Israel/Palestine

As the conflict between Palestinians and Israel is in the news, I thought it would be a good time to point out some of what shapes my views, which is not the normal fare. I view the conflict as fundamentally simple: two peoples want the same land and are fighting over it.

[NOTE: if I've got any facts wrong, please correct me.]

Thought Experiment

Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose the Isreali Jews destroyed all their weapons and absolutely refused to fight at all, starting tomorrow. What would happen? My prediction: within a month or two there would be very, very few living Jews in Palestine. Why? Because many, many Palestinians hate the Jews, and for good reason. Their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents lost their land as a direct result of the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, not to mention oppression, occupation, and humiliation since then. For example, some years ago a couple Israeli reservists took a wrong turn, ended out in the wrong part of town and were killed. I saw a picture in the press of two well-dressed young Palestinians showing the photographer their blood drenched hands. They were beaming with pride and joy. Another example, Afafat's wife was once quoted as saying (paraphrased), "I get invitations to parties and events from Jewish women all the time. I refuse all of them. I hate the Jews."

Now suppose the Palestinians destroyed all their weapons and absolutely refused to fight at all, starting tomorrow. What would happen? My prediction: within a year or two there would be a Palestinian state with, more-or-less, the pre-1967 boundaries. Why? If the Israelis wanted to kill all the Palestinians they have the firepower to do it. The don't because they don't want to, either due to moral considerations or all but certain international condemnation. Furthermore, the Israelis have repeatedly traded land for peace and removed settlements. A vigorous Palestinian non-violent protest movement would, I believe, be more than sufficient to gain a Palestinian state, although not one from the river to the sea, an unlimited right of return, or control of Jerusalem. For that, only violence has a chance of success.

Why Create Israel?

Here's a story. It is supposed to be true, but I don't really know. Shortly after the 1948 war a pregnant Jewish woman was killed in a kibbutz near the Egyptian border. The tracks of the killers led straight to an Arab village in Egypt. A young Israeli officer was sent to follow the killers. It's not clear what happened, but by the next day a lot of the villagers were dead. There was a storm of condemnation for Israel in the international press. The officer went to the prime minister, Ben-Gurien, and said (paraphrased) "This is terrible. We are being portrayed as monsters." Ben Gurien said, "Not at all, this is great." The officer was aghast, "What do you mean?" Ben Gurien explained: "For two thousand years killing Jews has been easy and painless. The international press is telling the world those days are over, from now on killing Jews will be difficult and very, very painful."

The March Towards Peace

Many people despair of the Jews and Palestinians ever living peacefully side by side. These people are either ignorant of the major facts or aren't seeing the pattern. The fundamental pattern is simple: one by one Arab countries and other organizations are giving up trying to destroy Israel and making peace. Consider:

1. Israel was created by the U.N. in 1948. On the day it was created, five large professional Arab armies invaded the new nation. The Jews had no army, navy or air force; only a couple of terrorist/guerilla organizations and some veterans of the British Jewish Brigade that fought in World War II. Almost all knowledgeable observers believed the Jews would be wiped out, and they nearly were. Only a shipment of Czech arms enabled them to push back the Egyptian army marching up the coast. By the end of the war the Jews had defeated all five armies and established what are now called the pre-1967 borders. These borders are very hard to defend. Israel was only 17 miles wide at one point and nearly all of pre-1967 Israel is within artillery and/or rocket range of Arab land. After the war, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt put Gaza under military rule.
   
2. In the days leading up to the 1967 war Arab leaders claimed they would destroy Israel. However, the 1967 war demolished the Arab armies, established Israel's military superiority, and gave Israel physical control of the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights (high ground in Syria on 1967 borders). Israel subsequently annexed the Golan Heights. The new borders were far, far easier to defend.
   
3. By 1979 Egypt, which had done most of the fighting and dying in the Arab-Israeli wars, not only in '48 and '67 but also in '56 and '73, had had enough. They made peace with Israel. Israel evacuated the entire Sinai peninsula (an area much larger than Israel proper) and dismantled the settlements they had established there. This peace has held without major incident for over 30 years.
   
