Losing economic freedom, and the prospect of women in combat

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all beat the United States in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The U.S., part of a group of countries termed "mostly free," scored 76.0 out of 100, dropping .3 from last year, compared with 89.3 for Hong Kong. The world average score of 59.6 is only .1 above the 2012 average. All free economies averaged 84.5, well above the U.S. ranking.

The Index is produced by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, and is based on Adam Smith's theory expressed in The Wealth of Nations in 1776. It covers 10 freedoms scored from 1 to 100, from property rights to entrepreneurship, for 185 countries, and has been published since 1995.

Economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself." That definition applies less to the U.S. each year.

The U.S. has lost economic freedom for five consecutive years and suffered losses in the categories of monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, and fiscal freedom. The U.S. did post an increase in one category, however: government spending, in which it scored lowest of the ten categories.

The poor U.S. position, the lowest Index score since 2000, is due to rapid expansion of federal policies, which have encroached on the states' ability to control their own economic decisions. The authors specifically mentioned the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial bill as having strong negative influences on economic freedom. They also noted that national spending rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, that public debt passed 100 percent of GDP in 2011, and that budget deficits have exceeded $1 trillion each year since 2009.

"More than three years after the end of the recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years," the authors wrote. "Businesses remain in a holding pattern, and unemployment is close to 8 percent."

Until government stops trying to regulate nearly every facet of life, its tinkering will continue to slow the economy and prolong suffering, and we will continue to fall in the Index of Economic Freedom.

* * * * * * *

The decision to put women in up-front combat roles is troubling, to say the least, perhaps more so to those of us who grew up and served in times when women played important roles in the military, but were not directly involved in combat, or even close to combat.

Fortunately, only a relative few females have been injured and killed in recent military actions, but if this decision stands those numbers will grow, and that prospect is a quite traumatic one for many Americans, and completely unacceptable for many others.

The critical factor in determining whether any group or individual serves in a combat situation is whether they are up to the daunting challenges that exist. Requirements for who fills combat roles must be maintained at levels that guarantee that every person in a combat role is up to it, man, woman, gay, straight or whatever.

There are also practical considerations when males and females are in combat situations in close proximity. Troops are often in sustained operations for extended periods, and living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. Finding ways to provide needed privacy during high stress and dangerous operations may very well put troops at greater risk. That is not acceptable.

A convincing argument against this is that the decision was made for the wrong reasons: it was driven by political and social considerations, not military need, according to Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army (Ret.), who served for 36 years as an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

Some women believe that their chances of career advancement within the military suffer from being excluded from ground combat positions. And predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently takes positions that make no sense in the practical world, agrees and has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

The safety of our military personnel must not be put at risk in return for achieving some politically correct sense of fairness or even to allow female military personnel access to the career advantages that are available to males, as unfair as that may be. Fairness and equality sometimes must take a back seat.

Despite the strong desires of many Americans, men and women are by nature different biological creatures and distinctly not equal in important ways, one of which is that men are better suited to military combat than women. We shouldn’t fool with Mother Nature.

Afghanistan: Giant failure with a smiley face?

Writing in Foreign Policy, Douglas Wissing presents a picture of the Afghan entanglement that is sharply at odds with the official line out of Washington, coming not only from the politicians, but from military leaders as well.

His account begins: “If observers had any doubts about the failure of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, the past several days should have put them to rest. Since Feb. 21, anti-U.S. protests have erupted in virtually every major Afghan city over the revelation that American personnel had burned Qurans at Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. installation in the country. The demonstrations have at times turned violent, claiming the lives of at least seven Afghans. This wave of protest is just the latest example of how the United States has botched its attempt to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and another indicator that its war effort is heading toward failure.”

And then, this: “Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis has traveled over 9,000 miles across Afghanistan to learn a simple lesson: public statements made from podiums in Washington and Kabul bear little resemblance to the reality of the Afghan war. The 17-year U.S. Army veteran spent most of his time in the insurgency-enflamed provinces in the east and south, and was shaken to discover the U.S. military leadership’s glowing descriptions of progress against the Taliban insurgency did not jibe with the accounts of American soldiers on the front lines of the war.”

Read the rest of Wissing’s account at Foreign Policy

A legacy lurks in the shadows

by Wesley Pruden

Friday, August 15, 2008 History disabuses every president of the notion that he has a legacy to leave. What he leaves is a record, sometimes written in fire and blood, and history assigns the legacy.

