Please Get Your Russia Conspiracies Straight

Another public hacking episode is in the news this week, and naturally, Russia is being blamed for it.

Not that there appears to be much evidence as of yet that Russia is truly responsible. And such evidence is unlikely to be found, even if they did do it. Hacking cases are notoriously difficult if not impossible to definitively attribute. And attribution becomes even more unlikely if you're assuming the hackers have the effectively unlimited resources of a nation-state to fund very sophisticated attacks.

This all leads to a kind of Catch 22. Either Russia's state hacking apparatus is extraordinarily formidable and advanced--in which case, their culpability is not likely to be proved. Or, they are incompetent fools who can't even cover their own tracks--in which case, how much of a threat could they really be? Which one is it?

Sadly, that's not the only cognitive dissonance going on here.

The target of the latest purported "Russia" hacks was two state voter registration systems. This fits well with the useful campaign narrative that Putin is trying to manipulate the election to favor Donald Trump. But a moment's thought reveals that this story has contradictions of its own. On the one hand, we are told that we must fear the recklessness of Donald Trump and be appalled at the idea he would have control of nuclear weapons. But on the other hand, the reckless Donald Trump is also allegedly a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin, the leader of the other nuclear country that the US is most likely to exchange nuclear weapons with. How do we possibly reconcile this?

To believe both of those ideas simultaneously is to believe that Russia is trying to manipulate the elections in Donald Trump's favor, so that once elected, Donald Trump will start a nuclear war against Russia. Sure, no one ever says it like that. But if you believed both narratives that the Clinton campaign advances, that's where you end up. Hopefully, you don't need me to tell you that is crazy.

Thus, we have a humble suggestion. If you're going to demonize Russia, ideally try to use some actual facts. But if you can't muster that, at least get your conspiracy theories straight. It would save the rest of us a lot of needless frustration.

US Declares De Facto No-Fly Zone in NE Syria

Without debate and with little fanfare, the US has announced a major escalation in the Syrian conflict. In a move pregnant with disaster, the Pentagon has declared an "exclusion zone" over a part of northeastern Syria around the town of Hasaka.

This is an extension of a dangerous development over the weekend in which the US scrambled fighter jets to intercept Syrian planes that were attempting to bomb targets in Hasaka. That episode did not see any shots fired between the planes. However, with the new announcement, it is possible that future encounters could result in dogfights between US and Syrian warplanes. And since Syria is backed by both Iran and Russia, this would be a major progression of the indirect proxy war going on currently.

All of which might have a reasonable person wondering why any of this is occurring? Why did the US escalate the conflict, and why now?

The answer from the Pentagon is... self-defense. That's not a joke. Here was how Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook explained it:

Our warning to the Syrians is the same that we've had for some time, that we're going to defend our forces and they would be advised not to fly in areas where our forces have been operating.

Seen in isolation, that statement sounds sort of reasonable. But in context, it is not at all.

What Cook is referring to is the open but little-discussed fact that the US has special operations troops on the ground in Syria. These troops are embedded with a Syrian Kurdish faction called the YPG, which is generally regarded as one of the US's more reliable allies in the fight against ISIS. And for the most part, the YPG has kept its focus on ISIS. Partly this may have been a matter of priorities, but it could also be explained by geography. The Kurdish forces are located primarily in the northern parts of Syria, and so most of the adjacent territory is held by ISIS rather than forces affiliated with the Syrian government. Thus, they are usually pitted against ISIS in the current conflict.

Hasaka, however, is the exception to the general rule above. Here, the YPG and the pro-government forces had generally split control of the city with relative peace, but fighting broke out in recent days.

It's not clear who started the fighting, but it is clear that the fighting has continued for multiple days. And because US special operations troops are embedded with the YPG, this means the US forces are now engaged, directly or indirectly, with forces aligned with the Syrian government.

While US proxies of some description have been engaged against the pro-government troops routinely in other parts of country, to my recollection, this is the first time a force that contained US troops was fighting directly against the Syrian regime or its partners.

And that's how we get to the pretense of self-defense advanced by the Pentagon. In an overt violation of Syrian sovereignty, international law, and the US Constitution, the US sent some 300 troops into Syria to embed with an insurgent group. This group is now fighting pro-government forces. And so the US is declaring that it will shoot down Syrian warplanes who attempt to bomb the insurgent group.

To put a finer point on it, analogies are always helpful. Of course, it's somewhat silly to speak of another country invading the US, but please humor me. Imagine the Vermont secession movement took an inexplicably violent, imperialist turn and sought to conquer the rest of New England before breaking away into an independent country. Ever interested in revenge, suppose Russia backed this secession movement and embedded some of its own elite officers within New England to help them out. Next, the US attempted to conduct airstrikes against the secessionists only to be threatened by Russian fighter jets. And Russia declares an "exclusionary zone" over the conflict area in order to "defend its forces".

That is the equivalent of the US position in Syria right now. First, we invaded, then we got in a battle with government forces, and now we are claiming self-defense. It is equal parts reckless, ridiculous, and illegal, and it is the official US policy in Syria.

This is how conflicts spiral out of control.

Newly protected from government airstrikes, the YPG is less likely to pursue a ceasefire in Hasaka against government forces. The Syrian government is similarly unlikely to surrender more territory without a fight, for fear of establishing precedent. And the US is unlikely to back down from this new policy, for fear of the domestic political fallout. (Can't you just imagine the ready-made attack lines--"The Democrats abandoned our allies on the ground in Syria, so they could appease Assad and the Ayatollah of Iran!")

The end result is an incredibly combustible situation. And if and when it explodes, there's little doubt that American politicians will breathlessly decry it as an act of aggression by the other side.

Iran "Ransom" Scandal Is Back...and It's Still Nonsense

The purported Iran "ransom" scandal is back in the news after the State Department confirmed that it didn't allow Iran to take possession of the cash until the release of the American prisoners was confirmed. The State Department called it "leverage" while anyone looking for a reason to disparage Iran or President Obama calls it "ransom". The question is who is right?

When this story first broke, we argued that the whole issue was much ado about the nothing. In spite of the latest news, that assessment still stands.

To see why, first it is important to clarify the definition of ransom. Wikipedia uses the following definition, which seems appropriate: “Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner or item to extort money or property to secure their release.”

Assuming the payment of $400 million was a prerequisite for the prisoner exchange to occur, as it now appears, a very narrow interpretation of the facts would call it either ransom or a bribe. Arguably, since prisoners were released on both sides rather than just from Iran, the payment would be more of a bribe to ensure the transaction took place. However, given that bribing a foreign government and paying ransom to it, are similarly blameworthy, this distinction is not critical. What matters is whether the payment truly constituted either in any meaningful sense. I would argue it does not.

The reason is that the US already acknowledged that it owed this money (and more) to Iran. This is critical. The connotation of ransom is that the kidnappers are trying to get money that does not otherwise belong to them, thus making it akin to theft. Obviously, the average criminal doesn’t kidnap for the purpose of trying to collect a legal debt that already exists. That would be absurd.

When I make my mortgage payment to US Bank, I’m not being extorted. It’s true that if I did not pay, they could eventually foreclose on the house and evict me. However, we don’t consider it extortion because there was a debt involved. Meanwhile, if criminals threatened to seize my house unless I paid them, this clearly would be extortion. The question of whether a debt existed beforehand is fundamental. And just as we don’t think it’s extortion when a legal debt is involved, it seems we shouldn’t think of it as ransom if the payment in question is, in fact, a repayment of funds that were already owed.

