Global warming is the greatest issue facing civilization on the planet earth.  Carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to global warming.  Recent CO2 levels are double the highest levels in the last 14 million years.  Scientists have found that life existed on Venus many years ago.  Today the average temperature on Venus is over 700 degrees Fahrenheit (400 degrees Celsius). Life on Venus ended.

Two different approaches can be used to stop the growth in CO2: (1) capitalism and the market economy and (2) regulations and tax incentives.

Capitalism and the Market Economy

Implementing carbon taxes produces an economic incentive to find solutions to reducing carbon emissions.  The tax should begin at a low level, but increase every year until carbon levels decline.  Carbon taxes have been effective in the few countries that have implemented them.

Regulations and Tax Incentives

Regulations require rules and people to administer those rules.  They are costly to implement and have not provided adequate solutions.  Tax incentives are expensive and add to the Federal deficit.

Here is an example of the change from regulations to capitalism:  Eliminate the Federal subsidies on electric cars and implement a $0.50 per gallon increase each year for ten years in the Federal tax on gasoline. 

Summary

The U.S. Congress is debating the necessary increase in the debt ceiling.  Reducing tax incentives and adding carbon taxes would help reduce the Federal deficit.  Various forms of life on earth have existed for 500 million years.  Humans have existed for only 1% of that period.  If we fail to stop global warming, life on earth will continue, but may not include human beings.

In 2010, in the Citizens United case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the same rights as humans.  Therefore, the Court concluded that limiting their political contributions violated their First Amendment right to free speech. 

This allowed Super PACs (Political Action Committees) to accept unlimited political contributions from corporations.  In addition, Dark Money Groups, under IRS Code 501(c)(6), can accept unlimited contributions and are not required to disclose donors.

The average cost of a successful Senate race is over $10 million.  Consequently, successful candidates must support the requirements of their biggest contributors in order to get elected.

In addition to funding elections, corporations and special interest groups have over 12,000 registered lobbyists.  That is more than 22 lobbyists per member of congress.

Daniel Weiner of the Brennen Center wrote that the Citizens United decision “has helped rein­force the grow­ing sense that our demo­cracy primar­ily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that demo­cratic parti­cip­a­tion for the vast major­ity of citizens is of relat­ively little value.”

Global warming is probably the greatest issue facing civilization in this century.  In the 2022 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) case, the Supreme Court removed the EPA’s authority to mandate carbon emissions.  The court stated that these regulations should be set by the “people’s representatives.”  In fact, the court has taken environmental regulations out of the hands scientists and regulators and put it in the hands of Congress, where the majority of members are attorneys, not scientists.  Members of Congress are influenced by their corporate contributors who fund their elections and their influential lobbyists. 

Because of the Citizens United decision, removing special interest funding from U.S. elections will be virtually impossible.  Citizens United and the EPA decisions will likely go down as the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history since they have done the most damage to civilization.

The two great challenges of the 21^st century are global warming and China’s domination of the planet.

China has more than four times the population of the United States.  When China’s GDP per capita reaches one-fourth the per capita GDP of the U.S., China will pass the U.S. in total GDP.  Various forecasts predict that will happen by 2030.  (See Sources.)  China’s economy is expected to be twice the size of the U.S. around 2060 and three to four times the size of the U.S. by 2300.  Hence, the U.S. economy will be one-fourth the size of China’s economy around the turn of the next century.

How influential is a country whose economy is one-fourth the size of the leader?  Somalia and Guyana have about one-fourth the GDP of the U.S.  How influential are they in global affairs?

China is already showing leadership in several areas, especially technology.  China’s number of college graduates rose to over 9 million in 2021.  The U.S. was just under 2 million.  China now ranks 2^nd to the U.S. in the number of top universities among the top 500 in the world.