4. In 1964 the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was created to destroy Israel ("prohibit... the existence and activity" of Zionism), but not to create a Palestinian state, presumably since Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. It wasn't until 1974 that the PLO began calling for a Palestinian state. In any case, by 1991 the PLO had had enough and recognized Israel's right to exist in exchange for partial control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel also dismantled a number of settlements. Eventually, the PLO removed the clause in their charter calling for the destruction of Israel. The 'peace' between Israel and the PLO has been marred by frequent violence, but after the death of PLO leader Yassar Arafat this seems to have pretty much petered out. Today the PLO controls much of the West Bank and there isn't a lot of fighting, at least at the moment. This is, in part, because Israel built a very long wall between most of the West Bank and Israel and around Gaza, which seems to have mostly ended the previously frequent suicide bombing.
   
5. In 1994 Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel. This is the only peace treaty Israel signed that did not involve giving up physical control of land, although the previous peace treaty with the PLO, which did involve land, was an important precursor. As part of the treaty, Jordan gave up their claim to the West Bank. Since the peace treaty, there has been little or no violence between Israel and Jordan.
   
6. In recent years most Arab nations, which once clamored for the destruction of Israel, have indicated they might accept a permanent Jewish state within the pre-1967 borders.
   

Note that between Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO, most of Israel's borders are, more-or-less, at peace. Today, Israel is still at war with Lebanon (including Hezbollah), Syria, and Hamas, which controls Gaza all the way to the pre-1967 borders. After 6-7,000 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, Israel invaded Gaza with great destruction and loss of life. The frequency of rocket attacks has subsequently been greatly reduced. There was a similar fight with similar results in Lebanon (Israel invaded and controlled much of Lebanon for years). Although Hamas' charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, they are de-emphasizing it at least when speaking in English. It would be interesting to analyze Hamas' statements in Arabic to see if the same pattern holds. In any case, there are signs that Lebanaon, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are all at some point on the path Egypt, Jordan and the PLO have already completed: giving up on the destruction of Israel as too hard and too painful, and making peace. The problem for Israel is to determine if they are really ready to give up; or will they use the territory Israel typically concedes in these deals to try, once again, to destroy the Jewish state?

I recently sang in the choir at a concert. One of the songs, a call for peace, was originally recorded by Arab and Jewish musicians. It smokes. Watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_i2F2LlF8). It will be awhile, but peace is coming. Hang in there.

Want to win the war with al Qaeda? Read this book.

In "An End to Al-Qaeda" Malcolm Mance tells us how to win, not fight, win, the war with al Qaeda. He thinks it can be done in 24 months. I think that might be a little optimistic, but then Mance knows a lot more about the Islamic world, al Qaeda and Islam than I do (or pretty much anyone else for that matter).

Al Qaeda is still with us almost nine years after successfully attacking the greatest power the world has ever know. American firepower has won every battle, but al Qaeda is winning the war of ideas, and the war of ideas is decisive.

Mao said “The guerilla must move among people as a fish swims in the sea.” Al Qaeda has survived and prospered because they swim in the sea of Islam, a world of over one billion people. This is possible because al Qaeda has convinced much of the Islamic world to see them as Holy Warriors defending the Faith against the infidel. They have succeeded because America has been almost completely AWOL in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab Street, incompetent on those rare occasions it has tried anything, and, worst of all, until recently treated al Qaeda like Holy Warriors defending the Faith, and acting to confirm al Qaeda's framing of America as an evil empire out to destroy Islam.

Fortunately for us, al Qaeda is actually a criminal, heretical cult. Al Qaeda will be destroyed when they are viewed as such by the Islamic World. They are a criminal, heretical cult because they kill Muslims, kill innocents, and encourage suicide; all of which are explicitly forbidden by the Koran.

In the Sunni areas of Iraq, al Qaeda came to be viewed as criminal and suffered a terrible defeat when the local people turned against them and allied themselves with the American army. This is why the surge worked. In Afghanistan NATO is still fairly popular after over eight years of occupation in an area that hates foreign intervention because the people know how awful the Taliban/al Qaeda were when they were in power. Even with frequent annihilation of wedding parties by the US air force, many Afghans have still not turned against us. This is astounding.

