Rep. John Duncan’s recent column, How Environmentalists Destroy Small Towns, received a torrent of comments, mostly opposed to the assertions in his title. As a long time analyst of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) actions with many articles on the subject at Reason.com, I’d like to redress some of their comments and questions, namely specific examples of extreme environmentalists’ excesses.
Those of us steeped in scientists’ and economists’ questions and challenges to Obama’s EPA job destruction can easily forget that most Americans, especially in large cities, are unaware—perhaps blissfully—of such controversies. Instead they are constantly exposed to government and big media disinformation. I wrote earlier of a typical example, a New York Times headline stating that rising sea levels were causing a decline in seaside property values. Deep in the article’s text, however, one learns that it was the decline in government subsidies for waterfront property insurance that was causing value declines.
As terrorism threats grew I became especially alarmed at the EPA’s false information about the danger of nuclear radiation at tiny, infinitesimal levels. They would have meant a panic evacuation of half a city for a “dirty bomb” which really would only contaminate a few dozen yards in the direction of a blast. My writings and those at Forbes.com finally helped trigger a Government Accounting Office order to EPA to correct its threat levels. At Fukushima some 1,600 people died from the panicked Japanese government evacuation following old EPA guidelines. Actual deaths from radiation even including all the emergency workers were “zero.”
My November, 2010 article Job Killing Environmentalists –How EPA Cripples the American Economy details specifically eight areas of the kind of damage Rep. Duncan referred to in his article. Here are a few :
— Soot emissions from factory boilers. In a rare case the EPA stepped back from, after an outcry from industry, from its original proposal affecting 200,000 boilers and incinerators. The new rules will only cost industry (those which don’t shut down) some $20 billion to comply.
— Lead paint removal, when repairing or re-painting window frames, caused many contractors to refuse to work on older, inner city houses built before 1979. The EPA’s ruinous fines of $37,000 per day are terrifying to any small contractor. They were used freely by EPA inspectors to force persons and companies to obey them instantaneously without daring to appeal to their supervisor, much less to the courts.
— Ground Level Ozone. AutoBlog reports that the EPA has asked the U.S. government to enact draconian new smog regulations for ground-level ozone. The request to cut levels to .006 to .007 parts per million comes less than two years after standards were set at .0075 particles of pollutants per one million. As AutoBlog notes, “That doesn’t sound like a very big change, but the New York Times reports that the agency quotes the price tag of such a change at between $19 billion and $100 billion per year by 2020.”
I’ve also written of EPA’s enforcement of stringent clean air rules over the Arctic Ocean, which delayed Shell’s drilling for a year and contributed to its final abandonment of drilling after spending billions.
The New York Times recently reported that while large corporations’ support the Paris Agreement, from which President Trump withdrew, most smaller businesses supported Trump’s action. The newspaper described them as fearing the government agencies’ enforcement of Obama’s pledges to comply.
Another common theme to emerge from the comments about Duncan’s article is an all or nothing choice between regulations or a dirty environment. That’s not so. Our environment has already been cleaned up tremendously to good effect. No one disagrees. The question rather is that newer measurement technology can result in incredible costs to eliminate the last parts per billion. The human body has natural resistance to minimal poison or contamination of almost anything. Yet the cost of cleaning up the last 10 percent of a contaminant can cost 10 times what it cost to remove the original 90 percent. It may be a good idea to remove further amounts of contamination, but the government should be very sure of the science before ordering hundreds of billions of dollars of costs, money which could better go for healthcare or raising Americans’ standard of living.
Instead, EPA “science” follows a very questionable scientific method called “linear no-threshold analysis.” It means that there are no limits at all on cleaning up everything to the nth degree. Under this rationale, if smoking 60 cigarettes per day (3 packs) will cause lung cancer, than out of 60 persons smoking one cigarette per day, one will get lung cancer. The theory is so far out of whack that the EPA won’t state any limits for a “safe” amount of lead in drinking water. It used to post a limit of 40 parts per billion, but USA Today reported that even this was removed from its website. Under linear no-threshold even one part per billion would mean the sickness of one person per billion human beings.
Other environmentalists’ extremes, such as shutting down or preventing new oil or gas pipelines are obviously another example of job destruction. Others want to shut down or prevent the fracking of oil wells, an incredible new invention which has made America energy independent and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in new factories such as petrochemicals which come from cheap natural gas or, now, its growing exports. One commenter to Duncan’s article remembered the shutting down of American timber exports to Asia from the Northwest lumber companies, putting them (with lots of well paying jobs) out of business.
Rep. Duncan’s article was right-on and I hope our readers will look for alternative sources of information about the progress that realistic environmentalists bring about compared to their extremist brethren’s luddite views and actions.
The so-called Paris “Treaty” has all sorts of grounds for complicated lawsuits to restrict America’s new found energy independence and growing massive natural-gas production. We need to get out from under it. Yet a weakened President Trump is hesitating while the global-warming lobby tries desperately to confound the issues.
There have recently been stories raising concerns about how South Pole ice might one day melt and raise sea levels. But this because ice has been increasing at the South Pole. (See my earlier article for details on South Pole ice and new cold weather records in Asia.)
It is seldom mentioned that the “Treaty” received nearly unanimous support among developing nations because they were promised billions per year to pay for cutbacks on their energy production. As Bloomberg verified, “many poor nations signed up to the treaty largely because of a promise of $100 billion a year of ‘climate aid’ from rich nations, starting from 2020.” Of course, most of this money is supposed to come from Washington and Obama committed a billion for it before leaving office.
Similarly, European support can be understood in terms of the feared political backlash from voters (Germans are paying over 30 euro-cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, nearly three times what Americans pay) if questions are raised about the hundreds of billions their governments have spent subsidizing solar and wind power.
There is also a vital constitutional issue of senatorial “advice and consent.” There is no question that the Paris Agreement was a treaty. Obama knew he would not get the votes in the Senate to pass it. The precedent of so committing America to such an agreement without a Senate vote should not be allowed to stand. A report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute lays out the reasons:
The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.
CEI’s analysis further explains:
A majority of states have sued to overturn the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s end-run around Congress, the Clean Power Plan, which is also the centerpiece of the U.S. NDC (nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. Yet, the CPP is only a start. All of Obama’s adopted and proposed climate policies would only achieve about 51 percent of just the first NDC, and the Paris Agreement requires parties to promise more “ambitious” NDCs every five years.
The Republican Senate will not vote to approve the treaty. That would end any case for its legal validity. Fear that a vote might be filibustered so that some future leftist administration could eventually resubmit it for ratification is bogus. In fact, it would be a constant thorn in the side of the Left for future elections. Remember another real motive for them is for Washington to have growing bureaucratic control over the states and citizenry. All sorts of new government powers could be claimed as a way of controlling climate change. Fears of this would give conservatives a constant election issue by keeping the issue alive.
Environmental pressure groups and several state attorneys general have begun to prepare lawsuits in federal court to block withdrawal of the “Clean Power” Plan and other greenhouse gas rules. One argument that they have already put forward is that these rules cannot be withdrawn because they are part of our international commitment under the Paris Climate Treaty. Failing to withdraw from Paris thus exposes key parts of your deregulatory energy agenda to unnecessary legal risk. The AGs revealed in a recruiting letter that they also plan other lawsuits “ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality.
Bjorn Lomborg explains the flaws of the treaty in USA Today:
In truth, Trump’s action just exposes what we have known for a while: The Paris Agreement is not the way to solve global warming. Even if every nation fulfilled everything promised — including Obama’s undertakings — it would get us nowhere near achieving the treaty’s much-hyped, unrealistic promise to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Further obfuscating the issues is the constant barrage about the ease of moving to so called “clean energy.” Actually “wind and solar are supplying less than 1% of global energy demand….wind provided 0.46% of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35%.” Higher reported numbers for renewables include wood burning, dung and such.
With all the complications, the best way to ice the treaty is to put it before the Senate for ratification. Failure there will once and for all end any legal grounds for implementing it.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Three new technologies of the last 20 years made America’s economy great again: the iPhone, Google search, and horizontal drilling and fracturing. All came from first-generation immigrants. Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant; Google came from two young men, one a Russian immigrant; and fracking came from the son of a Greek goatherder. There is a simple reason: immigrants, to paraphrase Frankie Laine’s great song, do not have an “ace in the hole”—somewhere to get a free meal or a pad for the night. I too was one, from Russia. Immigrants didn’t have any ace in the hole; when I looked over my shoulder there was nothing except, sometimes, an imaginary hungry wolf. My mother got me a good education but as a child, I was among the poorest in almost any group of children. That’s the real incentive immigrants have.
Steve Jobs’s father was a poor Syrian—yes, an Arab of all people. Google’s co-founder was Sergey Brin, who came to America as a six-year-old. Google’s search engine is compared to Gutenberg’s invention of printing for its impact on mankind. George Mitchell’s father was a Greek goatherder, hardly a favored category for the anti-immigrants. George himself grew up in an apartment over a shoeshine stand which his father managed; he graduated first in his class from Texas A&M University. Quoting The Economist, “few businesspeople have done as much to change the world as George Mitchell.”
Since the 1940s an oil or gas well was drilled vertically in oil sands maybe 200 to 400 feet thick; then the pipe was perforated with holes (fracked), exposing some 400 feet on all sides to flowing oil/gas. Horizontal drilling allows the drill stem and pipe to go outwards up to a couple of miles following the directions of the oil sands or rock. This meant that a single well could expose tens of thousands of feet of oil-rich rock in several directions to fracking and production! This put America back as the world’s top oil and gas producer. America is now building more and more gas export facilities and already earns billions of dollars from new gas exports to Mexico, Asia, and Europe. We will soon become the world’s third-largest liquid natural-gas exporter. It has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying new jobs as giant petrochemical plants are also built to take advantage of our low cost gas. New pipelines are also bringing cheap natural gas to the East Coast and Northeast. America is one of the very few countries which can so prosper because of our network of pipelines and railroads in the producing states and our private ownership of mineral rights.
It’s immigrants who have always been vital for America; yes even the lowly, illiterate Mexican laborers upon which California and much southern agriculture depends. In Wisconsin, which is second to California in milk production, about 60 percent of immigrants on dairy farms are undocumented, according to a Bloomberg report. I worked a summer on a dairy farm when I was 16. It’s tough work.
And half of all illegal immigrants are Europeans, South Americans, and Asians who overstayed their visas. Immigrants from India are leaders of tech startups in Silicon Valley. According to Forbes, “It’s not just Silicon Valley. We found that Indians start more companies than any other immigrant group in California (26%), Massachusetts (28%), Texas (17%), Florida (17%), New York (27%), and New Jersey (57%).” Half of all the Fortune 500 largest companies in America were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants! At the other end of entrepreneurship are the thousands of tiny lunch shops and services which provide convenient meals and snacks and other services in our great coastal cities. They are an immense convenience to office workers and are almost always run by Asians or Latinos. Then there is the vast amount of child care for working mothers and well-off career women provided mainly by Asian and Latin immigrant women.
The adoration of the anti-immigrants for assembly-line factory jobs is a fantasy. I suggest trying it. Or construction, where millions of unemployed Americans are supposedly chomping at the bit for jobs. I used to do it in my twenties and thirties. It’s tough.
Trump’s “millions of dangerous criminal aliens” now turn out to include all those who are paying Social Security taxes into U.S. citizens’ accounts or have a broken tail light in traffic. Trump just moved the goal posts!