China intends to be Number 1 in renewable energy production.  China already generates twice as much renewable energy (wind & solar) as the U.S.  China wants to be Number 1 in the production and use of electric cars.  China controls 90% of the world’s lithium.  China now produces nearly twice as many electric cars and hybrids as the U.S.  China intends to be Number 1 in high-speed rail.  China now has more than 23,000 miles of high-speed, electric rail.  The U.S. has 34 miles.

China plans to be Number 1 in artificial intelligence (AI).   Eric Schmidt, former chair of Google, said, “By 2025, China will be ahead of the U.S. in AI.  By 2030, they will dominate the industry.”

China plans to be Number 1 in quantum computing.  According to NASA, quantum computers will outperform today’s supercomputers by more than 3,600 times and today’s personal computers by 100 million times.  China is building the world’s largest quantum-computer research facility.  China has already launched a satellite than utilizes quantum computing. 

Along with global warming, global governance will be the other great challenge in the 21^st century.  As obvious as this is, few Americans grasp the significance.  Politicians often cannot see beyond the next election.  Even though China’s Belt & Road Initiative may be an early element in global control, there has been little effort to address this issue.

The U.S. Federal Government should establish a task force to look beyond the four-year election cycle and focus on finding long-term solutions to global governance.  One solution to consider is the expansion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) into a governmental organization.  The 38 OECD countries are democracies, including the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Israel, Japan, Australia, South Korea and others.  (See OECD Members.)  This organization could be strengthened into a governmental body with a population and economic power to match China.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sources:  International Monetary Fund; World Bank; Economist Intelligence Unit; PricewaterhouseCoopers.

OECD Members:  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak

At the end of 2020, China had 23,550 miles (37,900 K) of high-speed rail.  That is enough high-speed rail to cross the United States eight times. The United States has no comparable high-speed rail – zero!  In 2004, China introduced the first high-speed Maglev train, suspended five inches above the ground by magnetic levitation and operated free of friction at a top speed of 268 MPH (431 KPH).  Since then, Japan has created a maglev train with a top speed of 375 MPH (500 KPH).  That is five times the 75 MPH speed limit on Interstate highways and nearly five times the speed of Amtrak.

The U.S. could utilize maglev technology to create a new form of transportation:  Very High-Speed Auto Rail (VHS-AR).  This technology would allow people to drive their automobiles onto rail cars at the origin of their trip and off rail cars at their destination, eliminating the need to park cars at airports and rent a car at the destinations.  VHS-AR would require an entirely new rail system between large cities. 

Rail cars might be 160 feet long and 18 feet wide.  This would allow seven automobiles to park cross-wise on the bottom level with restrooms on each rail car.  If a top level were created, eight autos might be parked up there.  The rail car would become enclosed after the cars are parked to reduce air resistance at high speeds.

A trip from New York City to Chicago, which takes 13 hours by automobile, might take as little as two hours by VHS-AR.  From Chicago to San Francisco may take as little as six hours, compared to 31 hours by auto.  And, VHS-AR is environmentally friendly, running entirely on electricity.

U.S. “Withdrawal” from the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Conclusion:

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) will be terminated by all parties before the end of 2018. European companies will be unable to continue trading with Iran due to U.S. sanctions. Iran will no longer benefit from this trade. Consequently, Iran will have no incentive to continue the agreement. Inspections will end.

Facts:

The Iran nuclear treaty is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Preamble and General Provisions of the agreement states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Iran is able to restart peaceful use of nuclear energy in ten years, not weapons. 98% of Iran’s uranium is gone.

No money was “given” to Iran for signing the nuclear agreement. Iran was given access to Iranian bank accounts that had been frozen plus funds owed by China and India for oil already delivered from Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded Iran has not violated the nuclear agreement. Using new technical capabilities, the U.S. Intelligence reached the same conclusion.

There is no provision for withdrawal from the JCPOA. The U.S. is first country to violate this agreement.

Iran hardliners are big winners in the U.S. violation of the JCPOA. They had argued that the U.S. cannot be trusted to keep the deal and they have been proven correct. The Iranian moderates have been humiliated by the U.S.

