Category Archives: Web Article Review

Is the U.S. at war in Africa?

According to Politico, U.S. Special Forces are choosing, planning, directing and occasionally participating in missions in at least eight African countries.

A spokesman for Africa Command declined to say which African states host teams under the authority, but former special operations officers have identified eight countries as current or recent sites of the surrogate programs. They include well-known combat zones like Somalia and Libya as well as more surprising sites for American-directed commando raids like Kenya, Tunisia, Cameroon, Mali and Mauritania — and Niger, where the October mission that ended in tragedy involved one of two units that Green Berets run in the country under the authority…

After planning the mission based on U.S. intelligence and getting approval from higher headquarters, the Americans drive or fly with their local partners to the vicinity of the target, where they are required to hang back at “the last position of cover and concealment.” That is the military term for the last place where they can stay out of sight and are protected from gunfire by some sort of natural obstacle. But the former special operations officer pointed out that in the deserts and scrubland of northwestern Africa, “a lot of the time there really isn’t any cover or concealment to be had.”

There, the team “remotely commands and controls” the raid while monitoring feeds from drones and aircraft that eavesdrop on enemy phone calls. Afterward, the Americans move forward to check the raid site for intelligence — or, if something goes wrong during the raid and the African troops need help, they might move forward and join the shooting.

This is done with the full knowledge and participation of the host countries, apparently. Still, it raises questions. To what extent have the keys to U.S. foreign policy been turned over to the military, with little or no civilian involvement? What exactly is the return on the American blood spilled and taxes spent on this? To what extent are some of these people fighting simply because the U.S. is there in the first place?

our world in data

This video from OurWorldinData.org is a reminder of how much things have improved for human beings over the past couple centuries or even the past 50 years. It’s a reminder that the disspiriting reversals we are feeling over the past decade or two could be just a bump in the road when you take a longer-term perspective.

However, we shouldn’t just assume that doing more of what we have done in the past 50-200 years is the way to keep the trend going for another 50-200 years, because it may not be. Part of the trend is about a few key technological breakthroughs, such as vaccines, electricity and water disinfection. If we want more of those, we have to invest in R&D, infrastructure and human capital, and we are underinvesting in all of those. Part of the trend was due to mining of natural capital, and fossil fuels in particular. We know that we can’t just keep mining more and dumping more forever without eventually hitting a plateau or worse, triggering a major reversal in our fortunes.

Nonetheless, we should take a moment to celebrate this progress.

10 million Yemenis could face starvation

The UN is warning as many as 10 million people in Yemen could face starvation by the end of 2018 due to the ongoing invasion by Saudi Arabia. There is no food there, no ability to grow food, and no food able to go in because of the war.

This is staggering, approaching the body count of the worst crimes against humanity in history including the Holocaust, deliberate mass starvation in eastern Europe under the Soviet Union, and the massive rural starvation in China triggered by misguided Communist policies.

The Guns of August (2018)?

According to NBC:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months — and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration, U.S. officials told NBC News…

Joel Wit, who negotiated a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, said the U.S. always believed North Korea had two facilities to enrich nuclear material: Yongbyon and a second site the U.S. is aware of but whose name has not been disclosed…

The latest U.S. intelligence assessment concludes that there is more than one secret site, officials tell NBC News. The question is whether Kim will be willing to admit it.

This is the kind of deal that would work. We know North Korea would like to feel safe from U.S. attack. We can offer them that, along with eventual normal diplomatic and economic ties, in exchange for giving up their nuclear program. Giving up their nuclear program means first they have to declare everything they have, then let weapons inspectors in without restrictions to verify that what they said is true. Once they meet those commitments, the long process of dismantling and removing the materials and equipment can begin. Each time they fulfill a commitment, they can get something in return. This process was working pretty well in Iraq until George W. Bush messed it up. It was starting to work in Iran until Trump messed it up. Now Trump has been duped into a non-deal with North Korea when the Iran deal he was against is actually the kind of thing that could work with North Korea.

I don’t like the U.S. leadership looking stupid, ignorant and incompetent, but let’s face it, at this point that ship has sailed. The biggest risk here is actually that Trump will realize he was duped and overreact by doubling down on his earlier threats. North Korea would probably respond with threats of their own against the U.S. and its Asian allies. In the worst case it could escalate to one side or the other launching some kind of limited attack, followed by a larger retaliation, followed by regional alliances being triggered, and then the downward spiral to 2018 looking more like 1918. Let’s hope this is just my imagination getting away from me.