Bin Laden’s Dying Wish
In 2009 I wrote “How Bin Laden Bankrupted America,” pointing out that his ultimate dream was to create chaos inside America, to get Americans to fight each other. We are getting closer to that time with Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and proposals. Trump’s vitriolic language and his splitting off immigrants from old-line nationalists are putting America on a downward path. Remember that Mexicans are less than half of our immigrants. There are also millions of Asians, Irish, Polish, and others who all now feel and fear that they could be next. If Trump also curtails world trade and damages America’s high-tech manufacturing and service sector in a vain attempt to bring back old blue-collar jobs, we will surely descend into chaos.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
With all the talk about Fake News, little is mentioned about No-News.
Moscow has had a record-busting winter, including the coldest Christmas in 120 years according to Russian reports. Yet there is nothing on CNN. Poland and much of Eastern Europe also are having a record cold winter. It is not reported. Also in the Southern Hemisphere were record cold winters in 2016 and cool following summers in Perth, Australia and New Zealand, which had the coldest winter in a hundred years. Similarly, in 2016 Brazil had the coldest winter in 22 years.
Although everyone can agree that there is “climate change,” the measures most visible for modifying it are all those promoted by the partisans of global warming—namely cutting back carbon dioxide emissions, particularly burning fossil fuels. But should we copy Germany with measures that raised electricity bills to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly three times what it costs in America? Is it really proven that we should stop building pipelines so as to purposely increase the price of gasoline or home heating gas for millions of Americans? New York State is even trying to prohibit a hundred-mile gas pipeline that would bring cheap Pennsylvania gas to compete with some of the highest-priced gas in America.
These policies to hold back “climate change” became the mantra of Obama’s EPA. But the ideas also pervade elite America. A poll at Harvard University’s alumni gathering in 2016 about the ten greatest threats to America put global warming as No. 1 and nuclear war at No. 10, results that truly terrify any contrarian such as myself. When so many Americans believe in it, some experience their faith in it as a virtual religion. It’s understandable that most of media don’t question it.
Almost every week the Washington Post and New York Times report some more frightening news or government report as evidence of “climate change.” After 2005, with Hurricane Katrina and many others, they told us that global warming was responsible and would bring forth continuing future record hurricanes. Instead there have been very few hurricanes at all. Still any reports or questioning of the so-called “theory” is kept out of their “news.” Isn’t record cold in other parts of the planet also reportable “news,” when Washington spends billions and adds inestimable billions more of costs to our industries because of this theory?
Is climate change really all the fault of humans? Maybe it is partly our arrogance and pride, believing that the world revolves around us. The world is so big and so many places don’t have much human activity. (The BBC series Planet Earth gives some idea of how immense the earth is.) And there is so much false or distorted information. Prof. Larry Bell debunks the myth that “97 percent of scientists” say humans are responsible. The actual survey used to make this claim was a two-minute online questionnaire that mixed the answers of those claiming primary responsibility with those who answered that human influence was marginal.
Another little-reported fact is the growing ice quantities in the Antarctic. After a year the Washington Post finally reported it, but combined with a story about how growing amounts of ice might break off and fall in the Antarctic Ocean and so cause seas to rise.
Why assume that climate change is the same threat as global warming when nearly all of Al Gore’s forecasts of ten years ago were wrong? Climate alarmists’ fears have existed through history. They’ve usually been wrong; there are simply too many variables.
Now we learn that the recent Paris Climate Accords were also based on false information. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rushed through, just in time for the conference, an unvetted report rebutting one of the warmers’ big problems, that temperatures on earth had not increased during the last ten years. One of their top scientists explained it. So there are more cover-ups of questionable information. One should also remember that Third World nations were promised some hundred billion dollars, mainly from America, to compensate for economic losses in return for cutting back their industrialization and coal-power generation.
It’s all so preposterous when one thinks that we are talking about increases of maybe a few degrees Fahrenheit every century. Shouldn’t there at least be some discussion and debate on the subject?
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
One of the great pleasures in publishing and writing for The American Conservative is the civilized discourse, knowledge, and profundity of the comments sections. Our survival and reach today is quite astounding considering how we started as such a lonely voice in Washington’s war-mongering media wilderness. Yet there is still much more work to do. The magazine is still rare as a respected and credentialed voice questioning the Republican establishment.
A trillion-dollar-plus military and intelligence establishment has many, many ways to subsidize and promote its profitable and career-building agenda. As our new editor Robert Merry describes, most Americans don’t support Washington’s unending military interventions against ever-morphing enemies. Fifty-one percent think we are less safe today than we were before we started them. Only 11 percent think we are consequently safer. Yet, as TAC supporter Richard Young commented, “Unfortunately, recent scientific studies show that American public opinion has essentially ZERO impact on what our Government actually chooses to do.” America is still an incompetent crusader as warned years ago in one of TAC’s great classics by James Pinkerton, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Imperialists.”
Our wasteful military budget is overloaded with incredibly expensive aircraft carriers, F-35 fighters, and now another bomber. New and cheap swarm technology is the coming threat while we go on building weaponry for the same strategy as World War II. But our military-industrial complex is also very dangerous. Occasional small real wars and the constant hyping of threats are needed to justify high spending. But wars can easily get out of control. Most great wars come about from misjudgments while today’s cyber technology adds a lack of clarity about where attacks originate. Russia is a shadow of its former threat despite some Republicans, as usual, now demanding a new Cold War.
Establishment Washington media has its own agenda, promoting discord and (small) wars at every opportunity. It’s just profitable for their business. Three years ago, when Obama called on Congress for authorization to first bomb Syria, he quickly discovered that most Americans opposed it. The administration quickly asked for a very rare congressional vote—ultimately canceled—that would have disclosed little popular support for more wars, despite overwhelming support for attack on the the Sunday Beltway TV talk shows. As the Cato Institute’s Chris Preble explained, 70 to 90 percent of Americans opposed bombing while 80 percent of the talking heads who expressed a position supported it.
It used to be said that decisions about war were too important to be left to generals. Today we should add that such decisions are too important to be left to think-tank intellectuals and TV talk-show personalities. A recent, terrifying New Yorker article describes “World War Three By Mistake”:
Harsh political rhetoric, combined with the vulnerability of the nuclear command-and-control system, has made the risk of global catastrophe greater than ever…Nuclear weapons systems on both sides are aging and obsolete, the personnel often suffer from poor morale and poor training…And today’s command and control systems must contend with new threats, malware, spyware, worms, viruses…and all the other modern tools of cyber warfare.
Think too of all the new enemies American wars have created in the Muslim World. For some hackers the ultimate dream would be setting off Russia and America to destroy each other!
I dwell on these subjects because I once saw a great city, East Berlin in 1952, flat as far as the eye could see. I know that such destruction can happen again, and that is why I have written in support of civil-defense programs.
It is fitting as TAC grows stronger to hear the howling of the Israeli lobby on Fox News defending its peace-busting settlements. Let’s remember that 30 percent of the aggressive settlers in Gaza were Americans with an American passport in their back pocket. The Lobby, as I have written, is much more related to the military-industrial complex than to the interests of most Jews. In hours and hours of coverage on Fox and CNN, it was almost impossible to learn that most American Jews oppose the settlements and many supported the U.S. vote abstention.
Not only J Street, a Jewish group promoting a two-state solution, supported the UN vote. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote on Twitter that most of the world and Israel agreed with Secretary of State John Kerry. As the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman wrote, “what a true friend of Israel would do today is just what Obama and Kerry tried … tell our dear ally that it is driving drunk and needs to stop the settlements.”
Lastly I would note that my article on the rogue EPA run amuck received many comments in opposition, but not one disputing or denying any specific fact or link. We all want clean air and water, but taking out the last parts per million or even billion of bad stuff (or supposed prevention of 2 degrees of global warming) is a great waste of resources; much less does it justify preventing pipelines, fracking, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our message about the EPA’s (blue-collar) job destruction is getting through. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria recently felt compelled to explain that alternative energy also created lots of jobs. But like much major media, he didn’t explain that they are nearly all because of tax subsidies paid for by the rest of us. Steve Moore writes how the biggest loser in the election was Big Green.
TAC has grown greatly this last year and for the very first time we have adequate funding to expand our staff and coverage. We still need to hire some PR to get our writers onto TV talk shows, do direct mail to grow our print edition, pay our writers better, and hold more of our successful conferences in cities other than Washington. The support of our readers has made all this possible and we look forward to an exciting 2017.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Virtually gone amuck during Obama’s last years, the EPA has issued masses of job-killing and job-preventing regulations and rulings that only a very strong and knowledgeable managerial hand can fix. That involves annulling or reversing recent rulings and replacing or relocating many of the agency’s top staffers. Congress also needs to reverse recent rulings and subpoena the records of staffers who’ve dealt with outside environmental groups to bring about the EPA’s job-destroying “sue and settle” and “sweetheart suits” schemes. These prevent productive economic uses for a vast amount of land. I have written before how there is almost no new mining investment in Western lands and Alaska because of EPA regulations and generated lawsuits.
The ways Washington hurts job creation and burdens industry with billions of unproductive costs are far too many to fit in a short article; however, I refer readers to my many past articles at Reason. Just two of them give lots of details and links, including explanations about carbon dioxide, cement, ozone, lead paint, factory boilers, oil drilling, ethanol, and radiation health limits in case of “dirty bombs.” (See: “Job Killing Environmentalists” and “Confronting Washington’s Job Killers.”)
No wonder there was a recent demonstration in Washington opposing Trump’s most threatening nomination to rein in the EPA, Myron Ebell, to oversee its transition! He has now followed through with the selection of Oklahoma’s tough attorney general, Scott Pruitt, to be the new director. Pruitt knows what he’s doing, being one of the leaders of the 28-state lawsuit challenging the EPA’s Clean Air Act with its many costly regulations, including the shutting down of coal-fired power plants, which provide much of America’s electricity. Trump’s promises of keeping and creating more blue-collar jobs in America will depend upon Pruitt’s reversing and reining in the agency. The current leadership should be fired or relocated to Alaska, maybe to study polar bears, which actually are thriving.
Congress also needs to control the EPA’s self-funding operations, which are designed to allow it independence of political control by Congress. More and more government agencies actually keep some of the money from the large fines they level. The EPA now has something called the Mitigation Trust Fund. Its recent settlement with Volkswagen for the company’s falsifications of emissions tests orders the company to put $2 billion over future years into the trust fund for the EPA to make grants to favored constituencies. One of them is Indian tribes, who then would be expected to support and reinforce EPA programs to cut back future emissions—let’s call them jobs—which create, say, engine exhaust. Also there is another $2 billion “to promote the use of zero-emission vehicles and technology.” This in addition to the $10 billion in costs to Volkswagen so far. Think of all the new bureaucratic jobs and spending money these EPA self-administered funds will generate.
The biggest EPA threat and costs involve the theories of human-caused global warming, now called climate change, which its proponents are using to try to prevent new oil pipelines and the incredible new production from horizontal fracking, not to mention vastly raising electricity costs. Actually, all the dire computer models of ten years ago proved to be wrong. Yet for many people it has now become a virtual religion. Americans are bombarded with stories from the New York Times and Washington Post almost every week, fanning fears.
There is no better example of such yellow journalism than the front-page headlines of the Times, such as one on November 25: ”Rising Seas Turn Coastal Houses into a Gamble—Fears of Market Crash.” Only reading halfway through the long, scary report does one discover that it is cutbacks in federal subsidies for flood insurance, not rising seas, that has substantially raised costs and affected prices. Past flood claims on a property used to go unreported, but now many states are requiring disclosure upon sale of a property. Also, the Times reports, many new borrowers are now required to obtain flood insurance. The actual expected sea-level increase of 1 to 2 millimeters per year (according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report) would be 200 millimeters over the next hundred years, or eight inches, which equals less than one inch every 10 years. A newer article from the BBC reports the possible rise at 20 to 40 inches over the next 100 years—or two to four inches every ten years. Then the Washington Post warns that if Antarctica also melted, the seas could rise 50 feet by the year 2500. However, Antarctica has actually been gaining more ice these past years.
