This is an extremely troubling story. Not because of the general issues troubling the BBC - those are well known. The organization has long been a bloated and inefficient institution. But rather, because of the complete lack of scrutiny to which the BBC issubjected. As a public broadcaster and the annual recipient of billions of dollars in public money, the BBC requires robust and incisive scrutiny. However, where (as the report illustrates) UK law is used as a defense against effective scrutiny, the BBC is able to continue its work unchallenged. This is total absurdity. Consider a situation in which government officials took public money, behaved incompetently and then refused to allow the media to report on their activities. That's basically what is happening here. But it isn't only the BBC that must be blamed, it's also the pathetic defamation law of the United Kingdom. Law that rewards the rich and punishes those who wish to pursue the truth.
Caveat- I've met many BBC journalists and they've nearly always been intelligent, fair minded individuals. But their organization faces major problems. Those issues must be addressed.
The French have been leaking reports of a new offer that the P5+1 will be making to Iran next week. The intention of this offer? To get Iran to give up their pursuit of highly enriched nuclear power.
Clearly, we all want peace. However, from my perspective, this open willingness to entertain further negotiations with Iran (without first seeing Iranian trust building measures) is a mistake. Since 2003, the Iranian negotiation dynamic has been an annual occurrence (see my post from this time last year!) with a unchanging outcome - while Iran gains time to continue its nuclear development, the West gains nothing. Indeed, simultaneous with this latest outreach, the Iranians are once again showing their fundamental disinterest in the prospect of a nuclear conciliation arrangement. By installing new centrifuges, the theocrats are speeding their way along the path to a nuclear weapons capacity. And be under no illusions, Iran's nuclear pursuit is not a preference born of casual consideration. The regime believes that if it achieves a place in the nuclear club, it will thus also ensure the survival of the Islamic revolution (their ultimate political objective). Absent major pressure, Iran will not negotiate their agenda away. While various parties have argued that a nuclear Iran should be addressed by deterrent containment, for me, such a prospect is deeply concerning.
So, what do these latest developments mean? Well... I suspect that Israel will speed up plans for the use of force against Iran's nuclear program. Although the consequences of such an action would likely be serious both regionally (and in economic terms) also internationally, the probability of a spiral to regional war is low. In the end, it's a question of Netanyahu's mindset. Personally, I don't believe that the Israeli PM is willing to quietly accept a nuclear Iran.
I enjoyed this story. A great deal. When it comes to economic reality, European socialists/unions are fundamentally delusional. In fact, their opinions are often actively absurd. They simply don't understand that businesses will allocate capital to the locale of greatest prospective profitability. And they won't accept that in the 21st century, capital is inherently movable. These are basic truths. But in rejecting the facts; in embracing un-reality, leftists harm themselves and the rest of society. I've written many times about why I believe modern unions are bad news (a few examples below), but it's great to hear a senior business leader affirm that sentiment in such an overt and deliberate manner.
Noticed the President's growing concern over the Sequester? He knows that his position is growing weaker by the day. Hence his desperately absurd demands that the GOP yield. Sorry Mr. President, it's not going to happen.Check out my post from a couple of days ago - Why the Sequester is likely to occur.
I am confident that the Sequester will go into effect.
There are two reasons why.
Policy
1) Republicans in Congress believe that the national debt is the foremost political challenge of our time. They echo the sentiments of former C-JCS Mike Mullen, who argued that American's debt represents the key threat to US national security. As a result of this thinking, albeit reluctantly, most GOP politicians are willing to endure the military cuts that the sequester will reap. In simple terms, Republicans just don't feel that they have any other options available to achieve the kind of debt reduction that they believe is absolutely necessary. From the tea party to the Washington old guard, much of the GOP now regards the President as an intransigent negotiator. A leader who will not entertain serious entitlement reforms (which are crucial for debt reduction) in the absence of serious political pressure.
Politics
2.a) Though over-simplified by many observers, the loosely termed Tea Party is still a fundamental driving force behind GOP action in Congress. These conservative voters have successfully shifted the GOP's internal discourse away from social conservatism and towards debt reduction/size of government. As a result, Congressional Republicans understand that a very sizable, very active block of voters expect them to take major action in order to reduce the debt. Even Republicans who would wish to avoid sequestration feel that they cannot back down to the President's demands for a mixed revenue/spending cut short term resolution. At this level, it is once again evident that the relative prospects of a primary challenge vs re-election are powerful motivating forces.
2.b) I have no evidence for this postulation, but I expect that many Republicans believe President Obama will ultimately cede to a deal, once sequestration begins to bite (when the continuing resolution expires at the end of March). Why do these politicians feel this way? I think because of the prospect of what sequestration will do to the US Military. If Obama fails to avert these cuts, he will have to face the American people as the Commander in Chief who allowed his forces to be gutted. The President's advisers probably assume that they can shift the blame onto Republicans, but the GOP will be able to counter this argument by pointing to their January acceptance of new tax increases. As my latest column for The Week notes, Senate Republicans have weakened their negotiating position because of their actions towards Chuck Hagel. Nonetheless, in allowing severe military cuts in preference to domestic cuts, the political risks for the President (who first proposed the Sequester) and the Democratic Party (which stilldoubts its national security credibility) are profound.
Conclusion
What does this mean for sequestration? I expect that a deal to halt the sequestration cuts will be reached at the end of March or in early April. Such a deal would likely focus on domestic discretionary spending cuts, alongside a GOP agreement to join a Congressional tax reform commission (this will be necessary to placate Democrats). Depending on the President's interest in serious debt negotiations, the pursuit of a long term deal may also become a part of these negotiations. However, my personal feeling is that a long term, trend stable debt deal is probably at least a couple of years away. Thus far in his new term, the President's tone suggests that he is waiting to see if the Democrats can retake the House of Representatives in the next Mid-terms.
Around the world, the greatest enemy of Muslim citizens is Islamist extremism. Today, in Pakistan, Sunni Islamists detonated a bomb in a market that is popular with Shia Pakistani families. Many are dead. These civilians were brutally murdered because of their beliefs. Just over a month ago, over 100 civilians were killed in a similar attack. But it isn't just Afghanistan and Pakistan which are suffering. In Iraq for example, alongside frequent bombings, assassinations of senior civil servants and politicians have also become more common. The main perpetrator of these attacks is the Islamic State of Iraq, an heir to Al Qa'ida in Iraq, and a group which seeks to return the country back into the bloody clutches of sectarian civil war. A time of death characterized by the torture of children, hostages killed in fire pits, the use of electric drills as implements of torture and the morally foul disinterest of too many senior American politicians.
Recognizing this brutality is crucial. But it's also equally vital that Islamic societies face up to the evil which festers inside them. For far too long, warped terrorists have found quiet excuse for the atrocities which they commit. That has to change. While effective counter-terrorism partly requires the application of force, the construction of a new social tolerance is key. In essence, the growth of a political discourse that alleviates concerns regarding cross-sectarian participation in governing society (see growing protests in Iraq). During the period between 2003-2006 in Iraq, a significant violence enabler was the US strategic failure to separate intransigent ideological extremists from broader social discontentment. When the strategy changed, violence reduced dramatically. The lesson is this - until extremists are loudly discredited from all sides of a society (or ended), they find breaches in which to take root and foundations to manipulate the broader dissatisfaction of others.
Finally, we must also condemn bigotry in all its forms. Nonetheless, because of nuclear proliferation, Islamist sectarian currents pose an exceptional threat to international security.
On a related note, here's a link page for my other terrorism related writings.
