The WSJ reports that the “Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online.”

Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like “hid[ing] the decline,” referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data.

In all, it seems there are more than 3,000 files in the hacked folders, which have been reposted in various places on the Internet.

The big Copenhagen summit had lost a lot of its appeal in recent days, as world leaders kept dialing down expectations for the climate talks. Maybe this will spice things up.

James Delingpole at the Telegraph thinks it may be “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’” but adds “there are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.” While the leaked documents and emails strongly suggest that Global Warmists have been taking the public for a ride, the news is as likely to be welcomed as a belated discovery that Karl Marx was actually a stockbroker. It is likely to be denied and the critics who use the leaked documents will be mercilessly attacked. So Delingpole is probably right in believing that there’s too much riding on Global Warming for its political support to die quickly. For example,  Herman Van Rompuy, the new President of the European Union “talked of funding social welfare from new green taxes and went on to discuss ‘financing levies at European level’, which his spokesman said later was similar to Gordon Brown’s call for an international tax on financial transactions.” France plans to levy $29 on every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

“The gravest challenge that we face is climate change… Every one of our compatriots must feel concerned,” Mr Sarkozy said in a televised speech aimed at winning over a sceptical public. …

Mr Sarkozy faces an uphill battle to convince voters to accept the plan. An opinion poll by Ifop for the magazine Paris Match, published this week, found that 65 per cent of people were hostile to the tax.

“The aim of ecological fiscal policy is not to fill state coffers but to incite French people and companies to change their behaviour,” Mr Sarkozy said, adding that households that keep energy consumption low could end up better off financially.

These multibillion dollar funding schemes are unlikely to end simply because an inconvenient truth has been discovered. The New York Times described the cast of characters waiting for endorsement at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Jobs, careers, fame and fortune — parties and stretch limos, private jets and yachts — are all waiting on the speaking of a few words.

There are some new industries that do stand to gain more directly from Copenhagen, however. Carbon traders will also be at the meetings, and hungry for the expansion of their business. … “If you had to pick one industry that is most ‘leveraged’ to an agreement in Copenhagen, it would be this industry that develops, finances or buys credits from greenhouse gas reduction projects internationally, outside the U.S.” … “If there is an agreement in the near term with the U.S. as a partner, domestic projects and investments to reduce emissions could well be eligible for the international carbon market,” Mr. Rau said. “That would spawn a whole industry here.”

Even if the Global Warming industry were to die today, a lot of “Green” investment is already out there and unless the band keeps playing the music will stop. For that reason the bandmaster, however weary his arms will be prodded to keep waving the baton. He must protect the investment.  “After 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, Mr. Rau said, the value of the investments in developing countries will be uncertain, and if the uncertainty is prolonged, it can hurt investment.” Keep playing, bandmaster.

The BBC says the police are now busy hunting down the CRU hackers. The Center itself gravely informed the public that it could not vouch for the veracity of the leaked material posted online. “”Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.” There were tantalizing hints that the leak was inside job. “We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.”

The Guardian quotes Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics as saying “It does look incriminating on the surface but there are lots of single sentences that, taken out of context, can appear incriminating. You can’t tell what they are talking about. Scientists say ‘trick’ not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something – a short cut can be a trick.”

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Politics is in many ways the bloodless — and sometimes not so bloodless — equivalent of war. Clausewitz believed politics and war fed into each other. It was an ongoing process, not a single event. That meant that actors were free to act on the flow of conflict as it went along. The hacking incident at the CRU will not end the Global Warming War, but it was part of it. The drive to control and tax human behavior will probably continue unabated. But so will resistance to it.

James Delingpole is probably also right in asserting that however dismissive the Global Warmists may publicly be of the CRU hack, the smoke of doubt has entered the temple.  Even the European public is beginning to suspect that AGW really means “All Your Gold Belong to We”.  The Telegraph’s Delingpole says, “if you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.” Well maybe not now, but you might want to start thinking about diversifying your Green portfolio.   Nuclear power, anybody?

Each political dollar has a history. It comes from a variety of sources, each restricted in its own way. Some money can only be spent for party activities.  Other monies can be counted toward promoting issues. A relatively small amount of money can be used to explicitly elect or defeat a candidate for political office. This is called “hard money”. “Soft money” on the other hand is the general term given to funds that can be used for “other activities not directly related to the election of specific candidates.” In order to have a sufficient number of dollars for a variety of purposes each candidate must be able to draw from a variety of financial springs if he is not to go dry.

Viewed from the other side of the transaction, political money represented a similarly semantic but by no means symmetrical aspect.  In the eyes of contributors, political money provids a means to an end: to cleanse or corrupt; to obstruct tyranny and further its ends; to build a railway through a town or around it,  according to the intent of those who offered it up. If money was the original sin of political life  it was also the most common vehicle for reform. To some money was a ticket to hell; to others it paved the road to heaven.  The same dollar bill could assume as many meanings as those who gave or took it intended.  It was all things to all men in the hope that it would somehow save some.

Although the vast majority of political contributions in the US comes from individual donations, political action committees (PAC) play an important role. Like many other structures in the campaign funding universe the PAC evolved as an adaptation to restrictions.  “The PAC was created in 1944 by the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)  … to contribute money to pro-union candidates for office and to get around the Smith-Connally Act, which banned direct union contributions to candidates. Business groups began to create PACs in the 1960s and 1970s to counter the strength of the union PACs.”

From the signalling point of view the difference between a PAC and individual contributions is smaller than it may seem. As important as the spending power of money itself is the message that comes with it. Individual contributions are often “bundled” — “campaigns seek out ‘bundlers,’ people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.”