Forbes writer Mark Hendrickson explains how the EPA repeatedly abuses and exceeds its legislated authority using, for example, the Clean Water Act, “which pertains explicitly to navigable waters as a pretext to regulate land where puddles form after heavy rains.” His very detailed article “EPA, Worst of Many Federal Rogue Agencies,” reads like a Franz Kafka horror story.
Even when the EPA does finally correct past errors in one area, it doesn’t follow through to change others. For example, after finally modifying its nuclear radiation threat levels by a factor of hundreds for civil defense (a tiny radiation dirty bomb would have entailed evacuating half a city under its old rules), it still maintains the same obsolete rules for nuclear energy plants and superfund cleanup sites, thus adding billions to their costs.
Nearly all the EPA’s “science” about risks comes from the discredited linear no threshold theory. This postulates that if 100 aspirin would kill a man, than out of 100 men each taking one aspirin, one would die. Exposing the agency’s reliance on the theory will go far toward gaining more public confidence in cutting its claws. This theory is also the Achilles’ Heel of much of the EPA edifice; exposing it is the way to cut through masses of lawsuits which will be filed to prevent modifying past regulations.
Tackling this monster will be very, very tough. The procedures for just reforming its most egregious rules can be very onerous and time consuming, also involving long lawsuits as the well-funded extremists in the environmental movement will fight tooth and nail for relevance and “their religion.” Opponents are smeared as charlatans or industry lobbyists. Well of course, it’s affected industries which are most damaged. Government-funded EPA proponents have time and again been exposed as hiding, obfuscating, or directly lying about contrary information. Also, it is often well-paid blue-collar jobs that EPA regulations most affect. White-collar or fast-food workers are far less threatened by draconian EPA standards. And lots of the job losses blamed upon free trade are rather because of handicaps imposed by Washington onto U.S. industry.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared in January of 2014. We are republishing it in light of Mattis’s being tapped to head the Department of Defense.
Jamestown Foundation is an old-line think tank founded during the Cold War to encourage and help Soviet defectors. Today it is a large, respected think tank with continuing hard-line views on Central Asia and former Soviet lands. It focuses on Eurasia and global terrorism. Publications include Terrorism Monitor, Eurasia Daily Monitor, China Brief, North Caucuses Monitor, and Militant Leadership Monitor. Wikipedia reports “it has been alleged that Jamestown is neoconservative agenda driven… with ties to the CIA & U.S. Government.” Its directors include former top intelligence and military personnel. This writer, a long time anti-communist, participated in a Jamestown team of journalists and experts on Soviet Russia who served as observers for President Putin’s first election in 2000.
When the keynote speaker at Jamestown’s annual conference, a four-star Marine Corps general, analyzes America’s way of war from a realist perspective, his criticisms are well worth knowing. His views must be widespread in the military, although not in Washington’s civilian establishment. Gen. James N. Mattis (retired) followed General Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) from 2010-to-2013, responsible for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 18 other nations. Earlier he commanded the First Marine Division during the initial invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. He also served as NATO supreme allied commander from 2007-2009. He served for 42 years, and the Marine Corps Times has called him the “most revered Marine in a generation.”
Some of General Mattis’s statements and reasoning follow; my comments are in italics.
–America doesn’t lose wars, it loses interest.
–We have no overall strategy about how to defeat our enemy. (Just killing them is not working because, as I wrote years ago, the proper analogy comes from Greek mythology, Hercules’ adventure where, for every enemy soldier he killed, ten more sprung up in each one’s place.)
–We don’t understand our enemy. (This refers to Sun Tzu’s classic dictum for war, “Know Thyself and Know Thy Enemy.” Americans have scarce interest in understanding the Muslim world’s history, wants, and fears.)
–We need a strategy which does not drive young Muslims to al-Qaeda.
–We must develop a persuasive counter narrative to that of our enemies. (With communism America held the moral high ground; today our Middle East wars have taken it away.)
–Al-Qaeda’s narrative is vulnerable, its strategy has its own poison pills. The IRA is an example of how a group’s own extremists can cause disaffection among the public. They eventually caused the Irish public to abandon them as they competed to prove who could be the most violent and brutal using indiscriminate terror. A franchise operation is not controlled, factions will do things wrong—think of al-Qaeda in Iraq murdering so many Sunni civilians for not conforming to Sharia law and subsequently being defeated. (Remember also that every free election where most Arabs could show their beliefs, only a small minority supported al-Qaeda’s religious fundamentalism. Most want safety, prosperity, and security. The calumny that most want to establish Sharia law in America is a propaganda of Washington’s war party.)
–Irregular warfare must become a core competency of our military; also our new weaponry must be focused on this new kind of war. (Most military training and procurement still concerns the strategy of World War II.)
–We must be more attentive to our allies’ sentiments and needs. We ignore them and then wonder why they won’t later do what we want.
–We must do a better job explaining and talking to the American people about our objectives.
–Palestinian peace process—two-state solution –Washington must address and promote this issue. (The conflict weakens and discredits America in the whole Muslim world. Mattis follows previous CENTCOM commanders, Admiral Fallon and General Petraeus, in stating the same judgment.)
–First think how we are going to end the fight before getting involved in wars. Democracies don’t know how to end wars. How much longer will there be public support for the war? American are not war weary, but rather are confused.
General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement. Foreign Policy‘s Thomas Ricks reported:
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way—not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?”
Washington did have a “strategy” when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing, “Shock and Awe” we called it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate and obey Washington’s plans.
With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to “win” and come home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American “strategy” has usually been to return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu’s dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives’ war-and-conquest agenda. Long ago I wrote about him, in “John Bolton and U.S. Lawlessness,” “The Bush administration’s international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservatives.” I quoted Bolton, “It is a big mistake to for us to grant any validity to international law … because over the long term, the goal of those who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.” In fact I set up a web page, the John Bolton File, containing various links about him and the neocons.
Nearly all of Donald Trump’s appointments to his transition team are very encouraging. Indeed, I have known many of them for years. But he could undermine his whole agenda by allowing neocons back into their former staffing and leadership role over Republican foreign policy. The New York Times reported how many are now scrambling to get back into their old dominant positions. And now National Review, which supported all the disasters in Iraq, has come out to promote Bolton for secretary of state.
I have written about the neocons for many years. Their originators were former leftists who later became anti-communists. After the collapse of communism, they provided the intellectual firepower for hawks and imperialists who wanted an aggressive American foreign policy. Having lived and done business for many years in the Third World, I thought they would only bring about disasters for America. What especially interested me was their almost total lack of experience in and knowledge about the outside world, particularly Asia and Latin America. I even set up a web page called War Party Neoconservative Biographies as I researched their education and experience.
Brilliant academics as many of them were, their “foreign” experience was at best a semester or two in London or, for the more daring, some studies in Paris or, for the Jewish ones, a summer on a kibbutz in Israel. They are above all Washington insiders. John Bolton is very typical. A summa cum laude graduate of Yale, then Yale Law School, time with a top Washington law firm, and then various academic and political appointments, but no foreign living or work experience. Also, as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls. Long ago Peter Viereck explained them with his observation about the vicarious “lust of many intellectuals for brute violence.” No wonder they urged Bush on to his disastrous war and occupation policies. Even before Iraq they were first urging dominance over Russia and then military confrontation with China, when a U.S. spy plane was collided by a Chinese fighter plane. It wasn’t just the Arab world which was in their sights.
I write about all this based on my own experience of studying in Germany and France, working 15 years in South America, and speaking four languages fluently.
Trump appointments so far are really showing his focus upon getting America back on track with faster economic growth, which has been so stunted by Obama’s runaway regulatory regime. To understand their costs, see analysis in the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s “Ten Thousand Commandments.” But more unending wars will continue to sap America’s strength and prejudice the world’s former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. Few would now doubt that America has crossed this threshold. When it costs us a million dollars per year per man to field combat infantry in unending wars, we will face economic ruin just like happened with the Roman Empire.
The risk is that Trump’s foreign-affairs transition team becomes infiltrated. Much of the transition is being run out of the Heritage Foundation, which was a big promoter of the Iraq War. Mainly, however, Vice President Mike Pence, who heads up the transition team, was another war wanter and still supports the neoconservative agenda—e.g., he strongly supported the attack on Libya. He also wants much more military spending. Pence is great on domestic issues but not on foreign policy. Although a Catholic, he also is very close to those evangelicals who believe that supporting Israel’s expansion will help to speed up the second coming of Christ and, consequently, Armageddon. One must assume that he, together with the military-industrial complex, is plugging for the neoconservatives again to work their agenda upon America and the world.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Why is socialism still so popular? A superb conference at Cato recently addressed the issue with new insights and reasoning. Socialism should be discredited in this age of incredible abundance and progress: hunger has declined from 30 percent of the world’s population to some 10 percent, yet with billions more mouths to feed. Socialism’s continuing appeal is so irrational that there must be some innate support for it in the needs of the human psyche. The subject was explored by several evolutionary psychologists at Cato’s event, which was moderated by Marian L. Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at Cato’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
I always used to think that socialism’s appeal mainly came from envy, which was innate to human character. There’s a classic book titled Envy, by Helmut Schoeck, that explains the extraordinary progress of Western civilization as coming from our religions, Christianity and Judaism before it. It notes that two of the Ten Commandments strongly condemned envy—that subordinating it was vital for a society to progress. But envy is still innate. Remember the old story of a poor Russian peasant, whose neighbor finally owns a cow. The peasant becomes consumed with envy and cries out to God for relief. When God answers him to make a wish come true, he prays, “God, make my neighbor’s cow sicken and die.”
New knowledge of human nature delves much deeper, however. For 200,000 years humans lived in tribes as hunters and gatherers. Agriculture has only existed for some 10,000 years, and the human mind has not changed appreciably during the last 50,000 years. Evolutionary psychology (EP) helps us understand “why relatively free and fabulously wealthy societies like ours are so rare and, possible, so fragile.” (The quote and the numbers above come from a Cato paper distributed at the conference, “Capitalism and Human Nature” by Will Wilkinson.)
Professor Jonathan Haidt spoke of his article “The Moral Foundations of Occupy Wall Street” for the libertarian magazine Reason. He showed photographs of the leftist demonstrations, explaining that while participants promoted a contrary frame of mind, they still understood the tradeoffs between communal values and economic growth. They had slogans like “equality now, liberty later.” Their objective—having the 99 percent throw off the yoke of the 1 percent—fit with EP theories. (Haidt’s analysis and interesting visuals are in the Cato video of his speech linked above.)
Another speaker, Prof. Leda Cosmides, explained how primitive hunting was intrinsically difficult and dangerous. Hunters caught prey less than 40 percent of the time. This led to an ideal “communist” society of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Luck was often the reason one party returned with food and not the other. Any tribesman who was injured or became ill could only survive, along with his family, if the rest of the tribe shared the food they caught. Sharing was everything and property rights scarcely existed.
John Tooby, an early pioneer in EP, explained why socialism and even Marxism are still so popular in the academic world and among many young people. He said nobody rational could defend the economic performance of resource-rich but socialist Cuba and Venezuela compared to Hong Kong—where, without natural resources, gross domestic product per capita increased by 89 times from 1961 to 1997. He explained that the spontaneous order of capitalism did not reward superior professors and bureaucrats with the income and recognition that they thought they were worth, that markets make intellectuals irrelevant. He explained how the loneliness of modern societies also made socialism appealing in terms of old tribal memories of a “good world,” where one was surrounded by relatives and people who “cared.” Many young people reach for a more sharing society which they imagine in socialism.
As Leda Cosmides and John Tooby put it: “The key to understanding how the modern mind works is to realize that its circuits were not designed to solve the day-to-day problems of a modern American—they were designed to solve the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.”