Based on this, one of two conclusions on the latest Iran scandal could be warranted. If one believes the debt involved to be legitimate, then the Obama Administration’s actions in the negotiations itself are not problematic. The US paid a debt that was owed; a prisoner swap ensued; and two longstanding issues that inspired hostility on both sides of the relationship—and thereby increased the chance for another needless war—have now been put to rest.

Alternatively, if one believes the debt in question is not legitimate and the US government did not owe any money to Iran, then the Obama Administration’s settlement is a problem, and constitutes either a bribe or ransom. In this case, the entire $1.7B that the US agreed to pay should be the amount that we object to. Unless we assume the US government will shirk on the unpaid balance, there is no reason to be up in arms exclusively about the $400 million paid in January.

If there’s an argument to be made about why the US did not owe Iran any money related to the old contract, then let’s hear it. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why this should be a big scandal. Surely, the circumstances of the payment were cartoonishly suspicious (literally, flown-by-night), and the Obama Administration's shifting position on the story looks like a scandal--first, the negotiations on the debt and the prisoners were totally separate, and now we know there was some overlap. But the Obama Administration's failure to stick with a single version of events over the past few weeks does not change the facts of the underlying story. And that story is not a scandal; it is, instead, a very rare instance of diplomacy being used in the Obama years instead of coercion.

Also, it’s also worth noting that the $1.7B settlement is not a new story. The Wall Street Journal is (understandably) trying to play up the importance of their reporting, but all that’s new here is the timing and form of the payment—not that payments were going to be made. The settlement itself was widely reported back in January. So again, if we’re going to object, it seems like we should have been objecting to it in January, when the US agreed to pay the money, not just now that we learned some of the money was actually paid.

If you're a libertarian or someone else who supports peace, the knee-jerk criticism of the Obama Administration is somewhat understandable. It stems from a bias I share—namely, that if the Obama Administration did it, it’s probably awful. This bias has proven to be an extraordinarily reliable predictor in foreign policy over the past eight years, but it’s not right all of the time. And Iran is one of the cases where it's wrong.

Indeed, the Iran nuclear deal, and the side deals at issue here, is essentially the only significant foreign policy action President Obama undertook that moved the US closer to peace. US policies elsewhere in the region were an utter disaster for peace--a disaster that is still playing out to this day, in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, to name just a few. But Iran is the one issue he ultimately helped improve. And he deserves credit for that, just as surely as he deserves to be impeached for overthrowing a sovereign government in Libya.

The point here is that there are plenty of legitimate and well-founded reasons to criticize President Obama. There is absolutely no need to manufacture scandals. 

DC Transit terror plot involved a $245 donation and... nothing else

DC Metro; Source: Wired

Earlier this week, Americans were alarmed and instantly relieved to learn that the FBI had uncovered and arrested a dangerous terrorism suspect who was a member of the DC Transit police. The suspect was accused of aiding ISIS, and the nature of his employment was particularly ominous, which probably explains why it was included in most headlines.

Unfortunately, initial reports were light on details, and we were all naturally anxious to learn more.

Specifically, what horrible tragedy had just been averted by the intrepid folks at the FBI? A bombing of the DC subway system perhaps? An attack on Capitol Hill or other iconic symbols of America?

How about sending $245 in telecom gift cards? Turns out, that was it. That's the crime that justified national headlines this week.

As trifling as that sounds, however, it gets more farcical upon looking into the details.

The reason it was a crime at all was because the suspect believed he was sending the gift cards to a friend living in ISIS territory. In fact, his friend was an informant paid by the FBI and had nothing to do with ISIS. And at least at one point during the investigation, the suspect was found trying to console the informant and persuade him against joining ISIS. Nevertheless, the investigation continued until this dangerous suspect finally snapped and sent $245 to what he thought was a friend in need. It's not yet clear whether he even agreed with ISIS's broader worldview or tactics.

If that weren't bad enough, you should also know the investigation to entrap capture the suspect took roughly six years altogether, involving some 20 meetings between the informant and suspect and interviews with law enforcement. Needless to say, Americans probably would have been better off if these years' worth of resources were dedicated to just about anything else.

The suspect faces up to 20 years in prison for the gift card purchase.

Just another day in the War on Terror.

Read The Intercept's report on this story for the rest of the details.

Economic Populism, America First, and Cheers for Gay People at the RNC

Source: The New York Times

Republican National Convention
We watched the final night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) and Donald Trump's acceptance speech so you didn't have to. Here's what you missed:

First, a Positive Disclaimer
I have a fantastically low bar when it comes to watching the two major parties. In effect, I'm expecting it to be uniformly bad. When it's not, I'm pleasantly surprised and those are the things that stand out to me. Naturally, that's what I emphasize in the analysis below as well. It's not that I don't notice the horrifying parts as well; I just take those as a given. If you'd prefer a more balanced or negative take, there is no shortage of apocalyptic overviews for you to seek out. Like this one.

Cheers for Gay People
One of the most encouraging aspects of the evening came from a risky inclusion in the speaking lineup--billionaire entrepreneur and libertarian-leaning Peter Thiel. You may be asking, what's one more billionaire amongst friends?

Well, Thiel was risky for a Republican convention because he's an openly gay man who was expected to address LGBTQ issues--not exactly the bread-and-butter of the GOP. After raucous disapproval of Ted Cruz the night before, there was a solid chance that Thiel would be greeted with boos when discussing his sexual orientation.

The exact opposite happened.

In the speech, Thiel chastised Republicans for getting distracted by "fake culture wars" in general and worrying about the North Carolina transgender bathroom kerfuffle in particular:

When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?

Indeed.

Then, in what may have been the highlight of the night, Thiel declared his identity and received a standing ovation:

I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American.

That got loud applause at the RNC. And it was followed by chants of "USA! USA! USA!" It was as beautiful as either of the two major parties can be circa 2016.

A similar moment also occurred during Trump's own remarks after he discussed the Orlando shooting and vowed to protect the LGBTQ community from hateful ideologies. Cheers broke out, and Trump explicitly acknowledged them:

And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.

This line wasn't in the original draft of his speech. Apparently, Trump was as relieved as the rest of us that Thiel and the discussion of the LGBTQ community received a surprisingly positive reception.

America First
Trump's foreign policy comments remained predictably inconsistent in his acceptance speech. He vows to defeat ISIS quickly in one breath (implying an invasion of some sort), but then opposes nation-building and regime change. He opposes regime change, but can't stand the most prominent instance where diplomacy was used in lieu of regime change (Iran). He correctly blames Hillary Clinton for advocating the intervention that destroyed Libya, but then blames her--the woman who counted Egypt's former dictator Hosni Mubarak as a family friend--for supporting / engineering the Egyptian dictator's overthrow, which is clearly false. He also criticizes Obama for not drawing a firm "red line" on Syria, but had that "red line" been more firm, it would have meant regime change in Syria--which, again, Trump is supposed to oppose.

You get the idea. He can't help but contradict himself all over the place. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, and it can't all fit together. Given how obvious many of these contradictions are, one wonders how they persist. Do his advisers really not understand this? Or maybe it's just some form of political compromise to the hawkish elements of the party? Tough to say for sure.

What is clear, however, is that Trump is pushing the America First theme. This phrase, or some variant of it, occurred repeatedly in his remarks, as an explanation of his priorities on foreign policy and immigration. The term is historically associated with a prominent antiwar movement, and we have to believe Trump knows this. Whether he truly favors this approach, or is simply using it as a marketing ploy is anyone's guess. But it does bode well for the antiwar cause in the upcoming debates. He may not be consistent, but Trump is setting himself up to take the more peaceful stance relative to Hillary Clinton.

