Greedy Health Insurance Companies

Since the beginning of the healthcare debate, we have been hearing a lot about the insatiable greed of American health insurance companies. The Obama White House has gone to great lengths to convince the American public that the profits of this industry need to be brought into check, and that the best way to accomplish this is to create a government competitor to drive down premiums.

I have already detailed my thoughts on the healthcare debate in a previous entry and will not repeat myself. However, recent developments in the health reform process have motivated me to further address this specific issue.

Obama has asserted on several occasions that health insurers are generating “record profits” under the current system. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has stated that “there is no business in America that makes more money than the insurance industry.” However, while the insurance industry as a whole might be quite profitable, it is problematic to make these statements in relation to health insurers.

In response to these accusations, the Associated Press conducted a recent fact check on the health insurance industry and summarized their findings as follows:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

For anyone who has ever worked with health insurance claims, this is not surprising. While it is true that insurance companies charge sizable premiums, they also have substantial expenses. Contrast this with the pharmaceutical industry, which spends nearly five billion dollars in advertising each year and still has a median profit margin of 17 percent (larger company such Pfizer often earn well-above 20 percent). Hence if one is looking to cut “fat” from the system in order to make healthcare more affordable, the insurance sector should not be the focal point of their efforts.

So why are Obama and his friends going to such great lengths to beat up health insurers, while protecting big pharmaceuticals companies from having to compete with generic drugs?

Because discrediting private health insurance and establishing the “public option” is the easiest way to put the country on the path to single-payer government healthcare. In the future, the pharmaceutical industry and other sectors will inevitably come under fire; however, at present, the principal objective of left-wing Democrats is to forge an opening for a new government insurance provider. This is my personal interpretation of the situation, but I believe the political realities of the past decade evidence the merits of my reasoning.

Meaningful health reform must aim to foster competition and reduce costs throughout the system—not just insurance premiums. Regardless of which system is best for the United States in the long term, it will be a grave disservice to struggling Americans if the overall effectiveness of this healthcare bill is compromised by the impatient desire of key Democrats to push the U.S. towards single-payer healthcare.

Healthcare from the Perspective of a Dual Citizen

I am a dual citizen of both the United States and Canada, who grew up on the Canadian side of the border. Between my mother who is a physical therapist, and members of my family who suffer from chronic illness, I have had much exposure to the Canadian healthcare system. In my early twenties, I moved down to the U.S. and had the opportunity to work in the U.S. healthcare system, specializing in matters pertaining to insurance coverage. While I am usually prepared to share my personal opinions on just about anything, I do feel as though I have a unique perspective on the issues currently being debated in the United States.

At present, no one can talk definitely about the “facts” and “myths” of healthcare reform—the bill is still being written. The current House and Senate versions of the bill are extremely different, and it is difficult to predict how these two pieces of legislation will be reconciled. Moreover, President Obama has been quite ambiguous about many of the details pertaining to his initiative. In the wake of this uncertainty, the popular debate surrounding healthcare reform has focused on the merits and disadvantages of public healthcare.

Although I acknowledge its shortcomings, I personally prefer the U.S. healthcare system to that of Canada. The U.S. system is state of the art, fast, service-oriented, and people have a lot of choice when choosing a provider. In Canada, wait times are significantly longer, there are far fewer providers, and visiting your local hospital can be like going to the DMV. That being said, the system has always sufficed for my friends and family, and most Canadians are happy with their care. In both systems, unique circumstances can lead to a denial of coverage for certain treatments. Similarly, in both systems, the individual can file an appeal and subsequently go to court if their appeal is rejected. In my experience, denial of coverage is far more common in the U.S. system than the Canadian—though most U.S. insurers will eventually pay after some coercion.

All factors considered, I DO NOT believe that a public system would be a “good fit” for the United States. Why? Right now 85% of Americans are insured and are receiving some of the best medical care in the world. Moreover, polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans are happy with the care they receive. Private healthcare is also a thriving industry in the U.S. (16% of the GDP) that provides thousands of Americans with good jobs. At present, Obama is not proposing a public single-payer healthcare system. However, many Americans—including myself—believe that the proposed “government competitor” is a thinly-veiled attempt to create an entity that could evolve into such a system. Many in the Democratic Party, including Obama himself, have declared their preference for single-payer healthcare.

At present, all indications suggest that the “public option” will not be able to pass the U.S. Senate. To this end, I believe it is time for Americans and their elected officials to “move on” and begin focusing their efforts on other aspects of healthcare reform. We should start by implemented some simple changes that will significantly drive costs down for everyone:

1. Increase competition within the pharmaceutical market by allowing the importation of generic prescription drugs from Canada and Europe.
   
2. Increase competition in the insurance industry by allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, and allow small business to collectively bargain for the same insurance rates that large employers and unions receive.
   
3. Increase opportunities for individuals to purchase insurance by encouraging the formation of group policies through churches, local clubs, professional organizations, and co-ops.
   
4. Reform malpractice law to lower malpractice premiums and decrease the enormous amount of unnecessary testing that doctors perform to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

Then create a targeted solution to help those in our country who still cannot afford insurance. There are several simple ways to do this:

1. We already have a program for those who cannot afford health insurance—it’s called Medicaid. However, many people who cannot afford private insurance earn too much to quality. One simple solution is to raise the income restriction on this program.
   
2. Subsidize the private insurance premiums of individuals based on their Adjusted Gross Income—the higher an individual’s AGI, the lower the subsidy and vice versa. This is my personal preference. Many uninsured individuals can afford to pay part, but not all the monthly premiums for the insurance plan offered by their employer. This approach would provide financial assistance based on need, discourage employees from quitting their job to receive Medicaid, and avoid the government having to assume full financial responsibility for the health care of these individuals.

Needless to say, all of the above suggestions would require careful legislation to ensure effectiveness and avoid abuse. However, I think they are good starting points that would receive broad bipartisan support and have a significant impact.