One of the most important things “bundling” does is communicate what the money is for. It gives money meaning. It delivers information in addition to cash; it tells the politician why he is being supported with the implicit expectation that he will return the favor. Without a label, political money conveys very little information. It’s no surprise that most of the major players in the Washington DC policy universe are  represented by explicitly flagged PACs. There are major business PACs like the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders or the United Parcel Service. There are major union PACs like the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the SEIU, UAW or the Teamsters. There are even “leadership PACs” which are organized by major political figures to demonstrate how they can distribute largesse to their favored proteges. Charlie Rangel has his National Leadership PAC. Nancy Pelosi runs her PAC to the Future.

Leadership PACs are about showing who’s boss. “Federal politicians — senators and representatives — often form what is called a Leadership PAC to, among other things, raise money to help fund other candidate campaigns. Politicians often do this because they have their eye on a leadership position in Congress or a higher office.” In politics conveying the origins of money is almost as important as conveying the money itself. Money by itself would have little corrupting or persuasive influence in government. It is knowing who it is from that does the trick. When you get money from a PAC there is no doubt who it’s from. There should be little doubt what it is for. This is a feature and not a bug.

The purest signalling mechanisms are PACs which promote ideas. They promote ideologies. Examples of these are Moveon.org, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the National Rifle Association, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and many others. Each of these signals support for an idea and backs those politicians who best advance their cause. Some examples should make this clear. At this writing, Moveon.Org has the following petitions up on its site, each one calculated to further its ideology. Here is what it says on Health Care “reform”.

The AMA is a leading member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending millions attacking the health care bill as a crushing tax increase. As a medical professional, you have a powerful voice for reform. Can you sign our petition urging the AMA to stop funding opposition to health care reform and quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Here is what Moveon.org says on Afghanistan. “President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. He needs to hear that we need an exit strategy—not tens of thousands more troops stuck in a quagmire.” Here is what it says about attempts to curb abortion. “Conservatives forced a dangerous anti-choice amendment into the House health care bill. But we can stop it from being included in the final legislation if we speak up. Can you write a letter to your local paper today?” It’s democracy in action. Most attempts to regulate political money have been rebuffed on the grounds that it infringes on Free Speech. Buckley vs Valeo set limits on campaign contributions in the compelling public interest of preventing corruption, but also ruled “that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech”.  Moveon.org is not shy about expressing what it wants.

It would have been remarkable if the current mood of dissatisfaction with Washington did not find expression in a PAC. The Tea Parties and the dissatisfaction with RINOs are proof of a genuine political movement. It could only be a matter of time before it found expression. In one of democracy’s deepest ironies, that meant it would eventually have to create a PAC to raise money in support of those who pledge to carry out the aims of the program. The Citizen Leader Political Action Committee (or CLAPAC) has been established to promote that kind of program. Long-time commenter Leo Linbeck III is on the board of CLAPAC. Its goals are straightforward and almost diametrically opposed to those of Moveon.org.

• Limited Government  — Government is a monopoly, and like all monopolies tends toward corruption and exploitative behavior. By necessity, therefore, the scope and scale of government must be limited. Limited government requires eternal vigilance through active participation in the political process by private sector leaders.
• Individual Liberty — The United States was founded on the idea that the citizen is sovereign. Governments must be committed to the cultivation and protection of individual liberty, and its matched pair, individual responsibility. Our political system must serve the people, not rule them.
• Free Enterprise & Free Trade — The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. Entrepreneurs, who use markets to create and capture value, are a critical driver of this progress. To improve the condition of its citizens, a nation needs a legal and social framework that encourages and rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship, and harnesses comparative advantage.
• Economic Growth — Economic growth is essential to the flourishing of a nation. Efficient tax policy, stable and well-defined property rights, rational and restrained regulation, and freedom from the distortions of government encroachment on the private sector are prerequisites for the expansion of the economy and the national wealth.

It’s a manifesto that many might sympathize with. But in the real world of politics that means it must create a signaling mechanism to donate semantic money;  to raise funds with an attached label.  SEIU, Nancy Pelosi, the American Bankers Association and Moveon.org all do it.  Now the CitizenLeader Political Action Committee has established itself as a vehicle for expressing part of the dissatisfaction with which Washington is viewed these days. There comes a moment in rebellion when those who resist power realize they need some power themselves; just as those who desire peace must sometimes take up the sword. Living in the world by definition puts people in impossible situations. Paul knew the feeling in the realm of religion. Now we know it with respect to politics.

To those who live without the law I have come as one without the law, in order to win those who are without the law — not that I am really under no law in relation to God, for I am bound by the law of Christ. To those who are weak I have made myself weak, so as to win the weak; in fact, I have become all things to all people, in order that, one way or another, I may rescue some of them.

Participating in politics means living in the world of “all men” and what comes with it.

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care. …

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

The solution: provide more of the same defects. Flier asserts that the major problem with the current system is that many parts of it are excessively regulated and dominated by monopolies.  Other critics have also called it overlawyered. But for many advocates of “reform” the real problem is different: there aren’t enough regulations; not enough special interests, not enough lawyers for them.  The answer to the current difficulties is to increase the size of the portions. Dr. Flier says the result will be more expensive health care and fewer and less innovative therapies. Flier tells the public to rig for depth charges, and adds, “we should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.”  But of course we should, how would you otherwise get them to go down it?

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all. … We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.

Keeping the electorate ignorant may after all be the point. Just as institutional food service is often run for the benefit of the cooks and not the diners, institutional health care may actually be intended to serve the System and not the patients. If the whole point of the exercise was to take money and choice away from one set of actors and transfer it to another, the “reform” effort could hardly be bettered.  Reform certainly gives the System more power. Britain’s NHS provides a preview.