Israel announced on April 30, 2018 that Iran covered up a nuclear program 15 years ago. The U.S. discovered this program in 2003 and publicly released their findings in 2007. Israel did discover some new documents.

Opinion

The E.U. will attempt to maintain trade relationships with Iran, but that is highly likely to fail. They can continue to purchase oil, which is one-third of Iranian exports, for the six-months grade period provided by the U.S. Beyond that, most European companies will terminate trade with Iran to avoid losing access to the large U.S. market. The French company, Total, which is the largest foreign oil investor in Iran, has announced it withdrawing from Iran. The failure to the E.U. to maintain trade with Iran will leave Iran with very little benefits from the JCPOA.

Re-imposing U.S. sanctions without Russia and China will have less impact on Iran than the old sanctions. These sanctions may advance the time when China will clear global payments in renminbi (yuan). This would render U.S. sanctions less effective everywhere.

The U.S. does not have a realistic alternative strategy for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran will not abandon its partnerships in the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. A state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons will be more dangerous than a state sponsor of terrorism without nuclear weapons. Terminating the JCPOA is counter-productive to advancing peace and stability in the Middle East.

Donald Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Accord on Climate Change, which had no penalties for non-compliance. He withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though the TPP reduced tariffs on 14,000 American products going into 11 countries and increased U.S. employment and economic growth. The withdrawal from (violation of) the Iran nuclear agreement appears to be primarily driven by Trump’s effort to obliterate the Obama legacy. The odds for a better agreement are low and potential costs of a nuclearized Iran are incalculable.

 

 

 

“Tax Expenditures” will cost the Treasury more than $1.5 trillion next year[1], which is more than Social Security and Medicare combined. Tax Expenditures include tax loopholes, deductions and preferential tax rates.[2]

Each Tax Expenditure has a lobby or interest group that supports it. Consequently, Tax Expenditures cannot be repealed or reduced one at a time. They must all be repealed at once, with provisions to reinstate the highest priority Tax Expenditures.

Congress should pass a bill that has two primary components:

1. Repeal all Tax Expenditures effective on January 1, 2018.
2. Establish a Tax Expenditure ceiling in dollars so that Congress can then restore the highest priority Tax Expenditures.

Note that a $500 billion ceiling on Tax Expenditures would free up $1 trillion to increase spending on military, healthcare, infrastructure, education and for reducing the deficit. Abolishing some Tax Expenditures has the additional benefit of eliminating government- induced distortions to free market economic behavior.

____________________________________________________________

[1] Forecast by Office of Management & Budget

[2] The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.”

 

MOOCs, MARKs & Economic Discrimination

On-line education has recently received considerable publicity. Kahn Academy’s libraries of more than 3,000 videos have been introduced into some public schools. More recently, highly regarded universities have entered the on-line education market. The leader in the new on-line university courses, known at Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs, is Coursera.

Coursera was started by Stanford, Michigan, Penn and Princeton. Another 29 universities have joined their organization. In 2013, Coursera has 3.5 million people around the world taking 370 courses. These courses are free, but most do not offer credit. By 2018, Coursera expects to offer 5,000 courses. . . Harvard and MIT joined together to form edX, which is the second largest provider of MOOCs. Despite their growth, MOOC organizations have not developed a viable business model, but that is only a matter of time.

Questions about the future of education have emerged as MOOCs have appeared on the market. Will MOOCs replace some classroom courses? Will they replace most classroom courses? Will they change the nature of classroom courses? Three things are virtually certain. First, the quality of MOOCs will evolve and improve over time. Second, MOOCs will dramatically reduce the cost of education. Third, MOOCs will have a profound impact on our educational institutions.

MOOCs offer some distinct advantages over classroom education. Today, the biggest advantage is cost. Penn offers a three-hour on-line calculus course for credit for $178. Lower costs will make university education affordable to a much larger segment of the population, both in the United States and around the world.

