The Quantitative Peace

Big Week

So it's been a busy semester with all of the dissertating, job applicating, researchitating, and paper writing. As I've mentioned before, blogging has (unfortunately) taken a bit of a back seat to all of this. I can't say that it hasn't been worth it, though, as this has been a rewarding semester insofar as the work that I've been focusing on is concerned. However, some big events have occurred over the past week and I feel compelled to at least say a little something about them. More after the jump...

Updates

Just a quick post. I hadn't read anything on this in a while, but this CNN article seems to have a fairly decent detailing of the events surrounding the murders of several Afghan civilians by an Army sergeant and some of his men. 

Also of interest, this article discussing contact between Saif al-Islam and the ICC over turning himself in. Or maybe he's going to Zimbabwe? My money is on the latter.

Ghadaffi Captured

Blogging here had been a bit slow lately.  Between sending out job packets and various other side projects, I've been keeping pretty busy since APSA.  Naturally, blogging has taken a backseat for the time being.

That said, this deserves a quick word. CNN is reporting that this is "unconfirmed," but the BBC seems to indicate that the NTC has confirmed Ghadaffi's capture. As I mentioned above, this will be quick, but I will be interested to watch what happens next.  I doubt Ghadaffi's capture will mean the cessation of fighting in Libya, but perhaps it will slow?  I suppose this all depends on the exact role Ghadaffi was playing with respect to financing, organization, logistics, etc., for the Ghadaffi loyalists that have been putting up resistance so far. And what will be the fate of the man himself? Will he be shipped off to face the ICC? Will he be tried in Libya?

Stay tuned...

*** UPDATE ***

News has since come out indicating that Ghadaffi may have actually been killed after his capture.  Neither BBC nor CNN have confirmed reports, though.

Stay stay tuned...

*** Updated-er Update ***

It appears that Ghadaffi has in fact been killed.  I suppose this answers some of the questions posed above, but some of the others remain in play.  For example, how will this affect continued resistance? 

That's the Spirit!

In spite of the massive flooding in Binghamton, I'm finding some time to focus on something else.  

So hey, remember the debt deal?  Sure you do.  Well things are already off to a great start with that bipartisan commission.  Apparently Senator John Kyl is threatening to leave the bipartisan commission if defense spending remains on the table.  Kyl says that even Defense Secretary Panetta, and former Secretary Gates said enough was enough on defense cuts.  

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's not what Panetta said.  I'm pretty sure Panetta has said that up to $350 billion more would be feasible.  Beyond that and security might take a hit. As I understand it, Panetta was saying that beyond what was already cut as a part of the debt deal, an additional $350 billion over ten years could be cut.  

So what does Kyl get out of this?  Didn't he get the memo?  Bipartisanship is IN!  Oh, that's right...

If the 12-person congressional committee fails to come up with a plan to make those additional cuts, that would trigger $600 billion in defense-spending reductions. And Arizona is one of the top half-dozen or so states in the nation in terms of the defense industry's footprint.

The industry already has felt the ripple effect of military efforts to wind down the U.S. presence in Iraq. After leveling off in 2009, Defense Department contracts in Arizona in fiscal 2010 dropped nearly 19 percent, to about $10 billion.

Defense and aerospace manufacturers employ about 37,000 Arizonans who earned $3.1 billion in salaries in 2008, according to the chamber's figures.

The Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and National Guard also employ 45,000 military and civilian personnel at nine Arizona military installations.

First, I guess it's possible that Kyl really wants an excuse to be off the panel.  I really can't imagine defense cuts not being on the table in some form or another, and perhaps he's reluctant to be associated with the cuts that he know are inevitably coming down the line.  Would he really gain any political points for quitting?  Second, and alternatively, wouldn't Kyl be better off remaining on the panel to curb the potential losses that Arizona faces?  Yes, there may be cuts, but could he effectively argue that those cuts would have been worse for Arizona had he not been there to guard against them?  

Ultimately I guess this comes down to whether or not his threat to leave the panel is credible.  What am I missing here?   

Bipartisanship and foreign policy

Kindred Winecoff has a post up regarding a post by Matt Yglesias on the level of partisanship in American politics.  I've some thoughts on the issue.  I should also stipulate that I'm coming at this from a strictly foreign policy-oriented perspective.  Some of this bleeds over into domestic politics, but I'm sure there's a lot that I'm not covering by approaching the topic from this point of view.

Libya Update (the sequal)

Given the post from last week, I'm somewhat surprised that this has happened so fast.  There was some speculation that the scrapping of uniforms by Ghadaffi's soldiers meant that the battle into Tripoli would be a long and drawn out affair, as Ghadaffi loyalists geared up for more of an insurgency-style campaign against the rebels.  However, it's also possible that they were just ditching the uniforms so as to not get killed.  Either scenario is plausible, and the reality is probably a mixture of the two.  Anywho, I had just a couple of thoughts as to where we go from here.

Stuff is still happening in (the sequel)...

