Light in Burma?

It may be largely because the military and police have "locked down" the country pretty comprehensively, but the fact that long-time democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyii was allowed to leave house arrest for long enough to meet with a U.N. envoy. Nonetheless, it's difficult to see it as other than a hopeful sign that at least the current troubles will be resolved with a lot fewer dead demonstrators than was the case in 1988. It could go badly rather quickly, but even if the government has won this round, I can hardly imagine it will be another 18-19 years before the next serious and visible outbreak of discontent with the government.

Military hospitals still scary

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on a GAO report updating the Walter Reed Army hospital scandal exposed by the WP six or seven months ago. The upshot? Not much has been accomplished toward the goal of making Army hopitals more efficient and less infuriatingly bureaucratic. Unfortunately, bureaucracy in the "reform" pocess is delaying the effort to battle bureaucracy in the milityary hospital system. Bureaucracy, the scourge of modern existence!

Liberal Supremes?

Tomorrow is the First Monday in October (and the first day, this years, which means the beginning of a Supreme Court term. Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register for today's Sunday Commentary section, previewing the upcoming term. I suggested that because of the cases already scheduled -- the Guantanamo detainee cases, the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity, others -- this year's session may look a bit more liberal than the 2006 session.

Getting rough in Burma

Here's a somewhat dispiriting but, unfortunately, I think fairly solid analysis of the situation in Burma. The AP writer says the regime has shown it is willing to use force and the democracy movement has yet to produce a leader able to articulate the movement's goals and desires. The only mitigating factor that might keep bloodshed down if the protest forces don't sort of fade away is that the military is said to be better-trained in riot control and the use of non-lethal force to control or disperse crowds than in 1988. Although some might have wondered whether allowing the demonstrations, which began August 13 or 14, to go on so long was a sign of the regime's getting soft, the story suggests that the military's desire to hold onto power at all costs is as strong as ever -- indeed it might be the only thing the regime believes in.

A piece yesterday by TNR's Joshua Kurlantzick, who's done good reporting from several south Asian countries, is likewise discouraging. He explains the parallels between now and 1988, when similar demonstrations led to 3,000 people being slaughtered.

I still think it's possible -- if the media goes into "world-is-watching" mode and focuses intently on Burma for a while, even if Paris or Britney does something flamboyantly stupid -- that the situation can be resolved peacefully with some hope for reform, perhaps based on a pragmatic desire to attract more diverse investors. I doubt the regime will give up power or be toppled, but it might loosen the reins a bit, if it can be convinced that's the best way to hang onto power. Hardly an ideal outcome, but it would be better than a bloodbath, which is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Anti-federalists were prophetic

Here's a link to the piece in the Register today by Gary Galles, who teaches economics at Pepperdine and has made something of a specialty of pieces filled with quotes by libertarian predecessors both well-known and undeservedly obscure. In this piece he argues that the anti-federalists, the Americans who opposed the Constitution because it granted too much power to the central government, which was likely to grow into something oppressive, were modest prophets. They had it right, Prof. Galles contends, except that they couldn't even imagine the reach of today's omnipresent warfare/welfare/nanny state.

Quote of the Day

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C.S. Lewis

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

Who knows how the Supreme Court would rule if -- when -- it gets the case? But it's nice to see a federal judge rule that the parts of the Patriot Act authorizing unwarranted search and seizure are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is confused enough that it probably provides precedent for almost any judicial course of action. The Drug War has contributed mightily to the erosion of protection from unwarranted search and seizure, so who knows how the high court might rule in this case, involving Brandon Mayfield who, in a marvelous show of investigative incompetence, was erroneously linked to the Madrid bombings. The court could rule that his rights were violated without necessarily invalidating the NSA surveillance program. At least it's a show of judicial independence at the "lower" levels of the court system.

Eye on the Empire

Here's a link to the Register blog, "Eye on the Empire," which I also write. I comment on Burma, attacks in Iraq, and the announcement by Kuwait that it would not let its territory, which was liberated from Saddam by the U.S. and used as a launching pad for the invasion of Iraq, be used for an attack on Iran. Interesting development, but I don't know if that by itself will prevent a war.