MOOCs will, in time, improve the quality of their courses. The best professors will develop courses that can be widely distributed. Students will see less of a professor lecturing and more photographs, videos, graphs, charts, etc., which will improve the learning. In the future, professors may develop the text for the lectures and actors may provide the voices in a wide range of languages.

Education can be individualized with students learning at their own speed. Feedback will be much faster. Improvements in making the courses more interactive will be developed.

MOOCs also have significant disadvantages. The primary disadvantage is they lack the personal interaction with instructors and classmates. Many graduates give examples of teachers provided them with the lessons, the understanding and the encouragement to become successful. Some students may lose motivation without a classroom setting. In addition, MOOCs are best suited to replace lecture courses and not as well suited to replace lab courses.

The America university system is unquestionably the best in the world. So, why should changes to the system be considered? It is a very restrictive system. A bachelor’s degree at most state universities costs more than $100,000. Only 58% of students enrolling in a four-year bachelor’s program graduate in six years. The percentage is higher for private, non-profit schools than for public universities. For-profit institutions have a dismal graduation rate of 28%.

In addition, there is a high correlation between family income and college attendance. Poor students with high SAT scores are far less likely to complete college that students from wealthier families with lower SAT scores. This is de facto economic discrimination. Lowering the cost of education is even more important in emerging countries.

Universities need to find a way to incorporate MOOCs into existing classes where appropriate because they can improve instruction and reduce costs. In addition, the university system should develop a parallel programs based primarily on MOOCs for students who are excluded from today’s educational system due to cost. A bachelor’s degree for $10,000 would be a good objective.

The expansion of on-line courses may be disruptive to some universities. The technology is likely to reduce the required number of tenured professors, as an example. But universities should not take a struthious position. Years ago, Kodak invented and patented the digital camera, but did not manufacture them because Kodak was in the film business. Today, Kodak is in bankruptcy.

Universities may want to consider similarities between the education industry and the transportation industry as they engage in risk management. Horses were the best form of transportation for a couple of millennia, just as classrooms have been the best form of education for centuries. In the early part of the 20th century, when automobiles first appeared on the market, people argued they would not replace horses. Horses were more reliable, horses responded to verbal instructions and owners had a personal bond with their horses. In less than 50 years, of course, automobiles replaced horses to become the dominate form of personal transportation.

By 1929, there were 1,800 automobile manufacturers in United States. Economic Darwinism has reduced that number to fifteen today – three domestic and twelve foreign companies.

Although change may occur slowly in the field of education, change occurs rapidly in the field of technology and MOOCs push education further into the field of technology. Consider that 25 years ago, there was no public Internet, no web sites, no search engines, no email, no laptops, no notebooks, no smart phones, no Facebook, etc. In the last 25 years, technology has significantly impacted our lives and the way we interact with people. Changes in the next 25 years are likely to be more dramatic.

Not only will rapidly changing technology impact education, but universities will be entering into the world of price competition. This will be more like the world of business where quality and price are the most significant determinants of success and even survival.

University Risk Management Committees should evaluate how MOOCs will impact their universities. Universities should develop strategies and tactics that effectively employ the new technologies. The significant risk is that MOOCs will produce MARKs, Massive Amounts of Road Kill.

Afghanistan’s History & America’s Options

The prospects for “winning” in Afghanistan have diminished and the US presence may now be counterproductive to American security.  The need to review objectives, strategies and tactics is compelling.

The stated objective is to keep Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan and setting up sanctuaries in that country.  Afghanistan is the easiest Muslim country to kill and capture Al Qaeda members, so the objective should be to attract them to return to Afghanistan.

Summary

The US once supported the mujahedeen, in “Charlie Wilson’s war” against the Soviets.  The Soviets supported the central government in Kabul from the Soviet headquarters at Bagram Airbase outside of Kabul.  Now the US supports the central government in Kabul from the Bagram airbase fighting against the mujahedeen who have morphed into Taliban. 

