RealCurrents

I hope this isn’t 1965 all over again. But once again we are escalating our involvement in a war that it’s not clear how we can win.

“Gates noted that while progress in Iraq will lead to a reduction in the number of troops there, more troops are needed in Afghanistan because of the worsening violence in that conflict. He said the persistent pace of operations in the two wars over several years has meant a steady increase in the number of troops who are wounded, stressed or otherwise unable to deploy with their units.”

Many people think the Vietnam War was unwinnable, at least in the context in which it was fought. Afghanistan is arguably more difficult, with a long history of invasions which went poorly for the invaders. Now the U.S. is rapidly escalating the war there, though most Americans probably remain largely unaware.

Thus we are in danger of repeating many of the same mistakes of 1965 and 2003, rushing into an escalation of conflict in an area we don’t well understand, with goals we can’t clearly articulate.

There are certainly good reasons to be over there. It is not my intent to argue that we shouldn’t be involved in that part of the world, but that we need to have a vigorous public debate about what are our long-term goals for this war.

As in 1965, we see an escalation occurring without the public really engaged. I suspect most Americans still have the idea that as a result of the 2006 Congressional and 2008 Presidential elections, we were assured a drawdown of our military forces. While this is occurring to some extent in Iraq, Dept. of Defense figures from the end of March (pdf) show total troop deployments were down less than 7,000 (233,800 vs. 240,600) from the end of 2007 (pdf), when the surge in Iraq was beginning to wind down and the presidential primaries were about to start. And now we are seeing substantial increases in both deployments and casualties, sadly, in Afghanistan.

The danger, as in 1965, is that it’s convenient for the military if the public isn’t paying too much attention to an escalation. There’s less scrutiny or criticism in the short run. And once again we’ve got a Democrat-controlled administration and Congress that is looking at massive new social spending programs. In the long run, though, it will be our soldiers and our society that suffers if we don’t get our goals right.

Most important, our military must be given a mission in which it can succeed. 22,000 more troops for the Army will help in the short run, but what is the end game? Just gaining and holding territory in Afghanistan and Pakistan isn’t likely to work anywhere near as well as it’s (hah) worked in Iraq.

Another little detail: after nearly eight years in Afghanistan, and this new escalation, is it not yet time for a formal Congressional declaration of war? Is that too much to ask? The accompanying debate might do a lot to help clarify our goals, because it would force Washington to state clearly who precisely are our enemies.

Certainly, whatever we do in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is going to continue to be challenging. The culture there has worked out many adaptations for dealing with invaders. Recently, an Army base was expanded into an area filled with Karez, ancient networks of tunnels used both for irrigation and secret movement. A sewer plant was planned right on top of the waterways. By the time the U.S. military realized the error, the Taliban had farmers and other locals in an uproar. How are we supposed to control an area like that?

Like Vietnam, this effort will ultimately require some sort of political and diplomatic solution worked out far from the battlefield. And I really doubt it’s an accident that this announcement has come out the same day:

“U.S. officials “firmly believe” that al-Qaida leaders who planned and carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are hiding in Pakistan near its border with Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.”

This is a pretty obvious indication that we shouldn’t be surprised if operations in Afghanistan are again expanded, at least to these parts of Pakistan.

I was reading Jessica Mah’s post on how a lot of her high-school and college-age friends are really scared about global warming. Here in the U.S., it’s often reported that folks in other countries are more concerned than the average American, but little attention has been given to how the issue is impacting younger Americans.

It occurred to me that they need a little perspective on this. I grew up in the 1970s, and for those of us Americans who went through this period when the U.S. was in a severe technophobic angst, and there were constant pronouncements about all the terrible things that were going to happen, I suppose we’re just not so quick to be convinced the world is coming to an end every time scientists start preaching doom and gloom.

This was a very long list of crises that 1960s-70s experts insisted were soon to befall us, most of which I’ve probably (thankfully) forgotten, but which included such calamities as pollution, endangered species, population, overcrowded skies, the San Andreas and yes, even a looming ice age. I guess being terrified of nuclear armageddon just wasn’t enough anymore. The funny thing was, very few of these scientists were talking about an energy crisis.

Of course, even the “energy crisis” didn’t last long, once investors started pouring hundreds of billions into oil, which was $35 when I got out of high school but less than $10 when I got out of college. Jessica titled her post “Scared of Global Warming? Bring in the entrepreneurs!” and so yes, I think she’s right that entrepreneurs and the free market are a lot of the answer to global warming.

In general, though, I think we ought to stop and notice something. It sure seems to me that scientists can get into a negative funk about stuff, and end up focussing too much on the problems rather than the solutions. In fact, I can’t help wondering if it’s sort of the same dynamic as with investment newsletters - negativity and fear apparently sell a lot more newsletters, and a crisis may, sadly, be the only thing that will finally garner a research project any funding.