Iraq war and Scottish independence

Here's a piece with an interesting premise. Will the Iraq war lead to Scottish independence? Ben Crair at TNR makes a pretty persuasive case , with tongue hardly ever in cheek, for such a "butterfly effect." In May the pro-independence Scottish National Party, won control of the Scottish parliament. An essentially one-issue party, it promptly called for a referendum on Scottish indedpendnce from Great Britain. The party won, however, because during the election campaign it focused on its opposition to the Blair government and its war in Iraq, which is deeply unpopular throughout the UK, but probably especially so in Scotland. It's not certain that independence would win in a referendum, but it it's not beyond possibility. Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe it won't ever happen. But the Iraq war does seem to have played a role in pushing the issue up on the agenda at least.

Ahmadinejad's appearances

I was gone and had nothing to do with it, but I was pleased and proud that the Register resisted the urge to participate in the orgy of lamenting that the Iranian leader was given a forum like Columbia University in which to hold forth. We argued that allowing him such a forum was not a sad commentary on America but a happy one, suggesting that this is still a reasonably open society. It's too bad some Americans would like to see it more closed. Columbia being a tax-supported institution, one legislator threatened to cut off funds. The more dictators are exposed to open forums and sharp questioning, as happened at this event, the better.

Iraq bills coming due

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking Congress for $190 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, up from a February estimate of just over $140 billion. That's on top of $450 billion already spent on the Iraq war alone. Remember when former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was drummed out of the administration shortly after being so rash as to suggest that the Iraq war might cost as much as -- gasp! -- $100-200 billion? If only.

Antiwar demonstrations

I promised to write more extensively on the antiwar demonstration I observed in D.C. on the 16th. I hope this link to the piece I did for Antiwar.com fulfills the promise. I was struck by how blase the tourists on the Mall were about the whole thing. I thought it was refreshing to have interrupted my note-taking with a quick trip to the most recently built wing of the art museum (the Hischhorn, I think) and an exhibit of late 19th-century paintings. I noticed that a number of the demonstrators took time out for a museum break as well. They had to leave their signs outside, but the guards were polite about that.

You get your bags searched going into a museum in this post-9/11 world, at least in the heart of democracy that is our nation's capital. It's not a major problem -- I wouldn't be tempted to carry firearms and contraband on a touristy venture anyway -- but at a deeper level it's discomfiting that such minor invasions of privacy are accepted as normal in "free"America. Once such intrusions are in place, they are seldom lessened, even if the justification for the original decision disappears into the mists of history. It has to be expensive. Will the expense lead to elimination in 20 years or so? Or will it still be considered vital to national security?

Back at the old stand

We got back from our trip to Buffalo late last night, dog-tired after a two-stop flight from Buffalo that kept us engaged in traveling for about nine hours. Even though lengthy, the Soutwest flight was almost pleasant. The flight attendants have a sense of humor and almost make it fun to fly. Even the TSA folks weren't especially surly.

Anyway, we got the last (I think) of Jen's cousins likely to demand our attendance at a wedding properly and I think and hope, happily, married. As our present Jen did the wedding cake, which was an all-day proposition involving me and some other drafted assistants. It turned out nicely. We also spent a day traipsing through the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, including lunch overlooking the river at, as I remember, the Queen's Landing Hotel, and of course the Falls, close-up. Wonderful day.

Enough of the travelogue, events demand attention

Analyzing Petraeus

Here's a link to the piece I did for this last Sunday's Commentary section in the Register on Gen. Petraeus's presentations and the prospects in Iraq. I am still one of the few to have wondered whether this reliance on a (up until now) widely respected general to sell policy (rather than to implement the president's plan) could mark a further erosion of the tradition of civilian control of the military. Because his credibility is so close to non-existent, President Bush needed Gen. Petraeus more than the good general needed him. He didn't stage a coup or anything, but he was certainly elevated in status.

It's inevitable, of course, that when you start wars generals are going to become more prominent than, say, microbiolgists or ordinary members of Congress -- though not more so than Britney or Paris. But it's worthwhile keeping the principle of civilian control in mind as we go forward, and copmmenting when it seems to erode.

A long haul coming

Here's a link to the Register editorial responding to Gen. David Petraeus's appearances before Congress. We don't see much likelihood of getting out of Iraq soon. Will anybody remember, next time some morons beat the war drums, how much differently this war turned out than advertised? Wars are messy and unpredictable, although in a general way it wasn't that hard to predict that this one would turn out badly. When you do something aggressive and unjustified the world -- by which I don't mean the vaunted "international community" but the way the world works, with effect following cause and all that -- exacts a price,

More trouble in Baghdad

So the president and the general say that things are starting to improve in Iraq, and what happens? The civilian security contractor Blackwater gets into a firefight and a bunch of Iraqi civilians are killed and Iraqis get so restive that all U.S. personnel are ordered not to venture out of the infamous Green Zone, which is heavily but not perfectly fortified. That's not exactly huge progress in the winning hearts and minds department.