The US has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.  NATO countries have 30,000.  There are 90,000 trained troops in the Afghan National Army.  Combined, this totals 220,000 troops.  The Taliban have 30,000 fighters and Al Qaeda has, at most, 100 people in Afghanistan.

The Taliban are divided into two broad groups – the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban, some of whom are in Pakistan.  The Pakistanis oppose the Pakistani Taliban, but not the Afghan Taliban, who were and are their allies against India.  A majority of Pakistanis view America as their enemy.

The Afghan Taliban are not a threat to the United States and Al Qaeda is very unlikely to return to Afghanistan if the US leaves.  The primary justification for our military operations in Afghanistan is based on the assumption that fighting the Afghan Taliban is the same as fighting Al Qaeda.  This assumption is not valid. 

The US military presence in Afghanistan motivates lunatics and extremists to commit terrorist attacks against Americans.  Consequently, our presence is counterproductive to American security.

The US should change tactics, reduce the military presence in Afghanistan and fight terrorists in South Asia the same way we fight terrorists in other parts of the world – with intelligence, Special Forces and drones.  To explore these assumptions and conclusions, we will first begin with Afghan history.

History

Afghanistan has been engaged in a civil war almost continuously since the Saur Revolution in April 1978.  In broad terms, the civil war has been between two groups – the “fundamentalists” and the “traditionalists.”  The fundamentalists consist primarily of the rural religious conservatives (by Afghan standards), while the traditionalists are more urban, more secular and more liberal (again, by Afghan standards).  The Mujahideen and the Taliban are part of the fundamentalists group.  The US has supported both sides in this civil war at different times.  Some historical perspective may help in understanding the current situation.

On July 17, 1973, General Mohammad Daoud Khan overthrew the monarchy of Mohammad Zahir Shah, who had served as king for forty years.  It was a bloodless coup and Zahir Shah went into exile in Italy.  Daoud Khan declared Afghanistan a republic with himself as president.  He was a strong advocate of Pashtun irredentism, i.e., the creation of a greater Pashtunistan, which included Pashtun areas of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

By 1978, the Afghan Communist Party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, (PDPA) was ten years old.  It was split between an extremist group led by Nur Mohammed Taraki and a moderate group led by Babrak Karmal, who was favored by the Soviet leaders.  In early 1978, Daoud Khan’s government killed Mohammed Akbar Khaibar, a prominent member of the Communist PDPA.  Most party leaders were arrested. 

Hafizulla Amin (educated at Columbia University) and members of the military wing of the PDPA staged a successful bloody coup in April 1978, known as the Saur Revolution.  (Saur means, “April.”)  The head of the PDPA, the extremist, Nur Muhammad Taraki, was released from prison and assumed the position as President of Afghanistan.  On April 27, 1978, during the coup, Daoud Khan was executed.  Taraki arrested and executed a large number of opponents, which led to strong opposition to his new government. 

Taraki requested Soviet help.  In a prophetic statement, Alexei Kosygin replied to Taraki, “We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops.  If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve, On the contrary, it would get worse.”

Taraki reportedly made several attempts on the life of Hafizulla Amin. The final attempt backfired and Taraki was executed in September 1979.  Amin assumed the presidency.  The PDPA attempted to liberalize Afghanistan society, stressing education for both men and women, introducing widespread literacy programs, banning the selling of brides and forced marriages, and raising the minimum age for marriage.  These policies were supported by the more liberal urban population, the “traditionalists.”  All of these policies were opposed by the more religious rural conservatives, the “fundamentalists.”

Amin carried out his own purges of the PDPA.  Known by conservative Afghans as the “atheistic infidel,” Amin engaged harsh tactics, including arrests and executions.  His opponents made several attempts on his life.  His tactics became too severe for his Soviet allies, who had invested heavily in Afghanistan and who concluded Amin was destabilizing the country.  On December 24, 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan.  On December 27, 1979, the KBG stormed the Presidential Palace and killed Amin, falsely claiming he was an agent of the CIA.  The Soviets installed Babrak Karmal as the new head of government.