Mance's approach to defeating al Qaeda is a full scale, well-funded, all-media assault on al Qaeda conducted primarily by Muslim-Americans and our Muslim allies, framing al Qaeda as what they are, a criminal, heretical cult. This will sever their connection to Islam without which they cannot survive. Mance suggests several specific policies to accomplish this. These include (from chapter 9):

1. Denounce al Qaeda as Heretics
   
2. Publicize al Qaeda's Atrocities
   
3. Play up former al Qaeda Members' Renunciations of the Group
   
4. Back Islamic Political Movements, particularly democratic movements
   
5. Playing up Internal Disputes
   
6. Start a Social Epidemic of Rejection
   
7. Identify the Criminality to al Qaeda's Target Audience
   
8. Make al Qaeda Answer Publicly for Killing Innocents, Particularly Children
   
9. Make the Terrorists' Community and Families Fear for the Spiritual Safety of Recruits
   
10. Make People Remember They Can't Depend on Terrorists
    
11. Reframe al Qaeda as Political Opportunists
    
12. Encourage Positive Ideological Fitna (Fitna is ideological civil war, which is occurring between former and current al Qaeda members)
    
13. Use the Same Viral Media Techniques They Do (particularly the use of YouTube)
    
14. Organize Counter-Extremist Message Swarming (drowning al Qaeda web sites with our activists)
    
15. Help Stand Up and Support De-radicalization Programs and Plans (for example, Saudi Arabia sends Imans to argue religion with captured terrorists, often converting them to more main-stream Islam and thereby getting complete and full cooperation in fighting al Qaeda)
    
16. Do No Harm and Do Know Harm
    

Mance also stresses the importance of killing bin Laden and other senior leadership. Cults are dependent on charismatic leaders, and al Qaeda is no different. Kill bin Laden and it will be very difficult to hold al Qaeda together. Interestingly, "One of the first acts of the Barack Obama presidency was the signing of the executive order to capture or kill bin Laden."

It is also important to reframe America, which al Qaeda has successfully labeled as an enemy of Islam. Fortunately, America effectively defended Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims against Christian Serbs, defended religious Saudi Arabia against a secular Saddam Hussein, and helped Islamic Afghan warriors defeat the Soviet Union. We need to point this out to the Islamic World loudly and often.

This reframing has been immeasurably aided by electing a President with a (non-practicing) Muslim father, who lived in Muslim Indonesia as a child, and, best of all, has the middle name "Hussein." This is a political liability in America, but the last election rocked the Muslim world's negative perception of America. Al Qaeda's view of us is incompatible with Obama becoming president. This opened a window of opportunity to reframe America in Islamic eyes. Unfortunately, a number of critical domestic issues have taken most of Obama's time and has prevented deploying him in Islamic media as much as he should be.

Many conservatives want to treat captured al Qaeda members as 'enemy combatants,' in other words, Holy Warriors Defending the Faith. Until recently, we've fought the war that way, but notice we haven't won. If we treat captured al Qaeda members as criminals, trying and convicting them like any other criminal, we send a clear message that, once accepted, means al Qaeda is beaten. Then it will just be a matter of mopping up.

There you have it, how to defeat al Qaeda. Notice that this will take a small fraction of the $700 billion we spend on the U.S. military each year which, after nine years of trying hard, has failed to win. It's not their fault. They can't. This war cannot be won by firepower and maneuver, it can only be won in the minds of Muslims. We'd better start fighting there.

New Space Policy Targets Launch

I'm very impressed by President Obama's visionary new commercial space policy. This policy, among other things, is directed towards developing a private, commercial human space launch industry and efficient, reliable heavy lift launch vehicles. Thus, the new policy directly addresses the key problem that limits everything we do in space: launch.

Today, transporting a pound of anything from Earth to orbit costs thousands of dollars. Worse, in fifty years of development this cost has not come down. The high cost of launch makes everything we want to do in space too expensive, be it sustained human activity on the Moon or Mars, Space Solar Power, Space Tourism, Mining the Asteroids, or Space Settlement. Launch is expensive because it is so rare, there were fewer than 100 launches last year and only a handful carried humans. Imagine the cost of a single trip by car if the whole world only took 100 car rides each year.

The new policy allocates $2 billion/year not on a mission, not on a program, but on building an industry that can eventually stand on its own without taxpayer support. How can it succeed where so many have failed?

NACA, Solaren, and SpaceShipOne.

NASA's predecessor, NACA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics played a huge role in developing today's robust aircraft industry. How? By using technology development, subsidies, and purchasing flights to deliver the mail. The new space policy calls on NASA to repeat this history, with launch vehicle technology development, subsidies, and purchasing flights to the International Space Station (ISS).