More about the human mind is well explained in the Cato paper linked to above by Wilkinson. It explains in detail the concepts of Cosmides and Tooby. Studying EP does not tell us what kind of society works best, but it does tell us what kind of society does not work well—think socialism and communism. EP helps us to work with human nature. It helps us “to understand that successful market liberal societies require the cultivation of certain psychological tendencies that are weak in Stone Age minds. Free capitalist societies work with human nature. But that human nature is not easy material to work with.”
Human minds are quick to define who is inside or outside their own group—think of our tribal ancestry. The disposition to think in terms of “us” versus “them” is instinctual, the reason populist and racist rhetoric always finds a ready acceptance, especially when growth slows or there are economic crises. Wilkinson explains in “Capitalism and Human Nature,” in terms of EP, some of the animosity against free trade. He writes, “Positively, free trade is laudable for the way it encourages us to see members of unfamiliar groups as partners, not enemies.”
Humans form hierarchies of dominance. “Life at the bottom of the dominance heap is a raw deal … lower status males naturally form coalitions to check the power of more dominant males … to [try to] achieve relatively egalitarian distribution of resources”—think Occupy Wall Street. The human capacity for “envy is related to our difficulty in understanding the idea of gains from trade and increases in productivity unequal sharing in order to accumulate investment capital.” Socialism is about dividing existing wealth, not creating new wealth.
Equally, the zero-sum world of primitive societies (embedded in human minds) makes it very hard to focus on the “increases in total wealth through invention, investments and extended economic exchange.” Wealth through most of human history was acquired by cheating, stealing, invading one’s neighbors, or just sheer luck. This explains much of human history and the recent history of the Third World in particular. Industrialization came from Northern Europe and is even reflected in the languages. The word for getting money in English is “earn,” in German it is verdienen. Both imply work. But in the Romance languages, it is ganar in Spanish, gagne in French, and similar to Spanish in Italian. The word is the same as “to win.” That implies that work and luck are equal, or even that hard work won’t help without good luck. Historically, in most of the world capitalism meant trading, not creation of new wealth.
When I first went to work in South America in the ’60s I observed how people thought that wealth came from owning land, from owning minerals under the land, and from foreign (American) corporations. There was little credibility for the concept that wealth could be created by their own people. The success of Hong Kong, and the ideas of Ronald Reagan, Hernando de Soto, and Jude Wanniski, were principal promoters of a change in psyche, and today many Latin nations foster economic growth with lower taxes, rule of law, property rights, and free trade—e.g. supply side economics.
The Cato paper linked above explains much more in detail and is well worth reading. There are also, of course, other reasons many nations don’t prosper. Faulty electoral systems, for example, which I have written about, or foreign invasions.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Belarus is an interesting, attractive country, certainly off the beaten track. A beautiful, rebuilt capital city of Minsk (mostly destroyed along with 30 percent of the country’s population during World War II), with wide boulevards and parks and superbly clean, belies its old reputation as the last dictatorship in Europe. Its economy is heavily statist, but 30 percent is private enterprise, and its information-technology sector is world class (see below). Its rating in the World Bank’s Doing Business, which compares all the world’s nations, is surprisingly high and improving.
The nation borders Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. It has its own language, similar to but distinct from Russian, and its own long history. It was once an integral part of the Lithuanian empire, which stretched down to the Black Sea. It then was subordinated to the growing power of Czarist Russia and later became an integral part of the Soviet Union. Belarus also became an industrial/technological center where many of the Soviet Union’s heavy and sophisticated industries were located. It has a very skilled and educated workforce.
I was invited there to speak at a conference on “Understanding Belarus Security.” It was co-organized by Washington’s Jamestown Foundation, Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Institute, and the Liberal Institute of Belarus under the auspices of the Minsk Dialogue. It continues the tradition of Belarus serving as a neutral regional hub for inter-European diplomacy following the Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire agreement. Our delegation also met with top foreign-ministry officials on improving understanding and relations with America.
Belarus has become more independent of Russia since the Ukrainian conflict, rejected Moscow’s plans to establish a new airbase on its territory, and refused to join Russia’s trade war with Ukraine. Repression is mild, and the government retains a degree of popularity for providing stability and substantial economic growth. Witness the chaos in neighboring Ukraine, and how “privatization” of Russian state industries just ended in impoverishment and handing them over to billionaires. People are not so anxious for possibly chaotic, unjust “democracy,” as long as their government delivers safety, order, and economic growth. Grigory Joffe, Jamestown’s Belarus expert, writes in “The Declining Fortunes of the Belarusian Opposition,”
Specifically, the government led by President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, since 1994, was instrumental in propping up Belarusians’ civic identity, ensuring the country’s stability and security (Belta.by), building up its infrastructure, pursuing economic development, boosting the quality of governance, and even improving living standards—by several measures exceeding those in Belarus’s culturally close Eastern Slavic neighbors.
Many formerly communist East European nations are today, surprisingly, more dynamic economically than many debt-ridden West European nations weighed down by years of socialist baggage. After the conference I also spoke to students at the Liberal Institute in a hall called the “John Galt Club,” named after the famous character in Atlas Shrugged. The institute’s director is a very dynamic Belarusian student, Yauheni Preiherman, now studying for his Ph.D. in England. It was also he who helped organize the main conference. He introduced me to many of the students and I was very impressed by them.
Belarus’ Surprising Economic Ratings
More than 50 percent of goods produced in the country are delivered for export. The list of export products is sophisticated and varied. Among the major export commodities of Belarus are refined oil products, semi-conductors, potash and nitrogen fertilizers, metal products, busses, heavy trucks, tractors, chemical fibers, yarns, tires, dairy and meat products, and sugar. The private sector is led by exports from its brilliant information-technology services (IT) based at the Minsk High Tech Park free zone. The export of IT services grew from $50 million in 2005 to $800 million in 2015.
Belarus imports are mainly composed of energy resources (oil and natural gas), raw materials and components, metal products, raw materials for chemical industry, machine parts, and manufacturing equipment. Belarus has trade relations with more than 180 countries. The nation offers low costs and is attractive for tourism. It has eleven impressive war museums, one in downtown Minsk, another in the countryside at the old Stalin Line.
Doing Business measures the ease or problems of starting and running a business in nearly all nations. It was discussed at the conference and has become a very effective means to press Third World and former communist governments to facilitate and encourage economic growth.
Belarus rates surprisingly high on several measures. The nation ranks 12th in the world for “starting a business,” compared to Austria at 106th, France at 32nd, and Spain at 82nd. For “registering a property,” Belarus is number 7, Germany 62, and Ireland, known for its pro-business environment, 39. Rated for “ease of doing business,” Belarus is 44, compared to Ireland at 17, France at 27, and Spain at 33. For “enforcing contracts,” Belarus is number 29, Belgium is 53, Chile is 56, Poland is 55, England is at 33. See the Doing Business link above for exact details. Still, the regime is pressed to privatize its heavy industries, still mostly government owned. There is little street crime, which also makes the nation attractive for foreign investors. Economic freedom pales when street crime, kidnapping, and armed robbery are rampant, as in some Latin American countries.
Shakedowns and bribes to the police and government inspectors are a very common aspect of post-communist regimes. From what I learned, Belarus limits such small time, yet cumulatively devastating corruption, unlike Russia for example.
In conclusion, Belarus is progressing in ways favorable to economic progress and is much freer than its reputation as a surviving “Marxist” state. The British Guardian, in a positive article, asks “Is it accurate to call Belarus a dictatorship?” Although political opponents are sometimes jailed (a dozen in 2013), they are then shortly released. The dynamic, free market, and the rising living standards of neighboring Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland, are vibrant examples for them. Often American policymakers don’t appreciate that “in much of the non-Western world, people desire order more than democracy,” writes Jamestown’s Grigory Joffe (see “Understanding Belarus”). He writes of “a legitimate fear of evil, destructive … behavior by their fellow countrymen that only a strong government can restrain. … Democracy cannot be exported, much less imposed, by an outside force. Simply put, one cannot build democracy other than on the homegrown foundation of civility and trust.” Having lived in lawless countries I concur totally with Joffe’s comments. Opposition movements in such nations demanding “democracy” are often supported by Washington, but many or most are not Jeffersonians in waiting.
Effective groups such as Students For Liberty and the Atlas Network, which I have long supported, help local think tanks and such groups to spread Western concepts of individual freedom, limited government, property rights, low taxes, and economic progress. Only a nation’s own people can really bring it progress. Washington is too ham-fisted and all too eager to threaten or even start wars as a “solution” to promote freedom. Then we wonder at the chaos our military interventions create.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness is a small group of top scientists and doctors who publish a newsletter and hold an annual meeting at different defense and nuclear sites. At meetings speakers cover issues relating to civil defense, diseases, new chemical/technological discoveries, and global climate issues. Speakers offer varied viewpoints and the group is often bitterly criticized for its unorthodox challenges to the medical establishment. Their last program, described in more detail below, shows the variety of speakers and topics covered.
I have been attending meetings since the 1980s when I first wrote about nuclear war survival. Personally, I have always been interested in civil defense since studying in Germany in 1952, taking shortcuts to my classes through still bombed out city blocks. I was always amazed that “only” a million German civilians died from the bombing that flattened every single city. I even saw East Berlin, which was just rubble as far as the eye could see. Human beings are amazingly resilient. But the Germans also had built good bomb shelters.
After 9/11, Dr. Jane Orient, who runs the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, explained how American city fire departments were being supplied with useless radiation detectors measuring Millirem instead of Rems. They were based on the EPA’s incoherent threat levels, which have been obsolete since the 1950s. The EPA has since modified its threat levels by a factor of hundreds. Dr. Orient then donated higher-scale measuring detectors to her local Phoenix fire department.
I attended the last meeting in Omaha, site of the Strategic Air Command, the military unit in charge of two-thirds of the Nuclear Triad. It had the usual complement of fascinating speakers and topics. Lectures at the meeting included “Freedom of Information Act in Climate Science,” “An Update on Emerging Diseases,” “Police, Fire and Civilian Emergency Medical Preparedness,” “Combatting Heart Disease—Statins and Supplements,” “A Geologic History of Climate—Why Correlated with CO2—or Not,” and “Offshore Drilling and Fracking.”
Among the many interesting speakers, Dr. Mohan Doss spoke on “Rationality in Radiation Protection Standards.” He exhibited the many studies showing that low doses of radiation actually increased immune system resistance to cancer and human longevity in Taiwan, Hiroshima, and among persons living at high altitudes. The phenomenon is called hormesis. Cancer cells constantly occur in the body but are usually destroyed by healthy immune systems.
Dr. Steven Hatfill, professor at George Washington University, gave an “Update on Emerging Diseases.” He explained that most new diseases and viruses come from cross-species infections. He gave the example of Asian cities where millions of people are densely clustered together with domestic and food animals, birds, and fish. That’s why most new infections are called Asian flus. He said that many avian (bird) viruses often transmit easily to humans but do not then transmit from human to human. He warned that humans are vulnerable to pandemic flus such as the one in 1918, which killed tens of millions. Hatfill described new computer programs that are able to single out and distinguish viruses like never before. There is, he said, progress in fighting the Ebola virus. He explained that mosquitos are a main transmitter of diseases and described how they are territorial.
Dr. Donald Miller spoke about medicines for heart disease. He warned of the negative effects of statin drugs and how their makers’ advertising was often misleading. For example, an ad stating “Lipitor reduces the risk of heart attack by 36 percent.” In reality the “proven” risk reduction was from 3 percent of older, at-risk Americans to 2 percent, but with various side effects. Another example was how the EPA misleads and exaggerates risk with use of the false “linear no-threshold thesis.” This theory argues, for example, that if taking 100 aspirin would kill a man, out of 100 men each taking one aspirin, one would die. Equally it postulates that all sunlight is a carcinogen at any exposure rate for some people.