Also worth noting here is another great line from Peter Thiel's speech: "It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild America."

Incredibly, that was an applause line at the RNC. One wonders if similar remarks will be heard at the Democratic National Convention, given their nominee.

Economic Populism and Outreach
Another major theme of the evening was economic populism. Trump may want to cut taxes (at least in this speech), but that shouldn't be confused with him wanting to shrink the size of government. Quite the opposite.

Trump's daughter Ivanka highlighted the (highly misleading) idea of a gender wage gap in her speech, attributing it primarily to challenges faced by working mothers. In response, Trump plans to advocate for an affordable child care system and possibly new employment laws preventing discrimination. While superficially appealing, it's not likely these will work well in practice. Do you want to send your kids to the daycare equivalent of the VA? I didn't think so.

Trump's own speech naturally focused on bad trade deals. Light on details but heavy on emotional appeal, he vowed not to sign another deal that harmed workers, and that American companies who tried to shift jobs overseas would face consequences.

Given this mood, you may not be surprised to learn that Trump was making very direct appeals to the Bernie Sanders voters, by favorably referencing the Democrat's populist candidate multiple times. He also referred to the economic plight of African-Americans and Latinos at a couple places in the speech, emphasizing how his policies would help them and all Americans suffering from the "rigged political and economic" system. Of course, this was a theme that Sanders drove home often as well.

With the exception of tax cuts and a few half-hearted nods to deregulation, Trump's economic policies will turn out poorly. But politically, that does not matter. Last night, Trump committed to branding himself as the candidate of the working man--his policies, his rhetoric, and even the personal anecdotes shared by the other speakers were all designed to convey this message.

The End of #ImWithHer

Trump concluded the evening by coining a response to Hillary's ubiquitous slogan #ImWithHer. Instead, Trump offered a different pledge to the American people: I'm with you.

Love him or hate him, this was brilliant.

In effect, it says that Hillary is in this race to just enhance her own personal power and influence and her supporters are pawns to help her achieve this end. On the other hand, Trump is the candidate who is in the race for selfless reasons, just to fight for the American people. Again, it doesn't matter whether you actually think this is true or not; it's a powerful message that fits his strategy.

And if I was a betting man--that is, if it was not illegal for me to wager large sums of money on political outcomes--I'd bet that Trump's strategy is going to work.

Hate, Rage, and "Others"
Disclaimer in mind, Trump's remarks were more moderate and more positive than I expected. The Hillary campaign already issued its verdict, which is exactly what you'd expect, summarizing it as "more fear, more division, more anger, more hate". 

And to be sure, there was some of that. But not as much as you'd think.

Trump still wants a wall and is still worried about illegal immigration. He also called to stop all immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. But in both cases, his remarks were less categorical than usual.

On immigration, he was no longer fixated on all ~11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the country. Instead, his focus was on some 180,000 who were illegal immigrants that committed crimes. One might question what crimes are included and whether this number is right, but this is clearly an improvement over calling for all illegal immigrants to be deported. Similarly, on the terrorism question, he no longer called for a ban on Muslims as such, he wanted it to be based on country. That position won't win any points with libertarians, but it is certainly better than banning people explicitly based on their religion.

In Trump's worldview, at least as expressed last night, the relevant distinction is not (legal) immigrant or non-immigrant; not black, white, or Latino; not Evangelical Christian or LGBTQ. It is American or not American. And he wants to put Americans first. 

Of course, nationalism has a dark side too. If Trump ultimately wins, we may be reminded just how dark it can be. But last night, nationalism convinced a room full of conservative Republicans to cheer enthusiastically for gay people. I say that's worth celebrating.

The Case for Political Optimism Part I: Hillary Clinton

The Washington Post / Getty Images

Let's face it: July has been a bad news month. It's also about to get worse, as two historically unpopular candidates become the official presidential nominees for their respective parties.

It does not really matter whether you think Clinton is the worst case scenario and Trump is the second worst, or vice versa. Most Americans aren't excited about either candidate, and after July, it will be all but certain that one of them occupy the White House come 2017.

This is cause for concern, of course. But the downside is not nearly as great as many believe. I can't remember the last election that didn't occur at a "historic" and "pivotal" moment in the nation's history. And yet, here we are. America survived the foreign and domestic interventions of George W. Bush, and it survived the foreign and domestic interventions of Barack Obama. It will survive Trump or Clinton too. And there's good reason to believe our politics will emerge in much better shape in four years. This is the case for political optimism.

The Upside of Hillary Clinton
From a libertarian perspective, there's not much to like about Hillary Clinton. Her particular form of centrism is opposed to libertarian principles on nearly every count--drugs (mostly pro-prohibition), war (for it), minimum wage (screw poor people), and so on. Thus, the upside to Hillary lies primarily not in what she will try to do, but in what she will fail to do.

Before getting there, though, it's worth noting there is one area where the winds of political pragmatism may call Clinton to do something helpful intentionally. As we discussed yesterday, Campaign Zero has proposed a slate of generally useful reforms for stopping police brutality. They have also compared the candidates' policy proposals to their core recommendations to identify areas of common ground / obstruction. Clinton comes out favorably on this score. Granted, she supports items that, in our view, are the most watered down and among the least important reforms. And of course, all she's doing is undoing some of the harm caused by the 1994 crime bill that was signed in to law (with her help) by her husband. (Don't worry, the harm was only directed at child "super predators", whom she also likened to dogs.) But with all that said, there's a chance some good will come of it. And given that the police brutality problem is liable to get worse before it gets better, she may consider more drastic (and hopefully helpful) reforms if and when she actually is president.

Foreign Policy
That good news aside, it must be acknowledged that Hillary Clinton is an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy. This doesn't make her all that unique, but she's far worse than most of her party in this area. In essence, she's bad on the same things that President Obama is bad on. She just takes them to new extremes and throws in a few extras for good measure. Some choice examples:

• Vehemently advocated for the disastrous overthrow of Libya
• Called for a no-fly zone over Syria (which also implies regime change)
• Is determined to strengthen US relations with Israel's belligerent prime minister
• Called for new sanctions on Iran immediately after the first sanctions were lifted
• Voted for the Iraq War

I don't have enough time in the day to provide a comprehensive list, but you get the idea. When there's a choice between peace and coercion, Hillary Clinton will choose coercion almost every time.

This is clearly bad news if you're an American concerned about terrorism, civilian casualties, or American soldiers needlessly dying overseas. It's even worse news if you happen to be a civilian in any of the countries that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would probably try to get more involved in.

The only real upside in this area is that Hillary is likely to overplay her hand. Among the few virtues of President Obama has been restraint (by recent American standards, that is). His administration has intervened and bombed seven different countries during his presidency. This included the violent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya via NATO intervention. But to date, Obama has not backed a full-scale effort to overthrow President Assad in Syria, and the troop redeployments in Iraq number in the thousands currently, rather than the tens of thousands that they did during the occupation. His policies have still been egregious, but he had enough political sense to do it quietly. Rather than send the amount of troops needed to accomplish the stated (if futile) goal of uprooting ISIS, Obama has quietly increased the troop count hundreds at a time to avoid any meaningful debate. Politically this works for him, and it means the resulting policy is less bad than it otherwise would be.