George W. Bush leaves a record of trying to housebreak the Islamic radicals, to teach them to behave themselves in this world and wait until the next to collect their virgins. Since his critics think such a reclamation project can't be done, if civilization survives, George W. can enjoy the pleasure of proving everybody else wrong.

But presidents, even presidents looking for the exit, are men in a hurry, and they invariably start trying to shape how they'll be measured and remembered in the shade and shadows of the dying light. They don't want to start new arguments or pick new fights. Suddenly the legacy of the peacemaker, even the maker of the cheap peace bought with rhetoric and a promissory note, is tempting.

George W. went off to Beijing as a tourist, and had the bad luck of arriving just as Russia, struggling to be reborn as a Soviet Union without the burden of a discredited economic system, marched into Georgia to loot and lay waste to democratic dreams of live and let live. George W. sat in the stands, entranced like the rest of us by the aquatic magic of Michael Phelps, and pointed with pride, waving an American flag, and viewed with alarm the Russian blitzkrieg racing through the heart of an ally thousands of miles away.

Viewing with alarm, which is always fun, irritates Vladimir Putin but it won't seriously upset anyone in Moscow. The Russians are taking the long view, brushing off ineffectual criticism. They figure to add to their own history, having invaded with impunity before: Poland in 1939, Finland in 1940, the several Baltic states in 1941, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979. And of course Georgia, in 1921, 1991 and only last week. Practice can make perfect.

When the Bush administration finally bestirred itself to take the situation seriously, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was sent out to deliver more gruel, this time gruel with a hint of jalapeno. "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it," she said. "Things have changed." Even this much makes the Europeans of 2008, who quail at the sight of a squadron of butterflies, nervous. The Russians, on the other hand, are taking glee at the restoration of the harsh word games of the Cold War.

The Moscow media, picking up vibes emanating from the blog swamps of the American left, calls the Georgian response to the Russian invasion a plot hatched by Dick Cheney to start a war to elect John McCain. Ranking Russian voices pick up the refrain. Vasily Likhachev, a former Russian ambassador to the European Union, thinks he has Washington's number: "The West - [i.e., the United States] - has spent a lot of time, energy and money to teach Georgia the tricks of the trade ... to make the country look like a democracy. We see through this deceit. We understand that the seditious tactics of the so-called color revolutions are a real threat to international law and the source of global nihilism." (This doesn't quite capture of the flavor of Red China's Cold War rhetoric, with its denunciations of Americans as "poisonous weeds" and "ravenous running dogs," but it could get closer to world class stuff as the melancholy chorus of crickets and katydids signal the waning of summer.)

What the situation needs is a few more "tricks of the trade." When the Soviets blockaded Berlin in 1948, Gen. Lucius Clay sent an appeal to President Truman: "We are convinced that our remaining in Berlin is essential to our prestige in Germany and in Europe. Whether for good or bad, it has become a symbol of the American intent." The Berlin Airlift followed shortly after.

John McCain has suggested several things the West, meaning of course the United States, can do to show American intent, in addition to an airlift to Tbilisi if one is needed, including expelling Russia from the Group of Eight. The West could bar coveted Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, even eliminate the prospect of hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014. Vladimir Putin is carefully calculating Western resolve, as well as measuring the bones of Barack Obama, whose first reaction was the usual moral equivalence of limp liberalism. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint," he said. He was right on the message from the West.

Click Here to Comment

What’s Wrong in Iraq

No, that wasn’t supposed to be a question. Read the account below, which is taken from a BBC report.

US-led raids 'kill 26' in Baghdad

US-led forces say they have killed 26 militants in overnight operations in the Sadr City area of Baghdad in which four vehicles were destroyed.

Troops also detained 17 militants in pre-dawn raids on the area, a Shia stronghold, the US military said.

But Iraqi hospital and police officials put the death toll at eight and said civilians were killed in their homes.

The raids are the latest in a series of US offensives against militants accused of smuggling weapons from Iran.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki criticised the raids on Sadr City, saying his government strongly opposed operations carried out by US-led forces without its permission.

Never mind the BBC's anti-U.S. spin; that isn't what this column is about.