As a Republican libertarian who believes in free market principles, I would certainly prefer to not need forms of subsidization. Long term, I would very much like to see policy changes that would permit everyone working a full-time job to be able to purchase private insurance without any assistance. But this “correction” would undoubtedly take time, and in the here and now it is evident that there are hardworking Americans who cannot afford healthcare. Ultimately, there is a time and place for compassion to supersede the ideals of free market doctrine. However, the deficit is real and very dangerous to the future of our country. If Americans are committed to ensuring that all citizens have healthcare, they must make some hard choices about which government services are most important, and how much tax they are willing to pay to keep them.

Thawing Relations with Cuba

For nearly fifty years U.S.-Cuban relations have been “frigid” to say the least. But judging from the recent noises emanating from Washington and Havana, a new day of U.S. Cuban relations appears to be on the horizon.

While I am a firm believer in the necessity of hard-line foreign policy in many situations, I personally believe that it has long been time for the U.S. to develop a meaningful relationship with Cuba. In my opinion, the United State’s approach to Cuba has largely been dictated by past grudges and not the current state of affairs. While the U.S. has managed to forgive—or at least “move past”—Russia’s role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War events, U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba has remained frozen in time. This, I assert, is largely due to the electoral significance of South Florida and the traditional political views of Hispanic voters. However, the fact that Obama was able to handily win this demographic despite his moderate stances on Cuban foreign policy, evidences a clear shift in American public opinion.

The Castro brothers are not my favorite people, and there are many serious issues that need to be addressed over the course of diplomatic negotiations—such as the welfare of Cuba’s many political prisoners. I am aware that many Americans have strong feelings on this issue, and would prefer to leave Cuban relations in their present state. But in the grand scheme of foreign relations, U.S. conflicts with countries like Cuba and Venezuela are but quibbles compared to the very serious and foreign policy issues concerning country such as Iran and North Korea. Moreover, totally apart any ethical or philosophical impetus for unity, I believe that it is of upmost importance that the United States develop strong relationship with the whole of the Western Hemisphere given rise of economic and military power that is presently occurring in the Far East.

I would love to write more about Cuba, and the larger history of U.S.-Cuban relations which I believe to be largely misunderstood by many Americans. However, it is a very busy time of year and I will have to leave things here for now.

In the meantime, I will watch with great interest as the situation unfolds…

FOX’s Red Eye and the Canadian Armed Forces

There has been no shortage of chatter from my Canadian friends on Facebook concerning Greg Gutfeld’s comments concerning the Canadian military, which were made during the TV show Red Eye—the FOX News equivalent of The Daily Show.

Gutfeld’s comments were careless and disrespectful. While I believe it is certainly within his rights to criticize the policies of the Canadian Government, poking fun at Canadian soldiers by suggesting they are taking a year off for spa treatment is not appropriate while a steady stream of caskets are continually being flown home from Afghanistan.

That being said, there is one aspect of this kafuffle that I find confusing…

While I understand why Canadians are upset with Gutfeld, I am baffled as to why few Canadians have taken issue with the fact that their military forces will essentially be OFFLINE for all of 2011. Doesn’t this bother anyone? I do not mean to suggest that Canada should amass a large military or adopt American foreign policy; Canada is a distinct nation with its own views and priorities. However, Americans would very much like to feel as though they are not alone in paying for the defence of the North American continent. While the Canadian Armed Forces are full of excellent men and women who are making great sacrifices on behalf of both countries, the present size and budget of the Canadian Military is pathetic. Consider the following facts (gracious provided by The Toronto Star):

NATO's target for member countries' defence spending is 2 per cent of GDP. Even Pierre Trudeau spent 2 per cent. Canada's current defence spending totals just 1.2 per cent of GDP, and will drop to 0.87 per cent under the current 20-year government strategy.

Canada, the Netherlands and Australia have similar world interests. Canada spends $558 per capita on defence; the Netherlands $669; Australia $808.

In mid-April the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence received the Canadian army's 2008-09 strategic needs report. In it, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie revealed that the army's size has actually declined in soldiers since 2005. "The army is now stretched almost to the breaking point."

The navy's report was just as gloomy. It said the strength of the navy's fleet will be soon halved and that Canada will not be able to play a meaningful role with our allies on the high seas for five years between 2013 and 2018.

The air force report warned that, without significant new funding, up to 15 CF-18s will have to be grounded, plus four Hercules transports, four Aurora patrol aircraft and six Sea King helicopters.

The government announced in 2006 that it would increase the Regular Forces by 13,000 to 75,000 by 2010-11, and that the Reserves would be increased by 10,000 to 35,000. Then in 2007 it quietly delayed its plan for a full year and "reprofiled" it, halving the increase in regulars to 6,500 and chopping the increase in reserves from 10,000 to 1,000. The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, based on the operational tempo of the Canadian Forces over the past 10 years, estimates that 90,000 regulars are needed at a minimum.

Under its "Canada First" policy, the government promised that the Canadian Forces would increase its focus on defending Canadian territory, and that the Forces would be quick to respond to domestic man-made or natural disasters. Territorial battalions would be created at 12 centres across the country. That hasn't happened.

None of this is new. In fact, back in 2002, Canadian soldiers reported for duty in Afghanistan's desert wearing green jungle-camouflage fatigues, since the military didn't have money for both desert and jungle uniforms. The U.S. offered to provide desertwear, but Ottawa declined and instead issued its soldiers brown blankets, which were then taped over the green uniforms.

Canadians are very good at giving lip service to their “sovereign identity”; but when it comes to national defence and border enforcement, Canada very much acts like an unwanted 51st state. (Canada, by the way, only recently began equipping their border guards with firearms, after a few incidents in which border guards stationed at remote crossings in Western provinces fled their posts to avoid confrontations with armed convicts).