Hillary Clinton's deep-seated hawkishness suggests she is unlikely to exercise the same degree of subtlety and tact. More likely, she will push for major new interventions. Iraq is probably the first candidate for greater intervention, with Syria and Libya following close on its heels. When this happens, it's tough to predict how the politics will play out. It's possible that the Democrats will manage to hold their nose while many Republicans offer wholehearted endorsements of the aggression they have always clamored for from the Oval Office, post 9/11. However, if Hillary pushes far enough, the tolerance of the Democrats is likely to wear thin, and Republicans will realize that attacking Hillary on war is politically effective. We saw this right-left unity briefly coalesce around opposition to bombing Syria back in 2013. There's a small chance that Hillary Clinton could revive it, to the benefit of all of us.

Economic Policy

While there's a chance of positive political effect from foreign policy, the biggest upside to a Clinton Presidency lies in the sphere of economics.

As we have noted previously, the US and global economies are ripe for their next collapse. There are many different indicators that would lead us to believe the current expansion is coming to a close, and there's good reason to believe that the next collapse will be even worse than 2008-2009. Moreover, even if you don't buy these ideas, there's also just the simple matter of time. The current expansionary period, as judged by the stock market, is the second longest on record in the post-World War II period. If it were to survive through the next presidential term, it would be the longest expansion of the era by nearly two years. Given the numerous signs of cracking already, this is unlikely to happen. It's a safe bet that the US economy will undergo some kind of recession under the next president.

This won't actually be Clinton's fault--most of the blame ought to lie with the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, Clinton, and possibly President Obama, will receive most of the blame for it.

This may not be fair, but it will have great ramifications for US political discourse. It will finally put to bed the claim that Democrats know how to "manage the economy" than Republicans. The point here is not that the Republicans are better; it's that the very idea of either party knowing how to manage the economy is absurd.

Even if the general public fails to grasp this particular point, many other things will still become clear. Most importantly, the next recession is likely to come with at least a few bank failures. From an educational perspective, this will be very useful. When banking failures or economic issues arise under a period of Republican control, the blame is always placed on the excesses and greed of capitalism. But when it occurs under a prolonged period of Democratic control, this will be a difficult pivot to make. After all, some Democrats (and the Fed) have claimed that we have implemented the essential regulations needed to keep capitalism, and especially the financial sector, stable and secure. If some of these firms fail in spite of such useful regulation, only a few conclusions are possible:

1. The market still wasn't regulated enough--which would be awkward since Dodd-Frank was hailed as such a major accomplishment,
2. Maybe regulation isn't the solution after all, and/or
3. Maybe, as libertarians have argued all this time, government regulations and interventions are actually the source of our economic problems, not the solution.

Clinton's response to the economic crisis will be bullish for option #3.

After all, economist Paul Krugman is angling to be her chief economic adviser, and his remedy in the crisis will be more of the usual Keynesian stimulus prescription. An authoritarian Clinton may even take things further. Borrowing inspiration from the Democratic legend of FDR, she may make more detailed interventions in the economy--raising wages, implementing price controls, etc. None of the proposals will prove helpful, and most will actively make matters worse, just as they did during the Great Depression under Hoover and FDR.

In other words, a Clinton Presidency will offer the kind of natural economic experiment that economists are usually denied. She is not an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders, and in some ways, that's actually better. Domestically, she is the opposite of radical. She is the embodiment of centrist conventional wisdom, so she will pursue the orthodox solutions. When they fail--and they will--it will create an unprecedented opportunity.

Twelve continuous years of Democratic rule means that when the next crisis hits, for once, the free market might not be blamed for the follies of government.

America faces many difficult problems right now and many of them will come to a head in the next four years, regardless of who gets elected. But while the short-term outlook looks bleak, there are real reasons to be excited about the state of US politics on the other side. It may be angrier and more jaded than ever, but it will also be smarter. That is worth looking forward to.

Also, look for our post tomorrow when we discuss the unlikely upside of Donald Trump.

Two Arguments to Dismiss After French Terror Attack

Source: Valery Hache - AFP/Getty

Europe suffered another tragic terrorist attack yesterday, as a white semi-truck deliberately ran over scores of pedestrians in Nice, France. Reports put the death toll at 80 while more than 100 were wounded. The truck driver was also armed and apparently opened fire on civilians before ultimately being killed by police. At this point, authorities believe there was only one attacker.

At the time of this writing, there have been no formal claims of responsibility by ISIS or any other group, but the New York Times reports that ISIS occasionally takes as reports as two days before taking credit. We also know relatively little about the attacker himself, though one report claimed he was Franco-Tunisian.

Given how little information has been publicly released so far, it's possible that this was simply a random act of extraordinary violence. It is far more likely that it was a politically-motivated terrorist attack like the ones in Paris and Brussels that have also occurred over the past two years. Indeed, French President Hollande's remarks in the wake of the attack mentioned stepping up military action in Iraq and Syria, so it seems reasonable to assume there's a plausible connection to radical groups in the Middle East.

As this appears to be yet another terrorist attack, a couple observations are worth making.

The False Trade-off
Typically, the debate following attacks like these proceeds along two dimensions. There is a proposed domestic response designed to reduce the probability of similar attacks taking place in the future. And there is a proposed foreign response to punish the ones responsible--or more realistically, to punish a lot of random people that have the misfortune of living in the general vicinity of wherever the attacker and his friends are from. But I digress.

The domestic discussion takes place along the familiar lines of the liberty vs. security axis. Authorities invariably promise more security if they have more power over individual citizens. Benjamin Franklin's famous quote is dutifully cited in defense. But a terrified and bewildered population is primed for the security argument, and this side typically wins out.

The problem with the liberty-security debate is that it assumes the trade-off is actually possible. Just as economists used to believe there was a reliable trade-off between inflation and unemployment, security experts of today presume that liberty and security have a straightforward inverse relationship. When economists tried to put their views into practice, the theory quickly broke down. In the US, the stagflation of the 1970s, characterized by simultaneously high inflation and unemployment, showed that the previous assumption did not hold. A dangerous and mistaken paradigm was largely scuttled.

The same thing needs to happen for liberty and security. France may provide the necessary evidence to finally make the case convincing.

Recall that France has been drifting ever further towards the security side of the spectrum ever since the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015. And even prior to Charlie Hebdo, the country already had some of the strictest gun laws, far stricter than the ones that apply to Americans. (The guns used in that event were apparently procured on the black market.)

The most extreme shift towards security happened after the Paris Attacks in November of last year, which claimed well over 100 lives. After that tragic event, France declared a state of emergency on terrorism, suspending many civil liberties in the process. While originally intended to be temporary, it remains in effect today and failed to prevent this attack. Additionally, yesterday was Bastille Day, a French national holiday on par with the Fourth of July in the US. If anything, we would expect security to be particularly tight on such an occasion, and yet, the attack still wasn't prevented.

French security forces may simply be incompetent, but that shouldn't be our primary explanation of how this occurred. Rather, the mandate of preventing terrorism is an impossible one. The Nice Attack tragically illustrates this point. In this case, most of the damage appears to have been done by a truck, a tool which thousands of people in France no doubt have access to every day in their jobs. If we assume a similar, if scaled down, version of this massacre could have been done with any motor vehicle, then the number of people with access to such a weapon would be in the millions. And they have opportunities to commit some form of atrocity any time they pass a busy city street.

Of course, it's not just cars and trucks that are the problem. There is virtually no end to the possible vulnerabilities in a free society. In light of this, it is unreasonable to assume the French government could prevent terrorism if it just had a little more power. They cannot, and they will not, regardless of whatever new powers they try to acquire.

This is why the liberty-security debate needs to be dismissed. One side of the argument is taking the impossible as a given fact. No useful policies will come from that exercise.

