WASHINGTON, March 12 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON--War on Terrorism Expands Like the Blob
by Charles V. Peña
Remember the 1958 science fiction flick The Blob? The movie--Steve McQueen's first starring role--was about an alien Blob of red goop that keeps growing without any apparent rhyme or reason other than to devour new and more victims along the way. The war on terrorism appears to be unfolding in a similar way.
The original goals in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 were threefold: (1) topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, (2) dismantle the al Qaeda terrorist network, and (3) find Osama bin Laden.
To date, the United States has accomplished only the first goal and still has its hands full with figuring out how to deal with the messy aftermath of a post-Taliban Afghanistan. (And now there are signs of the United States getting caught in the crossfire of the rival warlords jockeying for power with the interim Karzai government.) The training camps in Afghanistan may be destroyed. But the al Qaeda network still exists and, according to CIA Director George Tenet, is rebuilding its operations and remains capable of mounting another large-scale attack against the United States. The trail on bin Laden has gone cold.
But instead of staying the course, the war on terrorism--like the Blob--is ever-expanding. The first step was the U.S.-led training mission in the Philippines, justified on the basis that the Islamic separatist Abu Sayef guerrillas are linked to al Qaeda. But the linkage is tenuous, and even Philippine president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo admits that evidence of al Qaeda in the Philippines is only up until 1995. So really the United States is just helping the Philippines take care of an internal domestic problem using military advisors in a jungle environment that is all too "Vietnamesque."
The U.S. plan to train and equip the military in Georgia is based on the belief that al Qaeda members and other Islamic extremists from Chechnya have taken refuge in the Pankisi Gorge region along the Georgia-Chechnya border. But these are terrorists that are more Russia's problem than America's. And clearly Georgia is using the pretext of terrorism to invite the U.S. military to protect against Russia (which supported the U.S.-led military effort in Afghanistan) and its influence over Georgian provinces seeking independence and closer ties to Russia.
So it would seem that the United States may once again be drawn into what amounts to somebody else's civil war, which has much to do with the hatred engendered against America and sowing the seeds of terrorism.
The administration probably has it right in deciding to assist the Yemeni government. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are known to have operated in Yemen, which is also where al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. Batting .300 is considered good in baseball, but the United States ought to do better in expanding the war on terrorism.
On the non-military front, the administration has announced that it has blocked the assets of 21 people with suspected links to the Basque separatist movement E.T.A., which Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has characterized as a terrorist organization of "global reach." The truth is that such a description is more than a bit of a reach (and also true for other groups, such as Hamas, whose assets have been blocked).
In The Blob, Steve McQueen's character tries to warn people about the Blob, but no one believes him until it's too late. The question now is whether it's too late to get the war on terrorism back to where it started. For the farther away we get from Sept. 11, the farther away the United States gets from its original objectives and the more the war takes on a life of it's own.
Also, the situation -- like the Blob -- may continue to grow beyond what was supposed to be a war against terrorist groups with global reach, and into a global war against terrorism, even against groups that do not threaten the United States.
Not only is this a prescription for a costly war with no end in sight. But it also is a step for needlessly inciting new enemies and breeding more terrorism directed at the United States and its citizens.
(Charles V. Peña is senior defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute.)
WASHINGTON--Cato Expert Calls for Anti-Reformers' Plan to Save Social Security
Today, Congressmen Bob Matsui (D, Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D, Conn.) will held a press conference denouncing proposals to reform Social Security through personal retirement accounts. Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, responded:
"Reform opponents are accusing reformers of having a 'secret plan' to cut benefits," Tanner says. "But reform plans are no secret, with multiple proposals put forward by members of both political parties. And personal account plans don't cut benefits: all proposals would pay more than the current system can afford.
"The real secret is what reform opponents would do to fix Social Security, since no prominent congressional critic of individual accounts has endorsed any proposal. While happy to criticize personal accounts, few are willing to say what they would do to save Social Security.
"Where is Bob Matsui's reform plan? Where is Rosa DeLauro's? If personal accounts were off the table, which taxes would they raise and which benefits would they cut? When will they release a plan to keep Social Security safe for our children and grandchildren?
"A free and open debate on Social Security is in the interest of the country. Reformers have put their cards on the table: they favor personal accounts to increase savings and give workers the opportunity to build wealth and pass it on to their children. Reform opponents are duty-bound to present their own proposals, and they should do it before the election, not after.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI is a free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, and actively engages in public policy debate.)
WASHINGTON--C:\Spin--John Marshall, Come Back! Antitrust Law and State Attorneys General
by James V. DeLong
It is a fundamental statement of American jurisprudence and government, drummed into new law students their first week:
"[T]he United States form, for many and for most important purposes, a single nation . . . . In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one, and the government, which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. . . . . These States are constituent parts of the United States. . . . for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate. Cohens v. Virginia (1821)(per John Marshall, Chief Justice).
Antitrust is commercial regulation, and if the U.S. is to retain the inestimable benefits of a common market, multistate firms must have one set of antitrust laws with which they comply and one federal authority to which they look. To have 51 other jurisdictions each asserting a right to invent its own antitrust law and apply it to national firms is ludicrous.
An obvious application is the Microsoft case. Microsoft moved to dismiss the effort to continue the litigation by the nine non-settling states, citing the several clauses of the U.S. Constitution that are designed to nullify the centrifugal forces of state interest. The judge signaled that she takes this motion seriously, which gives reason to hope that this manifestation of the problem will end.
But the problem will remain. Some 30 state Attorneys General may attack the EchoStar/Hughes satellite merger, even if it is approved by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice. It's hard to get much more extra-territorial than satellites. Twenty-one state AGs are lining up against Orbitz, an airline-founded online travel service that should improve information for consumers and cut costs for airlines. State AGs may hop into the messy field of telecom, which is already controlled by the FCC, the DOJ, 51 state regulatory commissions, and a growing industry of private actions.
Such a chaotic system is destructive. Splintered enforcement renders impossible any coherent antitrust policy, because no one can decide that particular arrangements or conduct do not violate antitrust laws. This introduces a strong pro-regulatory bias into the system; with 52 regulators, one "attack" overrides 51 "abstains."
Logically, one might say, "So what?" States will sue, lose in court, and the law will right itself. But antitrust is going through a period of intellectual incoherence. It is rare conduct that cannot be characterized as pro- or anti-competitive with equal dexterity, depending on the desired outcome, and the courts are as baffled as anyone. Outcomes are a bit quirky.
If the Fedearl enforcers remain supreme, there is a chance of restoring rigor to the field; it happened before, in the antitrust reformation of the 1980s. But if every state AG must be persuaded, there is no chance, especially because state AGs are not particularly interested in policy coherence. They are politicized--NAAG, the initials of the National Association of Attorneys General also stand for National Association of Aspiring Governors--and antitrust offers enticing sound bites for future candidates.
AGs are also good vehicles for individual competitors. Those leading the charge against Microsoft are from states with companies that would profit from the case. They could care less about impacts on consumers. A competitor that gets its state to litigate can avoid the unpleasantness of competing on products, price, and service.
So remember John Marshall. Quote him often. The e-conomy needs to go back to the future.
(James V. DeLong is the senior fellow of the Project on Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)