Dr. Fred Singer argued that human activity had little effect on climate change, that the “burden of proof is on the alarmists.” He argued that all the past computer models of global warming have proven incorrect, that warming did occur from 1910 until 1940, but very little since then. The DDP website carries information about global warming. Several speakers decried the fact that California is closing down nuclear energy plants because they can’t compete with the taxpayer subsidized solar and wind power. The EPA still uses its old 15 millirem limits for nuclear power plant maintenance and construction (and Superfund cleanup), which vastly increases their costs, even though it has modified the limits for civil defense from nuclear attack.
Other notable speakers included DDP vice president Arthur Robinson, Yuri Maltsev, Willie Soon, Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, who was also given an award, and many other scientists. Stephen Jones demonstrated his small, stick-on-radiation detectors and distributed them at the meeting. Videos of the lectures are being posted on YouTube, which also features speakers from past meetings.
Recently I heard a retired four-star general state that nuclear war was becoming more likely now than during the Cold War. Personally in Washington, I read and hear much casual talk about starting wars with foreigners who “threaten” America or our allies’ interests, or for the need to “prove” American credibility as if we were still in the cold war. Most Americans are oblivious to these risks from Washington’s many “laptop bombardiers” repeatedly urging military confrontation with various foreign nations. We should all be prepared with basic civil defense survival knowledge at a minimum for an accidental launching of nuclear missiles, hundreds of which are still on virtual hair trigger alert.
Congress spends nearly a trillion dollars a year for the Pentagon’s mainly offensive weaponry, yet almost nothing for civil defense for American civilians. DDP is one of the very few organizations focused on explaining the threats and how best to defend ourselves without government resources. It offers a vast trove of information for the day when we will begin to take defense seriously or, worse, after launches happen.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
For all one’s doubts about Trump, his main appeal is that of restraining Washington’s war machine. As my friend Ron Maxwell, producer of two great war movies, writes, “Trump may be the only off ramp from non-stop wars of choice we’re likely to see in our lifetimes.”
The establishment Republican leadership that Trump is challenging is virtually addicted to perpetual war, while Democrats are so afraid of being called wimpy that they too end up supporting more wars. Just consider how many nations Obama now bombs. Yet Hillary Clinton would be even worse; it was she who pushed Obama into attacking Libya and was an architect of his Syria policy. Now she supports R2P—Responsibility to Protect—a doctrine that leads to new wars whenever any foreign government oppresses its own people. She also supports unilateral American attacks even though the UN document specifically states that only the United Nations Security Council may order such interventions.
Although Trump’s foreign-policy talk is all over the map, he dared to attack the Republican establishment’s consensus support for the Iraq War and, alone among major Republicans, talked of restraint in launching new wars. The vicious attacks upon him by Washington’s dominant hawkish neoconservatives corroborate the belief that Trump opposes new imperial wars. Trust their judgment about whom they oppose. Trump also was attacked by the discredited Republican 121 “foreign policy elites,” those who created, propagandized, and helped sustain our disastrous wars. This reaction to Trump shows how much Washington elites fear him.
Trump’s sheer joy for life, his instinct for “making deals” with enemies, and his desire for rapprochement with Russia would all check the establishment’s dangerous belligerence. He’d least of all want to risk nuclear war. Support for him among younger evangelicals has also fractured our own “Armageddon Lobby,” those who constantly want more Mideast wars because they believe they help bring about the “end times.”
Yet there’s also a great threat from Trump. As my friend Allan Brownfeld warns, “Civilization really hangs by a thread, just remember the spread of fascism and communism during the last century.” Think also of the up springing ethnic and religious chaos in other parts of the world. In America, Trump is letting loose the whirlwind, creating the conditions for racial, religious, and ethnic violence. One can well imagine a President Trump calling for mobs in the streets by shouting, “Won’t someone rid me of these disloyal enemies?” One thing would be worse than more unending, bankrupting wars—if Americans start fearing and killing each other. Like it or not, America is now a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural nation. We need those who unify us, not tear us apart.
Trump’s threats towards Americans of non-European racial or cultural heritage may cost him the election, unless he is able to convince immigrants, women, and millennials—among all of whom his negative rating is overwhelming—that his policies, compared to Hillary’s, are worth the cost of his personality. If Trump would follow through with cutting waste and Washington’s ever increasing, strangling regulations, then economic growth might alleviate much of the potential civil strife. Otherwise, bin Laden’s soul would shriek with joy as American cities descended into chaos as we started turning on each other in fear of immigrants, minorities, and those others who are “different.”
Trump also threatens international trade and prosperity. The manufacturing jobs he promises have been declining everywhere, even in China. The massive tariffs Trump proposes on Chinese and Mexican goods wouldn’t bring many jobs back to America; rather they would torpedo our prosperity and the world’s. The New York Times explained in “The Mirage of a Return to Manufacturing Greatness” that factory jobs have been declining just like agricultural jobs once did, mainly because of new technology.
It’s important to remember that presidents are constrained by the separation of powers—except when it comes to starting wars. Congress and the courts would be a brake on his more extreme programs, including trade and immigration. Farm states have a high proportion of senators, who represent agricultural industries that depend upon export markets and immigrant labor. Trump couldn’t just declare massive tariffs or block immigration without votes in Congress. During the campaign, we have primarily heard the pent-up voices of protectionism and nativism. But Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and all the financial and intellectual-property interests that profit heavily from exports would be a strong lobby against Trump’s starting a trade war.
Even if a Trump win cost Republicans their Senate majority, that’s not entirely bad. Remember that the worst policies—think the Iraq War and Obamacare—often come about when one party controls both the presidency and Congress. The alternative—a second Clinton administration beholden to government unions, extreme environmentalists, and minorities—would make our stifling regulatory state even worse.
For all his drawbacks and the constitutional constraints that would limit his power, a President Trump could create some very positive policies:
1) Cut defense spending for new wars. Ron Paul once suggested that only half the Pentagon budget is for defense, while the other half is for attacking foreign nations. There are hundreds of billions of potential savings in our trillion-dollar defense/intelligence complex. Trump now says he would increase military spending, so indeed no one may be willing or able to cut back our military machine. Still, he’d be more likely to do so than the Democrats. He originally said we could be defended at less cost.
2) Cut back on NATO spending. If Europeans want us to install anti-missile systems in Poland, let them pay for it. Remember the preposterous claims that the missiles were to save Europe from being attacked by Iran. Now Washington is stationing (and paying billions for) facilities in Romania capable of launching cruise missiles, in violation of the 1987 Intermediate Missile Treaty. The NATO bureaucracy often seems to have its own foreign policy, primarily that of enhancing its mission by stroking fears of Russia. Trump suggests he would stop creating friction with Russia.
3) Get Japan and Korea to pay for their own defense. Our defense treaties need modifying; they were designed for the Cold War era. They would drag us into a war between China and Japan, even over some unpopulated rocks in the Pacific.
4) Work on an Israel-Palestine settlement. Most Jews oppose the illegal settlements that Washington helps to fund by allowing tax deductions for American donors. Netanyahu’s brutal occupation policies and his alliance with the most anti-democratic ultra Orthodox fundamentalists (many want Israel to revert to biblical law and to have a king) has split the American Jewish community. Most now want progress toward compromise and a two-state solution with the Palestinians. New possibilities for peace are opening up.
5) Support the Iran nuclear agreement. Republican congressmen are currently trying to block the deal with banking laws. Trump could get them to focus on rebuilding America instead of starting a new war with Iran by taking sides in Sunni-Shia vendettas.
6) Stop kowtowing to Saudi Arabia’s dictators. All the brutal theology of fundamentalist Jihadism is enabled by the Saudis, funded and spread around the world by their devil’s bargain with Wahhabism. Saudi Arabians helped fund ISIS, which springs from the same ideology. Why do we care if they or Iran are superior in the Muslim world? Indeed Iran, despite all the propaganda that it is a terrorist state, has done comparatively little to threaten the West. The Saudi dictators inspire little loyalty from their own people. They don’t even trust their own army. For their war on Yemen, they hire South American mercenaries. Their bombing is done with American air refueling, American navigation aids, and American cluster bombs.
Perhaps only Trump has the strength of will to cut the Gordian Knot in Washington. He may yet crash as a result of his chaotic management style, his penchant for promoting rivalries among his staff, and his vindictiveness. But today there is no doubt that he threatens the Beltway establishment—and that challenge is what most Americans want. Should he shock everyone by winning in November, we must trust our system of checks and balances to constrain his worst impulses.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Free trade is constantly being blamed for America’s trade deficits and static living standards. It’s not true!
First, it’s questionable that living standards have not increased. Consider the iPhone, Uber, and Amazon’s time saving convenience and prices—all these effects upon living standards can’t really be measured and economists’ analyses don’t include events which they can’t measure. Their profession is built upon measuring what they are able to measure. Secondly, average Americans see imports from China and Mexico first hand at Walmart when shopping for simple household goods. They don’t see the multi-billion dollars of exports of jet aircraft, armaments, movies (just one can earn the U.S. some half a billion dollars), computer chips, oil drilling equipment, some $130 billion of agricultural exports, and vast other quantities of hi-tech goods and knowledge products. Foreign tourist spending in America is also less noticeable to many.
Moreover trade deficit statistics are very misleading, as Time reports, as China’s apparent billions of export surplus includes iPhones. But actually only $10 on each phone is “earned” by China for its assembling; inputs of costly vital parts come mainly from Japan, Korea, Germany, and the U.S. But their costs as Chinese imports are not shown in the trade deficit figures with America. Most of the cost and profits stay in America from the intellectual property rights and patents. Manual assembly lines in China lower the cost enough as to make them affordable for millions; if they were assembled in America, as Donald Trump proposes, their cost would be prohibitive. An excellent article in Slate explains Apple and the whole framework of modern world trade. Appreciation of China’s currency would have almost no effect on the end price of an iPhone as this study shows in a detailed breakdown of the manufacturing process and the non-Chinese inputs.
Beyond all the above, Big Media rarely explains the stifling, monumental costs of many Washington impositions and regulations. These add tremendously to the costs, particularly for American manufacturers. Services are less burdened, which is one reason for their exponential growth and export surpluses.
Here are six reasons for stagnant growth:
1) America’s monopolistic and dysfunctional health care costs eat up double the percent of gross national income that they do in Europe, some 17 percent. Several years ago, I wrote how Canadian auto workers’ health insurance costs were just 10 percent of what American car companies pay. Every American worker is costing his or her employer some $10,000 for health insurance plus now they must pay all sorts of co-pays and deductibles. Ford pays some $15,000 per year per worker. Imagine these costs for our manufacturers compared to foreign competitors. Indeed it shows the tremendous productivity of American workers that we create as many jobs as we do.
2) Free trade is often blamed for the decline of blue collar jobs in America. Actually robotics and information technology are the major causes. But it is the Environmental Protection Administration that is the next major cause of lost and non-created jobs. The number of ways is incalculable (see my article “The EPA Job Killers”). The EPA likes jobs such as working at computers or flipping hamburgers. But not ones involving bending metal or digging in the earth. Just one new regulation, cutting ozone levels from .0075 to .006 particles per million, will cost industry from $20 to $100 billion per year. Think how horizontal fracking for oil and gas is virtually prohibited on all federal lands, some half of the country west of the Mississippi. Yet this is one of the greatest inventions of the 21st century, making America energy independent and providing low cost energy into the foreseeable future. In a similar vein, the EPA enforces Clean Air Act limits over the desolate Arctic Ocean at the same level as in densely populated cities. The ruling caused Shell Oil to lose a year in its Arctic drilling program.