Despite the above facts, I am sure there are still some Canadians who remain unconvinced of the need to increase funding to Canada’s military. Besides who would possibly threaten Canadian sovereignty? This question is perhaps best answered with a photo:


The above picture was taken four kilometres below sea level in Canada’s arctic territory. But as you can see, the titanium flag being planted does not sport the illustrious maple leaf. It is a Russian flag, which is being planted by the robotic arm of a miniature MIR-1 submarine. Defence Minister Peter McKay dismissed the act as “just a show”; however, anyone who has been paying attention to the noise coming from Moscow knows that there is an awful lot of intent and determination behind this gesture. With the ice shelves continuing to melt in the arctic, it is seemingly inevitable that the Northwest Passage will eventually open and create a seaway linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. More importantly, beneath the arctic shelf lay vast oil and natural gas reserves. As the above picture evidences, Russia is determined to stake claim to both these lucrative resources. Several other countries, including Iceland, Denmark, and even the United States have also disputed Canadian claim to the Northwest Passage. These disputes will ultimately be settled by diplomatic means, but Canada will have very little leverage at the bargaining table if it has no means to enforce its sovereignty in the North. Moreover, there is little doubt in my mind that Russia will passively annex portions of Canada's Arctic territory if given the chance.

Contrary to the beliefs of some Canadians, being a sovereign country unfortunately requires slightly more than having a nifty charter and setting off fireworks on a given day each year. As a member of NATO and an advocate of peacekeeping, Canada has legal and moral obligations that require it to have a functional and effective military. Moreover, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are risking their lives deserve the best equipment available to help ensure their safe return home. To this end, after Canadians are finished stringing up Greg Gutfeld, they should subsequently direct their wrath towards those in their government who are failing to properly fund the Canadian Armed Forces.

Making a Mountain out of the AIG Mole Hill

Over the course of the past week, the front pages of major newspapers across the United States have been saturated with coverage of the $165 million in bonuses that AIG is paying to its executives after having received hundreds of billions of dollars in government assistance. It is certainly a rich story, and has thus far served as an ideal corporate punching bag for the economic frustrations of the American people. Politicians of both parties have attempted to capitalize upon opportunities offered by the situation, with many Republican working to seize upon first issue to negatively impact Obama’s approval ratings, and many Democrats seeking to demonstrate their willingness to beat up on Wall Street fat cats.

The AIG bonuses are certainly an outrage, and the Government should certainly pursue all available legal options to prevent the payout. But right now, AIG’s distribution of bonuses is the LEAST of the issues facing our country…

While media personalities and politicians “huffed and puffed” over $165 MILLION dollars, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report this week projecting that the present budget proposed by President Obama would produce $9.3 TRILLION in deficits over the next decade—more than four times the deficits of George W. Bush's presidency. Should the CBO’s predictions hold true, by 2019 the national debt would $20.3 TRILLION with every American man, woman, and child owing approx. $66,529 each. Other non-news this week included an announcement that the Federal Reserve would take the highly unusual step of buying up to $300 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds. This move sent the U.S. dollar into a freefall against other currencies this week and, combined with our country’s present 0-0.25% interest rate, will certainly hasten the inevitable onset of a long-term struggle with inflation. Another possible story for the front page—had the fabulous AIG barn burner not surfaced—would have been a follow-up on the $787 BILLION stimulus bill that passed with virtually no representative in either the U.S. House or Senate receiving the opportunity to read the bill in its entirety. How are the provisions of one of the most hastily written and expensive bills in the history of the United States being implemented? How is Vice President Biden’s “oversight” committee going to work? Why does the government have to pay union wages for stimulus-related construction labor? Alternatively, had they been really desperate, the new media might have even devoted a little bit of discussion as to why last week’s $410 BILLION omnibus spending bill was packed with $8 BILLION worth of earmarks, despite President Obama’s campaign promise to end the practice.

But who really cares about all of the above? Those AIG bastards took our money! $165 MILLION of it!

Wake up America! These are pivotal times that will ultimately determine the fate of the United States’ status as an economic superpower. Whether you love President Obama, or are petrified by his policies, the important economic issues at hand need to be reported, scrutinized, and discussed. If you only paid as much attention to our crumbling economy as you did steroids in major league baseball, the Obama family’s search for a dog, and Michael Phelps smoking marijuana, then perhaps the leaders we send to Washington would be more responsible with our money.

Tongue Tied Elephants

Over the course of the past month, I have grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of GOP leadership in Washington. The Republican Party's inability to effectively represent itself during the stimulus debate, Gov. Jindal's poorly written response to Obama's congressional address, and the recent feuding amongst party factions clearly evidence a lack of cohesion, organization, and vision.

The GOP is unquestionably in a period of transition, and such birth pangs are to be expected along the way. However, given the present situation, the Republican Party is not endowed with the luxury of having spare time to reorganize itself. In Congress, important decisions that will have long term impacts on the welfare of the country are being made, and the GOP needs strong leaders with good communication skills NOW.

I am supporter of the new RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and am still hopeful that he will bring some much-needed change to the GOP. But the past few weeks have certainly been a rough start to Mr. Steele's tenure. At present, the GOP has received its most effective representation from the promising new cohort of Republican Governors, such as Charley Crist (FL), Tim Pawlenty (MN), and—despite his poor performance a week ago—Bobby Jindal (LA). But these individuals cannot continue to serve as the voice of the GOP on national issues; this role must be fulfilled by Republican leaders in Congress.

The Republicans have virtually no power in House of Representatives. To this end, John Boehner (the present House Minority leader) receives very little attention from the media. However, Senate Republicans retain the power to filibuster legislation and consequently wield more influence than their counterparts in the lower house.

This leads me to the individual whom I believe to be at the crux of the GOP's present deficit in representation: Mitch McConnell (KY).