Fighting Them Over There?
Another standard argument in the terrorism debate is the idea that "we must fight them over there or else we'll fight them over here". You've no doubt heard this one before. And like the alleged liberty-security trade-off, this concept could seem plausible on its face.

Recent history, however, proves it to be false.

Terrorist attacks are still thankfully rare, but successful high-profile attacks have become more common against Western targets in recent years. One could debate whether this is due to the new interventions unleashed by President Obama, or whether this is just delayed blowback from the belligerence of President George W. Bush. Most likely it's a combination, but it ultimately does not matter.

The reality is that the current interventions have not had the intended effect. If the goal was to prevent future terrorist attacks, they have failed. And thus, the primary justification for intervention is no longer valid.

If one wishes to continue to promote intervention abroad in spite of this setback, as the French President apparently does, they need a new pretext. It is not making anyone safer. And 15 years into this experiment, no serious person should believe the next intervention is the one that will actually work.

Summary
The problem of terrorism does not have any easy solutions at this point. But some proposed solutions are clearly worse than others. As we enter another round of political grandstanding on this issue, it's helpful to bear this in mind. Whatever the politicians may say, complete security against terrorism is not possible. No matter how much liberty we are willing to sacrifice domestically and no matter how many innocent bystanders we are willing to see bombed abroad in the name of prosecuting the failed War on Terror, this fact will not change.

Afghan War Extended, Iraq Escalated, and Why Neither Will Work

President Obama will go down in history as the first president in US history to oversee two terms of perpetual war. Mind you, it's not declared war, but it is war in every other sense.

Additionally, the next president will take office under conditions that are worse by most metrics in the foreign policy space. Even if we confine our focus to the Middle East alone, the list of heightened problems is quite robust:

• Terrorist attacks against Western targets have become more frequent
• Iraq is somehow in a state of greater chaos than it was before, having lost control entirely of large swaths of the country
• Libya, Yemen, and Syria have been added to the portfolio of failed states thanks to US policy
• Two terrorist groups (ISIS and Al-Nusra in Syria) hold enough territory to be considered mini-statelets, and
• Afghanistan remains as unstable as ever, with the Taliban holding more land than they've had at any other point since the US overthrew them.

It didn't have to be this way.

President Obama initially took office on a wave of sentiment that was at least opposed to the Iraq War. This proved to be one of the decisive issues of the 2008 election and primary. But while President Obama did follow the withdrawal timeline accidentally established by President George W. Bush (by failing to negotiate a longer status of forces agreement), he was unable to exercise the leadership necessary to prevent the US from returning only a few years later. In the interim, President Obama proved that he had learned nothing from the Iraq War, as the interventions in Libya and Syria (covert in this case) carried the same risks and were implemented anyway. In turn, these interventions helped precipitate the very problems that were used to justify renewed US military involvement in Iraq to bring us up to our present condition.

This brief history helps give us a window into Obama's most recent policy adjustments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's use of military force has never proved helpful, and most of it has proved positively destructive. Yet in spite of this, he continues to rely on it. In Iraq, the US recently announced its adding hundreds more ground troops, still without any debate on the subject. In Afghanistan, President Obama reduced a planned withdrawal by nearly 2,900 American troops, and NATO, in a decision which must have been significantly influenced by the US, recently committed to four more years of support for the Afghan government.

What's most noteworthy about these decisions is that they stand no chance whatsoever of making a major difference in either war. Doing so would require another round of troop surges, which are politically expensive and cannot create the conditions for long-term stability in any case. The experience under President Obama proves this, as Iraq shortly descended into chaos after the "successful" surge under Bush and Obama's own surge in Afghanistan provided similarly disappointing results.

It appears that the Obama administration has finally internalized that winning these conflicts, whatever we may mean by that, is not attainable using military force. Instead, the recent decisions are just stopgap measures to ensure a full collapse doesn't happen during the remainder of the President's term in office. Like most foreign policy decisions, these actions are not motivated by a coherent strategy for addressing either conflict. They are motivated primarily by domestic political concerns. The priority here is not about protecting Afghans or Iraqis; it's just about protecting the President's legacy and his party's electoral chances in the fall.

Newly Released Drone Death Toll Lowballs Reality

Last Friday, the Obama Administration released its estimate of civilians killed in US airstrikes outside of war zones. The figures covered President Obama's first 7 years in office, and they appear to have significantly underestimated the actual civilian death toll. The Obama Administration put the range of civilian casualties between 64 and 116 over this span. Meanwhile, independent organizations place the number far higher. For example, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that between 380 and 801 civilians have been killed by US airstrikes outside of war zones over the same period.

Since the United States long-ago dispensed with the tedious business of actually declaring war, it may not be obvious what countries count as war zones these days--or countries with "active hostilities" to use the government's term. For the purposes of this data, the government has defined the relevant non-war countries to be Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. It was not immediately obvious whether Libya would have been considered a country of "active hostilities" during the NATO intervention in 2011. Based on how low the overall numbers are, however, it seems safe to assume casualties from that conflict are not included.

As a general rule, steps toward greater transparency in government tend to be a good thing. Unfortunately, these estimates are so low that it's fair to question the objectivity and thoroughness of the government's investigation. The US Government likely has access to more extensive resources and tools to gather information on these events than journalists scouring the news. This may explain some of the gap in estimates. However, it cannot explain all of it. Indeed, as a casual observer of this subject, I can think of a few isolated atrocities perpetrated by US strikes that, by themselves, eclipse the lower estimates provided by the government:

• Cruise missile strike on al Majala in Yemen, killing an estimated 41 people (on the low-end), in late 2009.
• Drone strike on a wedding convoy in Yemen, killing between 15 to 27 civilians, in 2013
• Drone strike on Pakistani tribal meeting, killing at least 40 civilians, in 2011 

I can get to nearly 100 casualties using just 3 attacks. Thus, for the government figures to be reliable, they would need to have killed no more than 20 civilians in the remaining 470 airstrikes they acknowledged. Who thinks they achieved that?

Of course, the real story here is not about numbers. Numbers matter because they help us understand the scale and scope of the injustice that US policies have perpetrated against people in other countries. Ethically, however, there isn't a number above zero that can be justified. The US should not be engaged in a continuous global assassination campaign. Full stop.

I realize this may seem like a radical position given that "even" the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Obama has used assassination missile strikes as his tactic of choice in the War on Terror. However, this position becomes the obvious one when we attempt to place ourselves in the shoes of the countries being attacked. A quick thought experiment may be helpful to prove this point.

Imagine a suspected terrorist is identified in Topeka, Kansas and the guy's house happens to be located next to an elementary school. Let's further assume that the government actually has very compelling evidence to support the idea that this individual truly is a dangerous terrorist. And explosions being what they are, it's not possible to hit the house without also damaging the nearby playground and school buildings. In this circumstance, would it be okay for the government to launch a drone strike on his house to neutralize the threat? What if the government did it on a weekend, so they could be nearly certain that no children would be around to be killed at the adjacent school? Then would it be okay?*

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most Americans would reflexively oppose missile strikes on Topeka. But why do we feel that way? Most likely, it's because the concept of collateral damage, even when it's accidental, becomes instantly toxic when it is changed from an abstract phrase to a real world policy that is close to home. This is particularly true when we're discussing places that do not have active hostilities (at least not with the US).

But if we can't justify a missile strike on Topeka (or any other Western city), how can we justify such a strike in Yemen? Practical distinctions can be made here, but ethical distinctions cannot. Unless your concept of justice involves preferential treatment to certain nationalities, races, religions, etc. we must conclude the hypothetical drone strike on a Kansas school is essentially equivalent to the very real assassination strikes carried out in Yemen and elsewhere.