Karmal, a moderate member of the PDPA, promised an end to executions, democratic elections and protection for individual freedom and personal property.  The civil war continued.  The US provided financial and military aid to the mujahideen.  In 1981 aid through Zia’s Pakistan began to increase due to the efforts of Texas Congressman, Charlie Wilson, and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos, as depicted in the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War.”  However, the first stinger missiles did not arrive until April 1987.  That was two months after Gorbachev told the Politburo that the USSR must prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan and just three months before the Soviets publicly announced their decision to withdraw.  The Soviet withdrawal was announced on July 20, 1987 and was completed on February 15, 1989.

 By this time the Soviets had blamed Karmal for the lack of success.  In November 1986, they replaced him with Mohammad Najibullah, who had been the head of the KHAD, the secret police.

Najibullah’s government fell and in March 1992 he resigned.  An interim government was formed that promised elections.  Najibullah fled to a UN compound.  The civil war continued and the country descended into ungoverned chaos.  Fighting was almost continuous and included infighting among former allies and various mujahideen groups.

When the Taliban, led by Mullah Mohammad Omar, captured Kabul in 1996, Najibullah was tortured, castrated, and then killed and hung from a traffic light post with his penis cut off and stuffed into his mouth.  Girls’ schools were closed.  Women were banned from working outside the house.  Music, television and sports were banned.

The US supported the rural religious fundamentalists, the mujahedeen, in “Charlie Wilson’s War” against the Soviets.  According to Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, the mujahedeen morphed into the Taliban.  Many mujahedeen joined the Taliban.  Some Taliban are children of the mujahedeen.  As an example, Jalaluddin Haqqani was a senior mujahedeen fighter who received money and arms from the C.I.A in the 1980s.  In the 1990s, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, he was the governor of Paktia Province.  His son, Siraj Haqqani, is the strongest Taliban warrior in Afghanistan today and his fighters have posed the biggest threat to American forces.  Following 9/11, the US changed sides, fighting against the Taliban, those rural religious fundamentalists, who were supported by the US two decades earlier.  

Recent documents revealed that US helicopters have been shot down by heat seeking missiles, possibly provided by the US to the mujahedeen.  The missiles have proven to be less accurate than those depicted in Charlie Wilson’s war.  The US military had reported that these helicopters were shot down by ground fire.

Ironically, when the US changed sides, supporting the more liberal urban people representing the central government, the Americans adopted Bagram Airbase outside of Kabul as their headquarters.  Bagram was used by the Soviets as their headquarters when they supported the central government in Kabul. 

Interestingly, before the Soviet withdrawal, Gorbachev tried a surge, based on the advice of military commanders who thought one last push would break the mujahedin.  After eight years the Soviets concluded that they could not achieve anything resembling a victory in Afghanistan.  After a similar time period, Americans may now be learning the same lesson.  George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  (Santayana also said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”)

Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were forced to leave Sudan in 1996 by the Sudanese government due to conditions attached to American foreign aid.  Afghanistan was their choice for relocation, but they lost many of their members because Afghanistan was such an undesirable place to live.  Previously, Al Qaeda had played a minor role in supporting the mujahideen against the Soviets.  Al Qaeda engaged in three battles, losing the first two but claiming victory in the third, which occurred as the Soviets were retreating from Afghanistan.  Al Qaeda’s primary activity in Afghanistan was training terrorists for Pakistan to fight in Kashmir.  

Operating from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda directed the 9/11 attacks on the US.  Osama bin Laden gave three reasons for this attack.  The first, he said, was the continued existence of the Americans Air Force base in Saudi Arabia.  It was created to support the first Gulf War, but not closed at the end of that war.  The base was near Islam’s two holiest sites – Mecca and Medina.  (This base was removed after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.)  Second were the injustices against Palestinians carried out by Israel supported by US.  He also included the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel supported by the American 6^th fleet.  The third reason given was American support of corrupt Arab monarchs who, he said, embezzle wealth from the people.