McConnell assumed the role of ranking Republican in the Senate following the 2008 election. McConnell is a skilled and experienced political strategist, but as Dick Morris remarked, he "runs from microphones." McConnell seldom makes media appearances, and often gives a dry and mundane performance during interviews and speeches. I mean no disrespect to Mr. McConnell, and am very thankful to have him in the Senate. However, communication and advocacy are not his strength, and I personally believe the GOP should consider appointing a new figurehead who can effectively advocate the Republican viewpoint to the public.

President Obama is, without question, one of the most effective communicators to ever hold the office of President. Overcoming his power of persuasion will be difficult. But while it will be almost impossible to match the eloquence of his rhetoric, I believe that the GOP can find meaningful representation by selecting a spokesperson who is intelligent yet simply spoken, respectful, genuine, and down to earth—a Mike Huckabee if you will. In my opinion, the contrast provided by such an individual would problematize Obama's style of exposition, making it seem contrived, insincere, and even elitist.

As has been demonstrated throughout the history of U.S. politics, Americans have a strong affinity for straight talk. The GOP simply has to find leaders who can provide it.

Obama's "Bipartisan" Stimulus

There seems to be a lot of confusion around the meaning of “economic stimulus.” This is not surprising, given the fact that President Obama seems more concerned with convincing the American people that the stimulus bill should be passed according to his timetable, than explaining HOW and WHY the bill will actually work. On February 5th, President Obama remarked in a speech:

Well then you get the argument "this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." [PAUSE] WHAT DO YOU THINK A STIMULUS IS? [LAUGHTER]

Obama is certainly correct that Keynesian economic stimulus involves the Government spending money, but a “stimulus bill” is not supposed to be just any oversized spending bill. Under the Keynesian model for economic stimulus, the Government spends money to create jobs, reinvigorate commerce, and expand new areas of the economy. While any form of government spending can arguably produce the above results, certain types of spending accomplish these objectives better than others. Infrastructure is a classic example of GOOD economic stimulus. The Government makes the initial investment necessary to build a highway to an undeveloped area outside a major city, which ideally will encourage contractors to build houses in the area, prompt businesses to open in the new neighbourhood, require telecommunication to be built, and so on. In this scenario, a onetime investment has “stimulated” the creation of an abundance of long-term jobs and commerce. This is broadly known in macroeconomics as the “multiplier effect.” Now contrast this with the present stimulus bill’s $600 million provision to buy hybrid cars for the Federal Government. This expenditure will give a onetime boost to the automotive industry which will trickle down to suppliers and others, but it does not have the same potential to stimulate exponential economic growth.

Obama’s stimulus bill is full of provisions that do not embrace this “multiplier” effect, and will arguably do little to perpetuate long-term economic growth. Some of these provisions might be worth-while expenditures, but they are NOT good stimulus in the eyes of many.

The aforementioned joke is among the many comments that Obama has made to discredit and belittle those who oppose the present stimulus bill. He has consistently characterized the opposition to his bill as “phony arguments” and “petty politics,” and even had the nerve to tell a group of senior Republicans that they “…can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Needless to say, these comments are very insulting to GOP Members of Congress, the voters they represent, the 43% of Americans who DO NOT support this bill (Rasmussen), and everyone else who believes the Government should take care when spending almost a TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money.

At present, only three of the 219 Republicans in the House and Senate are supporting Obama's stimulus bill. Some Republicans simply do not believe it is possible for government spending to fix the economy. These individuals, cannot support the stimulus bill as a matter of principle. Indeed, while historians often romanticise F.D.R.’s New Deal—down the hall in the Economics Dept—surveys have shown that approximately 50% of economists believe that the program actually prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. Many other Republicans are willing to accept the spending in this bill, but have valid concerns about its ability to produce timely and targeted results. Even the Congressional Budget office has raised serious concerns about the time required for the bill to take effect, the number of jobs it will create, and the long-term impact on the GDP of the economy. To this end, while politics are inescapable in Washington, Obama’s comments are efforts to illegitimatize the very legitimate concerns and beliefs of Republican and Democratic dissenters in the House and Senate.

In my opinion, Barack Obama has lacked leadership in the handling of this bill and has failed to acted in a bipartisan manner. To his credit, a large portion of the present bill does consist of Republican-friendly tax cuts, and he did personally ask Speaker Pelosi to remove some of the highly contention provisions from the House Bill (for example the 200 million for birth control). But his rhetoric has failed to demonstrate respect for those who hold opinions that differ from his own—either you agree with Obama or are an “old Washington” petty partisan. Despite claims during his campaign, Obama really has little to no experience bringing about bipartisan cooperation, and this deficit has been apparent over the past few weeks. Whether or not he is serious about developing such skills will become evident as time passes. Either way, he should probably refrain from suggesting that the Republican Party gets its policy platform from Rush Limbaugh.

The last couple of weeks have undoubtedly been a learning curve for President Obama and his staff. Furthermore, I recognize that this stimulus bill would not be an easy “first feat” for any new administration. But Obama needs to quit “talking at” citizens and Members of Congress who disagree with him and start engaging in dialogue that meaningfully addresses their concerns—even if the result is a respectful agreement to disagree.

Iraq: Past, Present, and Future

Introduction

The Iraq war will dominate the historiography of Bush’s Presidency. It was the most controversial U.S. war since Vietnam, and has generated anger and resentment at home and abroad. But despite the importance of this event, I find that many individuals are either ignorant or forgetful of many of the events that surrounded this conflict. In this entry, I will spend a substantial amount of time discussing the history of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, before evaluating the ethics of Bush’s actions and offering a brief assessment of Iraq’s future. I do not contend that these facts constitute an indisputable rebuttal to the criticism that George W. Bush has received. It is perfectly feasible for one to acknowledge the information I am about to present and still disapprove of Bush and the 2003 Iraq war. Instead, this entry details information and arguments that I firmly believe must be addressed when examining this conflict.

Please also note, that I do not attempt to capture the entirety of the debate which surrounds the Iraq war in this entry. Though able, I simply cannot discuss every argument and counterargument in this post—it is already obscenely long. The paragraphs below are simply important pieces of the puzzle that I believe have been “knocked on the floor” over the passage of time.