The Daily Mail says the British government’s health rationing body, NICE, has decided that 18,000 pounds is too much to pay for extending a liver cancer patient’s life by six months.

Liver cancer sufferers are being condemned to an early death by being denied a new drug on the Health Service, campaigners warn. They criticised draft guidance that will effectively ban the drug sorafenib – which is routinely used in every other country where it is licensed.

Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options. The Government’s rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said the overall cost was ’simply too high’ to justify the ‘benefit to patients’.

But which costs? The Daily Telegraph says data submitted by NICE “shows that supplying the drug to the 600 to 700 people with advanced liver cancer would cost a total of £7.7m. … Nice has decided that the £7.7m would be better spent elsewhere in the NHS, that could be on other cancer treatments, or heart transplants, on intensive care facilties for premature babies, or hip replacements.” Anyone with a calculator can easily determine that the average cost of extending a British liver patient’s cancer patient’s life comes to something more than 130 pounds per day.  Not that cheap, but on the other hand less than many motels charge for a day’s lodging. The Daily Mail argues that the problem really isn’t cost — the real problem is the diffcult of setting up a new bureaucracy to meet the needs of the relatively small and politically underpowered constituency of terminal liver cancer patients.

The problem for campaigners is that liver cancer is not as high profile as breast cancer. This is partly down to the fact that fewer people get cancer of the liver than are diagnosed with breast cancer – around 3,000 a year compared with 45,000.

But that is not the whole story. Breast cancer has two charities fighting its corner – Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Care – both of which attract millions of pounds in donations, and help boost the profile. Other cancers tend to fade into the background. There is, for example, still no prostate cancer screening programme that compares to the major screening programme for breast cancer.

And these practices may already be in America. The Washington Post describes what may be the first of many actions by a government appointed “task force”.

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests. In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.

Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy. …

the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

“Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it,” said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. “It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

With politics in the picture it is not inconceivable that high profile or politically correct diseases will get more dollars; that some patients will be more equal than others. Dean Flier says that bureaucracy will inevitably set “targets” and “averages” and establish themselves to supervise it. The pixel pushers and lawyers would grow in number, almost outpacing the bacteria they are charged to combat. What would decline the most of all, according to Flier, was innovation, an area in which the Cato Institute says the US currently leads the world. “In three of the four general categories of innovation … — basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics — the United States has contributed more than any other country, and in some cases, more than all other countries combined.”

But the best prism through which to view these developments isn’t ethics, as Dr. Kopans believes. It is our old friend the principal-agent problem. When the actual market for health care “reform” is understood, its outputs — less care, higher costs, more bureaucracy, less innovation — are readily understood.  Monopoly rents and government jobs are the natural outputs of a system whose main customers are lawyers, insurance companies, bureaucrats, doctors and only patients as an afterthrough. The patients will have the smallest market power. And after the “reform” is completed they may have little or none at all, which leaves the resources open for division among the remaining players. As long as the patient had some way of influencing the agent, like his doctor for example, the link between the sick person and the system was direct and responded somewhat to demand. In a completely bureaucratized system the patient’s interests will be represented only diffusely, through giant boards, task forces, insurance companies, lawyers and bodies like NICE. And in the nature of things his agents may begin to operate the system entirely for their own benefit. The patient will become the forgotten principal, a pathetic dying thing to be trotted out in the service of this or that agenda, but useless otherwise.

Once the relative market power of parties under the “reformed” system is understood, everything follows directly. As in every industry dominated by monopolies, innovation will shrivel. The medical equivalent of more chrome and styling will be trotted out each year over the same old chassis. Lawyers and special interests will gorge themselves at the trough. Bureaucracies will get bigger. Hospital wards may decline in size but forms will multiply like a contagion. Britain’s NHS boast that “only the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the Wal-Mart supermarket chain and the Indian Railways directly employ more people” speaks volumes. But of the patient? Well if you’ve got terminal liver cancer in the UK, then a hundred and thirty odd pounds a day may be too much to keep you alive, not because the money isn’t available, but because it’s bureaucratically unobtainable. When you aim to be like the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, then some recruit is bound to write to mother and say, “the food in this camp is absolute poison. And such small portions.”

Jean-Louis Bruguière, who retired in 2007 after 15 years as chief investigating judge for counter-terrorism, reached this conclusion after interrogating a French militant who had been trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba and arrested in Australia in 2003. … Willy Brigitte, the suspect, told Mr Bruguière, that the Pakistani military were running the Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp where he spent 2½ months in 2001-02. Along with two Britons and two Americans, Brigitte was driven in a 4×4 through army roadblocks to the high-altitude camp where more than 2,000 men were being trained by Pakistani regular army officers, he said.

“When the camp was resupplied, all the materiel was dropped off by Pakistani army helicopters. And there were regular inspections by the Pakistani Army and the CIA.”

The US agency carried out spot checks to ensure that Pakistan was sticking to an agreement not to train any foreigners at the militant organisation, the judge said. “After 9/11, the Americans put pressure on the Pakistani Government to put more effective controls on the activities of the Islamic organisations linked to al-Qaeda,” he said. Mr Brigitte, originally from the French West Indies, and other foreign personnel were moved out to another camp when the CIA was due to visit, Mr Bruguière said. (Emphasis mine)

The Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) was primarily directed against India and Kashmir.  Despite attempts to keep them in the bottle, like irrepressible genies they kept leaking out. As late as 2008, the NYT reported that the Pakistani Army was still providing support for it; as investigations on the attack on Mumbai re-surfaced the hand of Pakistani intelligence. Nor was this all. The NYT also reported it to be active against Indian targets in Afghanistan. Clearly the LET’s ambitions were global in character.  Wikipedia entry reports that computer records seized after the attack on Mumbai surfaced a list of 320 targets which were suitable for attacks worldwide. Only 20 were in India.