I really don't know how many times I'll be able to use that title, but given that the American audience has become so distracted by the Washington debt ceiling battle, I decided to check on some old favorites and post a quick update on goings on elsewhere.  

Libya:  Apparently Libyan rebels have made "significant" gains in the past week, taking control of some key cities on the way to Tripoli.  NATO planes have damaged or destroyed over 150 targets in the past week alone.  However, who really knows what qualifies as a "military target" for these purposes.  Sources in the article also indicate that some of Ghadaffi's forces have begun consolidating in Tripoli and have begun removing their uniforms, apparently gearing up for a transition in tactics.  It will be interesting to see what the next month brings.  

Syria:  It sounds like the body count in Syria is continuing to rise steadily.  Syrian security forces are apparently combating "armed gangs" in an effort to protect the people.  This includes firing into Palestinian refugee camps as well it seems.  The article also mentions a Youtube video that has surfaced, purportedly showing some pretty graphic scenes from the crackdown.  I've not seen it, but it sounds pretty unsettling.  

Bahrain:  It sounds as though things have quieted down for the time being, but Bahrain is still dealing with the fallout from the previous protests and crackdowns.  Quiet doesn't necessarily mean good, however, as the BBC is reporting that hundreds of people are still in jail and there are reports of widespread torture.  Not terribly surprising, but it's important to keep in mind the fact that the violence carries on even once the streets have cleared.    

Pushback

Just a quick post on some interesting articles coming from Defense News recently...

Debt Ceiling

This information comes from the Office of Management and Budget's Historical Tables of the US Government's budget.  Just some basic information on the debt ceiling that might put the current political wrangling into greater context.  I will add the usual disclaimer that this is not my usual playground, so if anyone catches any mistakes please let me know.

Below is a quick graphic illustrating the points at which the debt ceiling has been raised since 1940.  These figures have not been adjusted for inflation.  The dots show the point at which the debt ceiling was raised, or a point at which a previous raise in the debt ceiling was reaffirmed/extended, while the line is intended to give the viewer a better ability to connect the dots (so to speak).  

This second graph adjusted the previous figures for inflation (billions of 2009 dollars).

Of note---If my count is right, President Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times during his administration, from a starting point of $985 billion to $2.8 trillion.  The Clinton administration increased the debt limit 6 times from $4.3 trillion to $5.95 trillion.  The second Bush administration 7 times from $6.4 trillion to $11.3 trillion.  Of the data available (it only runs through 2009 here) the Obama administration increased the debt limit from $11.3 trillion to $12.1 trillion.  

The real point at which the debt ceiling seems to take off is during the Reagan administration.  Prior to this point government seemed to keep closer tabs on the debt limit---although there are several dots on the graphics above prior to the Reagan administration, many of these cases are simply reaffirming or briefly extending previous raises to the debt limit.  Others can probably speak to this in greater detail, but this seems to make sense given that the Reagan administration was characterized by unusually high peacetime military spending.  The second point at which the debt ceiling rises seems to be during the second Bush presidency.  This also seems to make sense given the tremendous levels of spending for the war on terror.  

Republicans have been campaigning on the fiscal irresponsibility of Democrats, but a cursory inspection of these charts suggest that recent Republican presidencies don't have a great track record of keeping the debt ceiling down.  Earlier Republican presidencies (Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford) seem to have been better at this.  That said, this does not take into account a host of other factors (international crises, which party controls Congress, divided government, etc.) so this is far from conclusive.  Still, if the argument is that the president is accountable for what happens on their watch then the fact remains that Republican presidents have presided over the greatest increases in the debt ceiling.    

Aid to Pakistan II

Apparently some US policymakers have decided to cut some of the US' aid to Pakistan.  I'll keep the commentary short on this one as I've already commented on the topic before at greater length.  I still have a suspicion that getting some distance between the US and Pakistan is not for the relationship's greater good---assuming that what is "good" entails keeping the Pakistani government afloat.  The government needs to maintain some semblance of authority or credibility amongst their own people, and publicly bickering with the US may be one way to do that.  Suffering some sort of tangible cost should enhance the credibility of their stand.  

Alternatively, there are surely very real reasons why US policymakers would be upset with Pakistan, and I also have to wonder if this provided an opportunity for some policymakers to start trimming some fat, as it were.  There were rumblings earlier in the year that Republican policymakers wanted to start cutting foreign aid.  Granted, the aid categories that Republicans were focusing on were really not military aid, but it's possible that some of these policymakers thought that we could save some money by cutting some military aid to countries who are, possibly, grossly overpaid relative to the kind/quality of assistance they've given us.  Take this with a large grain of salt, however, as this is wild speculation and I haven't really looked into this in further detail.  It's not unreasonable to think that military aid would be on the table, though---some prominent Republicans have come out in support of making cuts to the military within the past year.

It's moments like these when I really wish I could be a fly on the wall of some of these back room conversations.  Invariably there is going to be a public face and a private face to these kinds of events, and it would be nice to get a better grasp on just how close or far from one another those two faces actually are.