U.S.–Iraq Relations from 1990-2003

Many individuals, including those within the media, portray the U.S. quest for regime change in Iraq as the ill-fated brainchild of George W. Bush. This is simply not correct. Although Bush unquestionably led the charge to invade Iraq in 2003, the prospect of another U.S. war with Iraq had been building all throughout the 1990s.

Following the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. passed Resolution 687 which called for the destruction or removal of all long range missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and any research and components related to weapons of mass destruction. It was no secret that Saddam was WMD “enthusiast.” He had used chemical weapons several times against his foreign and domestic enemies, and had pioneered one of the largest programs in the Middle East for developing and manufacturing such weapons. Consequently, no one believed Saddam would willing comply with Resolution. Indeed, throughout the entire decade, the UNSCOM inspectors and Saddam’s regime engaged in an endless game of cat and mouse. The anecdotes that detail these inspection efforts are colorful to say the least. UNSCOM inspectors were shot at, physically attacked, and on one occasion even had to run down Iraqi agents who were fleeing with secret documents in their briefcases. Inspectors were repeated denied access to facilities of interest and were forever being expelled from the country—usually after finding something that supposedly did not exist. More importantly, inspectors repeatedly found Iraqi disclosures regarding weapons stockpiles and research to be patently false.

(Those interested in a more detailed account of the UNSCOM inspections can review the summary provided by the Monterey Institute for Int’l Studies: [SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS])

Throughout this cat and mouse game of inspections, the United States carried out numerous military strikes against Iraq:

• January 1993: Cruise Missile strike against a Nuclear Fabrication facility in Baghdad
• June 1993: Cruise Missile strike against Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters
• December 1998: U.S. bombs Iraq for four days, destroying 100 targets in “Operation Desert Fox”
• April 2000: U.S. bombs four military sites in Iraq
• February 2001: U.S. and Britain carry out bombing raids against Iraq’s air defences

Furthermore, between the first and second Gulf War, there were over five hundred incidents wherein U.S. warplanes were engaged by radar stations, surface to air missile launchers, and Iraqi aircraft while enforcing the Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq. The majority of these incidents resulted in warplanes destroying Iraqi military units [LIST OF SKIRMISHS]. Hence while the U.S. and Iraq did not engage in “all out war” from 1991-2003, there was a steady and perpetual stream of bombs and missiles continued to fly between the first and second Gulf War.

Neither H.W. Bush nor Bill Clinton arguably expected the UNSCOM inspections to succeed. The U.S. wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power, but during the Gulf War it was not willing to endure the carnage that would accompany a march to Baghdad. Instead, both Presidents clung to the hope that Iraq would eventually rid itself of Saddam, and sought to create an environment that was conducive to such an event.

Four days after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.N. Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq which prohibited foreign trade of all goods, with the exception of medicine and (eventually) food. Officially, the sanctions were in place to limit the power and resources of Saddam, and keep him from re-arming. However, as evidenced by the breadth restrictions imposed on Iraq, many countries on the Security Council also hoped that the harsh sanctions would weaken Saddam and eventually facilitate a coup d’état. Needless to say, this did not happen. Instead, from 1990-2003, the people of Iraq suffered immensely while Saddam and the rest of his regime continued their lives of luxury.

The effects of the sanctions on the people of Iraq during the 1990s were horrendous. The complete trade embargo obliterated Iraq’s economy, 50% of which consisted of oil exports. In fact, by 2003 the Iraq economy had shrunk to approximately half of its pre-war size, with 50% of the population unemployed or underemployed, and 30% of the workforce being employed by the government. In the early years of the sanctions, approximately 60% of the population depended on a government run free-food program that provided 1000 calories per day (40% of the usual requirement for an adult). Restrictions placed on chemicals like chlorine, resulted in unclear drinking water that led to diseases such as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid fever running rampant. As usual, those who were hit the hardest were children; reliable studies on the sanction-related deaths of Iraqi children estimate that between 227,000 and 567,000 children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease. This catastrophic situation prompted many nations and organizations to implore the Security Council to ease the sanctions on Iraq. Senator David Bonior, speaking on behalf of a group of politicians and advocacy groups, described the sanctions as "infanticide masquerading as policy," stating simply that “millions of children are suffering and we refuse to close our eyes to the slaughter of innocents.” But despite political pressure, the Clinton administration rejected the calls to ease the sanctions. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Madeline Albright stated the following:

Interviewer: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

Albright later regretted the statement and characterized it as a slip-up, but notably she never disputed the facts presented by the interviewer. However, although her comments lacked tact, they accurately reflected the policy of the Clinton administration towards Iraq. The U.S. wanted Saddam gone, and was willing to impose great hardships on the Iraqi people to keep him in check and facilitate his removal.

By 1997, the Clinton administration began to publically express its belief that the U.S. needed to take immediate steps to remove the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. In February of 1998, in a speech to Pentagon staff, Clinton stated:

[Saddam Hussein’s] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us […] The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. […] Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. […] Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action […] We still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
[COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT]

(Notably, ten months later, after failing to find the stockpiles of WMDs that they firmly believed were still in Saddam’s possession, the UNSCOM inspectors were permanently expelled from Iraq. Hence though we still have not found a single chemical or biological weapon in Iraq to date, at the time of their expulsion in 1998, U.N. inspectors were confident Saddam was still in possession of such an arsenal.)

In the Fall of 1998, the U.S. Legislature and Bill Clinton passed into law, with near unanimous approval, the Iraq Liberation Act which explicitly declared that it should be “the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.” The Act explicitly authorized Clinton to assist insurgent groups in Iraq by providing them with radio/television broadcasting assistance, military assistance, and humanitarian aid.