American intelligence officials say they believe that links remain between Lashkar and the ISI, and that the spy agency has helped support the militant group for the past several years by sharing intelligence and providing protection. But American officials say they also believe that the spy agency has become more careful to mask its ties with militants since this summer, when American officials accused the spy agency of involvement in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan.

“Careful to mask” is not the same as “careful to stop”. But can any more be done? One of the oldest approaches to dangerous behavior has been to regulate, rather than proscribe it.  Prohibition showed the difficulties involved in preventing alcohol consumption. Now drinks are simply regulated.  Since enforcing sexual abstinence among young people is deemed to be impractical, condoms are distributed. “If you can’t be good, be careful.” The same strategy is often applied to in foreign affairs. Allies with frightening proclivities are simply told to curb, not stop their activities.  So if Iran can’t be stopped from having nuclear power at least they can be asked to promise not to acquire nuclear weapons. If Pakistan must operate terrorist training camps, at least they can undertake not to train agents aimed at non-Indian targets. But what happens when they cheat? What happens if they are “careful to mask”, but not careful stop? Why then you try and limit their cheating, that’s what, because the West has already admitted by its “engagement” that diplomacy is the game it will play.

And that is a consequence of limits. The West’s diplomatic and military budgets can only supprt a strategy of incrementalism. Politics prevents anything more forceful. That means that since bad trends in the world often cannot be reversed by the means available, they must be palliated. But the disease continues beneath the surface. Countries like Pakistan are like ships slowly settling in the water from a multitude of leaks, but since the wherewithal for rebuilding it in drydock will never become available,  the patchwork of bailing pumps which slows its subsidence might at some pont fail. In the meantime there is nothing to do but wait.

Michael Totten, writing in Commentary, describes how the same bailing process is going on in the Middle East where the nth rerun of the ‘Peace Show’ is underway. Nobody knows what the plot is. Nobody knows if there is a plot. They are just watching it out of habit in case something interesting turns up.

This week the Israeli government announced it will resume negotiations with Syria without preconditions, and the Syrians responded in kind.

Peace talks, if they ever actually start, aren’t going anywhere, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows it. He’s going through the motions so Western diplomats don’t throw him and his country out in the cold. Syria’s Bashar Assad knows it too. He’s going through the motions so that he and his country can come in from the cold.

It has been years since I spoke to a single person in the Middle East who thinks the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved any time soon. Last time I visited Jerusalem with a half-dozen American colleagues, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh bluntly told us to stop asking “What’s the solution?”

“I don’t see a real peace emerging over here,” he said. “We should stop talking about it.”

But the ‘Peace Show’ cast may have nothing else to do, so it goes on. According to the French foreign minister, everyone ought to keep talking about because someday everyone might just surprise themselves and watch it happen. “French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner can’t see the difference between Israeli disillusionment about the prospects for peace and an abandonment of the desire for peace in the abstract.”  Totten argues that the time and energy can be spent elsewhere.

The Middle East will stop performing its “peace process” theater as soon as we stop demanding it. And as soon as we stop demanding it, time, resources, and energy can be spent on something that might be slightly productive. The conflict isn’t resolvable now, but it’s manageable. Even in the Middle East, there is such a thing as damage control.

Under these circumstances two things are possible and even likely: 1) that a crisis will erupt eventually and 2) the crisis will provide at least a momentary increase in the available diplomatic and military resources available to deal with the sinking ship. Rahm Emmanuel argued that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. That is the Gospel according to the opportunist. Well-laid plans to exploit a crisis are probably among the most useful tools available to policy makers who know they will otherwise have the resources to fix a problem from the current account.  They spend their days waiting for the moment when an emergency appropriatiation will be available. In the context of terrorism, this implies that while nobody would wish for such a thing to happen, it might be useful to build bipartisan consensus and do contingency planning in the event of an unforseeable but possible event, such as another mass casualty attack on the US or somewhere else in the West. It is clear that nobody is eliminating the monster, only caging it. The question of what to do if it escapes is always a relevant one.

Answering the question may itself provide benefits. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Third World War never occurred was that strategists disciplined themselves to Think about the Unthinkable. The consequence was that everyone knew what would happen if the central nuclear war monster escaped. And that very knowledge and those very plans may have materially prevented the monster from getting loose. Perhaps the best way to anticipate another outrage from Pakistan or an Iranian nuclear breakout is to anticipate it, at least in a dry and academic way.

The alternative is to leave things to the man who gets the 3 AM call or the emotions of the moment. This may result in an over or under-reaction; a resort to mass hysteria or vigilanteeism or paralysis. But a calm and pre-settled national policy removes a lot of the variance. It morally binds the office-holder to a well thought out plan; it creates the necessary staff work; but most importantly it communicates to the authors of mischief just exactly what happens if they do what they might be thinking.  Spelling out if A then B is a useful thing to say.  Will Pakistan ever stop supporting terrorism? Will Iran stop building the bomb? Will Israel and its neighbors ever make peace? Maybe. What will America do if a bad thing happens? Maybe that deserves some articulation too.

