Obama's Present to Space Settlement

Recently, President Obama met with the NASA Administrator to set the direction for the human space program. The results have not been officially announced, but it is widely reported that NASA will

• not finish development of a government launcher to get astronauts to the International Space Station but, instead, purchase launch services from the private sector,
  
• develop a new heavy-lift launcher (a vehicle capable to carrying large heavy things into orbit), and
  
• send astronauts to Near Earth Objects, among other places.
  

This is all pretty mainstream space 'exploration' stuff. But.

In Paths to Space Settlement I argue that there are three things we should do to bring space settlement closer to reality:

• Space tourism.
  
• Space solar power.
  
• Planetary defense from NEOs.
  

Now consider this question: what are the most important things that government could do to promote these goals?

• More than anything else, space solar power needs a heavy lift launcher to deliver huge satellites to orbit where they can gather energy for Earth.
  
• More than anything else, space tourism needs a privately owned and operated launcher to take people into orbit, which is where the International Space Station is. Bigelow Aerospace has orbited two sub-sized test vehicles and is preparing to launch the Earth's first space hotel, but there is no private vehicle to take people there. Government vehicles, of course, should not be jetting wealthy tourists around!
  
• More than anything else, people need to pay attention to Near Earth Objects to make sure one doesn't hit us. There's nothing like sending astronauts somewhere to get attention.
  

In other words, probably without meaning to, President Obama is preparing to set America on course to do almost exactly what is needed for space settlement.

Merry Christmas!

Health Care Phase II

If the Democrats can hold together, something resembling the current health care bills in the Senate and House will probably pass in the near future. However, from the liberal point of view, these bills have major problems. There are two ways to approach this: give up, hand the Republicans a major victory and probably control of Congress in 2010, or take what we can get and immediately start with the following mantra: "Medicare for All."

The simplest way to get what we want is to allow anyone to buy into Medicare or the federal private insurance pool at cost. This gives people the additional choice of government or private insurance with the federal government's bargaining power. What's not to like?

The law on the verge of passing provides protection from the worst insurance practices and subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance. It also mandates that preventative care is provided. All that is needed is a simple bill letting people in on what the government already does.

However, if the present bill fails, we're toast. As any good engineer knows, better is the enemy of good enough, which brings me to a great if completely tangental story.

Many years ago a former astronaut was put in charge of building a new public library. Unlike many government projects, the library was completed a few weeks ahead of schedule and slightly under budget. A newspaper reporter interviewed the astronaut and asked him how he did it. He replied "I bought a big fancy desk and put it in my office. Every day I put on a suit and tie and sat behind the desk. Every time someone came into the office with a bright idea about how to make the library better I said no."

Health reform Phase I is within our grasp. Phase II is easy to sell: why shouldn't everyone have what seniors have and like?

Don't blow it. Support the current health care bill, with all its many warts and flaws.

Better than the 'Public Option'?

Instead of making our insanely complex health care system even more complicated by adding a 'Public Option,' why not just let everyone buy into Medicare or the private health care plans for federal workers at cost?

This would give us everything the 'Public Option' is supposed to do with less cost, less complexity, and without creating a new government program. Admission would probably need to be phased in so these systems don't have to absorb 30 million people in a single year (30,000,000 / 365 = 82 thousand people a day. That's a lot). Those buying in get the cost advantage of the federal government's bargaining power, and since the buy in is at cost there is no increase in federal debt.

It's simple. It's straightforward. It should work pretty well. Let's do it.

Afghanistan

During the presidential campaign last year, Candidate Obama said he would focus attention and resources on the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda. President Obama has certainly delivered on that. After months of deliberation and study, in a major speech last week he presented his plan:

1. Send an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan within six months, this is above and beyond the 20,000 he already sent. That triples the troop levels from the day he took office. In addition, NATO has pledged an additional 7,000 troops.
   
2. Redouble the civilian effort, which is key to winning counter insurgencies; with a thinly veiled threat to work with local governments and leaders if the central government doesn't shape up. The central government, lead by Hamid Karzai, recent winner of a fraudulent election, is rife with corruption and incompetence. This is a major problem as the primary objective of counter insurgency warfare is to legitimize the government in the eyes of the people.
   