Solaren is a small company in California with big ideas and a contract to sell 200 megawatts of electrical power to PG&E, a major energy utility, starting in 2016. What's remarkable is that those 200 megawatts will come from space. Solaren plans to launch a huge satellite into space, collect energy from the sun, and send it wirelessly to Earth. If they or their competitors succeed we will have a vast source of extremely clean power for the next few billion years. Space power can easily supply 10% of our needs. While Solaren may need only three or four launches to meet their PG&E contract, for space solar power to supply 10% of our energy needs might require as many as 75,000 launches -- enough for economies of scale to kick in. Not surprisingly, the number one problem Solaren and others face is the cost of launch, and the President's policy is exactly what they need. Solaren, of course, may fail, but that's the beauty of building an industry not a program, Solaren has competitors.

In 2004 the privately developed SpaceShipOne flew a test pilot into space twice. On March 22, 2010 SpaceShipTwo made its first test flight. If all goes well, it will follow SpaceShipOne into space, this time with paying customers -- over 300 of whom have already deposited a total of $45 million for a ride into space. Better yet, Virgin Galactic, which will operate a fleet of SpaceShipTwos, has competitors.

SpaceShipOne flew 60 miles straight up and glided back down, a quick trip into space. To stay in space, to get into orbit, is much more difficult. This is where the President's policy comes in. It will provide technology development and subsidies to develop private launch vehicles that can service the ISS. These same vehicles could take tourists into orbit, and visit the private space station under development by Bigelow Aerospace. Unlike previous plans, which called for four or five human flights per year (all at taxpayer expense forever), the private market for humans in space is huge, 400,000 people a year if the price is around $100,000. If launch prices can be brought down to these levels, we can do everything we want to do in space. We can have permanent outposts on Mars, mine the Moon, visit the asteroids, build solar power satellites to power the world and even settle the final frontier.

The administration's new policy does many sensible things, such as using the ISS for materials and drug research, finding asteroids before they hit us, and gathering data on the environment. But the key to space is bringing down launch costs, the President seems to understand this, and the administration has crafted a sensible, intelligent policy based on private enterprise to open the heavens to us all.

Obama's Brilliant Space Policy

Prologue: I want to build space settlements. I want Life to grow outward from this beautiful but tiny planet and fill the solar system. This is technically feasible but incredibly difficult (for engineers, that's the fun part).

Yesterday's space program was all about putting a very small number of people on the Moon entirely at enormous government expense. It wasn't doing much for space settlement. For space settlement, we need to put huge numbers of people in space mostly at their own expense. The key is much, much better transportation from Earth to space because today it costs thousands of dollars per pound and the failure rate is a percent or two. Yet another expensive government owned transportation system, as we were developing, can't deliver. We need better technology, a private sector human-rated launch industry so people can buy a ticket with their own money, and, above all, much higher launch volume. Today, the whole world launches less than 100 times per year. At that rate we'll never settle space.

In Paths to Space Settlement I identified three near term projects that would develop most of the technology and infrastructure necessary to settle the solar system: space tourism, space solar power, and planetary defense. President Obama's new space policy takes a big step for all three.

Much of President Obama's new space policy, about $2 billion/year, is to develop better Earth to orbit transportation and, especially, develop private sector companies to take people into orbit. After a year of ramping up, the budget provides $1.4 billion per year to help private firms develop human-rated launchers and successful companies will have a core tenant flying government astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). But the real payoff isn't flying to the ISS, it's space tourism. In “Researching the Space Tourism Market,” Crouch estimates that at $100,000/flight about 400,000 people will want to go a year. Even with a 100 person vehicle, and the largest today carries 10, that would pay for 4,000 launches a year. There are many surveys supporting traffic at similar levels and higher if the price comes down. Furthermore, Bigelow Aerospace has launched two small space hotel prototypes and plans to launch a full sized system in a couple of years, but there will be no customers without a private sector vehicle to bring them there. President Obama's new space policy may be just the ticket.

