FUTURE BUREAUCRAT

Finally - some rational thinking on Iran: Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek.

There is a fascinating set of articles in Technology Review (via Geekpress) on the effect of “Quants” on the financial markets.

In a guest post on Juan Cole’s blog, Informed Comment, Jerry Eagan has an insightful analysis of our current options in Iraq. In particular, he draws attention to some disturbing trends. Has the Bush Administration made a strategic choice to align itself with the Sunnis in the sectarian conflict in Iraq? And given that the Shiite-Kurdish leadership was democratically elected, is the U.S. attempting to subvert the new Iraqi democracy? And if we are creating Sunni militias, what does that mean for Iran? Will al-Maliki ask for Iranian help in stabilizing the Basra region after the British withdrawal? Have we in fact scripted a confrontation with Iran at the expense of Iraq’s stability?

Uzodinma Iweala, author of the novel “Beasts of No Nation”, published an editorial piece in the Washington Post on Sunday. In it he recounts the experience of being “accosted” by a college-age peace activist seeking to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Apparently this episode offended him. Iweala claims that the West, “wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created” in Iraq and the Middle East, has now “turned to Africa for redemption.” Iweala’s theory is that the campaigns to ‘Save Africa’ are self-serving attempts to make the campaigners feel better about themselves, while promoting stereotypes of Africans as underfed, helpless and diseased. He goes on to question whether aid to Africa is given for the ‘right’ reason, or “given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority.” In other words, white people give aid to Africa to make themselves feel better than black Africans.

Mr. Iweala, please. Let’s be real here.

Continue Reading »

As if I needed another reason to vote against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary…

I don’t of course.  However, Ted Koppel gave me something else to think about with regard to her campaign statements on Iraq.

Even though I’m a lawyer, I have to admit that I didn’t catch Hillary’s cute play on words with regard to the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Hillary has been stating quite often that if she is elected President, she will “pull our troops out of Iraq” and “bring our troops home” and “end the war.”

If you look closely at her choice of words, however, you will see that she does not actually commit herself to anything. As Koppel points out, she does not commit to pulling ALL troops out of Iraq after she is elected. She has even hedged her popular applause lines by telling the New York Times that she “would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.” Sounds an awful lot like our current policy, doesn’t it? And how exactly would a reduced force accomplish all those tasks at the same time?

It wouldn’t of course. Hillary is just as confused as all of our politicians on how best to solve the terrible situation in Iraq, but she is more willing than most to capitalize on an anti-war sentiment to score political points on the campaign trail. True to form, however, she has no intention of actually doing anything to stop the bloodshed once the election is over.

There are a number of good stories this morning on the reality Americans soldiers face as they conduct “The Surge.”

Garrett Therolf in the LA Times writes about the troubles of an American platoon guarding an Iraqi police compound in Baghdad.

Damien Cave in the NY Times witnessed an attack on an American patrol near Mahmudiya, resulting in at least one dead soldier and a number of wounded:

Huge, strong men hugged, tears streaming down their faces. When it was not clear whether the seriously wounded soldier on the ground would make it, “I love you” was said repeatedly…

An interesting leak appeared this morning in the Scotsman newspaper:

GORDON Brown will remove all British forces from Iraq before the next election under a plan to rebuild support among disillusioned Labour voters.  Scotland on Sunday can reveal the Prime Minister elect is working on a withdrawal plan that could see troop numbers slashed from 7,000 to as few as 2,000 within 12 months.

Not very surprising, is it? The plan is similar to the plan being proposed by Demoratic senators here in the US. The next election in Britain must take place before Spring of 2010, which will give the new US President about a year in office. Brown’s gesture is obviously symbolic: it shows the Bush Administration that he is not supportive of an open-ended commitment in Iraq; it seeks to repair the breach between Labour and the British public over the war; it severs the policies of the Brown government from the policies of the previous administration.

Of course this won’t stop the calls of retreat from the American right, but I’m sure Brown is prepared to weather the storm. By all accounts Labour is losing support among the British public and Brown must take steps to preserve a Labour government . In this context it is a smart move. (Are you taking notes Democrats?) The last thing he wants is to take ownership of the Iraq disaster. By making clear his intention to withdrawal, Brown has ensured that the British public sees Iraq as “Blair’s War.”

How soon one forgets. Was it only a few weeks ago that Vice President Cheney, et al., were attacking Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for traveling to Damascus to meet with Syrian officials? Actually it was precisely one month ago today.

How, then, can the administration now publicize a meeting between Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem on the sidelines of a regional summit on Iraq?

The administration did not decide in the last few weeks that it would undertake talks with Syria. I’m certain of that. The administration must have known during Speaker Pelosi’s trip that it would soon engage in dialogue with the Syrians, if it was not already doing so. The fact that Vice President Cheney attacked her for engaging in “bad behavior” for doing just this - well, I’m not really surprised any longer.

In my view, the administration’s attack on Pelosi can have only three explanations. The first, and most benign, is that the administration believed that Pelosi would undermine its negotiating position in some way. If this was the case, there was a simple solution: talk with Speaker Pelosi and make sure they were on the same page. As far as I know they did not do that. The second reason is that the administration wanted to score a diplomatic victory by appearing to reverse course and taking a softer stance toward the Syrians. They were therefore angry when Speaker Pelosi went to Syria as she was stealing a little bit of their thunder. Third, and most plausible, the administration took advantage of Speaker Pelosi’s trip to score some cheap, domestic political points. This was possibly the only opportunity in recent memory for the administration to attack concrete Democratic actions in the realm of foreign policy. Does it matter that those actions were actually consistent with the priorities of the administration? Of course not.

The Bush Administration never ceases to amaze.

(cont. from section 1)

So what is backdating? Why is it a problem? Where is the illegal conduct?

Let’s start at the bottom again. The most common conduct alleged in backdating options involves companies or individuals setting the date (and therefore the exercise price) of an option grant at some arbitrary point in the past when the company’s shares were trading at a discount. Backdating is essentially cherry-picking the price the option recipient will pay in order to maximize his or her profit when the options are exercised. Continue Reading »

The news from Zimbabwe is depressing. The most recent crackdown, which began with the arrest and brutal beating of opposition supporters three weeks ago, has accelerated the country’s meltdown and completed its transition from democracy to dictatorship. In a matter of a few years, Zimbabwe has gone from an island of stability and prosperity in Southern Africa to a complete disaster. Inflation is astronomical, unemployment is the norm, services like healthcare are virtually gone, and refugees have begun streaming across the borders into neighboring South Africa. Zimbabwe is no longer a diplomatic crisis, it is a humanitarian crisis.

And the reaction of African leaders? Silence. Indifference. Indulgence. Continue Reading »