3. Work with Pakistan to stabilize that country and squeeze the Taliban and al Qaeda from both sides of the border. The Taliban came within a hundred kilometers of the Pakistan capital earlier this year, but the Pakistani army has pushed them back since. While the Pakistani army and intelligence service created the Taliban and supported them, there has been a falling out recently. The Taliban has bombed a number of army and intelligence facilities, including a recent attack that killed military officers and their children in a mosque. Similarly, while Pakistani public opinion has long opposed supporting the U.S. in the region, a spate of bombing has caused public opinion to shift significantly in our favor. It is critical to continue this trend.
   
4. Begin withdrawing U.S. troops in 18 months. What many have not noticed is that he said begin withdrawing U.S. troops, not remove all of them. There is no timeline to do more than begin to withdraw.
   

Obama had, basically, three options to choose from:

1. Withdraw more-or-less immediately. We tried that in 1989 after the Soviets were defeated. It led to the conquest of Afghanistan by the Taliban, who harbored al Qaeda, who attacked America on 9/11 leveling the World Trade Center, severely damaging the Pentagon, and killing 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil. It is little wonder he did not take this path. It's been tried, and it failed.
   
2. Continue on with minimal resources (troops and money). This was the policy of the Bush administration, which lead to a resurgence of the Taliban and a real threat to the Pakistani nuclear stockpile. Again, it's easy to see why this approach was not taken. It didn't work.
   
3. Treat Afghanistan/Pakistan as the critical point. Basic Warfare 101 says that to win one should apply "overwhelming force at the critical point." In counter-insurgency warfare firepower is not decisive, so overwhelming force requires more than just the military. For example, it should be noted that Afghanistan has been at war almost continuously for 30 years. Most of the military age men have fought much or all of their lives. Many fight for whomever currently offers them the best chance to survive and provide for their family. Simply paying Afghani government soldiers more than their Taliban counterparts would probably do more than any number of American soldiers, at far less cost. That this wasn't done long ago is a disgrace to the American war effort.
   

Clearly, Obama has taken the last option -- treat Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan as the critical point in the struggle with al Qaeda.

The obvious question to ask is: "if the Soviets couldn't pacify Afghanistan from right next door, why do we think we can do so from half a world away?" This is particularly important as the defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan was a major contribution to the total collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. Note the recent near-collapse of the American financial system and the massive increase in debt that could easily, if not reversed, send us off a cliff. Fortunately, there are some important differences between the Soviet and American efforts:

1. The Soviets did not apply classic counter insurgency principles, but parts of the American military applied them successfully in Iraq (see here for a discussion of the U.S. military's approach to counter insurgency warfare). In particular, the Afghan commander (McChrystal) and his boss, the CentCom commander (Patreaus) are major proponents of this approach, which works. The appalling fact is that, despite bringing Iraq back from the brink over the last couple of years using these classic techniques, they have not been applied in Afghanistan until now. One can only wonder why.
   
2. The Soviets almost certainly intended to permanently occupy Afghanistan, which was not popular, to put it very mildly, with the locals. President Obama made it crystal clear that America has absolutely no intention of keeping US forces in Afghanistan over the long term. It is crucial that this message be successfully communicated to the Afghan people. One seldom-discussed reason we avoided disaster in Iraq is that the Democrats won the 2006 Congressional elections on an anti-Iraq war platform. I'm fairly confident Iraqi insurgent leaders looked at those results, realized the Americans would be leaving, and chose not to get chewed up by American firepower trying to get us to do what we would now do anyway: leave. The Sunni insurgents made an alliance with us and the Mahdi Army stood down almost completely. Violence in Iraq has plummeted.
   
3. The Soviets faced an insurgency supported by a billion-dollar-a-year supply network funneling weapons and materials through Pakistan. This network, set up by a collaboration between the Reagan administration, Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson (see "Charlie Wilson's War" on DVD or read the book), and the Saudis was a key element in the Red Army's defeat, particularly the shoulder-fired Stinger missiles which ended Soviet air power freedom of action at low altitude. While the Taliban and al Qaeda have bases in Pakistan, this support is a tiny fraction of what the anti-Soviet forces received and it is under attack from American drones and Pakistani forces.
   

This does not mean America will succeed in Afghanistan. It does mean we have a fighting chance. Obama is very smart, he understands Islam and that part of the world far better than any previous president, he just might succeed. He has asked for 18 months to show that he can pull it off. We should give it to him.