Returning to our main story, the Obama Administration's new civilian casualty disclosures are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it appears to be a step toward transparency. On the other, the data appears to clearly underestimate the casualties, and it fails to provide a sufficient level of detail that would allow different reports to be reconciled. It is important to keep an eye on the bigger issue--namely whether America can or should be entitled to assassinate people in other countries. We may never determine exactly how many civilians have been killed in America's global assassination strike program, but we can know how many such deaths would be acceptable. None at all.

*And yes, I realize that no likely US government would seriously consider such a tactic. It could be argued that this hypothetical is invalid since the US justifies its assassination decisions partly on the idea that it cannot conceivably capture the individual, due to the lack of a strong / friendly enough government to assist us. In a US context, this clearly would not be true.

I would argue that the capture alternative technically exists in the foreign context as well, even if the host government will not do so. The US has set a precedent (just or not) that this option is on the table, after it engaged in a cross-border night raid to capture Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, without the Pakistani government's permission. Additionally, the US also has the resources to do it since special forces are deployed throughout the Middle East. The resulting cost might be higher than a local SWAT raid, but it is an option.

Defense Contractor Lobbies for... Peace and Trade?

A wonderful and surprising thing happened this week. The US-based Boeing Company signed a deal with Iran Air to sell up to $25 billion worth of new commercial airplanes.

Assuming you're not a shareholder of Boeing or a customer of Iran Air, it might not be immediately clear why this is big news. And in an ideal world, it wouldn't be. US companies would be able to trade freely with Iranian companies, and every new business deal would be entirely mundane. In the world we actually live in, however, this deal is nothing short of groundbreaking. It has major implications in both practical and symbolic ways.

Practical Implications
Starting first with the practical effects, Iran has been suffering under US and/or international sanctions to some extent dating back to 1979,* shortly after the Iranian Revolution overthrew the US-backed dictator there. Since that time, each successive US president, save George Bush Sr., has managed to tighten the sanctions regime. Despite failing to produce any positive political effects, the sanctions regime has had many negative effects for the Iranian economy over the years. One of the more acute, and obscure, consequences came from Iranian companies' inability to import new civilian airplanes or import spare parts to maintain their existing fleet. The result is that Iran's commercial aircraft are considerably less reliable and safe, on average, than the rest of the world's.

While very specific, this problem makes perfect sense from an economic perspective. Airplanes represent a very complex and specialized product, as well as a considerable amount of capital. There's no reason that an Iranian entrepreneur couldn't start an airplane or spare parts manufacturing business. But their ability to be successful in a such a specialized industry is limited by the size of the market.

An Economics Tangent
To see a more tangible example of this principle at work, think of the rise of specialty online retailers. And in particular, we'll use the not-entirely-random case of vegan shoes. Before the Internet and e-commerce had taken off, there were probably about as many vegans as there are today. And if you're vegan, especially if you're a guy, the prospect of finding a good vegan (non-leather) pair of dress shoes is a daunting one. It basically comes down to a tradeoff between principle and pain. You could buy high-end dress shoes that were fashionable and comfortable, but you'd have to compromise on principle because they would invariably be made of leather. Or you could find cheap dress shoes that were vegan by accident to make them cheap, but these would typically look terrible and feel even worse. I surely was not the only one confronted with this dilemma, and yet, my moderately-sized hometown of Boise, Idaho did not have a single vegan shoe store. It was outrageous, I assure you.

Fortunately, the Internet (and before that, the mail-order catalog to a degree) provided the solution. Because while there were not enough male vegans in Boise in need of professional shoes to support a dedicated store (indeed, I doubt the number was significantly higher than 1), there are more than enough in the world to do so. And thus, we have the rise of successful online vegan shoe stores such as the literally named Vegetarian-Shoes.co.uk.

Back to Iran
So why did I tell you a long-winded story about the trials of the vegan shoe consumer? Because it actually explains the Iranian airline predicament quite well. When dealing with a very specialized product with limited demand, the size of the market is everything. By preventing other countries from trading with Iran, this is akin to removing the ability of the vegan shoe store to sell online. They might be able to survive, but they won't be able to specialize and refine their product as much as an organization that has the world market as their possible customer base. Combine that with Iran's inability to import products, and the result is that the products that are available probably aren't going to be as good. In this way, reducing the size of the market limits specialization and tends to reduce product quality as well.

Given this backdrop, the entry of Boeing, the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, into the Iranian market is likely to provide real and meaningful benefits to Iranian travelers. This alone would be great news.

Symbolic Implications
The benefits do not end there however. There's also a major symbolic component. As noted above, Iran and the US have been at odds more or less continuously since 1979. The two countries have been on the brink of war (with the US as the instigator) on multiple occasions, and it is almost a miracle that a direct full-scale conflict never erupted.

This is important context because Boeing isn't just a major aircraft manufacturer. They are also one of the US's largest defense contractors. This means that one of the principal members of the US military-industrial-complex is now engaging in a peaceful mutually beneficial trade with a nation that was a principal member on the US hit list until very recently. The US Government may have refused to fully normalize relations or fully lift sanctions on Iran. But Boeing is not waiting for the dust to settle. This deal represents a kind of private detente, one that may prove to be nearly as significant as the Iran Deal was in moving the ball towards normalcy.

Incentives Aligned with Peace and Trade
It should go without saying that Boeing did not pursue this deal out of the goodness of their heart. Instead, this is about the bottom line, and that's perfectly okay.

It should also be noted that, historically, Boeing is not shy about influencing the political process when it benefits the bottom line. This was seen most recently when it lobbied successfully for preserving that great archetype of corporate welfare, the Export-Import Bank. But influencing the government comes hand-in-hand with being a defense contractor. No individual or group in US society has much use for combat helicopters or other high-tech weapons. So if they are going to find a buyer, it will necessarily be through well-coordinated lobbying of the purchasers. This may explain why in the 2014 election cycle, Boeing was the 11th most prolific lobbying organization (based on dollars spent) in the US, according to OpenSecrets.org.

And as a defense contractor, it often makes business sense for Boeing to support war and hostilities around the globe. Rising tensions increase the perceived need for more weapons and military equipment, and war itself necessitates the replenishment of ammunition and equipment. From a financial perspective, these are great things for Boeing.

In this case, however, the tables have turned. Boeing has made the calculation that the potential profits from gaining Iranian airlines as new civilian aircraft customers are larger than the profits associated with an outright conflict or just continuing tensions in the region. The fact that Boeing pursued and announced this deal publicly, even before some of the details are final, proves that they have committed to this decision.

This is critical, because there will definitely be efforts to try to shut it down. Already, members of Congress have weighed in suggesting that this deal somehow represents a threat to US national security if Iran replaces old civilian airplanes with new, American-made ones. There are also still residual obstacles to the deal emerging from Obama's failure to honestly implement sanctions relief. Currently, Iran is still effectively denied access to the international payments system, so it's unclear how they would pay for the $25 billion deal. This has made some skeptical that the deal will actually stick.

My view, however, is that the sale will stand. This deal represents an opportunity for Boeing to earn more revenue from one customer than the whole company did in the first quarter of this year. Boeing has a very strong vested interest in seeing this transaction through. And their extensive lobbying power means they will almost certainly be able to eliminate any existing political obstacles in their path. If Boeing's lobbying organization can save the Export-Import Bank, which has no legitimate arguments supporting it, then surely it can also ram through a business deal that has no legitimate arguments opposing it. Hopefully, in the process, they'll eliminate the obstacles for other countries and companies to trade with Iran as well. In short, Boeing's profit-driven self-interest may be able to provide relief that President Obama promised but refused to provide himself.