October 7, 2001, in response to 9/11, the US military along with the British launched “Operation Enduring Freedom,” an invasion of Afghanistan.  On November 13, 2001, the Taliban fighters abandoned Kabul and on December 7, 2001, the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar fell.  Seventeen months after the invasion, on March 20, 2003, the US, along with three other countries, invaded Iraq in “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

As the US reduced forces in Afghanistan, the Americans assigned several Afghan tribal leaders with the task of killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar.  The leaders were given suitcases filled with cash for this assignment.  Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar both escaped.  The tribal leaders kept the cash.

Lawrence Wright (“Looming Tower”), a leading expert on Al Qaeda, said that 80% percent of Al Qaeda had been killed or captured.   At that point in time, the US redeployed military assets from Afghanistan to the Iraqi theater.  In a news conference, President Bush stated, “It is not all that important that we capture Osama bin Laden.”  The redeployment of military assets to Iraq prevented the US from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and allowed most of the remaining Al Qaeda (50 to 100 people) to move across the border into Pakistan. 

Lawrence Wright suggested that if we had completed the effort against Al Qaeda, there would not have been a Global War on Terror.  The redeployment allowed Al Qaeda to survive and the invasion of Iraq resulted in significant gains for Al Qaeda in both funding and recruiting.  Al Qaeda became a well-funded, multi-national organization carrying out attacks in Spain, England and Indonesia.

The invasion of Iraq also provided some obvious, but unintended, benefits for Iran.  It removed Iran’s worst enemy, Saddam Hussein, and converted Shiite-dominated Iraq into Iran’s closest ally. It also motivated Iran and North Korea, the other two countries in the “Axis of Evil,” to restart their nuclear programs to help protect themselves from invasion. 

The leaders of Al Qaeda are now in Pakistan and these leaders are not likely to return to Afghanistan.  It is easier for the US to capture and kill them in Afghanistan.  They are safer in Pakistan.  The Afghans do not want Al Qaeda because they attract foreign military force.  Al Qaeda does not want to leave Pakistan because living conditions for Al Qaeda members are much better in Pakistan, including food, water, electricity, banking, communications, etc. 

The Taliban

The Taliban in Pakistan are divided into two large groups and many sub-groups within the larger groups.  Mostly in Waziristan, the two large tribes are the Mehsuds and the Wazirs.  Mehsuds consider Wazirs slow-witted, mercantile and untrustworthy.  Wazirs consider Mehsuds as vagabonds and cattle rustlers. 

The Pakistani Taliban are led by the Mehsuds.  Compared to the Wazirs, they have very little interest in Afghanistan.  The Mehsuds have carried out 300 suicide attacks in Pakistan.  Benazir Bhutto was, allegedly, one of their victims.  Faisal Shahzad, the New York Time Square terrorist, was allegedly trained by the Pakistani Taliban, although the Pakistani Taliban have disavowed any connection.  The Pakistani military has focused their attacks on the Pakistani Taliban, not the Afghan Taliban.  On rare occasions, and only due to US pressure, have they focused on the Afghan Taliban.   Historically, the Pakistanis viewed the Afghan Taliban as their allies against India in the Kashmiri conflict.  Recent polls show that a majority of Pakistanis view America as their enemy.

The Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, comprising approximately 42 percent of the country’s population.  Most of the Taliban in Afghanistan are Pashtuns.  Pashtuns make up only 5% of the Afghan National Army (ANA).  Only about 20% of the ANA speak Pashtun. Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun.

The Afghan Taliban are little threat to the US.  Their objective is to control and govern Afghanistan.  (Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a Jihadist organization whose objective is to create a new Islamic caliphate that will rule the Muslim world and beyond.)  The Taliban simply want the US to leave Afghanistan.  They dislike Al Qaeda referring to the Arabs as “camels,” a derisive term.  They are joined together by a common enemy, the United States.