The children of El Paso’s Glen Cove Elementary School have not been told that a gunman shot their classmate dead. Nor have they been told that someone across the Rio Grande in Mexico thought nothing of killing the seven-year-old. Or that the gunman left Jociel Ramierez alone to die, as the blood seeped out of his body on a busy roundabout. … He may not be the first US citizen to be killed in what have been called Mexico’s drug wars, but he probably is the youngest. His death is also a vivid illustration of how low Juarez has fallen, and how little the Mexican authorities seem able do about it.

When Felipe Calderon became president almost three years ago, he declared war on the drug cartels that he blamed for the breakdown of law and order across the country. … The Mexican government believes that given time it will win the fight. … some are beginning to question that certainty … People like Jociel Ramierez’s aunt, who prefers not to be named for fear of retribution, and who has a different solution to the problem: “We have to end corruption, maybe that’s the way to finish it.”

The BBC authors argue that what is fueling corruption — and by extension the drug trade — is poverty. “Poverty is blamed for driving many into the arms of drug cartels.” And poverty, in the eyes of some is the inevitable consequence of globalization. Others however, have taken a different view. Corruption is the problem. In that narrative the arrow of causality goes at least partially in the other direction. Nations are not corrupt because they are poor. Countries are poor because they are corrupt.

“We have an unsustainable economy – a globalised economy – which pays very low wages. That allowed an alternative economy to be created which also globalised – drugs. Both economies are playing here. Juarez is a very important place for both.” … the Mexican economy functions for an elite group – not for the average person. A teacher for instance gets 3,000 pesos every week ($230) – transporting drugs around the country can get you up to 30 times more than that he tells me. Poverty is driving many into the arms of the very cartels the government wants to wipe out. …

Many, though, like the businessman who prefers to remain anonymous, believe it will take something more. “What we need to change is our political model. We need to establish to establish a rule of law that functions, that gives rights to every citizen, so that they are not taken advantage of.”

In many ways the question of which end of the poverty-corruption system to begin represents the central problem in development — and even counterinsurgency — theory. Two economics professors, Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel in a book called Economic Gangsters appear to link the two in the following way: in much of the world there’s simply no incentive to being honest and therefore dishonesty has become a way of life. Anyone who doubts that can simply follow Third World diplomats at the UN as they flick away their parking tickets.

Meet the economic gangster. Hes the United Nations diplomat who double parks his Mercedes on a New York street at rush hour, because the cops can’t touch him — he has diplomatic immunity. He’s the dictator, the warlord, the black marketeers, the unscrupulous bureaucrat who bilks the developing world of billions of aid and keeps many communities in a cycle of violence and poverty.

Now the economic gangster is likely to be the Western diplomat’s friend, if only because that is who commonly must deal with in countries like Mexico. And he is likely to receive sympathetic treatment from members of the Western Press — what with his colorful local costume, quaint accent and penchant for blaming all the ills of the world on the West. But to most of the people in his home country the economic gangster is the man on the big white house on the hill with an army of bodyguards to protect him.

To Professors’s Fisman and Miguel the basic solution is simple: at least the principles were — to use economics to increase the benefits of honesty and increase the costs of dishonesty. They write: “Basic economic principles … can help guide us … greater government financial transparency … increasing the salaries of government officials to reduce bribe-taking … the stick in the policeman’s cost-benefit trade off … credible threat of punishment … that’s all there is to it.”

But as the (UK) Times Higher Education website put it, asking the Western intelligensia to put their faith in such principles is asking for an awful lot. How can anyone trust greed and fear, or worse yet a combination of greed and fear — the policeman’s cost-benefit trade off between a slightly larger salary and a much higher threat of punishment — to reduce corruption and poverty in the Third World. But the Times site was at least willing to admit that the concept seemed appealing.

It is hard to think of a better time for a book with the title Economic Gangsters to hit the shelves. At the peak of the financial crisis, terms such as “greed”, “morality” and “financial crimes” dominated public and political discourse. Obvious to everybody, “economic gangsters” had been at work in financial markets, which were now in need of a strong injection of morality after unrestrained market forces and immoral bankers had failed us utterly. … Economic Gangsters is the latest example in a string of popular accounts of economics that offer to show how to make use of its insights in all realms of life.

But the misgivings about relying on the simple power of markets are not entirely misplaced. Fixing the incentives are not “all there is to it”. Somebody has to jump start it and take the first step; to insist on the road audits in Indonesia or shame corrupt officials in Bogota. Somebody has to take Kenyan cops to court and shepherd the proposal for slightly higher police salaries through its byzantine bureaucracy. Somebody has got to un-elect corrupt Mexican officialdom and put the finger on gangsters in Juarez. In other words, somebody has got to take the risk and bell the cat, to get the ball rolling, simply to sell the idea that standards ought to exist and market forces have to be harnessed to end corruption and poverty. That’s all there is to it, but it’s a lot.

Breaking the cycle of corruption, poverty and violence in the Third World requires an initial infusion of force and good governance in order to make the subsequent economic development work. The experience in Iraq dramatically demonstrated that security was not simply the outcome of economic development, it was its also its necessary condition.  Security and governance was at once the precondition and the outcome of creating a correct system of incentives. The egg was necessary for the chicken and the chicken necessary for the egg. The administration’s current dilemma in Afghanistan stems from their desire to create the former without the latter; to use diplomacy and economic development to achieve security without protecting it with security. They want the egg without the chicken; to produce something from outside the cycle. No wonder President Obama is taking such a long time to figure it out.

The decision to commit an initial infusion of force or influence to establish good governance represents the riskiest part of the intervention curve. Once the incentive-punishment function is established, things can proceed more easily. But that initial step is fraught with political risk. In the early 19th century, military commanders understood that greatest cost would have to be borne the troops who made the breach in the enemy defenses. They were called the Forlorn Hope. In the market for heroes the payoff was simply what Napoleon called “a bit of colored ribbon”.

