Neocon

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton because he (correctly) opposed military intervention in Iraq and she favored it. Now, he is reported to have swung to her support of war in Libya against the advice of the Republican Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates. Here is early reporting from the Telegraph.co.uk (its real-timeg blog) on the results so far:

13.16 Russia is calling for an end to 'indiscrimate use of force' by foreign states in Libya claiming that they have led to civilian casualties. Foreign Ministry's spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement:

In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force. . .

113.07 It is of course an irony that the UAE have come to the side of the rebels in Libya while they have also sent forces into Bahrain to help crush the uprising there.

13.00 Libya's government has begun distributing arms to more than one million people and will complete the operation within hours, the state news agency reports today. Jana news agency quoted sources in Libya's defence ministry as saying they "expected the operation to end in the next hours to arm more than a million men and women."

12.56 German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle dismissed allegations that Berlin is internationally isolated after refusing to join its NATO allies in staging military strikes on Libya. He said:

The impression that Germany is isolated in Europe or the international community is completely wrong. Many other countries in the European Union not only understand our position, not only respect it, but also share it.

12.54 A Libyan health official said the number of people killed as a result of Western air strikes overnight had risen to 64 from 48, a figure given by the government.

"People died from their wounds so the death toll has risen," said the official, who did not want to be identified. The figure could not be independently verified.

The much-reviled "W" got approval from a Democrat-controlled Senate for intervention in Afghanistan and again for war with Iraq. Subsequently, when sabers were being rattled against Iran in 2007, MSNBC reported:

"Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, the latest move in a debate with presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton about how to respond to that country's nuclear ambitions. . .

'We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran,' it says."

Here is the beginning text of a Nixon-era law, which was passed despite a Nixon veto. What part of Section 2(c)(3) applies in the current case of war with Libya?

The War Powers Act of 1973

Public Law 93-148

93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542

November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

SEC. 2. (b)

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

SEC. 2. (c)

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2011

Clinton's "Mortal Threat" Statement and Mullen's Pakistan Visits Mean that Pakistan Could Become Obama's Viet Nam

The New York Times is reporting that Taliban Seize Vital Pakistan Area Closer to the Capital.

While investors are paying close attention to every month-to-month economic jiggle, those with more experience remember that in prior to the 21st century, everyone recognized that data always vary from month to month and that year to year comparisons are stabler. That was until our government deliberately moved away from leading off its economic press releases with year-year changes to now emphasize month-month changes in order to distract the populace from noticing unpleasant trends.

In any case, enough economists are still watching year-year and smoothed trends that you will gain limited competitive advantage from making decisions based on the same data, though of course one needs to keep one's knowledge base current. Watch for outlier events, such as news of the insertion of American military "advisers" into Pakistan (not that they are not there already). Afghanistan is not really a country as we in the West think of one, but Pakistan is a real country. Any U.S. move to "defend" Pakistan will come with the argument that it has nukes etc., etc. If President Obama wants to go that route, Pakistan's economy is alive only because of IMF sufferance, so it will have to go along with almost anything the U.S. wants. Here are some snippets from the Times article that may make you wonder if American "advisers" or an actual U. S. armed forces presence are in fact coming:

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was concerned that Pakistan’s government was making too many concessions to the Taliban, emboldening the militants and allowing them to spread by giving in to their demands.

“I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists,” Mrs. Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill.

She added that the deterioration of security in nuclear-armed Pakistan “poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world.”

A senior American official said Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were prompted in part by news of the Taliban takeover in Buner. The officials said that the further erosion of government authority in an area so close to the capital ought to stir concern not only in Pakistan but also among influential Pakistanis abroad.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, arrived in Islamabad on Wednesday for the second time in two weeks, reflecting the sense of alarm in the Obama administration. He was scheduled to meet with Pakistan’s top military and intelligence commanders.

The "mortal threat" terminology means that an overt U.S. military presence in Pakistan is being seriously and I suspect favorably contemplated at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Two visits by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs within two weeks is proof positive that such a scenario is realistic rather than an obscure blogger's fantasy.

War is bad, but war at a time of economic depression is more than bad. If war involving the U.S. should come to Pakistan, gold will tend to strengthen, as may the dollar (at first), and very possibly so will Treasuries. If so, EBR believes that the Treasuries should be sold on any price strength but gold should be held and/or purchased.




Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009