Who’s really crossing the U.S. border?

This article is from Lawfare, and the answer is interesting.

First off, while the current administration has tried to tie Central American migrants to MS-13, government data reveals that gang members crossing irregularly are the rare exceptions. Since the Trump administration took office, the Border Patrol has detected fewer gang members crossing irregularly than during the Obama administration. In FY2017, these detections amounted to 0.075 percent of the total number of migrants (228 MS-13 members out of 303,916 total migrants). When combined with MS-13’s rival, the Barrio 18 gang, the number rises only slightly to 0.095 percent. This is far from the “infestation” of violent gang members described by the president…

The face of migration has also changed. Back in 2000, Mexican nationals made up 98 percent of the total migrants and Central Americans (referring to Honduran, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran migrants) only one percent. Today, Central Americans make up closer to 50 percent.

A declining Mexican birth rate, a stable economy, and the U.S. border buildup have all contributed to the decrease in migration from Mexico. But as Mexican irregular migration has plummeted, Central American migration has simultaneously picked up. Until 2011, Central Americans constituted less than ten percent of total U.S.-Mexico border apprehensions, but by 2012 they constituted 25 percent, and by 2014 they numbered half of all illicit border crossers. While migration from each country within the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) has fluctuated over time, each country has sent roughly similar numbers of people in the aggregate. From FY1995 to FY2016, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended around 500,000 citizens from each country. In other words, it’s not a coincidence that most recent news stories about migrant parents separated from their children feature families from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

People from Honduras and El Salvador are often fleeing urban gang violence, while those from Guatemala are often fleeing rural poverty.

 

new political push for carbon tax in the U.S.

There is a new emerging push for carbon taxes in the U.S., led by Republicans and using pro-business language. According to Bloomberg:

The campaign, dubbed Americans for Carbon Dividends, aims to bolster a carbon tax-and-dividend plan advanced by prominent Republicans a year ago, using more aggressive lobbying and advertising to line up support with hopes of winning congressional passage after the 2020 elections.

Under the Climate Leadership Council’s blueprint, every ton of carbon dioxide would be hit with a $40 tax, with the price rising over time and revenue redistributed to households in the form of quarterly dividend checks. In exchange, regulations aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions — and much of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate them — would be eliminated.

Companies that emit greenhouse gas emissions also could win liability protection insulating them from litigation over the costs of climate change — a potentially enticing sweetener as lawsuits mount…

So, nominally anti-tax, anti-deficit politicians would get a revenue neutral program, anti-regulation politicians would get to trade away regulations in favor of taxes, and even the fossil fuel industry would get some liability protection. The other implication here seems to be that at least some Republicans in Congress are starting to think about a post-Trump world after 2020, and/or are willing to look for issues where a veto-proof super-majority could be possible.

NYC banning styrofoam

NYC is banning styrofoam as of January 1, 2019.

The ban now means that food service establishments, stores, and manufacturers may not possess, sell, or offer for use single service Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam food service articles or loose fill packaging, such as “packing peanuts” in New York City beginning in 2019…

Manufacturers and stores will not be able to sell or offer single-use foam items such as cups, plates, trays, or clamshell containers in the city.

space catapults

A space catapult is a theoretical alternative to rockets, and apparently Airbus and Google are interested.

Rather than using propellants like kerosene and liquid oxygen to ignite a fire under a rocket, SpinLaunch plans to get a rocket spinning in a circle at up to 5,000 miles per hour and then let it go—more or less throwing the rocket to the edge of space, at which point it can light up and deliver objects like satellites into orbit.

Chicago Hyperloop

The Chicago Tribune has a video of how the Hyperloop will supposedly get people from the (Chicago) Loop to O’hare airport in 12 minutes. The City’s press release says the project will be funded entirely by private investors. The construction timeline? It will be “finalized during the process”. I’m a little skeptical, but winning a competitive bid process for a major city does suggest the Hyperloop is more than a pipedream. It almost makes me want to move to a U.S. city that is willing to plan for the future, which in this case means catching up to modern world class cities that have efficient rail links from their downtowns to their airports.