The cost in businesses which never start up is unknown but high. I have written how new mining ventures are virtually prohibited on Western lands. Yet mining could provide lots of very well paying blue collar jobs and cut our trade deficit in mineral imports. (The Competitive Enterprise Institute has explained this well in “Ten Thousand Commandments –An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.”)
3) Spurious lawsuits are another great burden for American exporters. We are so accustomed to them now that few commentators write about their costs and taking of executive focus and time. Some of them may indeed make life safer for some Americans, but we should not blame “unfair” foreign competition when we add up the costs of lawsuits or defensive measures, such as in medicine, for example.
4) Our education system does not prepare young people for high-tech or even high-grade manufacturing. Good basic skills with math and reading comprehension are necessary today even for factory workers, as machines take over the dull, repetitive jobs. Just try reading today the labels on home chemicals or furniture. Manufacturers are crying for prepared workers. Some two million jobs are unfilled today because of lack of basic education, what used to be provided by 8th grade in the old days. Also industry does not train workers like it once did, in fear that the costs won’t help the short term bottom line of profits upon which stock prices and so many bonuses for executives are usually based. Industry trade publications recognize this problem. Think of reports of how German corporations are less fearful of hostile takeovers, and so invest very heavily in worker training. Washington could help this situation by adjusting tax laws so that training costs did not impinge upon corporate earnings.
5) The politics of global warming (now called climate change) is causing major non-recoverable expenses. Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline not only cost very well paid construction jobs, it also means using resources less economically, e.g. shipping oil by costly rail instead. Extreme environmentalists, spurred on by their victory in shutting down coal mines, are doing all they can to shut down horizontal fracking of oil and gas wells with new regulations. This, when the breakthrough has brought America energy independence and the long term prosperity which comes from cheap energy. Together with the iPhone, these two technologies have put the American economy back on top of the world.
6) New threats from Obama’s Washington are looming all the time. For example, a new enormous burden is being generated by the pay-equity police. Companies will have to report incredibly minute details to “prove” different pay for different jobs. This does not mean that they are discriminating against women. Just imagine the complications from new lawsuits! The Wall Street Journal reports how companies “will be required to report on employees by 14 different gender/race/ethnicity groups, within 12 pay bands and 10 occupational categories. The companies will also have to report the number of hours worked per employee—even for salaried staff, whose hours now are not normally tracked. Firms with multiple locations will have to complete such forms for each branch with more than 50 employees…” Just imagine how many other destructive arrows are in the government’s quivers and aimed at increasing manufacturers’ costs.
Job creation in America, particularly blue collar jobs, could be vastly increased by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Here again it is government regulations (often municipal union rules as well) which make for incredible costs and years of delays. An interesting study shows how Europeans build their infrastructure for many times less cost that America’s. An extreme example is the comparison of the cost of a tunnel in Berlin, $250 million per kilometer, compared to $1.3 billion in New York City, or five times as much.
Increased world trade has also helped bring relief from starvation and disease to billions of human beings. In 1990 a third of the human race lived in extreme poverty; today it is 10 percent according to a World Bank study. We should, in a religious sense, be very proud of what American policies and free market ideology helped accomplish for mankind. In a strategic sense we should help and be more secure by having prosperous, stable neighbors. Isn’t that worth some tradeoffs? Think, if we shared borders with some of those miserable nations of Asia and Africa, how insecure we would be.
Even partially correcting some of the above issues would vastly increase the competitiveness of “Made in America” goods and stop many jobs from going overseas. The challenge comes not from China but from ourselves. Cutting off foreign imports won’t bring a net increase of American jobs. Foreign nations would retaliate against our exports, but also would have less money to import American goods and services. World trade and prosperity, including ours, would decline precipitously as it did in the 1930s from a similar protectionist program, Smoot Hawley.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
“We might survive a communist occupation, but not another American liberation,” I heard a Frenchman say in 1948 when I first visited Paris. I thought he must just be a leftist; I was a child and so innocent. My mother was working in occupied Germany as a correspondent for Reader’s Digest and had taken me to Paris for a few days of sightseeing.
Years later I learned what he meant—any resistance, even a single man shooting from a village, would have the American Army pull back and call in the artillery and Air Force to flatten the area until it was rubble. There could be a case that saving one American soldier’s life is worth destroying some foreign town. But are we justified in doing it to serve the interest of one Arab tribe against another? Do the “liberated” foreigners then thank us?
Reading a New York Times report that the so-called Iraqi Army, backed by American bombers, would soon liberate the city of Mosul, I searched for the results of other “liberated” cities. Reuters describes the “staggering” destruction of Ramadi. The city, which had a half a million population, now “liberated from ISIS” with American bombers’ “help,” is in total ruins and deserted—no water nor electricity grid, unexploded bombs and ruins everywhere. “The fighting saw Islamic State bomb attacks and devastating U.S.-led coalition air strikes,” according to Reuters. Similar almost-total destruction was wreaked upon the Syrian town of Kobane in 2014 by the American air forces helping to liberate it.
During the Iraq war we had the earlier example of Fallujah, destroyed by U.S. Marines in a “liberation,” partially designed to “punish” its inhabitants for hanging four U.S. contractors, and a picture of the gruesome act was widely circulated at the time.
An Iraqi force gearing up to attack Mosul, one of Iraq’s largest cities, is composed in part of Shiite tribesmen. It’s not difficult to imagine that many Shiites would like to totally destroy the mainly Sunni city, not to mention looting it in the process. But is it really in America’s interests to partake and make possible such a change in control, or will it instead generate new thousands of bitter victims hoping one day to wreak similar vengeance on America? Yet this is the Obama policy, following in the footsteps of its helping Saudi Arabia to decimate the civilian infrastructure of Yemen (with aerial refueling and providing targeting information for Saudi bombers, not to mention selling them the actual bombs).
I put the word “army” in quotes because American journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly use the word to describe what are actually tribes and clans—but hardly representing nations as European and American armies do.
It’s one thing for foreigners destroy each other’s cities, but for us to do it? It’s very different when America takes one side and helps the other to “bomb them back into the stone age,” an expression sometimes heard from our generals. Our cities have never been so destroyed, so we have little comprehension about what we do to the cities of other nations. Bombers today, with their extraordinary accuracy, quickly run out of military targets. Then they often go after civilian infrastructure.
Other times, as in the first Iraq war in 1991, we purposely bombed the irrigation, sanitation, and electric plants. A million Iraqis, mainly children, subsequently died from starvation and disease. TV news rarely reports such information, which might cause Americans to question some of the wanton destruction. However, in this case we have the admission of Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes”. The destruction we have helped do to Yemen would be a war crime under rules America used at the Nuremberg Trials.
Most of Mosul’s population is probably not pro-ISIS; the group captured the city and was not invited in. Yet now we hear Republican presidential candidates urging carpet bombing and obliteration of Iraqi and Syrian cities in order to “win” a war against ISIS. But will such actions gain us peace or allies among other Arabs? Or will it just continue our unending wars in the Muslim world? And generate more bitter hatred of America?
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
Incredible waste is, of course, natural to Washington, particularly in the trillion dollar national security budget—which includes nuclear bombs, intelligence, and veterans’ costs. Three years ago, when I suggested “16 Ways to Cut Defense Spending,” one of the cost savings I wrote about was duplicative hospital costs, this from a system of separate Army, Navy, and Air Force medical services. They should be combined into a single system, but imagine the screaming about lost jobs.
The system was designed after World War I, when wounded could not be easily transported from one part of America to another and long before helicopters and super highways. It is part of the Tricare network, which takes nearly $50 billion yearly out of the Pentagon budget. It includes 55 hospitals and 373 clinics and gives free treatment to military retirees and their families for the rest of their lives. Then there is also the Veterans Administration hospital network with 152 medical centers and almost 800 outpatient clinics.
Although it has proven politically impossible to cut out almost any Pentagon waste, the often terrible care meted out to soldiers and their families might trigger some reforms and cost savings. The military wants to downsize many of the facilities that treat very few patients. The New York Times reported on some of their problems. Half the beds in military hospitals sit idle. Two thirds served less than 30 patients a day, about a third of a typical civilian hospital. The Pentagon would like to close many and change others into outpatient clinics and birthing centers. Half of the hospitals have higher than expected rates of surgical complications. Other problems reported by the Times included 95 percent higher trauma to infants during birth compared to civilian hospitals. A supplementary Times study reports rates and compares the often high surgical complications at 54 military hospitals.
Other problems are caused by the rigid military rotation system, with hospitals getting a new commander every two years, hurting continuity and institutional memory. Instead of trained administrators, over half of hospitals are run by doctors, nurses and dentists. Other reported problems included “persistent lab errors,” and “the impossibility of judging individual hospital’s re-admission and death rates.”
But, as usual, any proposed cutbacks run into a buzz saw in Congress—which often looks at Pentagon spending as a jobs and welfare program for each congressional district. Out of dozens of hospitals, even closing or downsizing less than half of the 15 that the Pentagon would like to close (out of 54 in the U.S. and overseas) has been prohibited by Congress. Even though, as the Times has detailed, horrendous medical malpractices come especially from the smaller hospitals.
The Wall Street Journal reported that “high-volume surgeons are more proficient, high volume hospitals are safer,” with low numbers of operations per surgeon causing more risk: “74% of Air Force general surgeons cited low case numbers as a threat to their skills retention,” the paper reported. The excessive number of military hospitals mean worse care. The entire system reported only 338 cases of open heart surgery, only enough for a single modern civilian hospital.
This waste and mismanagement is just one small example of what goes on in the U.S. military, intelligence, and nuclear forces. Yet the Republican presidential candidates and congressional leaders nearly all are instead promising new, vast defense spending without a mention of reforming waste. Only Donald Trump has said that we could defend ourselves at much lower cost, but he passes over the subject quickly. As I wrote some time ago, sequestration is the only way to force Congress to start addressing waste in the budget. Then it needs tough outsider oversight to force the savings into non-essential areas. Otherwise, like any corrupt big-city government that first cuts police and firemen when its spending is threatened, the Pentagon will first cut vital needs. The future solvency and security of America depend upon getting the real waste under control.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
“Bin Laden would be very pleased with the current progress of his ideas and agenda,” said Bruce Hoffman, speaking at the Jamestown Foundation’s Ninth Annual Terrorism Conference in Washington last month. “The situation in the Middle East is worse than ever,” he added, “with ISIS new ability to actually hold territory. Be prepared for a long war.” Hoffman, director of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service’s Center for Security Studies, led off several speakers with varied expertise on the different nations involved.
His talk was followed by Bruce Riedel, author of several books on strategy, and a 30-year veteran of the CIA and National Security Council. The past Arab political system of kings, dictators, and police states was discredited and breaking down, he explained, with no viable new system in sight. Riedel said U.S. Arab allies were highly conflicted about al-Qaeda and ISIS, referring to Saudi and Gulf State funding for the Taliban and ISIS and Turkey’s open border for terrorist recruits. The absolutely worst strategy for America would be to turn the war into one between the West and Islam, he said, noting that terrorists now have a dozen bases of operations compared to the one with which Bin Laden started. Monitoring returning terrorists to Europe was intensely costly, Riedel noted, as it requires some 12 to 24 policemen to mount 24-hour surveillance for each man or woman.
More American “boots on the ground” was opposed by the next speaker, David Kilcullen, CEO of Caerus Associates. His experience includes years with Australian counter insurgency forces in the Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Kilcullen argued that the war could not be won with American ground forces, but only with nationalist, anti-ISIS Muslims with U.S. support. He said the conscious and successful policy of ISIS-instigated American bombing was the way to bring in new Islamist recruits and that “significant” numbers of volunteers were arriving from Central Asia, not just from Europe.