[PAUSE]

This is where the escalation that occurred between Iraq and the U.S. in the 1990s essentially takes a reprieve. Although the United States by no means “forgot” about the threat posed by Iraq, several other issues dominated the attention of the American people between 1998 and 2002. In December of that year, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives—a fiasco carried on until his acquittal by the Senate in February of 1999. The ever colorful Bush vs. Gore election occurred in 2000, which was shortly followed by the terror attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent Afghan war. During all of these events, the issue of Iraq remained unresolved and the people of Iraq continued to endure the hardship of the U.N. sanctions. But by March of 2002, the Bush administration—eager to eliminate any post 9/11 threats to the U.S.—decided to pick up where the Clinton administration had left off in 1998 by fulfilling the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act. Indeed, Bush was not alone in his desire to rid the Middle East of the troublesome dictator.

[UNPAUSE]

Lead-up to the 2003 Iraq Invasion

Although George W. Bush was undeniably the foremost advocate of the Iraq invasion, he received no shortage of support for the initiative. This brief video illustrates this fact far better than my prose ever could (please take the time to watch, it is not that long):

[VIDEO]

It is certainly amazing how quickly things change in politics. As Bush states in the video, the war in Iraq received strong bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives (296 to 133) and the Senate (77 to 23). Notably, the most of the outspoken Democrats who were in favor of the war, were those who sat on the Senate and House Intelligence committees and saw the same intelligence that landed on Bush’s desk each day. Moreover, most those who voted against the war believed that Saddam still possessed chemical and biological WMDs, but did not believe him to be an imminent threat that warranted pre-emptive action. As Nancy Pelosi (a Nay vote) stated in the video, there was “no question” that these weapons existed. After all, the U.N. inspectors firmly believed that such weapons still existed when they were expelled in 1998, and it seemed absurd to think that Saddam would have voluntarily disarmed himself without telling anybody—especially after spending almost a decade obstructing the work of U.N. inspectors!

Bush’s initiative also received considerable support internationally. Although the invasion of Iraq was undeniably controversial within the international community, to state that the U.S. acted “unilaterally” is simply wrong. More countries participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq than in the 1991 Gulf War (40 vs. 34). Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Poland, along with many other countries provided troops for the coalition. In fact, the only major Western countries that participated in the first Gulf War but not the second, were France, Belgium, and Canada. As for the strong condemnations from China and Russia, both countries were selling arms and other goods to Iraq in violation of the U.N. embargo. Russia even had several profitable contracts with the Iraq government to drill for oil in the country when the embargo ended. Hence their objections were not without ulterior motives [SOURCE].

Just like the U.S., these countries wanted Saddam gone. The murderous dictator had long been a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. Moreover, many countries in the West had genuine fears that Saddam might enact his vendetta by arming terrorists. This assertion was and still is hotly contested; but as with other issues that surround this war, a more comprehensive overview of all the puzzle pieces is needed.

It is true that no substantial link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda has been found, and certain people—namely Vice President Cheney—overstated the connection between these parties. It is also true that the Bush administration’s claims on this matter were disproportionate to the threat that actually existed, given what we now know of Saddam’s activities. But concerns of Saddam Hussein utilizing terrorists to enact revenge on the West were not devoid of merit.

Although Saddam was not affiliated specifically with the Al Qaeda organization, he had a long history of supporting terrorism. He sheltered and supported many terrorist groups within his borders, including the M.K.O., P.L.F., and Abu Nidal organizations. There was also the infamous standing bursary of $10,000 that he offered to the families of any Palestinian who successfully carry out a suicide attack against Israelis. He had also attempted to use terrorists as a means of revenge against the U.S. in 1993, by directing Iraqi Intelligence to sponsor a car bomb attack against former President H.W. Bush when he visited Kuwait (thankfully, the explosive-laden car was caught at the Kuwaiti border). Moreover, though the story received little coverage, in June of 2004 Vladimir Putin disclosed that after 9/11, Russian Intelligence had warned the U.S. that Iraq was planning acts of terror in the United States [SOURCE].

Hence, though it is certainly within the realm of reason to assert that a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack was unlikely, to characterize the possibility of such an attack as a fabrication is an erroneous mischaracterization that overlooks the character of Saddam Hussein and his past actions.

Ethics of the Iraq War

Bush must bear responsibility for several failures of the Iraq war. Although Bush did not collect the intelligence himself, the U.S. information regarding Saddam’s WMDs and nuclear ambitions were incorrect. Much of the war was poorly managed from 2003 to 2006, and many Americans and Iraqis paid the price for this mismanagement with their lives. Moreover, what happened at Abu Ghraib was a utter disgrace to everything the American people stand for.

But whose efforts to oust Saddam were more ethical—George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? As previously stated, the sanctions that were held in place by the Clinton administration resulted in the deaths of between 227,000 and 567,000 Iraqi children, and caused great suffering amongst everyone in Iraq but those responsible—Saddam and his Baathist regime.

While this child had no food or clean water, Saddam continued to live his life of lavish luxury, apathetic to the suffering of those living in his dictatorship. Moreover, if that wasn’t enough, he defrauded 10.2 billion dollars (possibly much more) from the U.N. “Oil For Food” fund that was supposed to help feed those who were starving in his country. Despite the suffering of the Iraqi people, these grotesque injustices, and the failure of sanctions to yield compliance, Clinton chose to avert war and continue the brutal and ineffective attrition of Iraq.

Bush on the other hand, went straight for Saddam and the Iraqi leaders who were responsible for the actions of the country. He ousted a murderous war criminal that was responsible for the violent (often genocidal) deaths of over 600,000 Iraqi civilians, ended the sanctions, enabled the Iraqi people to build a democracy, and been steadfast in his commitment to rebuild the country.