A forlorn hope is a band of soldiers or other combatants chosen to take the leading part in a military operation, such as an assault on a defended position, where the risk of casualties is high. The term comes from the Dutch verloren hoop, literally “lost heap”, and adapted as “lost troop”. … In the days of muzzle-loading muskets, it was most frequently used to refer to the first wave of soldiers attacking a breach in defences during a siege. It was likely that most members of the forlorn hope would be killed or wounded. The intention was that some would survive long enough to seize a foothold that could be reinforced, or at least that a second wave with better prospects could be sent in while the defenders were reloading or engaged in mopping up the remnants of the first wave.

A forlorn hope was typically led by a junior officer with hopes of personal advancement. If he survived, and performed courageously, he was almost guaranteed both a promotion and a long-term boost to his career prospects. As a result, despite the risks, there was often competition for the opportunity to lead the assault. The French equivalent of the forlorn hope, called Les Enfants Perdus or The Lost Children, were all guaranteed promotion to officers should they survive, so that both men and officers took up the suicidal mission as an opportunity to raise themselves in the army.

So while the problems in Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Chicago will in the long run be solved by fixing the “incentives problem” — a conclusion for which we should always be indebted to Professors Fisman and Miguel for — the task will have to be achieved under the protection of a Forlorn Hope: a generation of politicians, policemen, soldiers and activists for whom there will be no reward. Not even the dawn. Though one hopes for the colored ribbon or at least the fond memory of Felina at Rosie’s Cantina.

“‘Twas once in the saddle I used to go dashing,
‘Twas once in the saddle I used to go gay.
First to the dram-house, and then to the card-house,
Got shot in the breast, and I’m dying today.”

Muffle your drums, play your pipes merrily,
Play the death march as you go along.
And fire your guns right over my coffin,
There goes an unfortunate lad to his home

“Get six jolly cowboys to carry my coffin,
Get six pretty maidens to bear up my pall.
Put bunches of roses all over my coffin,
Roses to deaden the sods as they fall.”

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit. Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a “Green New Deal” to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency’s annual conference on Monday.

Finsbury, who is the chairman of Britain’s Environmental Agency, “is a British Labour politician, and a former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister. He was the UK’s first openly gay MP, coming out in 1984 and, in 2005, the first MP to acknowledge that he is HIV positive.”

Prior to assuming his position, Finsbury was “Director of the Clore Leadership Programme, an initiative aimed at helping to train and develop new leaders of Britain’s cultural sector”. He is also active in the theater and in setting advertising standards. What has this got to do with the environment? Probably everything.

Antony Gormley, an English sculptor noted for his proposal to erect a work called the “Ejaculating Man” on Seattle’s waterfront, had choice words for the BBC’s audience. It differed somewhat from Lord Finsbury’s in detail, but not in spirit. Gormley believed that the best way to help Save the Earth was to go about barefoot.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Now why didn’t we think of that? One person who probably continue to wear shoes is Al Gore. The Times of India reports the former Vice President as well on course to becoming the world’s first Carbon Billionaire.

Since he abandoned mainstream politics following his defeat in the 2000 presidential polls against George W Bush, Gore’s personal fortune has risen from 1.2 million pounds to an estimated 60 million pounds, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. … “Al Gore wants to become the first carbon billionaire and he is poised to do it,” Marc Morano of climatedepot.com was quoted as saying by the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

“As much as Gore’s made now, it is going to be a piker league compared to what he is going to make in five years if all these new carbon trading mandates go through,” Morano claimed.

What Finsbury and Gormley have in common is that they Know. Never mind how they know, they just do. And if you don’t get it, well why you never will. Global Warming is less about science than Getting It. By allowing the public to see into the thought processes of the enlightened ones, the Internet may provide the world’s first cure for snob envy. There may be more common sense in a Nepalese village than in certain quarters of High Society. Maybe Cole Porter had it right. Smart society is not always.

When you’re out in smart society
And you suddenly get bad news,
You mustn’t show anxiety
And proceed to sing the blues.

Well, did you evah?
What a swell party this is!
What frails, what frocks!
What furs, what rocks!

What gaiety!
It’s all too exquis!
The French Campagne!
So good for the brain!
That band, it’s the end!
Kindly don’t fall down, my friend.

Well, did you evah?
What a swell party this is!
Have you heard? It’s in the stars
Next July we collide with Mars.
Well, did you evah?
What a swell party
a swellegant, elegant party, this is!

Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, “exacerbating existing access problems” in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. …

Democrats focused Saturday on the positive aspects of the report, noting that Foster concludes that overall national spending on health care would increase by a little more than 1 percent over the next decade, even though millions of additional people would gain insurance. Out-of-pocket spending would decline more than $200 billion by 2019, with the government picking up much of that. The Medicare savings, if they materialized, would extend the life of that program by five years, meaning it would not begin to require cash infusions until 2022.

But that misses one of the major points the CMMS report was trying to make. Costs will be kept down because benefits will be redistributed. Some may pay for others. “In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, “exacerbating existing access problems” in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” What the actual report said (on page 15) was:

Price reactions — that is, providers successfully negotiating higher fees in response to the greater demand — could result in higher total expenditures or in some of this demand being unsatisfied. Alternatively, providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems …

Despite a provision to increase payments for primary care to medicare levels, most Medicaid payments would still be well below average. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a signficiant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized.

We have not have not attempted to model that impact … such as supplier entry and exit or cost-shifting toward private payers.