I have ignored the Monday-morning-quarterbacking about whether we should have gone into Iraq, which deserves to be ignored, and I’ve tried to discount the more recent attitude against staying there, and even though I know intuitively and factually that the situation in Iraq is better than the media tells us it is, I am growing weary of this controversy. I find myself increasingly accepting of the suggestion that it is time for the U.S. to back off over there. I’m not saying, “Pull out,” nor am I endorsing the Democrat’s two-stage plan: 1 – Cut, and 2 – Run. But I am more and more coming to agree with the sentiment that the Iraqis aren’t holding up their end of the bargain. That sentiment just gained enormous strength with Prime Minister Maliki’s statement that “his government strongly opposed operations carried out by US-led forces without its permission.” (my emphasis) How’s that, again, Mr. Maliki?

If you and the boys would get off your duffs and take control, you wouldn’t have to worry about such things. The last thing the U.S. needs is some do-nothing wimp criticizing it for doing what the wimps haven’t the courage or wherewithal to do.

The danger of the U.S. backing off and leaving Iraq to the various factions to work out on their own is that those factions won’t be working things out on their own. Iran will have all of its fingers in the pie, as will other Middle East interests, and the future Iraq will be a detriment to peace and tranquility. Not that there’s much peace or tranquility in the Middle East outside Iraq, anyway. But enough is enough, and I’ve had just about enough of the Iraqi incompetence.

So, Mr. Maliki, it’s all yours, ol’ buddy, and good luck with that F Troop you have to help you.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Radical Islam, America

Iran Pushing Its Luck

It’s been a week since 15 British military personnel were seized in waters near Iraq and Iran. The Iranians claim the British boat was in its waters; the Brits claim their people were in Iraqi waters.

It has been pretty much a diplomatic standoff so far, but Iran is threatening to put the Brits on trial. There is also some possibility that the one woman among the British sailors and marines will be released. The Iranians originally said they would release the woman, but have more recently reneged. The Iranians have released one statement by the woman in which she admits the British boat was indeed in Iranian waters, and another statement is forthcoming, according to news sources. News sources also say that satellite imagery clearly shows the British boat outside the limits of Iranian waters.

A few questions naturally arise: Were the Brits in Iranian waters? If so, was it on purpose or by accident? It has been reported that the boundaries are tricky to navigate, due to the coastline near the boundaries. Another questions is: How much intimidation was used on the British woman to get her to admit the Brits were wrong?

But really, none of that matters, as the Iranians have tipped their hand and exposed their real reason for creating this hoopla: They have demanded the Brits pull out of Iraq. So the next and final question is, is this an international sovereignty issue, or a naked political maneuver?

One wonders just how long Tony Blair will wait to take decisive action to get his people back? As pointless as it is to work through diplomatic channels with Iran, I concede that some diplomatic efforts must be given a chance. But the Iranians have a reputation for doing as they please, pretty much with impunity, as most nations are afraid to get tough with the Iran. My solution? Give Iran one very stern warning with a definite and short timetable for a response, demanding the immediate release of the captured military personnel and their equipment and belongings, and when the deadline expires the British military will take out a small Iranian military installation, or take out a small portion of a bigger one, and let Iran know that if those sailors and marines aren’t released immediately, another attack will quickly follow.

Someone needs to confront Iran and let the Ayatollahs and the Ahmadinejad regime know that they aren’t nearly as tough and fearsome as they have come to believe they are, and there is no better time than the present, when Iran has provoked Great Britain.

Technorati Tags: War, Diplomacy, Iraq War

Iraq: Winning; Losing; or, We Don’t Know?

Almost all Democrats and Liberals believe it. Many Republicans and conservatives believe it. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) believes it: The strategy in Iraq is not working; we are losing the war. Specifically, the Iraq Study Group report says any hope for a strong and peaceful Iraq will require securing peace in the larger Middle East and entails dialogue and political engagement between Israel and Iraq's moderate Arab neighbors. While it is certainly true that the situation in Iraq is far, far from what we would like to see, and while the ISG’s conclusion that we need peace in the Middle East to achieve any satisfactory result in Iraq may be true, perhaps another conclusion is better.