Needless to say, this too resulted in a significant loss of life. During the initial invasion itself, it is estimated that between 3,200 and 7,269 Iraqi civilians were killed in the fighting. To date, the anti-war group Iraq Body Count estimates that between 90,442 and 98,731 Iraqi civilians have been killed by criminal/sectarian violence, insurgent terror attacks, and injury by coalition fire resulting from the conflict [SOURCE]. Not to mention, the over 4000 coalition troops that have lost their lives.

But while Bush’s invasion of Iraq cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, it always sought to targeted Iraq’s leaders and not its people. In sheer statistics, the number of Iraqis killed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq is a fraction (approx. 1/5) the number of Iraqis that died under the sanctions imposed by Clinton.

If action against Saddam was unnecessary, than neither Clinton’s sanctions nor Bush invasion were ethically justified. However, if—as both Presidents believed—action against Iraq was necessary, then I firmly believe that Bush’s approach was more ethical than that of the Clinton administration. Moreover, Bush’s policy actually succeeded in ousting Saddam.

In retrospect, Saddam should have been removed during the first Gulf War. Neither the sanctions nor the 2003 invasions should have ever happened. Ultimately, the West was not willing to allow Saddam to remain in power, and the situation would have been far better had they simply acknowledged this fact in 1991.

The Future of Iraq

Over the past five years, many groups have made repeated calls for the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Iraq. If one pays careful attention to the rhetoric of these groups, they will notice that the arguments for withdraw presented seldom make reference to the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, anti-war advocates usually argue that the war is “costing too much,” or that “too many Americans have been killed.” A perfect example of this mentality can be observed on the “why we need to leave Iraq” page of one of the largest anti-war groups in the United States—MoveOn.org:

[MOVEON.ORG WEBSITE]

When over 83% of civilian causalities in Iraq are being caused by the insurgent attacks and sectarian violence that coalition forces work tireless to prevent, it is hard to argue that Iraqi civilians would benefit from such a withdrawal. To this end, the democratically-elected Iraqi Parliament passed a security agreement this past November, that authorizes the presence and operation of U.S. forces in Iraq until 2011. This agreement was endorsed by all three of the major Iraqi political blocs—Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish. Make no mistake; the Iraqi parliament passionately wants U.S. forces out of their country. But they are nevertheless faced with the reality that, at present, great bloodshed would ensue without their presence.

While I respect the views of those who genuinely believe a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to be in the best interest of the Iraqi people, I am greatly disturbed by those who supported the invasion of Iraq, but are now demanding our immediate withdraw. These people need to realize that foreign intervention is not a B-rate western film: you cannot simply ride into town, shoot the villain, and ride off into the sunset. When we invaded Iraq, as ethical people, we automatically committed ourselves to rebuilding the country. Those who thought otherwise should read a history book. I am equally bothered by those who are seemingly content to let Iraqis suffer provided the story does not make the front page of their favorite newspaper. These people know very little about the situation on the ground, but are simply “self-conscious” of their country’s presence in Iraq and conceptualize the situations one would a blemish on his or her face.

If you believe the war against Iraq was a crime against the people of that country, the very least you can do is give their elected leaders the support they are asking for in order to rebuild. To simply walk away from Iraq right now is like hitting a child with your car, throwing them a twenty, and driving off. Even Vladimir Putin of all people has stated that a U.S. withdrawal prior to the establishment of a “united and sovereign” Iraq would be a “definite second mistake.” The moment they are no longer needed, U.S. troops need to come home. Everybody wants this to happen—Iraqi and American alike. But this moment has not yet arrived. The U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, and as this military’s strong support for John McCain in the 2008 election demonstrates, most of them want to finish the job in Iraq. To his credit, Bush remained committed to Iraq despite political pressure from both sides of the aisle.

Although a bumpy road lay ahead, there is great potential for Iraq’s future. Since the troop surge, violence in Iraq is down 80% and stability finally seems to be taking hold. Iraqis have tasted democracy, and the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish representatives they elected to government have, on several occasions, overcome their differences to resolve difficult issues. With its oil-rich deserts, there is no reason why Iraqi cannot build a strong economy for the future. The U.S. government, as well as its people, must do everything they can to support Iraq’s development to a democratic and prosperous nation. Following military conflict, the U.S. stabilized and rebuilt Japan, South Korea, and West Germany. When appropriate we went home—but left behind democracies, thriving economies, and close friends. There is no reason why Iraq cannot have a similar fate. Such is in the interest of Iraq, the United States, and the Middle East as a whole.

When Barrack Obama began his campaign he pledged the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in just sixteen months. Like many others, I fear that this plan endangers the significant progress that has been over the past two years. Whether Obama’s campaign rhetoric matches verbatim his policy is yet to be seen. But what we learned all too well from 2003-2006, is that less U.S. troops on the ground does NOT mean less American and Iraqi casualties—but just the opposite. Ultimately, I think Obama will recognize this fact. Moreover, I hope (and pray) that he will prioritize the safety of the Iraqi people over an arbitrary timeline—they deserve this much.

Bush and the Ethics of Counterterrorism

Introduction

In exactly two weeks George W. Bush leaves office. It is time for change, and while Barack Obama is not the exact change I was hoping for, I remain
“cautiously optimistic” about the future. Obama is an extremely bright individual with strong leadership skills; though I disagree with him on many issues, I believe that many good things will come from his presidency. But before this transition takes place, I feel compelled to write some reflections on this Bush’s tumultuous eight years in office.

Much has transpired during Bush’s time in office. Indeed, as with most Presidents, the summation of Bush’s tenure is best captured by a shelf of books—not a blog entry. Consequently, I have re-written these posts numerous times in an effort to make a meaningful and relevant statement, while avoiding a complete rehash of the Bush controversies that people of all political persuasions do not wish to relive. To this end, I have decided to devote two posts to discussing two issues of the Bush presidency that will continue to bear relevance in the Obama administration: counterterrorism and Iraq.