The other big potential market for launch is space solar power (SSP) -- gathering solar energy in huge satellites with wireless power transmission to Earth. For SSP to supply 1/3 of today's energy needs would require approximately 125,000 launches of a heavy lift vehicle capable of taking 500 tons to orbit (the largest vehicle today can lift perhaps 40 tons). President Obama's budget allocates almost $600 million/year to develop heavy lift launch technology. SSP development is not part of the new program, the policy's biggest deficiency, but vehicle development won't start for a few years giving SSP advocates time to make the case for SSP-related requirements.

President Obama's policy also quintuples NASA's planetary defense budget, from $4 million to $20 million. This will not only help find asteroids in time to deflect them before hitting Earth, but locate most of the larger near-earth asteroids which will tell us where the materials we need for space settlement are. For example, one of the key problems in orbital settlement development is access to sufficient materials as millions of tons of radiation shielding and structure are needed. Building an orbital settlement co-located with an asteroid solves this problem very nicely.

The new budget also ramps up to $3 billion/year to develop and demonstrate new space technology, including fuel depots, life support, and space resource utilization, which will help when the time comes to build space settlements.

President Obama's policy does a lot of other sensible things. For example, the old policy, after spending something like $100 billion to develop the ISS, planned to destroy it five years after completion and had very few plans to actually use it. The new policy extends the ISS's life and provides funds to actually use the ISS for America's benefit. The new policy also increases Earth observation funding substantially so we can understand what is happening to Earth and perhaps avoid creating serous problems.

President Obama's space policy abandons "Apollo on Steroids," the third attempt to recreate the glory of the brilliant 1960s era program by going back to the Moon and on to Mars. Apollo was great. It ended 35 years ago. Get over it. We don't need "Apollo on Steroids," we need a program that benefits the people of Earth and lets millions of us go to space on their own dime. I doubt that Obama read Paths to Space Settlement before creating his space policy, but he might as well have. Brilliant!

Real Filibusters

In the recent State of the Union address, President Obama pointed out several important bills that had passed the House, but had not been voted on in the Senate. How has this happened?

In the U.S. Senate there are no hard limits on the length of debate on a bill. Senators can talk as long as they like, unless 60 out of 100 Senators vote to end debate. This allows 41 determined Senators to prevent a vote, thus preventing a bill from becoming law.

Before the 2007-2008 Congress the filibuster was rarely used, but when the Democrats won the 2006 congressional election, the Republicans started using the filibuster frequently to prevent bills from passing. Since Democrat Obama won the Presidency in 2008 and put together a 60 vote caucus in the Senate, Republicans have filibustered at an unprecedented rate so major bills can only pass if every single Democrat and Independent votes to end debate. This has significantly limited Congress' productivity. With the recent election of a 41st Republican Senator, the Republicans are in a position to prevent any bill they don't like from becoming law.

While the Republicans are definitely being obstructionist, preventing the majority from governing, the Senate leadership is making it easy for them. To prevent a vote, Republicans don't actually have to keep talking for hours or days, the Republican leadership just says they will filibuster and a 60 vote majority is required. Thus, filibustering is easy and cheap. A few words and it's done.

If the Democrats want to pass their agenda, they need to make filibustering costly, not cheap. This can be done in two ways: physically and politically.

Physically, the Democratic leadership can force the Republicans to actually filibuster, not just say they will. Make them actually stand up and talk for days. The rules say no sitting, no food, and no bathroom breaks. If they stop talking a vote can be taken. Even thought they can tag team, it's still painful and difficult.

Politically, filibusters can be made costly by broadcasting the debate on CSPAN and taking the best bits for YouTube. To talk for days you have to either repeat yourself endlessly or introduce irrelevant material, for example, reading the phone book. That won't look good on TV and can be incredibly useful in campaign ads.

If you think President Obama is intelligent and has the best interests of the country at heart, then help him get his middle-class-focussed agenda passed. Contact Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, at http://reid.senate.gov/contact/ and tell him to make the Republicans actually filibuster, not just say they will.

Republicans and Health Care

Republicans have showed great party discipline in opposing health care reform. With a 41st vote in the Senate provided by Senator Elect Brown, the Democrats cannot pass health care over a Republican filibuster if this discipline holds. The leadership and many senators will oppose any health care bill as they see health care defeat as a way to hurt President Obama and help Republicans regain power. However, there may be principled Republican senators who will vote to reform health care if they believe it is good for the country.

