Cynical Optimist

OK, so the U.S. is spending billions and billions of dollars fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban on the other hand, are not spending nearly that much. Of course not. They don’t have that much.

The Taliban get whatever funds they need from the poppy trade. Or at least a good chunk of it. The Taliban impose a tax on poppy farmers who produce opium and also on the drug traffickers to finance their insurgency.

OK, the farmers who grow this stuff are not bad people. They’re not idealogues who grow it because they want to destroy Western societies. They don’t grow it because they support the Taliban. They don’t grow it so they can get rich.

They grow it because they have to survive, somehow, and growing poppy pays better than growing other crops. These are dirt poor people, and like dirt poor people everywhere, they will do what they have to do to survive.

The U.S. Government, in it’s infinite wisdom, has decided that the proper way to eliminate this source of Taliban financing is to engage in the same sort of policies that have been used in the “War on Drugs” for so many years, namely crop eradication. We have seen how successful these policies have been in that War.

This isn’t a plea for the legalization of illicit drugs. Drugs are a scourge on society and their use should be curbed. It is a plea for the adoption of sane policies that result in the elimination of the Taliban as a threat.

We have to ask ourselves, in the case of Afghanistan, what is more important? Doing the “right” thing or doing the “practical” thing? Does it make more sense to just buy the crop from the growers and then destroy it, or engage in eradication policies that have not proven effective anywhere else. It’s for sure that it would be cheaper.

UPDATE: Thomas Schweich has written a interesting article in The New York Times talking about the Narco trade in Afghanistan. See it here.

Tags: War by Cynical Optimist
No Comments »

I know it’s been said many times before by politicians (and I’m not a politician) but I really think the corner has been turned in Iraq. Not only because the Sunni’s have come around, even agreeing to participate in the government, but also because the recent fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces, and the Mahdi Army, al-Sadr’s personal army, have not created nearly the uproar it did previously. Oh, sure, the media made all the right noises, but this time no one listened, and the Iraqi Gov’t forces were able to continue their push in Basra to a successful conclusion. The same for Sadr City in Baghdad, where fighting continues.

In previous battles with the Mahdi Army, American forces essentially had to withdraw from battle because of the uproar being generated in the media and elsewhere. Could it be that public opinion, in Iraq and elsewhere, now see Moktada al-Sadr as part of the problem and not the solution? Are the members of the Mahdi Army now seen, rightfully, as nothing more than criminal thugs?

It’s not over of course. There will be more battles, more casualties. The Iraqi Gov’t may or may not maintain control of Basra. My guess is probably not. At least not this time. Insurgencies are so difficult because insurgents can melt away in the heat of battle, only to return and regain control later. But, the Iraqi Gov’t forces have proven (although with some difficulties) that they can accomplish their objectives, and this is a big improvement.

Edit: Almost a full month ago I posted the above message. It was at the height of the fighting in Sadr Ciry and fighting was still going on in Basra. Now Time Magazine has this report that essentially agrees with my assessment of the situation.
“Now with the situation quieter, and Sadr politically weakened following his military clash with Maliki, Sistani seems poised to renew a larger political role for himself.”
The story is mainly about Sistani coming back to the center of attention with the undercurrent being that Sadr has been marginalized, which is why Sistani could do it.

You have to love the ebb and flow of middle east politics.

Tags: War by Cynical Optimist
No Comments »

Back in the ’70’s there were dire predictions from the climatoligists saying that a new ice age had begun, so we had better start preparing. This wasn’t one prediction, but a string of them.

But it was wrong. Come to find out, the earth was in a temporary cooling period from the mid 1940’s to the mid ’70’s, making it look like a trend towards colder temperatures. So, the experts said a new ice age had begun. Then temperatures came back up to the mean, and then went higher than the mean. And apparently they are still going higher than the mean. Apparently.

Now the experts say the Earth is warming, and if we don’t change our ways, floods, drought, crop failures, etc., etc., ad nauseam, will occur.

Apparently, there isn’t as much mayhem (and research money) resulting from a big freeze as there would be from rising temperatures, so that’s the way the discussions turned. They explained away their projections from the ’70’s (and villified the new ice age theory’s proponents.)

But, and here’s the thing, the temperature mean keeps shifting. If you look at a graph of temperature changes, you have to remember that those numbers are in relation to the baseline period used. Sometimes the baseline is 1961 - 1990, sometimes 1951 to 1980, and sometimes 1931 - 1960. If you change the baseline, you can change the conclusions of the graph.

That means when you see a media report saying year x was the warmest ever recorded, or 8 of the last 10 years were the warmest on record, they are using data compared to whatever baseline they used. Furthermore, if the period from the 1940’s to 1970’s are recognized, which they are, to be cooler than normal, does it make any sense at all to use that data in ANY baseline?

There are about 150 years worth of reliable measured temperature records. Even if you consider that techniques and devices were not as accurate in the early days of measurement, doesn’t it make far more sense to use a longer baseline to smooth out fluctuations? How do you know mean temperatures are rising if you’re comparing to a number known to be low? This “graph” perfectly illustrates my point. It looks scary doesn’t it? But, if you read the notes you’ll see that it’s nothing more than a comparison to the baseline years 1961 to 1990.

Why do all the baselines contain parts of the cool period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s? Why don’t they show actual temperatures? Could it be that it’s easier to shrink the scale and make it look scarier?

Additionally, the earth’s weather has long term trends and short term trends, and scientists can’t distinguish between the two. So, the current warming trend, if it actually exists, could be a short term trend while the long term trend could result in cooling, or even no change at all. No one really knows.

I smell money. Any time someone tries to sell you something, they’re doing it for money. And Global Warming is where the money is if you are a researcher in that field, and researchers need to eat too.

You hear reports in the media that the field is unanimous about Global Warming, so it must be so. This assertion is patently false. It’s a myth started by Al Gore in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” What they don’t tell you about is all the researchers that have learned to keep their mouths shut and get on the team, and/or don’t get interviewed because they’re not selling the right product.

I think a more likely explanation is the earth’s natural variability.

Tags: Global Warming by Cynical Optimist
1 Comment »

What is it about our culture in the U.S. that devalues intelligence, achievement and education?

Oh, I know we say all the right things, but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is there any doubt that the smart kids in school are looked down upon? Is there any doubt that people are still amazed that Bill Gates, the smartest kid on his block, became the richest man in the world? How can this be, we ask? He’s such a geek.

In most other countries in the world, education is seen as the path to a better life. Kids work hard to achieve goods grades so they can go to college, get a good job, and help their family’s climb a few more steps up the economic ladder.

And in the U.S.?

I could easily blame this on the influence of the rap/hip hop culture, but that wouldn’t be valid. It was the same way when I was in high school back in the ’70’s. It’s just worse now.

We’ve created a culture where being “popular” and “cool” is more desirable than being educated. Innately “smart” kids sometimes go out of their way to hide their intelligence so they can be popular.

We need to think about where this will take us down the road. Already, if you look closely, you can see the beginnings of the devolving of American society.

While we focus on getting rich, famous and being cool, foreign kids are coming here and getting degrees that will eventually propel their countries ahead of ours.

Tags: Random Thoughts by Cynical Optimist
No Comments »