The next panel included Pavel Baev, an analyst for Jamestown’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, former Russian intelligence staffer, now a fellow with Brookings Institution and author of many writings on conflict and terrorism. Baev said that Putin’s policies were motivated by his own fear of being overthrown. He argued that good relations with Turkey were far more important for Russia than its support for the Syrian government.
Vladimir van Wilgenburg, another Jamestown scholar and specialist on Kurdistan, explained that many of the Kurdish fighters in Syria came from Turkey, and that their “war objective” was to pursue Kurdish interests, not necessarily American ones. He said that there was much conflict and “huge differences” between and among the different Kurdish groups, with the PKK wanting independence from Turkey and the Peshmerga looking to gain new territory out of Iraq and Syria for a Kurdish nation. Yet their soldiers are not being paid as Iraq’s government withheld monies from the sale of Kurdish oil.
Ahmed A.S. Hashim, a professor from Singapore, explained the theoretical foundations of ISIS and reasons for its strategy of savagery in an article he submitted. He explained how Sunnis still blame the Shia for once aiding the Mongols to sack Baghdad during the 13th century.
Michael W.S. Ryan, a Jamestown Senior Fellow and formerly CIA and State Department, explained that neither al-Qaeda nor ISIS were focused on “end times” theology as they are sometimes accused. He said that ISIS was following classic insurgency strategy: first creating chaos by weakening and discrediting police and military forces, so that the populace would support any new leaders who could provide security and safety, after which it tried to become a regular state holding territory.
Jacob Zenn, an expert on Boku Haram, the ISIS affiliate in Africa, showed how ISIS is expanding into other African nations. He said that their next objective would be fomenting violence in Southeast Asia.
General Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency, was the keynote speaker, and provided many interesting observations. He said the breaking up of Middle East nations was “tectonic,” that ISIS was challenging the whole concept of nation states. He compared the Muslim world’s current chaos to the 30 Years War in Europe. (A recent report in the Washington Post shows a broad picture of what is actually happening on the battlefields.)
Hayden observed that “American foreign policy was largely indifferent to its effects on the ground” in the Muslim world. He compared air power without ground power to casual sex—acting without commitment—saying that it was “merely mowing the grass.” ISIS, originally not thought of as a threat to America, Hayden explained, is now a threat to Europe and even could cause American military conflict with Russia. He said that America should instead take the fight to the enemy (presumably meaning invade Syria) rather than giving up our civil freedoms by becoming a garrison security state. America is “less safe” than five years ago, he concluded.
Hayden also addressed targeting by drones. He said the CIA was aware of the risk of blowback and that every killing of innocent civilians was based on three levels of threat. Killing less important enemies would be aborted if there was risk of killing innocents as well, however for high value leadership targets the (collateral damage) killing of nearby innocents was considered a consequence of war.
Yet none of the speakers proposed a truly alternative policy, such as that developed by TAC’s William Lind, who has urged that Washington adopt a defensive instead of offensive posture, stopping its aggressive interventions. Rather we should let the Arab conflicts play themselves out. Lind argues that we should maintain a presence, but instead employ a policy of “offshore balancing,” very well explained by Christopher Layne and TAC’s new national editor, Benjamin Schwartz, somewhat the way the British did when their empire was in its prime.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
“We’re winning.” “We can win.” “We will win.” “We must win.” This was the constant talk of American generals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria. The failure of U.S. strategy is obvious to the whole world. America violates nearly all the precepts of history’s lessons, wreaking chaos and misery upon more nations, but not “winning.”
An excellent little book is a must-read for our generals and members of Congress. It is titled A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind. Sun Tzu was the Chinese author of the world’s most definitive study of military strategy. Lind is TAC’s own famous military historian and analyst. The author is Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld, one of today’s most prestigious and prolific military analysts.
Chapters include “Chinese Military Thought” and “From Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” Interestingly, Chinese warfare was based upon a theory called dao, meaning “a return to normal.” Thus it was oriented toward limited war. War was evil and “a temporary departure from ‘cosmic harmony.’” Chinese texts “are permeated by a humanitarian approach and have as their aim the restoration of dao.” “Money is the sinews of war” and “the larger the distance from home, the more ruinous the cost.” (Consider America’s costs of almost $1 million per year for each soldier stationed in Afghanistan.)
Van Creveld focuses on Sun Tzu’s most famous dictum that starting a war should be the last resort, and that the greatest generals win without actual warfare. Think instead of Washington where launching a war is the first option—in Iraq, Libya, and now Yemen.
The book starts with wars after AD 1500, focusing on Machiavelli, the first modern student and writer on strategy, and the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which marked the construction of the modern European state. Then proceeding through contemporary times Van Creveld quotes and explains the many generals and thinkers who developed modern strategies. Among the theorists are of course many Germans. On the other hand, surprisingly, “the British had never been among the great producers of military theory” though “always tending to be pragmatic.”
Then there was the training to develop “cohesion” whereby “comrade sustained comrade and mutual shame prevented each one from running away. That was the way “to ensure that men did not break in front of … contemporary weapons.”
Modern air war, writes Creveld, was expected to be “a more humane modus operandi than an endless struggle of attrition” which “might be over almost before it had begun.” Instead civilians “proved much more resilient than expected.” I myself studied in Germany after World War II. I was amazed that “only” a million civilians died where every city had been flattened (and half of those just from the two firestorms triggered in Hamburg and Dresden). In 1952, I walked through the bombed-out city blocks to my classes. I also took a U.S. Army bus tour through East Berlin and saw it still flattened as far as the eye could see.
Unfortunately the book does not offer much about the Byzantine Empire, which lasted a thousand years. Its strategy obviously was most successful. This incredibly long life came from a strategy of fighting for limited objectives, never making permanent enemies, and avoiding total war. Think of America’s contrary strategy of usually demanding unconditional surrender. The better approach is explained well in a book by Edward Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire.
Similarly the British Empire used war as a last resort, trying instead to let its enemies fight each other. In the Third World it ruled by playing tribes off one another. Most tribes hate their neighbors more than foreign invaders—look at old Scotland or modern Afghans and Arabs. It’s long term strategy was well described by an Australian, Owen Harries. He explained in TAC in an article titled the “Perils of Hegemony,”
During the time of their greatest power, the British followed a prudent policy of “Splendid Isolation,” keeping their distance from matters that did not affect them seriously…. They played the role of offshore balancer, aiming not at achieving hegemony but at preventing any other states from doing so.
If all the above seems contrary to America’s way of war, it is. Especially Washington’s post-communist penchant to use war as a first rather than a last resort.
Van Creveld ends his book with the writings of TAC’s own William Lind on guerrilla and non-state wars, what Lind calls “Fourth Generation warfare.” He describes how, by 1990, “the Clausewitzian framework was beginning to show serious cracks; it proved incapable of incorporating warfare by, or against, non-state actors.” The outcome, he writes, “with the sole exception of the 1982 Falkland War and the 1991 Gulf War, Western armies have been going from one defeat to another.”
Lind’s analyses describe First Generation warfare as ending with Napoleon and the rise of mass infantry and the demise of cavalry. Second Generation warfare opened in 1816 lasting until the last year of World War I. New technology allowed for massive firepower and obliteration of targets. It takes many years before generals recognize changes while they still continue with old tactics (for example, frontal assaults on artillery and machine guns). These were already shown to be obsolete during the time of the American Civil War, but continued well into World War I.
Third Generation warfare was pioneered by the Germans, using mobility, range, and flexibility with spectacular success at the beginning of World War II. General Patton was a master of such warfare. Second Generation warfare, writes Lind, still remained in some nations’ strategies, particularly the U.S. because of our overwhelming wealth, productivity and logistic abilities. Fourth Generation warfare of “terrorism, guerrillas and insurgency of every kind” was developed by those unable to match the West in terms of firepower and technology. It is a return to warfare before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 when wars were waged by non-nations such as gangs, religions, tribes, businesses, city states, and young males for rape and pillage. He argues that America “winning” just creates failed states that then become more of a threat to us than the nation-states we destroyed.
Lind argues that America should change from offensive to defensive warfare and containment, as we did with communism. Offensive war is bankrupting us and only creating more enemies wanting vengeance and instigating terrorism. Instead we should try to contain, not inflame, Islamist fanaticism and let it burn itself out just as did the religious wars in Europe during the 17th century. Current American strategy, Lind argues, results in losing wars against enemies wearing bathrobes and flip flops. Lind argues that we should work with nations which are sources of order and stability. (Think China.)
From being a lonely voice of dissent from Washington’s losing strategy, Lind’s concepts are now becoming accepted (see Newsweek’s “Can America Win a War?”). If one thinks of America’s wars as a business, then they become more understandable as profit centers and career enhancement opportunities. I’ve delved into this subject with a study, “12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win its Wars.” Or, as one bitter joke put it, “Most nations waged wars to loot their enemies, America wages war to loot the American treasury.”
Van Creveld gives a last sober warning. Referring to cyber warfare, he writes, “each time advancing technology enabled mankind to move into a new environment—war quickly followed.”
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
More and more is written arguing that American middle class standards of living have now stagnated for a number of years. Last year there was Frenchman Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which using a massive amount of statistics, supposedly proved that free markets were no longer delivering economic growth for vast segments of the European and American populations. French capitalism is hardly anybody’s model of dynamism, opportunity or growth. So it’s only natural that Piketty and his followers find inequality and stagnation. The same can be said for Pope Francis, who with a “capitalist” model of his native Argentina naturally thinks that free markets are unjust, cruel and poverty creating.
To combat this resurgent socialism, conservatives need to understand the reasons real incomes haven’t increased and why and where growth is stymied. Otherwise they will be unable to answer the Left’s clamor for more regulations, government spending and controls in the name of “equality.” It is in fact the allocation of money away from economic growth and proliferating government rules that cause stagnation and prevent the creation of new wealth.
First consider the impact of stymying regulations. When Obama first took office, he wanted to invest in new infrastructure to get the economy moving. But studies of the delays and consequent costs of simply rebuilding a bridge indicate that often these projects suffer from 5 to 10 years of delay and 10,000 pages of government regulation. Blue collar jobs are particularly affected by these holdups in permitting new construction. Very high-paying new mining ventures are virtually shut down by delays, costs, lawsuits and the exposure of investors to retroactive EPA and judicial rulings. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that regulatory compliance costs the American economy $1.8 trillion annually or $15,000 per family. The costs above don’t include all the uncreated jobs that excessive regulations prevent from ever starting up.
Then there are government-created or sanctioned monopolies, particularly in the provision of health care. Just one monopolistic group, health care providers, have taken away what otherwise would have been a substantial increase in income for working and middle classes. It now costs a family of four some $22,000 for health care (with ever increasing co-payments and deductibles); just imagine if we spent half as much (like most European nations) and could see an $11,000 dollar pay increase per family. That alone would substantially change the living standard stagnation statistics. Companies would surely rather pay that money to their workers than have it disappear into the maw of the health care system.
Lack of competition, unnecessary tests and operations, defensive medicine because of lawsuits, an opaque system of pricing (designed to obfuscate and prevent analyses of costs), and monopolistic drug companies all hold back the creation of more efficiency in health care. Recent news about incredible increases in formerly low priced but important medicines has finally instigated some real criticism of drug costs. (A simple solution would be to allow drug imports now prohibited under Obamacare.)
In responding to the resurgence of socialistic ideas, conservatives must also remember that cheap energy has been basis of human progress. When Shell Oil Company announced the ending of its multi-billion dollar Arctic drilling program after only one exploratory well, the Washington Post also reported that Shell was denied permission from the Fish and Wildlife Administration for a one-time variance to allow its second well to be drilled nine miles instead of 15 miles from its first well as originally planned, as the four-month weather window for drilling was closing. The regulators argued that noise from the drilling might “harass” marine mammals. This in 5 million square miles of Arctic Ocean. Now all oil drilling has ended as other companies won’t even bid on new leases.