I don't know more than what has been in the news about the incident, which means I don't know very much for sure. I have a book about Blackwater I've been meaning to get around to, but several other books have managed to get ahead of it in the queue.

I'm not saying the president and the general were necessarily lying, but they certainly put a more optimistic spin on things than was likely warranted. It's nice to hear that they didn't move opinion polls, but it's hard to see how the numbers in Congress are likely to create the possibility of doing anything other than what the Bushlet decides to do.

Travelin' man

Didn't have computer access (I could have brought a laptop, I suppose, but I didn't) but I had a wonderful time. Perhaps the two are not unrelated?

I got back late, late last night -- past midnight at LAX and then an almost two-hour drive home -- and had to spend much of the day today doing errands and getting ready to leave again. We're going to Buffalo for my wife's cousins' wedding, and she's making the cake, so it's going to be a busy time too. But I think I'll be able to blog from there.

I was in Washington, DC for a seminar put on by the Institute for Humane Studies and Liberty Fund on world trade and globalization. I think I have more good reasons to favor both, but we didn't find the "killer" argument that would make resistance melt away. It would have to be a nuanced one, unfortunately; no phenomenon doesn't have costs as well as benefits, but the benefits (to me) so outweigh the costs that it's difficult to see why more people don't agree.

I also observed the antiwar march Saturday afternoon down Pennsylvania Ave. from the White House to the Capitol, and I'll have a more detailed report in a separate post. The policemen I talked to estimated the crowd at 10,000-15,000. It was mostly well run, though a few were arrested (probably on purpose). Sadly, I have a hard time seeing it make any difference when it comes to U.S. policy.

Bush just pathetic

I probably shouldn't admit it, but there's something about watching President Bush deliver a speech these days that just sets my teeth on edge. He really should have let this be "Petraeus week," given his overreliance on the general to give his administration a modicum of credibility. But apparently, like any number of mediocrities who at some below-conscious level are afraid others will outshine them, he had to have his moment in the spotlight, to assert that he is the Decider.

He told us nothing we didn't know tonight. We'll be in Baghdad at least as long as he is president, and he explicitly talked about the commitment going into the next administration. He mentioned nothing about anything resembling diplomatic efforts. And he has that almost patronizing way about him, a bit like your worst caricature of some third-grade teacher who feels he/she has to talk down and stretch out the words so the poor little dears will grasp the complex concepts being presented.

Setback in Anbar?

Waiting for my ride to the airport so I might as well post some.

It's tragic, but probably not all that surprising, that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik in Anbar who had taken a leading role in organizing tribal groups against al-Qaida in Iraq and appeared with Bush during his Labor Day stopover in Anbar, was killed at his home today. It happened the same day another news story said al-Qaida in Iraq took heavy losses in a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid north of Baghdad, but also the same day it appeared that a compromise on a law to share oil revenues in Iraq appeared to be falling apart.

Abu Risha looked like your classic handsome Sheik of Araby. A junior member of the anti-Qaida coalition did say the group will strike back, persevere and not be deterred. But it will be a while before we know whether this is really true or not. I have little doubt that al-Qaida, especially if its backs are to the wall, is prepared to be quite ruthless.

President Bush may be able to sustain optimism, but it's difficult for some of us who believe our perspective is more reality-based, to expect even a modicum of stability, let alone an ally in the "war on terror." I would like to be wrong, but I don't think so.

Intermittent at best

I will probably be away from this for a while. Can you stand it? I'm going to Washington -- Babylon-on-the-Potomac -- tomorrow night for a weekend Institute for Humane Studies seminar/discussion on free trade and globalization. I'm not sure just what kind of computer access I'll have back there, though I'm equipped with the access codes if I get access. I should come back loaded for bear on those topics -- with any luck having learned some things I didn't know before. After that we're headed to Buffalo for a wedding of -- I think it's Jen's neice, but maybe second cousin? I'll be home Tuesday and Wednesday, and maybe will be able to blog from Buffalo, but I can't promise just yet.