• Allawi is an avowed secularist. Islamists will face strong oppostion from his government, as they did during American military battles against Sunni insurgents in Anbar during Allawi’s former term as PM.
• Allawi is viewed by the U.S. as placing more importance in training and development of Iraqi Army and Police, which he will likely use in a more severe manner against insurgents. This ought to lead to further improvements in the security situation in Iraq.
• Allawi formed a broad base of support that included Sunni groups, showing a promising ability to bridge the sectarian divide which has caused so many ongoing problems in Iraq.
• Allawi is anti-Iranian. Enough said there.

The U.S. feels it could work with either Maliki or Allawi, so even with Allawi being the favorite, a Maliki victory would not have meant a significant change to U.S. policy in Iraq. He’s been an increasingly good partner ever since his offensive in Basra in 2008. 

The U.S. was afraid of two things resulting from the election: a dramatic spike in violence and rampant fraud and illegitimacy of the election. Insurgent groups tried desperately to discredit the elections on March 7 through attacks, but their actions that day displayed just that–desperation. They lobbed mortars and set of a few IEDs in Baghdad to scare people away from the polls, but as the day went on and Iraqis saw how impotent the terrorists were, they turned out in great numbers. The number of violent attacks that day were less than an average day a few years ago. And by all objective accounts (U.S., U.N., other coalition observers) the elections were free and fair. This was reiterated again today by the UN and the U.S. Embassy. 

Another fear was that the tight security on election day led the insurgents to push their major attacks back to today–the announcement of the election results. Aside from a few explosions earlier in Diyala, there have been no attacks. As of the time of this writing, Baghdad has had no violence, other than much celebratory gunfire.

Today is another example of the progress the U.S. and it’s Iraqi partners have made in the last few years. Despite lingering pessimism, Iraq is moving steadily to the stable, U.S. friendly, democratic nation George W. Bush told us we would see.

He summed up one of the strongest arguments for the war very succinctly:

There was a sense that Saddam was breaking out of the containment strategy that the U.N. had put in place, and we were going to have a fight with him. We didn’t want it to be at the time and place of his choosing.

Video 2 of the interview is the most substantive:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168544&title=douglas-feith-uncut-pt.-2

A key point of his talk was his view that the U.S. needs to expand the size and scope of its military in coming years. Citing difficulties in partitioning troop levels between Iraq and Afghanistan, he advised raising defense spending to 4% of GDP. He said this will have a positive impact at some point, but admitted it’s unlikely to have an immediate effect on current deployments.

We are growing the forces about as fast as we can grow them in the Marine Corp and Army. We will not be able to increase the numbers significantly for another few years.

Mullen said increased defense spending and the existence of a mightier military will allow the U.S. to better meet future challenges, while helping prevent aggressive actions against American interests.

We need to have a national debate about how much we want to spend on our security. We need an apparatus that provides for the kind of deterrent capability that allows our country to thrive.

He reiterated his support for General Petraeus’ testimony before Congress last week and gave his own brief assessment of the positive developments he sees in Iraq.

The surge has worked. It is working. Our casualties are down. Our injuries are down. As are casualties among Iraqi civilians and Iraqi security forces.

He urged continued support for the surge, and said that though troop levels in Iraq are causing difficulties in Afghanistan, the focus needs to stay on Iraq. 

I need the force to handle that now and I need the force to handle it in the future. The priority is Iraq right now–providing the security so that the government can get on its feet.

Once troops are freed up from Iraq, the very first brigade to Afghanistan will go toward training Afghan army and police forces, he said.

With regard to China, Mullen supports fostering friendly relations between the two militaries, and was encouraged by some of the recent efforts he’d been involved with.

I’m a big believer in military to military engagement… A peaceful rise of China could be beneficial to the world.

When asked what he sees as the greatest threat on the horizon, he didn’t hesitate:

Iran. Besides Iraq and Afghanistan I’m principally focused on the Middle East. I worry greatly about Iran.

[Iran's] not just affecting what’s happening in Iraq, it’s now reaching out into Afghanistan.

It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The significance of this sentence can’t be stressed enough. It means Obama will not only lose Pennsylvania to Hillary next week, but he’s also created a great chance for McCain to take PA in the general election.

And what’s more, Hillary attacked Obama for being “elitest and out of touch,” and his response was just as revealing as the original comment:

I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they’re going through. 

He went on to clarify what he really meant by saying bitter people like guns and religion, calling these things traditions people fall back on when they’re ignored by government.

The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That’s what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don’t feel like they are being listened to.

I’m from a small town in Pennsylvania. I grew up there and my family still lives there. The people I know are not bitter. They are far from being bitter and that’s because they have religion and faith to sustain them–because they have loaded guns in their houses so they can take care of themselves.

My family and friends in Pennsylvania don’t feel like they’re being left behind, Mr. Obama. They feel like they’re being left alone. That’s why they live where they do. Small town and rural life is the last bastion of rugged individualism in America, and these people feel freer being away from big cities and big government. They’re not worried that you aren’t listening to them, they’re worried that you might come bother them. And more and more they’re realizing that’s certainly what you’d do were they foolish enough to elect you.

Aside from what he has to say about NAFTA and Pennsylvanians, Reynolds does a great job describing how the shift in the number of manufacturing jobs isn’t due to outsourcing. It’s simply the consequence of a new age, and it’s affecting the whole world.

Technology (computers and robots) has long been shrinking assembly-line manufacturing jobs in virtually every nation. If we exported manufacturing jobs, it must have been to the moon. A 2006 Banco de Mexico study worries that in recent years employment in (Mexican) industry has been decreasing whereas the employment in the service sector has been increasing. Even China eliminated 10 million manufacturing jobs from 1991 to 2003, according to the Asian Development Bank.