Socialists are now reinforced by extreme environmentalists whose agenda, using global warming hypotheses, is that America must “decarbonize” its economy by ending “the fossil fuel industry”—oil, coal, and gas—in order to “save the world.” Whatever their stated goals, their plans would put an end to free market capitalism through new government regulations and taxes. Spending hundreds of billions on global warming (now called climate change) will cause a substantial decline in living standards. As burning coal is prohibited, rising electricity prices will result. In Germany, for example, electricity now costs three times as much as in America because of its government subsidies of windmills and solar cells—infrastructure that is built even where the weather is mostly cloudy.
Not all the damage comes from the Left. On the Right there are calls to increase military and security spending beyond its current trillion dollars a year. Most of this money is wasted, when it could be growing our standard of living.
Economists also discount or ignore what they are unable to measure, and productivity growth is particularly difficult to quantify. The advent of Uber taxis, smartphones, dependable cars that don’t break down, free international telephone calls—all are mostly beyond measurement yet surely reflect a rising standard of living.
When it comes to damaging regulations, there are solutions. To alleviate delays for construction permits, there are reform proposals in Congress to create “one stop regulatory shopping” whereby one lead agency would have responsibility for applications. Deadlines could be established, with agency approvals becoming automatic unless they concluded their objections within a particular time limit.
Americans should understand who and what influences are responsible for our declining growth—not blame our economic system. Rather they should know that it is Washington’s misallocation of resources that causes our problems, not freedom and free markets.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
The Israel Lobby does not represent most Jews. Sound surprising? You’d never know it from most TV talk shows or Republicans denouncing the Iran agreement as a terminal threat to Israel, and least of all from “The Lobby” itself. Its intimidating power depends upon the myth that it represents all American Jews, when it does not even represent a majority. It should really be called the “Likud Lobby,” representing Netanyahu, neoconservatives, militant settlers on the West Bank, evangelicals (mainly old ones) impatient for Armageddon, and the military-industrial complex.
Most American Jews are divided or just don’t care, just like other Americans. The young, especially, do not support the policies of Israeli or American hawks seeking more wars in the Middle East. Many Jewish voices are in accord on the pact.
By a 20-point margin in various polls, American Jews support the Iran agreement. The largest circulation Jewish newspapers carry balanced analyses and discussions. The Jewish Week’s publisher, Gary Rosenblatt, reports interesting and typical polling on Jewish Americans in an article, “Iran Deal Driving Jews Further Apart“:
- 90 percent are proud to be Jewish
- 43 percent say that caring about Israel is essential to their Jewishness
- 65 percent feel “that U.S. support for Israel is either about right or, for 20 percent, too much.”
An earlier Pew poll showed:
- 31 percent did not feel attached to the state of Israel
- 39 percent felt only “somewhat” attached
- 83 percent believe that the settlements on Palestine lands are inimical to Israeli security.
The largest Jewish newspaper, Forward, has published articles like “Fact Checking the Flame Throwers on Both Sides of Iran Deal” and “Why Israel Lobby is Biggest Casualty of Feud over Netanyahu’s Speech.”
J Street, named for the missing street in Washington, was founded to promote the missing voice of non-AIPAC Jews. It is manning phone banks, placing op-eds, and running ads in support of the Iran agreement. The old-line American Council for Judaism has long promoted peace with profound, learned writings since the founding of Zionism. Tikkun is another large organization supporting the agreement.
The New Yorker reports on AIPAC’s declining influence. Last March I wrote “The Crumbling Israeli Lobby” with statistics about its declining support, particularly among younger Jews and Evangelical Christians “rebelling against the excessive biblical literalism of their parents.” The Washington Post published “Jewish Leaders Don’t Speak for American Jews on Iran,” which analyzed the “rift between American Jews and the groups generally known as ‘the Jewish leadership.’” The article follows the money, explaining how a minority of the old and rich calls the tune.
All this support for the Iran deal from Jews of all ages (see J Street’s statistics) has not outweighed the literally billions of dollars which some older Jews are willing to throw into the fight. Congress may yet override Obama and reject the agreement. The Washington Post’s Walter Pincus wrote “The GOP’s Alternate Universe On Iran,” explaining that the options remaining after rejection of the deal are leaving Iran to proceed with producing nuclear bombs or starting another war. Although many Republican leaders prefer war, the potential disaster to the world’s economy from the risk of destruction of Persian Gulf oil exports is still to be considered.
The main issues also involve a lot of false information and unproven accusations about Iran. The biggest is that they are religious crazies who would commit suicide if they had just one bomb to drop on Israel. Actually, Iran’s policies have been very cautious. Another is rebutted by Phil Giraldi’s “Did Iranian Weapons Kill Americans,” concerning their supposedly helping Iraq with shaped charges to repel American forces. Another story is that Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism because it supports the Hezbollah guerrillas. And so on. They are all familiar to those of us who wrote about and exposed lies about Iraq before Washington destroyed that country.
Republican claims that they are just demanding a better deal are not believable, as other nations won’t go along. The agreement is about disarming Iran’s nuclear potential (that was the basis for multi-national support) not forcing it to surrender itself. The Europeans, Russia, and China never agreed to demand such a surrender.
Most Americans, Israelis, and Iranians want peace, but powerful forces profit from wars. We have an earlier tragic example to learn from, the undermining of the Oslo peace accords, which actually contained compromises and started settling the Palestinian issue. Netanyahu and a handful of neoconservatives put out their own plan, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” This agenda included the destruction of Iraq, and one of the signatories, David Wurmser, explained how Iraq could be thrown into chaos.
Former National Security Council director Brent Scowcroft compares the Iran agreement to earlier diplomatic breakthroughs opening up China and agreeing to armaments control with Russia, “an epochal moment that should not be squandered.” Most American Jews agree.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
It’s one thing for libertarians to argue against helping Ukraine with weaponry, but it is quite another to call Ukrainians neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic, giving credence to the barrage of propaganda on Russian TV, and to try to defame their struggle. There are some elements that could be so described, especially in the Azov Brigade, which fought key battles with the separatists and Russian invaders. But the national election last May showed them winning only 1 percent of the national vote and being decisively defeated.
Let’s see: America allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. We then gave succor to former Nazi scientists to help build our rockets. Today we are aiding the terrorist Kurdish PKK against ISIS in Syria (WSJ 7/25/15); we are now on the same side as the Iranians to defeat ISIS in Iraq; and we sustained many assorted dictators during the Cold War. Think of the Saudis, too: we now help Saudi Arabia’s dictators (even refueling their bombers) to target and kill Yemenis who never did America any harm—indeed, they are al-Qaeda’s enemies.
Ukrainian history is bloody and complicated. After the Soviets killed some 7 million Ukrainians, is it a wonder that many survivors welcomed the Germans? And their leader, Stepan Bandera, went on fighting for years. Resisting Ukrainians and Poles were only finally suppressed by Stalin five years after the end of the Second World War, in 1950. Anne Applebaum’s book Gulag movingly describes how survivors in the labor camps revolted and killed their guards after Stalin’s death. They weren’t the intellectuals and peasants who filled the camps in the 1930s, who didn’t know how to fight and kill.
So now we have some conservatives and libertarians unfortunately parroting and spreading Putin’s Russian accusations that a few hundred men who appeal to the mottos of the old resistance discredit all the millions of Ukrainians. And that therefore Ukraine should be abandoned.
They’re wrong. But what should American policy be, and what are some possible avenues for compromise? Former Canadian intelligence officials have put forth a very good analysis that explains, “Washington and its NATO allies have only the fuzziest idea of what they want to achieve but are nonetheless taking military measures apparently oblivious to their potential impact on Russian security interests. As Sun Tzu observed, ‘Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat’. In Europe, the noise people hear is the rumble of Russian mechanized forces preparing to move on Mariupol, Kharkiv and maybe Kiev.”
First, we should recognize that before Yanukovych’s ouster and the present crisis Russian interests were overly pressed and prejudiced by European Union officials who “would have forced Ukraine to decide between Russia and the European Union, flatly rejecting Putin’s offer of a tripartite arrangement”—between Russia, Ukraine, and the EU—“that would allow Ukraine to sustain its ties with Russia.” There was even a proposal to change Ukraine’s railroad gauge from Russian to West European widths so trains could not easily travel into Russia, Ukraine’s main trading partner. The Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine alludes to “military-technological co-operation” and repeatedly addresses “mutual security” and defense. Small wonder that Russia felt threatened.
Most of these initiatives came from lower-level officials, perhaps even without the knowledge of Obama and Germany’s Chancellor Merkel. What’s more, Obama’s State Department European chief is a neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, inherited from Cheney’s gang of “rule-the-worlders.” It has been said of Western dealings with Ukraine that no grown-ups were in charge.
Putin’s actions in seizing Crimea and destabilizing Ukraine, however, needed a strong response. That doesn’t preclude negotiation: at a recent meeting of the Washington Oil & Gas Forum, a speaker explained that Putin only has liquid reserves—some $200 billion—to carry on another two years before sanctions and the decline in oil prices cause real havoc with the Russian economy. He said that Russian officials lately seemed more open to compromise. In another context, Obama recently praised Putin for helping in the Iran negotiations.
But the Russians also require convincing that they cannot continue slicing up Ukraine without severe consequences. America should help the Ukrainians: defensive weapons, especially against tanks and artillery, should be on the table. First, however, Washington should reach out to Putin with diplomacy, especially now, after its successful beginning with Iran.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has reported on a feasible structure of compromise. Russia would keep Crimea through “buying” a 99-year lease, paying with discounted gas deliveries to Ukraine. Ukraine would end its blockade, recognize the lease, and sell water and electricity to the peninsula. Free transit of citizens and goods of both nations would be guaranteed, and Russia would respect past property rights in place at the time of its invasion.
The breakaway East Ukraine would have some kind of federalist semi-autonomy within the nation. (Indeed, federalism could be a reform of tremendous significance for the prosperity of many nations afflicted by corruption and overly centralized governments, including Russia.) Ukraine would be part of both the European Union, through an association agreement, and belong to the Russian customs union. Europe and Russia would end their trade and investment restrictions and travel bans.
There is an encouraging example from the past, that of Austria after World War II. Russia and the West agreed that it would be neutral, with no foreign military bases or alliances: “neutrality on the Swiss model.” It worked very well. Austria prospered with peace and as a middle ground for commerce between East and West.
An agreement would be the crowning achievement of Obama—diplomacy and peace with Iran and Russia. Admittedly, diplomacy is tough for Republicans. Ever since the Civil War they have thought winning means demanding unconditional surrender. Most of their leaders think blockade and bombing should be the first measures in any dispute with other nations. (Former American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman has written an excellent appeal for and explanation of diplomacy . It explains why diplomacy is vital, especially for preventing and ending wars. It should be read by all Republicans in Congress.)
Finally, Washington should address the lies coming out of Russian media, including into America through RT. Google searches give prominence and credibility to Russian state-controlled “media” and bloggers who often promote disinformation. CNN in Russia has shut down because of the censorship and danger to its journalists. Anne Applebaum has suggested various ways to empower silenced Russian journalists to help get their voices out to the Russian people.
I lectured in three Ukrainian cities years ago on “Free Market Lessons from Asia and Latin America,” sponsored by the American Foreign Policy Council with a grant from CIPE. The Atlas Network sponsored a special mission last fall to explain and promote free market, anti-corruption measures to the new government. Students for Liberty held a special conference in Kiev. All the participants spoke of the idealistic young people working for Ukraine to emulate Europe rather than Putin’s Russia. Since Russians took over Crimea they have shut down Western television reception and curtailed the free Internet. Believe me, most Ukrainians do not want to come under the rule of modern Russian police state.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.