But the agency warns that little, if anything is certain about the future. Although it asserted that “most of the provisions of HR 3962 that were designed, in part to reduce the rate of growth in health care would have relatively small savings impact” it made it clear that the “actual future impacts of HR 3962 on health expenditures, insured status, individual decisions, and employer behavior are very uncertain. The legislation would result in numerous changes in the way that health care insurance is provided and paid for the in US, and the scope and magnitude of these changes are such that few precedents exist for use in estimation.” (emphasis mine)

The empirical difficulties notwithstanding, Robert Samuelson writing in Newsweek says “it would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that would probably expand deficits and do little to suppress surging health costs”. Samuelson calls it a self-inflicted wound.

Obama’s advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with no legislation. The studies estimate the extra spending, over the next decade, at $750 billion, $525 billion, and $114 billion, respectively. The reasoning: greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (”bundled payments,” “comparative effectiveness research,” tort reform), which are weak or experimental.

But if “reform” doesn’t solve the health care problem then what problem does it solve? The idiosyncratic Terry McGarty, a blogger who is affiliated with MIT, has actually tried to read through HR 3962. He says, “I thought it would be educational just to present the Table of Contents of the Medicare section. Remember what our current President said, if you like your current health care you can keep your current health care. Not if you are on Medicare! And those fellows at the AARP, shame of you! The following is a massive change in Medicare and the seniors just do not know what is happening to them. This Bill goes well beyond HR 3200 in making Medicare a straight jacket for physicians and is a clear example of what will happen to a public plan.”

His short view of the HR 3962 is that “this is a large taxation bill … most likely the sickest will seek the Government plan because of its costs. This the statistics of the plan will make it difficult to attain the overall mix to be able to predict the costs. Thus it will always run a deficit and one knows where that will come from.”

Given these uncertainties the safest course is to look at health care “reform” very carefully for at least two reasons. First, as the HHS report noted, the bill’s effects are so large that they will transform the landscape forever. There are no past models that can be used to model its effects accurately. Second, it appears to reduce the benefits of one group of people for a possible increase in benefits to another. In other words the medicine in the bottle can do a lot of things. It can shrivel your hand at the expense of maybe healing your foot. But nobody can tell with any degree of real certainty what its long term effects will be.  By itself, that defect isn’t fatal. Public policy experiments always carry with them an element of risk. However, there are some experiments whose consequences should be carefully examined. There are some bottles of medicine left undrunk. Yet one thing everyone should agree on is that it’s worth reading the label, even if it is thousands of pages long.

But even if HR 3962 doesn’t solve the “health” problem, it may solve a political problem. Think of it, a source of money and entitlement that can be squeezed for decades! How many politicians on both sides of the aisle could resist its lure?

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The White House has been eager to show that Mr. Obama is engaged in extensive deliberations before making what is likely to be one of the most debated decisions of his presidency. Drawing on studies of how decisions were made to escalate the war in Vietnam, Mr. Obama and his aides seem intent on showing the nation and the world that he is not being rushed by the military, nor making a judgment without considering the long-term implications.

However, one of the men who played a key intellectual role in formulating the counterinsurgency plan in Iraq says that President Obama’s indecision is risking a disaster on the scale of the Suez debacle not only for the US, but for NATO. The Guardian reports:

David Kilcullen, one of the world’s leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama’s delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been “messy”. He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.

Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone “pontificating” over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out. …

Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics.

“Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go,” Kilcullen said.

“It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it.”

But Andrew Sullivan calls the inentional delays proof “that we have a President”. In his view the President is imposing a “relentless empiricism” on the decision-making process.

The news that Obama has refused to sign off on any of the four major options presented to him in Afghanistan reminds me of why he was elected president. This critical decision – arguably the most critical of his young presidency – is one that will not be rushed the way such decisions often are. His insistence that the civilian branch truly control policy there and that empire not be passively accepted as a fait accompli are real signs of strength in the struggle to recalibrate American foreign policy. Can you imagine Bush ever holding out like this on the military?

One of the real reasons why Kilcullen’s Habemus Pablum may be more correct than Andrew Sullivan’s Habemus Papa is that Barack Obama is reviewing his own policy. In March 2009 the long time critic of the White House during the Bush administration drew on his insights and an extensive policy review which he commissioned to announce his own Afghan Policy, which can viewed verbatim here. It begins with these dramatic words:

Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people. … So let me be clear …

… has now subtly altered itself to ‘let me be clear that I am going to think carefully about revising my own plan’. Gerard Vanderleun observes that President Obama is being hailed in the left-wing blogosphere as a cool and supremely rational President who will not be rushed into doing anything but asks, how can we distinguish from mere dithering or worse, the infliction of a death by a thousand cuts on the US expeditionary enterprise?

Veterans of dysfunctional corporations will recognize the Obama style as the one in which upper management is fond of giving middle management “All the responsibility, none of the authority, and zero resources.” It’s a time-tested recipe for failure and demoralization while maintaining an aloof, “concerned,” and above the fray posture on the part of the CEO. It is what is being done to the US military, day in and day out, in Afghanistan and, as such, works to Obama’s favor as long as it can be done slowly and without alarm.

The spectacle of the Obama taking months to understand what is wrong with his own painstakingly crafted handiwork himself might appear “Presidential” to Andrew Sullivan, but it does raise the question of why after taking months to get it wrong we should have any confidence that Barack Obama should do any better now.  One possibiity that must surely be considered, and yet which has been ruled out of bounds, is that the decision maker himself is incompetent. But that’s for him to judge, it seems. Sullivan conclusion that Obama’s application of “relentless empiricism” has broadened his mind and led even him to think that “the troop question is rather like the public option question” makes you wonder whether there isn’t some fundamental problem of context that is being missed.