Now, this is certainly not all the scientists’ fault, nor is the business world off the hook. Just look at the American car industry, one of the most pitiful examples of research budgeting in modern history. Perhaps GM, Ford and Chrysler may be excused for being caught unprepared on fuel economy in the early 70s, since they were already struggling with new emissions restrictions. On the other hand, here we are again thirty years later and, sadly, it seems that only the recent combination of high oil prices, a dropping dollar, and concerns over carbon emissions was finally enough to get them serious again about improving fuel economy.

Amidst all the prognostications, it’s still not clear how global warming is going to play out. Besides the many questions of specific effects in specific places, there’s at least three basic questions involved. First is the question of how fast temperatures will go up. Second, how much will they rise long-term (or is it a runaway increase with no end in sight)? Third, if temperatures can be stabilized, will (can?) they then head back down?

We hear virtually nothing of potentially beneficial effects, but clearly there’s going to be some winners among the many losers from effects of global warming. Interestingly, so far the Russians seem to be the only ones thinking ahead about any positive outcomes from it. As Jessica suggests, entrepreneurs ought to be also. Again, though, we must keep a proper perspective - a long-term perspective.

While there’s a lot we don’t know, we can say that at least for practical purposes, whatever we can do will take place over decades. Realistically, it’s far too late to do anything about changes that may take place within the next decade or so. In other words, whatever research and changes - technological or political - that are to be made must be done consistently over a decades-long time frame.

This is, for example, why I strongly disagree with the basic Kyoto (Treaty) framework. Already China is producing as much carbon emissions as the U.S., and will likely continue to increase. Kyoto might be effective in reducing the emissions of Western industrialized nations, but given these reductions and the continued growth of China, India and other large industrializing countries, within a few years this extremely costly plan will prove ineffective in reducing the bulk of emissions.

We’ve heard from the scientists on global warming, but have yet to hear from the engineers, who are going to be the folks who have to make reductions in carbon emissions actually happen. We need to think about cost/benefit ratios. We also need to think about sustaining research investments over decades, which as the history of NASA indicates, is awfully difficult to do when you start out with crash-program type overbudgeting.

I think it’s a good bet that a lot of these new technologies are going to come from both big American businesses (such as Boeing with its new 787) and American entrepreneurs. This realization may not play well overseas, but any approach such as Kyoto that hobbles the American economy is going to be counterproductive.

Like it or not, the U.S. is still a (if not the) major innovation engine in the world. Companies in Silicon Valley (1, 2, 3) and elsewhere in the U.S. are working on hundreds of different technologies, everything from emission controls to cheap solar to electric cars to wind power and so on. Here in Texas, it’s become common to see the giant parts of wind turbines rolling down the highway on their way west, where hundreds are being put up.

We must remember that innovation, not political decrees, is the only way to solve the problems from global warming, and while we’re at it, let’s not forget to also think about taking advantage of the benefits.

I’ve been putting off writing about immigration because it is such a difficult subject to really nail down. There are so many mixed emotions, conflicting interests, and pertinent historical precedents that it’s hard for even one person to agree with themself. I think Mark Belling’s comment on the Rush Limbaugh show Wednesday, that we can’t get agreement on immigration because we can’t find even two people who totally agree, is right on the money. This is very much an issue in flux, but it may no longer be an issue that can be deferred.

Of course, immigration is only one of many issues that U.S. voters have just wanted to keep sweeping under the rug. This rug is getting awfully lumpy nowadays, and these ugly problems are going to be emerging one-by-one (if we’re fortunate enough not to have to deal with them en masse) in the coming years. Any American can list half a dozen of these, e.g. the trade deficit, national debt, consumer debt, Social Security (i.e. even more national debt), Medicare (ditto), corporate pension plans, a disadvantageous tax and benefits structure for global competition, rapidly rising health care costs, and, oh yeah, a couple of looming possibilities - proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and of various natural diseases such as bird flu.

To George W. Bush’s (and his staff’s) credit, they have been on the immigration issue for some time, but seemingly with little support from anyone, whether fellow Republicans or even Mexican President Vicente Fox. Fox’s anticipated good relationship with Bush seems, instead, to have proved to be largely dysfunctional. Unlike Social Security reform, which Bush was astute to push soon after the election but unfortunately with a scheme largely at odds with the public, on immigration I think he’s probably more in tune than other politicians realize.