We call the current activity in Iraq a “war,” but the war was over a while back and now the focus is stabilizing the country following the sacking of the Hussein regime and the brutal leader plucked from his underground hideout near Tikrit. After a couple of years of difficulty achieving stability Monday morning quarterbacks the world over blame the evil trio of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with “failure” and wonder how they could have so badly misjudged what is so obvious to the quarterbacks: the way the Iraqis were bound to react. And to be fair to the quarterbacks, it seems that the Bush administration badly underestimated some things: the determination of the Sunnis to try to maintain power; the degree of enmity between the two major Islamic factions, and the degree to which practitioners of the religion of peace would indulge in killing each other; and the abject fear of democracy of so many Muslims who are mired in a 700 year-old religion-dictated culture.

But the quarterbacks forget to mention some very positive things that have occurred in Iraq, not the least of which is that most Iraqis are not involved in the Sunni/Shiite conflict, and also that millions of Iraqis are glad that the U.S. sacked Saddam Hussein and gave them a chance to develop a democratic nation. Twelve million Iraqis risked their safety to vote in the last election. There were two elections before that one, and in each successive election, there were more voters than the previous one. Schools are open; businesses are operating, most of the 15 provinces are peaceful. For the first time in more than a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500 courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and from the Coalition Provisional Authority. More than 170 independent newspapers are in print. Al Iraqia (formerly the Iraqi Media Network) is broadcasting 20 hours per day.

Maybe the quarterbacks don’t mention these things because they don’t know about them, and we can thank the media for being able to keep at least some secrets off of Page One. With the American people so skillfully misled by the media, the bandwagoneering is moving forward apace, and thousands jump aboard with every new negative piece of news. Therefore, the commonly accepted opinion is that Iraq is a disaster and we should just get out while we can.

But make no mistake: George Bush is correct when he says that to pull out of Iraq now would be a catastrophe. Yes, the Iraqi government, the military and the police need to step up to the plate and take charge. However, to have invested the lives and safety of our military and the money and then take some action that will leave Iraq to the radical Muslims to fight over would be a travesty.

On talk radio yesterday an interviewee, who was unidentified while I listened, suggested that the ISG is all wet, and that its recommendations are 180 degrees out of phase with what we need to do. He further suggested that what the U.S. needs to do in Iraq is to pour many thousands more troops in there and wipe out the 20-odd militias that have been allowed to wreak havoc with impunity.

I agree that the ISG is all wet, and its report is a prescription for surrender wrapped in a respectable-looking cover. Proof of this is the reaction of the Arab press, one member of which called it "the end of America."

Good job, Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton. Everyone would do well to ignore this report, most especially the Bush administration.

Understanding Rumsfeld’s Resignation

On Election Day afternoon President Bush announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had resigned. What was that all about? Hadn’t the President said continuously and recently that he wanted Mr. Rumsfeld to stay on, that he had confidence in him and that he had done yeoman’s work as Defense Secretary? Yet, on the afternoon that the Democrats scored a take-over of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Mr. Bush announced that Mr. Rumsfeld had resigned, and that Robert Gates will replace him.

First, let’s clear up one small issue: Donald Rumsfeld was not fired. Someone is “fired” because they haven’t done a good job, or in some other way have fallen out of favor with the boss. It is clear from President Bush’s comments for the last six years that he was satisfied with Donald Rumsfeld’s job performance. However, one of the many sins of the American media is carelessness with language, or often—and worse--using the most sensational description it can think up. Reporting the “firing” of the Defense Secretary is a better attention getter than reporting what really happened. But what happened was that Mr. Rumsfeld simply stepped aside. How else can you explain that at the same time as his resignation was announced the President also announced who his replacement would be? This decision had been contemplated for quite some time, and it all hinged upon the results of the election.

Prior to Election Day Mr. Bush had said that he didn’t agree with the poll numbers indicating big Democrat gains on November 7. He honestly believed that. He also had reacted to the drumbeat from Democrats and even some Republicans that Mr. Rumsfeld should be replaced by defending the Secretary and saying that he wanted Mr. Rumsfeld in office until the end of his term.

Mr. Bush knew that if the Democrats gained control of the House that there would be a flurry of investigations that would paralyze the Secretary and the Pentagon. And he also realized that if the Democrats won big his reading of the nation’s sentiment on the Iraq war was wrong; the nation was more upset that he had believed about the progress in Iraq, or the lack thereof.

So reality and pragmatism ruled the day, and President Bush relented in the face of a clear message from the voters and accepted the Secretary’s resignation.

