is, but in my book, Identity Crisis, I point out the results of an actual study showing that:
[M]ore than a third of individuals who had been impersonated in a true identity fraud knew . . . who the perpetrator was. And in more than half of those cases, the perpetrator was a family member or other relative. Other prominent perpetrators of identity frauds are people in companies or financial institutions with access to personal information, as well as friends, neighbors, or in-home employees of impersonation victims. So much for the Internet being the cause of identity fraud, though it certainly plays a role in some cases.
Alas, . . . my source was a Federal Trade Commission study.
I just received a blast email from our friends at the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The subject line reads:
Medicare & Medicaid Spending Projections Are Down Again
At $2.696 trillion, outlays for 2006 are now estimated to be $12 billion lower than the level estimated in February, accounting for 10 percent of the reduction in the 2006 deficit. The lower estimate of 2006 outlays results primarily from reductions in the projected growth rates for Medicare and Medicaid, particularly estimates of the cost of Medicare’s new prescription drug benefit program... However, in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service programs, projections of increased spending outstrip these savings in the long-term and as a result, total spending in the Medicare and Medicaid programs continues to grow at unsustainable rates.
(My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale will evaluate the Bush administration's claims about Medicaid spending in a subsequent post.)
Tomorrow, a lawsuit that could revolutionize educational equity litigation as we know it is scheduled to be filed in Chancery Court in Newark, NJ. Instead of seeking the standard equity remedy---pushing so much new money into supposedly poor districts that a mile-long caravan of Wells Fargo trucks couldn’t carry it all---the plaintiffs in Crawford v. Davy want to give parents with kids in failing schools the right to use public funds to move their children to institutions that actually work, public or private.
Imagine that: Instead of rewarding educrats in failing district with tons of new cash, it would be the children---the people who are actually doing the suffering in the state’s broken schools---who will get the relief!
As this case unfolds, what will be particularly interesting to see is the reaction of the educational equity crowd, which so far has only clamored for ever bigger sums of money to be lavished on bad districts. Will their magnanimity now extend all the way to seeking “justice” for families, not just the public school establishment? We’re looking at you here, Education Law Center, for a sign.
Today at Cato Unbound Cato's own Ted Galen Carpenter argues that Reuel Marc Gerecht’s strategy of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities may be harder than advertised and that “thousands of innocent Iranians would perish in U.S. air strikes.” Such an attack might trigger a “massive regional crisis,” Carpenter says. “America’s troubles with the Islamic world do not yet constitute a war of civilizations,” he writes, “but Gerecht’s strategy could well produce that result.” Carpenter argues that the U.S. should try to persuade Iran to give up its nuke program by offering a “grand bargain,” and if that doesn’t work, should pursue a policy of containment and deterrence, that, while “nerve-wracking,” has proved effective against deadlier and more fanatical regimes.
Don't miss replies to Gerecht on Friday from Edward N. Luttwak and on Monday from Anthony H. Cordesman.
This is well past its purchase-by date, but Dafna Linzer had a Washington Post Outlook piece in March on the National Security Council's "Sesame Street Generation." Not as sneering as the title implies, the article describes the first generation of NSC officials to come of age in an era of American unipolarity. If the article is any indication, my exceedingly low expectations for my generation may have been a touch too optimistic.
In one particularly breathtaking passage, Meghan O'Sullivan, the president's point person for Iraq on the NSC, describes her intellectual heritage and how that shapes her approach to policy:
For many of the generals with whom O'Sullivan consults in her current job, the painful experience of Vietnam permeates their thinking on Iraq. Not for O'Sullivan. "We are the first post-Vietnam generation, without the baggage of Vietnam, which doesn't mean we don't try to learn some of the lessons from there about counterinsurgency and so forth, but it's not my first frame of reference and I think that's a good thing," said O'Sullivan.
Actually, having a pessimistic view of counterinsurgency would probably be a good thing. The new Army field manual on counterinsurgency is only the latest indication that the sunny optimism of the Bush administration was a mistake, and that counterinsurgency is much, much harder than administration officials thought it was before we went in to Iraq.
After the first Persian Gulf war, President George H.W. Bush famously exclaimed "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!" It appears his son, and the Sesame Street Generation at the NSC---the Best and the Brightest, if you will, of Generation X---are doing their level best to bring it back.
That quote, commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, comes to mind when contemplating yesterday's vote in Congress to ban Internet gambling.
It passed, 317-93. What's interesting is that Rep. John Conyers introduced an amendment that would have removed the exemption the bill grants to allow states to put their lotteries online. That amendment overwhelmingly failed.
Which means that a good number of Congressmen, most of them Republican, voted to ban Internet gambling sites operated by private citizens, but voted to allow them when operated by the government.