Maybe the best way to solve this political, diplomatic and economic dilemma is by a process of elimination, because the reality is that most of the ideas Congress has offered will almost surely fail in practice. Are we really going to lock up church members who help illegal aliens or deport parents while leaving probably millions of “orphans” here in the U.S.? Are we going to deport millions of children who are American citizens? Are we going to destroy our agriculture industry, one area where - I hope - we still enjoy a trade surplus?

These “solutions” are just not going to happen. Are we really going to have another Trail of Tears down to Matamoros or Tijuana? Any politically workable solution is going to have to deal with the historical reality, not just the rhetoric of a bunch of folks who want the cheap housing and living costs of the Sun Belt while pretending the issue just suddenly got out of hand, and deserves some sort of abrupt knee-jerk response.

The hard fact is that when you let a situation go on for decades unchecked, you don’t have some of the options you would have if you dealt with it promptly. Whole generations have grown up in citizenship limbo, and to pretend you can just slice this gordian knot with one sharp legislative blow is nuts. We need to figure out where we want to go, and then figure out how to deal with the situation we’ve already got.

What you can’t stop, you regulate and tax, and this is really the only workable solution. If you raise the costs, you reduce the demand. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution, but it seems to me that in order to regulate the inevitable cross-border flows, a sizable guest-worker program will be needed. Incentives will have to be in place that cause most potential immigrants to be willing to go with the program, and disincentives such as more secure borders and harsher penalties for future violators will be needed to reduce the flows to a workable level. I don’t know what this level is, but it’s going to be more people than a lot of folks will like. Deal with it; in the long run we can probably reduce the pressure on our borders if we can encourage Latin American countries to reform politically (really key) and economically.

The guest worker program will need to be multi-tiered. Workers will have to meet higher requirements to move to the higher levels (allowing longer residency periods and possibly bringing in family members), and of course the highest level will be attaining citizenship, for some portion of the workers. All the workers’ earnings need to be taxed, and tax violations should be grounds for deportation. Health care, education and other issues will have to be worked out, but since they are guest workers, they shouldn’t be on welfare.

While a large guest-worker program may be hard for a lot of Americans to accept, there will also need to be measures taken that will be unpopular with many illegals and with many Hispanic Americans. We must do away with bilingual ballots and require that all citizens learn English as a qualification for citizenship. Bilingual education will remain, I’m sure, at least to teach guest workers’ children in public schools, which will obviously have to be compensated to some degree since guest workers may not own much taxable property. Nevertheless, instruction in Spanish should be only a stopgap, and all students should be required to take English, and have a limit on how many years of bilingual education they can receive before transitioning to regular classes.

Unlike other immigrant ethnic groups, English seems to be a real sticking point for a lot of Hispanics. I really don’t feel any sympathy here. My wife immigrated to this country from Taiwan, and she had to go to kindergarten not knowing any English. Now her vocabulary is probably better than mine. Everyone understands that it’s harder for the older folks to learn the language, but to insist that the next generation can just stay out of the loop of discourse is quite irresponsible. The United States is a republic, a representative democracy, which requires that its citizens be able to communicate with one another. To dispense with this would pose a threat to the whole fabric of our society.

I know that emotions are charged over immigration, with accusations of racism, ingratitude, double standards and the like being wildly thrown about. I hope folks will calm down and actually talk to one another. Hispanics have a lot to be upset about but they certainly should have seen this coming by now. I tend to sympathize with the students getting out and protesting (peacefully), but they need to realize they are sending an incredibly incoherent message, waving Mexican flags while demanding the rights of United States citizens.

Laws have to be enforced, or else they need to be changed. Millions of Hispanics have chosen to violate our laws, and they have no business being upset that we may now choose to change the law and then enforce it. On the other hand, I hope that as we prepare this spring to begin celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Colony, that Americans pushing for immigration reform will remember that nearly all of us had ancestors who were once immigrants, and reflect on the somber fact that a measure of humility is, indeed, in order.

I wrote on my site AeroGo about Brazil’s decision to go ahead and pay Russia for a ride for its astronaut trainee, rather than keep waiting on NASA and a seat on the shuttle.

The U.S. has missed an opportunity to build goodwill with the largest country in South America. At a time when the Bush administration is trying to stem a rising tide of socialism in the region, apparently no one was even thinking about how space might play a diplomatic role. Instead, U.S. insensitivity has pushed Brazil toward the Russians, who haven’t exactly been a model of democracy lately.

While Russia still understands how its space program can play a political role, space has been off the radar screen for decades in Washington. As a result, once again we’ve lost an opportunity to reap some return on our investment in the space program. A lot of these returns are intangible or at least difficult to measure, such as spinoff technologies and industries, but considering the enormous expense of the space program, we need to see it pay off in as many ways as possible.