Controversial Counterterrorism

In keeping with humanity’s propensity for such conceptualizations, many have come to embrace Obama as an intelligent, compassionate, honest, and virtuous protagonist who will rectify the heinous crimes of the daft, callous, deceitful, and corrupt George W. Bush. At present, I will not attempt to deflate the current public image of Obama that is so replete with expectations—his presidency has not yet begun. I do, however, take issue with the popular characterization of Bush. Far too many people have come to portray Bush as some sort of malevolent dictator. A child of the silver spoon? YES. At times overconfident and headstrong? YES. Callous, malicious, or immoral? NO—his biography just does not support such a characterization. On the contrary, I believe he is one of the most principled and moral Presidents to ever hold office. But his is a morality that seldom appreciates a blurred line between perceived right and wrong, and shows little restraint when confronting the latter. Depending on your vantage point, this is either the greatest strength or weakness of Bush’s character.

Among the most controversial of Bush’s policies have been those concerning counterterrorism, specifically the use of coercive interrogation techniques by the CIA. These policies have been the focus of much attention over the past eight years, but anyone who has studied the history of Western intelligence gathering knows that virtually none of these practices are by any means new to the CIA or the Office of the President. In fact, every U.S. President that has held office since Franklin Roosevelt (with the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter) has utilized these practices in the name of national security. Moreover, techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and sensory bombardment for which Bush has been repudiated, are arguably far more humane than those utilized by the CIA and Military Intelligence during the Cold War. Even after the Cold War had ended, it was the Clinton administration—not the Bush administration—that began the process of abducting members of Al Qaeda in other countries and sending them to countries where the laws against torture are non-existent. In his book Enemies, former Clinton administration official Richard Clarke tells the followings story:

“extraordinary renditions” were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from
South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that.” Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

The writings of Richard Clark, Michael Scheuer, and others evidence that extralegal rendition was being used to fight terrorism long before Bush ever took office.

In this way, NONE of the questionable counterterrorism strategies utilized by Bush have been unique to his presidency. The only major difference between this administration and previous administrations is that Bush sought legal grounds to allow official employees of the CIA to employ pre-defined techniques of coercive interrogation. Moreover, he sought legal grounds to detain foreign fighters indefinitely at facilities such as those at Guantanamo Bay. While this seems disturbing, one must again consult historical precedent. During almost every conflict of the 20th century, captured “enemy combatants” who were not uniform-wearing citizens of a specific country were not considered POWs, nor were they sent to prisons like Guantanamo Bay—they were simply executed. As for those individuals captured by means of rendition, prior to Guantanamo they would have been interrogated and subsequently imprisoned in countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

To portray Bush as founding father of coercive interrogation and rendition is historically ignorant. Indeed, many of the journalists at Harper’s and the New York Times seemingly spend more time perfecting their witty prose that researching its content (i.e. Scott Horton). For those of you who vehemently dislike Bush, the above undoubtedly does little garner your favor for the man—that is not my intention. Instead, I foremost wish for people understand the counterterrorism policies of the last eight years with some perspective. One cannot demonize George W. Bush, while idolizing the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton—the rose colored glasses need to come off, and some history books need to be opened.


The Ethics of Counterterrorism

So are Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush cruel people? Are they and the hundreds of other Government officials involved in gathering intelligence simply apathetic to the horrors of human suffering? No. But all of these people have made the choice to engage in policies that combat violent individuals with violence when necessary. Embracing the ethical paradigm that Michael Ignatieff terms “the lesser evil.” They carry out assassinations, employ interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, and justify these practices in the name of the greater good. For many of us, such acts are repugnant, nauseating, uncivilized, and are contrary to our values and way of life. But unlike many at the CIA, we do not spend our daily lives dealing with those who traffic human beings, murder for profit, or possess the capacity to slowly cut off and then proudly display the head of another human being.

Indeed, we who live peacefully in Western countries are often naïve to the brutal laws that govern human relations in other parts of the world. We must always seek peace and reconciliation within our foreign relations, and strive to overcome the cruelty that continues to plague humanity. But at present, the world we live in will continue to occasionally demand that fire be fought with fire. As always, the debate is how and when.

September 11th was the Kennedy assassination of the new millennium; everyone remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard news of the attacks. Many of us spent the years following 9/11 gradually overcoming the horrors of that day: learning to board airplanes and think foremost about our destination, and not that horrible tragedy that befell airline passengers on that fateful morning. However, while most of us had only to overcome our horrors and fears in the years following 9/11, the Bush administration and the CIA spent those years feverously working to keep the United States safe. To date, despite brutal terror attacks in many other countries (Britain, Spain, India, Russian, etc.), they have thankfully succeeded. In fact, they have been so successful that many Americans have become complacent, forgetting the horrors and loss of life on that day and focusing instead on the features of the new iPhone. Such is the nature of normalization, but in this process many Americans have decided to turn on those in the government who went to all means to provide them with what they desperately clamoured for in 2001—SAFETY.

Most of us have normal jobs. We are teachers, students, ministers, secretaries, nurses, caretakers, construction workers, etc. In our jobs, we have spent the years following 9/11 wrestling with questions such as “Should I include this in my paper?” “Did Mr. Smith take his Plavix?” “What should I preach on this Sunday?” These are all important jobs with respective challenges, but those of us who hold them should sympathize with individuals whose jobs consist of questions such as “Will waterboarding this terrorist save lives?” or “Does the possible collateral damage justify this missile strike?” We may disagree with the answers George W. Bush arrived at, but those of us who do not have to make such decisions should remain empathic towards him, and realize the gravity and complexity of the decisions he has made on our behalf.

In all of this, I should state that I personally do not support the use of torture. Nor do I agree with Bush’s assertion that waterboarding does not constitute “torture.” But I realize the unique difficulty the decisions that Bush had to make during his time in office. In the struggle of “lesser evils,” Barack Obama has expressed his intent to break with history on many of the aforementioned practices. Similarly, I believe Americans of all persuasions should remain empathetic and supportive him, as he engages the extremely difficult questions with which every President must grapple.