Risks to American Security

The primary risk of a terrorist attack against the US comes from extremists and lunatics.  A large American military presence in Muslim countries fuels anti-Americanism, promotes the growth in the number of terrorists and fosters increased funding for Islamists and Jihadists.  Every terrorist attack by Muslims has been motivated by Western military presence in Muslim countries. 

1. New York City & Pentagon, Sep 11, 2001:  Motivated by US maintaining a military base near Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.
2. Bali bombings, October 12, 2002:  Motivated by US war on terror and Australia’s role in liberating East Timor.
3. Madrid train bombings, March 11, 2004:  Motivated by Spain’s participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
4. London bombings, July 7, 2005:  Motivated by British support of US in Iraq and war on terror against Muslims’
5. Others motivated by the US fighting Muslims:   

                        Richard Reid (shoe bomber), December 22, 2001

                        Farouk Abdul Mutallab (underwire bomber), December 25, 2009

                        Nadal Hassan (Ft. Hood murderer), November 5, 2009

                        Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), May 3, 2010

 Faisal Shazad told authorities, “I am part of the answer to the U. S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people.”

Without that motivation, the risks of terrorist attacks are significantly reduced.  (See “What Terrorists Want” by Louise Richardson.)  Remaining in Afghanistan increases the risk of a terrorist attack against the US, both from foreign terrorists and from domestic terrorists. 

In the future, Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs) may become the weapon of choice for terrorists.   Two-thirds of the military drones are manufactured outside the US.  Drones are relatively easy to make and can easily enter Mexico.  They need only clear a 20-foot fence to attack the US.

Mathematical Challenges

The NATO forces have a significant mathematical advantage over the Taliban.  The US has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan plus a similar number of contractors.  NATO countries have 30,000 there.  There are 90,000 to 120,000 trained troops in the Afghan National Army.  Combined, this totals a minimum of 220,000 troops, mostly well trained and well equipped.  The Taliban have 25,000 to 30,000 fighters, who are less well trained, less well equipped and often illiterate.   Despite and seven to one troop advantage, NATO has not prevailed.

From a financial perspective, the security objectives in Afghanistan are virtually a mathematical impossibility.  Afghanistan has a GDP of $24 billion.  Afghanistan, which has only a 30% literacy rate, has a weak, corrupt central government that cannot assume responsibility for security in the foreseeable future.  The US is unable to provide security with a budget of $100 billion and a seven to one advantage over the Taliban in military troops.  Ultimately, to maintain security at a fraction of the $24 billion GDP, the Afghans will have to find a different solution.  This could take generations to achieve. 

Afghanistan will change when Afghans want change badly enough to change, not because Americans want them to change.

Conclusion

The rationale for the US remaining in Afghanistan may seem compelling, at least, politically.  The US has considerable sunk costs in lives and resources in the Afghan conflict.  Withdrawal could damage America’s global image.  The Taliban would claim to have driven out the Americans, just like they drove out the Soviets. The Administration would be accused of cowardice. 

Because the assumptions were wrong and the objectives unachievable, the American public will eventually turn against the US involvement in Afghanistan.  At that time, politicians will support withdrawal to get elected.  But, there are alternatives to withdrawal and they are available now.

In his Washington Post column August 31, 2009 titled “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan,” conservative Republican George Will stated, “forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”  

Jack Devine, former CIA deputy director and chief of the CIA Afghan Task Force, made a similar case in the July 29, 2010 Wall Street Journal.

The need to revise our military strategy in Afghanistan should be clear.  The Afghan conflict costs American lives and money, and it motivates lunatics and extremists to commit terrorist acts against Americans. 

The death of Osama bin Laden provides the US with an opportunity to change strategies and tactics and fight terrorists in South Asia the same way we fight terrorists in other parts of the world – with intelligence, Special Forces and drones.  This will mean a reduction in the US military presence in Afghanistan, which should help reduce the risk of terrorist attacks against the United States.