There are a couple of major items that conservatives want in health care that I, as a card-carrying liberal, am very comfortable with. They are: tort reform to limit pain-and-suffering settlements against doctors and selling medical insurance across state lines. I don't believe these will lead to the cost benefits conservatives expect, but so what? I might be wrong and, properly implemented, neither will have a negative impact. Including them, and cleaning up some of the junk in the current bill, might be enough to get a few Republican senatorial votes.

Both California and Texas have limits on legal settlements today. It doesn't seem to save any money, but it doesn't seem to do much damage either. Limiting settlements against big companies is a bad idea, they will tend to favor profit over safety, but limiting settlements against individual doctors and other health care providers is not dangerous on any large scale as the vast majority of doctors and other health care workers care deeply about the health and welfare of their patients.

Allowing companies to sell medical insurance across state lines is no problem at all as long as the regulatory regime is taken from the state the patient lives in. The problem with inter-state insurance is that companies may move to the state with the cheapest regime, but if the rules in the patient's state apply this is is a non-issue. The additional competition will probably drive down prices, but in any case will not hurt anything. Why not include it?

If major conservative ideas are incorporated into the health care bill, it is at least possible that some Republicans will come on board. Of course, if all the Republicans are only concerned with hurting President Obama as much as possible, a real possibility, there is no hope. However, I think there are at least some Republican senators for whom country is more important than party and recognize that the present US health care system is an expensive mess in desperate need of intelligent reform.

Obama: One Year On

I consider the Presidency to be a no-excuses job. If the country does well, the President did a good job. If the country does poorly, the President is lousy. By this measure Clinton was a good president, he inherited a country doing pretty well and left it in excellent shape. By contrast, Bush inherited a country in great shape -- paying down it's debt and militarily and diplomatically pre-eminent -- and left America a mess. Obama inherited that mess, but how is he doing so far?

Last year about this time I posted an article laying out where we were so that comparisons could be made [see Where We Are]. The ship of state is large and doesn't turn quickly, but after a year it's fair to start crediting or blaming Obama for what has happened.

The short answer is that the economy is better (except unemployment), our standing in the world is much better, and the military situation is better, but we are racking up debt at an amazing rate and that will sink us if not reversed.

For the long answer I've copied each of the items from last year's article that could be compared to today. Last year's text is in italic and this year's state in normal text. Note that it is often difficult to find the exact same measures as I did last year, so some of the comparisons must be treated with caution.

Economy

The federal government is $10 trillion in debt. Today is it over $12 trillion.

The projected deficit for fiscal 2009 is $1.2 trillion (not counting the stimulus package). The actual deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion. Estimated deficit for fiscal 2010 is $1.17 trillion. (NOTE: fiscal 2010 goes from 1 Oct 2009 to 30 Sept 2010).

The economy is losing half a million jobs a month, a total of three million in the last year. In November, the economy added 4,000 jobs.

Total debt, government, commercial, and personal, is about $53 trillion. Total debt is around $57 trillion.

The Dow Jones is around 8,000, down from around 14,000 a year earlier. The Dow Jones is at 10,600.

The S&P 500 is around 800, down from around 1,400 a year earlier. The S&P 500 is at 1,136

Home foreclosure filings in January 2009 totaled 274,399 [Reuters]. Banks took over 92,000 homes in December 2009

Major financial institutions have failed completely, others avoided failure only with massive government subsidies, and many more are on the brink of collapse. The major financial institutions have reduced their leverage from 30-1 to around 10-1 and seem to be much more secure, many are making money, and some have returned their bailout money with interest.

Two of the three major American car manufacturers require massive government subsidies to avoid bankruptcy. All three major American car manufacturers are alive, although GM now has the government as a majority stock holder and Chrysler was sold to Fiat.

The official unemployment rate is 7.6%. The official unemployment rate is 10%, down from 10.2% a month ago.

U.S. GDP has been down every quarter for about a year. It was down 6.8% in the last quarter of 2008. GDP increased 2.2% in the third quarter of 2009.

The economy is about as good as one might realistically hope given that it almost went off a cliff right as Obama took over. The stock market and GDP are up, employment is higher, but improving slightly, and home foreclosures are slowing. Debt, however, is very high and growing fast. If not curbed, America will go bankrupt.

Foreign Affairs

Iraq is, relatively, peaceful and arguably democratic. Unchanged.