Read the whole article here.

Kreutzer admits such ideas (which people see as punishing Big Oil) poll well, but we already tried all this in the 1970s and we ended up with a real mess. Correctly understanding the situation takes a bit of knowledge about economic cause and effect that most people never bother to look into.

In The Myth of the Rational Voter, economics professor Bryan Caplan exposes the discouraging gap between popular conceptions of economics and economic reality. With that in mind, it isn’t surprising that the same 1970s-era surveys showing the energy crisis to be the biggest problem also showed the most popular solutions were those that would amplify the very things causing the crisis. A large majority wanted more stringent price controls. A near majority even wanted to issue ration coupons.

Kreutzer gives a nice little economics lesson about the problems with price controls and profit taxes. It’s worth a read.

You can see the BBC story about it here.

The BBC article admits that global temperatures haven’t risen a bit in the last 10 years, then dissembles and tries desperately to explain why this doesn’t mean global warming is just hot air.

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

And the 17th Century was higher compared with the 16th Century. And the 15th was higher than the 14th, and so on back to the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age in the 12th Century.

 The public is becoming aware of the environmentalists’ hysteria and hyperbole about this issue. That’s why we’re beginning to see an evolution in the rhetoric. The problem is not Global Warming–it’s Global Climate Change, and always has been. We’re not at war with Eurasia, it’s Eastasia.  

Obama said he wants to form a cap-and-trade system, and admitted it could mean higher electricity bills for consumers. Maybe the Democrats’ new campaign slogan should be: “Vote for us, and we’ll increase your energy costs.” (See prior post about gas prices.)

When asked about involving Gore in his administration, Obama had this to say:

“I would. Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now.”

No Senator. Entitlement reform is something we need to deal with now, not 10 or 20 years from now. Not Al Gore’s fetishes.

 The Democrats are pushing the concept of lowering gas prices by taking away tax breaks for the oil companies. So, essentially, in order to reduce the price of gas they’re planning to raise the gasoline production costs for oil companies. It doesn’t take an economist to figure out which direction this will get gas prices moving, does it?

 The oil execs tried to explain their business is cyclical and their current profits are in line with other industries. Granted, that’s not very convincing, but Democratic suggestions that tax breaks should be nixed and the money should go to the holy grail of renewable fuels is astonishingly irresponsible to anyone who has knows even a little bit about the current state of the “renewable revolution.”

Of course the best solution for reducing fuel prices in the short run is removing restrictions and opening up the U.S.’s own fuel rich reserves to drilling. It will take a while for these oil fields to be fully utilized, but the fact that such projects are ramping up would be a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to gas prices. When Congressman Sensenbrenner asked the oil companies what could be done to bring lower prices, that’s what they said.

The Democrats refuse to believe any of this. It’s part of their environmentalist religion to believe green innovation and renewable energy and earth-friendly whatnot are the solution to environmental problems and to everything else. It’s an article of faith with them.

Here’s an excerpt from Hebert’s AP article about the hearing:

“We need access to all kinds of energy supply,” replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country’s coastal waters are off limits to drilling.
   But Markey [D - Mass.] wanted to know why the companies aren’t investing more in energy projects other than oil and gas — or giving up some tax breaks so the money could be directed to promote renewable fuels and conservation and take pressure off oil and gas supplies.
   “Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable revolution,” asked Markey, noting that the other four companies together have invested $3.5 billion in solar, wind and biodiesel projects.
   Exxon is spending $100 million on research into climate change at Stanford University, replied Simon, but current alternative energy technologies “just do not have an appreciable impact” in addressing “the challenge we’re trying to meet.”

Alternative fuels are not the answer. Neither is raising taxes on oil companies.

The Democrats’ grandstanding on the Senate and House floor, and finger-jabbing at oil executives creates the impression they’re really giving ‘em hell and doing something for the small guy. But if Democrats are successful at exploiting high gas prices for their environmental, anti-business agenda they’re going to end up costing Americans a lot more for gas then they’re already paying.

Here’s an excerpt:

As other groups emerged in and around Baghdad, Odierno and Petraeus seized on opportunities to make friends of former enemies.

This was no easy decision. Americans had been dying at the hands of Sunni Arab resistance groups since 2003. Many of the “concerned local citizens” (CLCs, now called “Sons of Iraq” because “concerned local citizens” translates poorly into Arabic) were themselves former members of the insurgency. There was some grumbling among U.S. troops about cooperating with former enemies and much concern that the “transformation” of these insurgents into partners would only be temporary.

Petraeus and Odierno, however, saw it as an opportunity. Contrary to popular misconception, they refused requests to provide weapons to the CLCs (who almost invariably had their own weapons anyway). They insisted that all CLCs provide detailed biometric data (fingerprints and retinal scans), the serial numbers of their weapons, their home addresses and family relationships. Counter-insurgency experts have often wryly remarked that it would be easy to end an insurgency if the enemy would only wear uniforms. By collecting all of this information about the CLCs, Odierno and Petraeus were in essence putting uniforms on them. Any CLC who turned against the Coalition or Iraqi forces could be readily identified if he, or his weapon, were captured–and Coalition troops would know immediately where he and his family lived. There have been very few reports of any CLC members taking the risk.

Aside from general, sweeping remarks about how our troops are doing a great job, it’s uncommon to hear in depth reports about what’s improving and how it’s being done. And there is even less reporting about small unit experiences and tactics. Good news is no news. Save the anecdotes for casualties.