Just kidding.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding. “When they withhold information, you always start asking questions,” Hoekstra told Fox News. “That’s what raises red flags. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?”

CBS says Hoekstra has complained that neither the FBI nor the CIA have been forthccoming with Congress after initial signals that Hasan had been in contact with persons overseas.

The top ranking Republican in the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said Tuesday the FBI and CIA have given him “no cooperation at all” in his request for information on what the intelligence agencies knew about Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.

“Finally they held a briefing last night for some of the senators and some of my staff, but again, the House is not in session, I’ve not been able to get the information at this point,” he said on Tuesday’s “Washington Unplugged.” “I don’t think they’ve been as cooperative as what the law requires them to be with Congress.”

After “initial signals” from intelligence agencies that Major Hasan had contact with overseas terrorists, Hoekstra said he publically requested a report of the investigations — what they knew and when they knew it.

“I said, please give me a briefing,” he said. “I’d like this information before I go home [for Veterans Day recess].”

“They came back and said, we’re not gonna give it to you, we’re not ready and it’s like, why not? And I never got a good answer as to why they wouldn’t share information with us,” he told CBS News’ Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer.

But some have dismissed these charges as politicking. Rachel Maddow accused Hoekstra of leaking sensistive information on the investigation in order to “frame” the Fort Hood murders as a terrorist attack. The Examiner reports: “Rep. Hoekstra is the ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee and so it is possible he was told about the emails in a classified briefing only to then leak the information while trying to frame the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist attack.”

The ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee also criticized the Republican. According to TPM Muckracker,

House intelligence committee chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) made a thinly veiled swipe at his GOP counterpart today over comments made by Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) criticizing the Obama Administration’s handling of information about the Fort Hood shootings. … “I am disappointed that some have rushed to the news media with unfounded information in order to gain headlines. I hope that my colleagues will refrain from speculation, pray for those who were affected by this tragic incident, and let investigators do their work.”

It may be fair to say that the Fort Hood event is now rapidly becoming a political issue. The administration is doubtless trying to get a backfix on who Hasan was in contact with. As I wrote in an earlier post, “this investigation can go anywhere. There’s a great incentive to make sure that whatever the truth happens to be that those in officialdom who have the most to lose should not be the last to know.”

Showdowns have always been interesting.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Today, at Ft. Hood. I guarantee: they’ll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won’t do it justice. Yes, I’m having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge. Obama had to lead a nation’s grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn’t sound trite.

I thought I would try my hand at speechwriting to emphasize what should have been said. Although my version is less than soaring, it touches upon issues which ought to be have been addressed. My amateurish attempts and an actual video of Obama’s Fort Hood address taken by a participant are after the Read More.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

First of all, I would like to apologize, as Commander in Chief and on behalf of the entire chain of command, for failing to protect the men who were shot here some days ago. The specific shortcomings which allowed the shooter the opportunity to commit this crime will determined and rectified forthwith. That is the least I can do for those who died.

You men and women of the Armed Forces are expected to risk your lives in the service of our country; to overcome your fears, to bear up against hardship and risk your life and limb to protect the nation you serve. No one will accept the excuse ‘I was afraid’ from a soldier, though God knows there will be times when fear will be the natural thing for a man to feel. But in return the senior military and political leadership owe you its own kind of courage. Perhaps not the physical bravery expected of you, but courage nonetheless. The courage never to call you to arms unless national interest absolutely demand it; the fortitude to support you unswervingly until your mission — the mission we gave you — is completed.  We owe you that. The leadership owes you the best equipment, the finest intelligence and the most competent leadership. But above all we owe you our loyalty and the assurance that everyone placed above you and alongside you wearing the uniform of the United States is someone you could trust implicitly with your life. Because there would be times when you would have to.

And in that duty we have failed.

For reasons which brook no excuse, whether from lack of competence or the absence of professional courage, we have allowed a traitor to gain a position of trust in your midst. We gave him high rank. We gave him the prerogatives and honors due to a member of the medical profession and an officer in the Armed Forces. And he used that position to kill the men we are remembering today. We who demand of you the courage to routinely risk your lives in the service of our nation did not ourselves have fortitude to expel a man from the service who by rights should have been gone because we feared criticism. We feared being accused of bigotry. We feared being accused of persecuting a religion. We feared the bad publicity that would come from recognizing the danger signals which have all too tragically culminated in this.  It was out of fear that we forbore and men died.

Let me repeat my apology. By command responsibility the onus of this falls on my shoulders. And the duty for correcting the defects falls on me as well. Already there are those who say “this was an ordinary crime”; or that we do not know what motivated this killer to commit the crime he did. We must not add dishonesty to dereliction. We know. If we were not men enough to do our duty then, then at least we should do it now. Let me pledge that from this day forward, no officer in the Armed Forces, no member of law enforcement, no man or woman in authority should ever dare ignore a danger to you, my men — for you are my men — out of fear of giving offense. Political correctness should fall distant second to duty, honor and country.

I cannot bring back the dead. But I can prevent others from following in their tragic place. Others will eulogize the fallen. They will recall this young life or that promising future cut short on that day. Let others speak of the nobility of those who died on this post. Let others comfort the parents and loved ones of those who will wait at the door for the knock they once heard and hear nevermore. That is not for me to do.

Rather let my deeds from this day speak more eloquently than tributes or flowers. Let my determination to prevent this from ever happening again be my peroration and my tribute to the fallen. Gesta, non verba is all the Latin I need to know. Deeds, not words. I will return to my duties and you to yours. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.