Time will tell how all the details shake out on this story. But for now, we can sit back and enjoy the beautiful spectacle. A defense contractor is lobbying for peace and trade with Iran--and they are going to win.

*Disclaimer: This link portrays US actions in a much more positive light than is warranted, but it still summarizes some of the key events.

Syria, and Obama's Don't Do Stupid Shit Rule

News on the ongoing quagmire in Syria took an unexpected turn last week. In the wake of the recent terror attack, we expected, and heard, numerous demands to expand bombing campaigns against ISIS. What was less expected was the internal letter that surfaced in the State Department with 51 diplomats doing what US diplomats do best--advocate for war. But the war they want is against the government of Syria, rather than ISIS.

The timing of this is confusing, given that ISIS terrorism was the top foreign policy issue of the week and the Syrian government is one of the key enemies of ISIS. But the actual policy isn't a terribly new idea. The question of whether to bomb the government in Syria, for one purpose or another, has been seriously contemplated since at least late 2013 when video of a chemical weapons attack in Syria went viral.* US public opposition managed to silence the war drums in that case, but the policy remained on the table. The US Government eventually started bombing terrorist targets in Syria in late 2014 and have continued since. To date, however, the bombs haven't been turned on the Syrian government.

Despite no formal bombing, it would be a mistake to assume the US has been de facto aligned with the Syrian government in the fight against terrorist groups. President Obama and others in the Administration have frequently said that Assad must go. On the ground, the US has attempted to implement this regime change policy with covert action by arming Al Qaeda-linked rebel groups that are fighting the Assad government. This has been going on since sometime in 2012. This contrasts with the common narrative on the subject that the US actions have only been aimed against the terror groups. In fact, the US Government has effectively been fighting on both sides of the same war--quite literally, in some instances.

Fighting on both sides of the same war isn't good for anyone besides the weapons manufacturers. But it illustrates the challenge that Syria presents. As is so often the case, there are no good options in Syria. The Obama Administration has responded to this by effectively choosing both without committing 100% to either path.

It would be far better, however, if the US stayed out of the situation entirely. Such a position is not an endorsement of the status quo, but a recognition that there is no plausible way for the US to improve the situation and a great many ways that we could make it worse.

To fully understand why this is the case, we recommend a recent article at The Week written by Bonnie Kristian. In the piece, Kristian reminds readers of President Obama's original, and laudable foreign policy rule, namely "Don't do stupid shit." But then she shows how our current intervention in Syria is a clear deviation from this principle, much like Libya was before it.

In brief, Kristian contemplates the three possible outcomes of current US policy considerations:
1. Focused efforts on destroying ISIS, thereby further empowering the Assad regime.
2. Focus efforts on destroying the Assad regime, thereby further empowering ISIS and Al Qaeda or other extremists, much as happened in Libya. Or,
3. Destroy both simultaneously (which would almost certainly require US occupation) and then the US is stuck trying to rebuild Syrian society from scratch. Recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that is unlikely to end well.

The conclusion is clear. Obama needs to get back to his professed rule: Stop doing stupid shit.

Here's the link:

How Obama Abandoned His 'Don't Do Stupid Sh-t' Mantra

*Readers will note that this attack was originally blamed on the Assad government by the USA. Subsequent journalism, however, showed that the qui bono approach offered the correct understanding. In fact, it was a false flag attack perpetrated by the Syrian opposition (with the Al Qaeda faction taking the lead) with a goal of getting the US to intervene on their side. The US deeply wanted to take the bait, but public opinion ultimately prevented it.

Who Will Take the Worst Position on Orlando, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

The ongoing competition to express the worst possible views--known to many observers simply as the US Presidential Election--escalated this week in the wake of the Orlando tragedy. Donald Trump predictably took an early lead in this episode by saying the following:

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 14, 2016

And of course, what Republican response to terrorism would be complete without an inane shout-out to the "call it radical Islam" brigade?

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn't he should immediately resign in disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clearly, Donald Trump set a very high bar here. As Justin Raimondo predicted (and we mentioned) earlier this week, Trump doubled down on his calls for a ban on Muslim immigration (which obviously follows, since the shooter was born in New York). He also called for increased bombings of ISIS so we can "win", whatever that means these days. This is another logical policy, since no one thinks that ISIS directed this attack, and the shooter himself had previously expressed support or allegiance for radically different militant groups ranging from Hezbollah to ISIS, which are actually completely opposed to each other.

The question was how Hillary would respond. And in some ways, she had the perfect Democratic script totally laid out for her by President Obama. Her job was to push back against Trump's apocalyptic claims about Muslims in general, maybe say something vague about American values, and then pivot to that bread and butter Democratic issue of gun control. This sidesteps the tricky reality that Obama's current policy of bombing ISIS and arming some not-so-different rebel groups on the side has failed to stop attacks. It would also allow Democrats to portray themselves as the adults compared to Donald Trump's efforts to channel Dick Cheney on terrorism. And since there's no way Congress will actually pass meaningful gun control legislation, it also gives Democrats a kind of out if and when the next terrorist attack / mass shooting occurs--something like, "We told you we needed an assault weapons ban, but the Republicans cared more about hunting than innocent American lives, and now X more deaths are on their hands."

This is an ideal strategy politically, and it also offers a facially plausible rejoinder to Trump's claim that current leadership is weak and powerless to stop these attacks. Implicitly, it accepts this as true, but then passes the blame to Trump's party.

In short, the path for Hillary was obvious and it's already been largely carved out by President Obama. Given that, unlike Hillary, President Obama is actually still viewed somewhat favorably by Americans, this strategy should have been even easier to pursue. Politically, Hillary needs to position herself as running for President Obama's third term; it's really her only angle. So breaking with Obama on any issue, even when it could be warranted, has negative political implications.

So, with all these good reasons to follow in Obama's footsteps, did Hillary decide to take the logical path of least resistance? Of course not.

It started out well enough. Hillary led with the gun control narrative.

"We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals." —Hillary on the FL attack

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

And paid lip service to diversity and defending the LGBT community from violence...

Our diversity isn’t a liability in the fight against terrorism. It’s an asset. It makes us stronger. pic.twitter.com/0cTpmfvA3c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 13, 2016

"To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them.” —Hillary https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

(In that last tweet, I assume the character limit caused her to omit the fact that "always" began around 2013, when Hillary discovered that supporting measures like marriage equality had become politically expedient. But I digress.)

To her credit, she also explained that declaring war on an entire religion is a bad idea.

"We cannot demonize, demagogue, and declare war on an entire religion...Hate is not the answer to hate." —Hillary

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 13, 2016

So far so good, right? And if this was all she said, she'd get reasonably high marks. In our view, there's good reason to be skeptical about the likely efficacy of proposed gun control measures in actually curbing either domestic terrorism or mass shootings. That said, the two mainstream responses to terrorism are increasingly either a) demonize Muslims and expand bombing in the Middle East or b) pursue gun control domestically. Given this limited menu, it seems straightforward that the second option is considerably less harmful.

Unfortunately, it appears that Hillary couldn't bear the thought of being the less belligerent candidate in the race. So she tried to catch up. In no particular order, here are the highlights (if you can call them that).