It may not come as a surprise to you that I am going to defend Donald Rumsfeld. His detractors, Republican and Democrat, ignored some important factors in their haste to condemn his performance. It’s not good enough to say simply that the Iraq war “isn’t going well,” or “is going badly.” To be fair and accurate you have to dig a little deeper and recognize, first, that fighting a war isn’t like building a house: there is no detailed set of plans that if followed will lead to certain victory. All wars are unpredictable; all wars are riddled with errors. But what is more relevant is that this war is unlike any previous war that the U.S. has fought. There is no uniformed enemy representing an identifiable state. The enemy is not like the Redcoat, German or Japanese army, or even like the North Vietnamese forces. It is an ideology, without borders, without a government, without any form at all. We are currently writing the book on how to fight such and enemy, and nobody knows more about that than Donald Rumsfeld, because he is the only one who has done it.

Anyone who does not recognize and understand those differences should not be commenting on the war. And anyone who does not acknowledge that those differences are important is not being honest or fair. We don’t yet know whether Mr. Rumsfeld’s tactics were the right ones, and we don’t yet know if anyone can do better.

Technorati Tags: Donald Rumsfeld, Politics, U.S. Military, Iraq War, Defense Department, Democrats

US Charged With Deliberately Killing British Journalist

The Associated Press reports the following: "A coroner ruled Friday that U.S. forces unlawfully killed a British television journalist in the opening days of the Iraq war.

"Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would ask the attorney general to take steps to bring to justice those responsible for the death of Terry Lloyd, 50, a veteran reporter for the British television network ITN."

This story is troubling, and for more than the obvious reason. First, it would be wrong for U.S. personnel to deliberately kill a reporter, even in the chaotic and highly emotional conditions of a firefight. But perhaps more importantly, how can a British coroner, who wasn't there, possibly conclude that U.S. personnel purposefully killed Terry Lloyd?

There are important details that need to be added to this story. First, Lloyd and three other ITN crewmembers were covering the fighting on their own; they were not embedded with U.S. or British forces, as most all other journalists were and are. U.S. and British troops undoubtedly know where embedded journalists are at nearly every moment, but journalists who are not embedded can turn up anywhere, and unexpectedly.

The AP: “Witnesses testified during the weeklong inquest that Lloyd - who was driving with fellow ITN reporters from Kuwait toward Basra, Iraq - was shot in the back by Iraqi troops who overtook his car, then died after U.S. fire hit a civilian minivan being used as an ambulance and struck him in the head.”

This is a straightforward statement that likely represents the facts.

The AP: "’Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming,’ Walker said. ‘There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire.’"

Analyzing these four statements, one and three are difficult to argue with, and the third may be true. The fourth, however, presumes facts not in evidence, and must be viewed with great and justifiable suspicion.

In fact, the AP reported the following later in the story: “The court watched a video Tuesday, filmed by a U.S. serviceman attached to one of the tanks accused of firing at the reporters' cars. The tape opens with images of Lloyd's vehicle and the Iraqi truck burning amid gunfire. The tanks drive to the cars and inspect them. A minivan - possibly the ambulance - appears and more shots are fired. At the end of the tape, a U.S. soldier shouts, ‘It's some media personnel! That's media down there!’" [Emphasis added.]

Clearly I don't have all the evidence, but neither did the coroner. Nevertheless, that scenario strongly implies that the tank personnel, who were actively involved in fighting, did not recognize the approaching vehicle was friendly.

There are many reasons why individual journalists go to war zones. Often, they do so because it is good for their careers. They do with the full knowledge and understanding that danger lurks around every corner. Journalists who go to war zones and work independently of military units put themselves at much higher risk than those who are embedded with military units.

Terry Lloyd’s death is unfortunate, and almost certainly an unfortunate accident, not a deliberate act by the U.S. military. What possible good could the U.S. expect from deliberately killing one or more British journalists? As we mourn Lloyd’s death, we must at the same time acknowledge that he took chances by being in a war zone, and he multiplied those risks by working independently of military unites operating in the area.

Technorati Tags: War, Journalism, News Coverage, U.S. Military, War Crimes

Worth A Thousand Words

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, War On Terror, Terrorism, Politics, Islam, Islamic Fascism, Radical Islam, War, Islamic Fanaticism