The ruling parties in Iraq have very close ties with Iran. Iran also has very close ties with rulers in the Kurdish areas. Unchanged, but the government of Iran has lost legitimacy after rigging recent elections.

America has approximately 150,000 uniformed forces and 190,000 'contractors' (aka mercenaries) in Iraq. In December 2009 there were approximately 112,000 uniformed forces and US troops are no longer actively participating in combat operations.

The Taliban have the initiative in Afghanistan and are making major gains. The Taliban were recently reported to be clearedfrom Helman province, which is a key area. Later reports suggest that this was only partially accomplished.

The Taliban have repeatedly cut NATO supply routes through Pakistan; in one case destroying hundreds of trucks filled with supplies. In another, destroying a hundred foot long bridge. NATO is being forced to develop alternative supply routes. Such attacks have not made the news in the last six to nine months, at least that I've noticed and I look.

Major news stories say Kyrgyzstan will close the Manas air base used to support and supply NATO forces in Afghanistan. The base is still in use by the US Air Force.

The Taliban control substantial and growing swaths of territory in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban have lost control of substantial territories in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban leadership lives more-or-less openly in Quetta. I've seen nothing to suggest this has changed.

The Taliban just cut a deal with local government leaders to impose Sharia on the Swat in exchange for a cease fire. The Taliban were pushed out of Swat by the Pakistan army.

The Taliban just launched a successful attack in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. The Taliban launched a big attack in Kabul today., all seven assailants were apparently killed.

Basically, the Taliban are kicking our butts. These are the guys that harbored al Qaeda at the time of the 9/11 attack. They are still close allies. The Taliban are hurting and may have lost the initiative. It's hard to tell the real situation though. Most important, a recent poll indicated abou 70% approval for the US effort, vs 40% a year ago. As support of the population is the key to counter-insurgency warfare, this is very good news.

The Isrealis and Hamas just ended three weeks of major fighting. Rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel have mostly stopped.

Particularly prior to Obama's election, much of the world viewed America as a country that tortures people, invades others, and pursues a largely go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway foreign policy. Many perceive America as a bully. Obama has turned this around to the point that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. While Obama did not believe he deserved the prize, awarding it is a strong sign that America's image is on the mend. Again, this is key to winning the war with al Qaeda. This war cannot be won without world-wide support, particularly from Muslims.

America has suffered major Islamic extremist terrorist attacks in the first few months of the last two presidential administrations. That would make us due for one now. There have been two small attacks, one killing 13 American soldiers and a failed attempt to bring down an airliner, but nothing on the scale of 9/11, the Oklahoma bombing, or the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon in 2006. No new tests, but no improvement either.

North Korea conducted a number of long range missile tests, including multiple simultaneous launches (important for defeating missile defense). No recent tests.

Iran has made major strides in developing the technology and infrastructure to support development of nuclear tipped missiles. Iran has continued on this path.

Bottom line, in the foreign policy arena, particularly the war with al Qaeda and their Taliban allies, the situation is much improved in most areas.

Governing Operations

The Republican and Democratic parties are bitterly divided and partisan; so much so that two Republican senators refused an invitation to watch the Super Bowl at the White House and an economic stimulus package passed with only three Republican votes in Congress. Nearly all economists, left, right and center, agree a large stimulus is needed to avert economic catastrophe. The parties are still bitterly divided, particularly over health care reform.

Government is generally viewed as grossly incompetent. Little change.

U.S. intelligence services regularly spy on American citizens, in America, communicating with others in America, without a warrant. It's not clear if this has stopped or not.

The U.S. government operates a network of out-of-country prisons specifically intended to evade the rule of law. Guantanamo being the crown jewel of the network. The network is still intact, but Guantanamo is being closed down, albeit not on schedule.

Medical

In 2008 there were almost 46 million Americans without health insurance. RWJF. America is the only industrialized country without nearly universal health care insurance. Unchanged, although reform bills have passed both houses of Congress but still need to be reconciled, voted on by Congress, and signed by the President. The primary issue is whether a compromise bill can win 50% plus one in the House and get 60 votes in the Senate to stop a certain filibuster.

Bottom line, the country is better off than it was a year ago, by a fair margin, although there are plenty of serious problems. So far so good. President Obama is doing a good, though far from perfect, job.