A New Surge?
Hillary called for an "intelligence surge"--the idea being that expanded powers and spending on surveillance might prevent future attacks. There are many issues with this. Perhaps the most important is the fact that, as the article above notes, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to disrupt or predict by definition. If the attacker isn't coordinating plans with anyone else, there are no suspicious communications to intercept in order to sniff out the plan. That means you're left with trying to predict attacks based on something else--maybe Internet browsing habits or, more likely, demographic information. It's not hard to see how such a policy quickly devolves into a slightly dressed-up form of racial / religious profiling of Muslims--which doesn't sound all that different than what Trump would want.

Of course, the other problem here is that this attacker actually was flagged as a possible risk by existing intelligence operations, and he was interviewed multiple times by the FBI. They did not find sufficient cause for concern, however, which illustrates either the FBI's incompetence or just how difficult this problem is. Either way, it's not clear how throwing more resources at them would produce a viable solution.

The language here also seems to be telling. Hillary says horrible and appalling things on a regular basis, but they are almost never an accident. She's one of the most polished politicians out there. That shouldn't be viewed as praise; it's just an observation. It also means that, in general, when she uses unique language to describe a policy, it's almost certainly deliberate. In this case, the use of the word "surge" is not accidental. It's clearly designed to recall the public's mistaken understanding of the Iraq Surge. Don't you remember that "the Surge worked"? The only reason ISIS sprang up and Iraq is in complete disarray today is that we didn't stay long enough thanks to that hapless peace prize-winning president of ours. This is not true, but Hillary is betting that enough people think it is to find the idea of an intelligence surge compelling.*

Capitulating to the language of "Radical Islam"
Not so long ago, Hillary was commendably defending her decision not to describe the source of terrorism as "radical Islam" on the very logical grounds that it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion.

Orlando apparently changed that. CNN reports that, for fear of being viewed as too politically correct, now she's happy to say it. And in announcing this position, she took the opportunity to spike the proverbial football on the crowning achievement that was the summary execution of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. We should all be relieved that getting Osama bin Laden solved that terrorism problem once and for all.

The Spirit of 9/12
You can't make this up. Hillary Clinton literally reminisced about the days after 9/11 and called for America to get back to the "spirit of 9/12". This is how Hillary recalls the national mood after that tragedy, from Gawker:

We did not attack each other. We worked with each other to protect our country and to rebuild. It is time to get back to the spirit those days—the spirit of 9/12.

The problem with the spirit of 9/12 is that it produced a series of unmitigated policy disasters (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the PATRIOT Act as the top three), the long-term consequences of which are still being felt today. Indeed, The Washington Post recently reported, based on a surviving witness, that the Orlando shooter apparently cited the US bombing of Afghanistan as part of his motivation. Thus, it's not far-fetched to suggest that the Orlando tragedy might actually be more blowback from the righteous and belligerent fervor that fell over the US after 9/11.

And yet, even with the catastrophic failures of Afghanistan and Iraq free for all to see, Hillary Clinton wants an encore.

As Gawker's headline aptly put it, "Hillary Clinton Wants You to Remember the Spirit of 9/12 and Forget What Happened Next".

More Bombing?

In addition to the above, Hillary Clinton also called directly for more bombing against ISIS as part of her response, just like Trump.

Final Tally
In the final analysis, it's a little hard to say which candidate won the heated contest to offer the worst positions in the wake of the Orlando Shooting. Trump's nonsensical immigration ban probably still puts him over the top, but Hillary certainly made him work for it.

What is important to understand is that this is what our mainstream political debate on terrorism has come down to. No one offers solutions with any probability of success. No one contemplates a policy of nonintervention, which is dismissed out of hand even though it's the one foreign policy approach we haven't attempted since terrorism became a major issue in the US. And no one explains the simple truth that 100% security is an unattainable goal--that living in a free society necessarily entails some risk, and that, media attention notwithstanding, the risk posed by terrorism should be near the bottom of our concerns.

Instead, we're stuck with a useless competition to see who can take the worst position first. Donald Trump may have won this round. But we can rest unassured that, on the question of terrorism, Hillary Clinton will be right on his heels throughout this election season.

*Incidentally, if the Surge could only work if we stayed forever, shouldn't we call it something else? "Surge" connotes something that is temporary in nature--power surges, a river surges, etc. If your military policy requires sending a massive number of ground troops that need to stay forever, that's no longer a surge; it's a colony.

Double Standards and the Tragedy in Bahrain

Two Middle Eastern countries experience widespread protests against their government in the Arab Spring. Both countries have a powerful leader who regularly abuses human rights. Both countries' governments respond to rising protests with violent reprisals. And, accurately or not, both countries feature a political opposition that is viewed as calling for something like democracy by many observers in the West. Then the two countries' paths diverge. One is quickly and violently overthrown in a NATO-led intervention championed by the US and the French, descending into chaos shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, the second country continued to receive foreign aid throughout the process, enjoy warm relations with the United States, and the oppressive leader remained in power. After the initial conflict was over, affairs in both countries soon faded from the news cycle.

The first country was Libya. The second country was Bahrain.

And while there are several legitimate differences between the two (in terms of demographic makeup, size, religion, etc.), none of them adequately explain the disparate response. The much more compelling answer was actually offered by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, when he gave a surprisingly honest answer on one of the weekly political shows. Here's the exchange back from 2011:

AMANPOUR: What about other countries, such as Bahrain, such as Yemen? If the United States military is attacking to protect civilians in Libya, why not in Bahrain and Yemen? 

MULLEN: Well, I think, first of all, just back to Libya, a very important part of this has been the Arab League vote to establish a no-fly zone and the -- the partners -- the coalition partners that are coming into play with respect to Libya. 

AMANPOUR: Correct. But what's the logic? 

MULLEN: In terms of... 

AMANPOUR: Of other people being -- civilians being killed in other countries where the U.S. has an interest? 

MULLEN: Well, I think -- I think we have to -- to be very careful to treat every country differently. Certainly, there's a tremendous change going on right now throughout the Middle East, including in Bahrain. And Bahrain is a much different -- in a much different situation than Libya. 

We haven't had a relationship with Libya for a long, long time. The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades. So we're working very hard to support a peaceful resolution there, as tragic as it has been, and we certainly decry the violence which has occurred in Bahrain. I just think the approach there needs to be different. 

AMANPOUR: Do you think the Libyans have the wherewithal to retaliate against the United States or its allies in the region or here?

Or to state matters more simply, the difference is that Bahrain is a US ally, and Libya was not. So the US simply decries the violence in Bahrain, without bothering to mention that the perpetrator of that violence was the government of Bahrain.

Of course, to point out the disparity is not to suggest that the Libya treatment would have been preferable for Bahrain. It might have been more convenient, since the Navy's Fifth Fleet is already conveniently located in the capital. But the final outcome of such an intervention would probably look a lot like Libya does now--an unmitigated disaster and human tragedy.

But of course, the options for US foreign policy ought to be more diverse than Endorse or Bomb. And, as a practical matter, we might get better policy results if we lowered our expectations. Historically speaking, we should be well beyond the point where we can seriously imagine US interventions--well-intentioned or otherwise, economic or military--are going to improve the situation in another region or country. Instead, we should instead ask for something more modest: that our policy doesn't contribute to making a bad situation worse.

In Bahrain and elsewhere, current US policy does not meet that standard.

Today, we're recommending a new article that details some of the ongoing oppression that's happening in Bahrain, including people getting jailed for tearing up photos of the king or critical tweets. It also includes people appealing their convictions only to see their punishments increased as a result. The full article is worth a read, and you can also check out an interview with the author on the Scott Horton Show that goes in further detail.

And if you're an American, the key point to bear in mind as you learn about Bahrain is that the US government has continued giving millions of dollars to the regime throughout this process.