WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 (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 Reason Foundation
LOS ANGELES -- Baghdad Bait and Switch
By Nick Gillespie
It's becoming increasingly difficult not to view President Bush's plans to invade Iraq as a foreign policy bait and switch, a brazen non sequitur to the stated goals of the war on terrorism. Back in his State of the Union address, Bush stressed the need to contain terrorists of "global reach" and to destroy the "global terror network." Those are legitimate and necessary objectives--and they enjoy widespread support, even in some Islamic countries.
But what exactly do they have to do with Iraq, a country that has been occupied by United Nations forces for over a decade? That occupation, by virtually all accounts, has successfully managed to clamp down on terrorist activity emanating from Baghdad.
In March, CIA Director George Tenet euphemistically told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the jury's out" on Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. United Nations reports bolster the case that Hussein may not even have weapons of mass destruction. In the event he does, the military occupation of Iraq will be an effective barrier to his using them.
Yes, yes, Hussein is a tyrant, a thug, a butcher -- he is one of the reasons to continue to believe in the existence of Hell. Yet his being beneath contempt is hardly reason to expend U.S. military resources -- and international good will -- on unseating him, especially absent a clear link between him, 9/11, and ongoing terrorism directed against the U.S.
Having failed to find Osama bin Laden and thoroughly quash Al Qaeda, it almost seems as if Bush is simply hell-bent on attacking Iraq because he can. The current debates taking place within the Bush administration and the U.S. Senate will hopefully stay that apparent decision, which will not make the legitimate goals of the war on terrorism any easier to achieve.
(Nick Gillespie is the editor-in-chief of Reason magazine.).
The Institute for Public Accuracy
(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)
WASHINGTON -- War and the U.S. Congress: Responsibilities and Evasions
-- Mike Gravel, former Senator currently president of Direct Democracy and sponsor of the National Initiative for Democracy, was a noted critic of the Vietnam War while in the Senate. He entered the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
"This is a déjà vu of Tonkin and the evidence seems to be as flimsy. (Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William) Fulbright's biggest regret, he would later say, was signing off on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. The incident was a lie about a supposed attack on U.S. vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, fabricated by the Johnson government to give legitimacy to the expansion of the Vietnam War. There seems to be a similar rush to a 'Tonkin judgment' in the Senate to give the Bush administration legitimacy for an attack on Iraq. A 'War on Terror' is a diffused type of Cold War, which is worldwide, even in Oklahoma and New York. To sustain the war fever the administration hawks need a hot war to sustain a national war mentality ..."
-- William Hartung, senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute and co-author of "Axis of Influence: Behind the Bush Administration's Missile Defense Program."
"With House passage last week of the $10 billion 'Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act,' Congress has signed off on more than $150 billion in new military spending in the first 19 months of the Bush administration. If, as suspected, these new funds are to be diverted to prepare for war against Iraq, the immense costs incurred so far by the Bush administration's ... open-ended 'war on terrorism' will be just the down payment on a massive buildup that could exceed the military spending binge of the Reagan era."
-- Robert Buzzanco, associate professor of history at the University of Houston, Buzzanco is author of "Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam
Era" and "Vietnam and the Transformation of American Life."
"It's important to remember that while everyone talks of the anti-war movement in the 1960s, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed in 1964 by 98 to two. Fulbright only held hearings after there was a people's movement against the war. Congress rarely has the courage to do something on its own and debate is limited over the tactics of how to attack. Often what drives war is not what's actually happening in Southeast Asia or the Mideast, but the perceived interests of some domestic groups."
The Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI is a conservative, free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, and actively engages in public policy debate.)
WASHINGTON -- C:\Spin -- Flytrap Economics: Powell Mixes Message on Regulation
It's become a Washington ritual. With each new wave of corporate scandals, CEOs of the relevant companies are summoned to Capitol Hill, herded before the media, and subjected to a peculiarly American form of hazing known as the congressional hearing.
So it was last Tuesday, July 30, when the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the telecom mess: calling in the CEOs of WorldCom, Global Crossing and Qwest for a roasting.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of these guys deserve a lot more -- and a tongue-lashing by Senators Hollings (D-S.C.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) and company may be among the easier things they will face. Still, it's somewhat less than reassuring knowing that Senate Commerce is on the case.
At this hearing, however, an interesting thing happened. Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, also appearing before the committee, apparently didn't get the message that the event was just for the cameras. He showed up with testimony providing a multi-part strategy for dealing with telecom's crisis.
With one exception, his Rx for telecom was on the mark. That's good news. The bad news is that the one exception gained the most attention from the media, and the committee.
High on Powell's list is the obvious but essential: rooting out corporate fraud. He went on from there to some even more fundamental and needed changes. He stressed the need for industry restructuring, pointing out that mergers may benefit consumers as well as firms. He stressed the need for new sources of revenue, citing the promise of broadband.
Most important, he outlined regulatory reforms, including rate flexibility and rebalancing, and reform of network access policies, providing stronger incentives for investment in local networks.
This isn't a new agenda -- it's largely already underway in various FCC reform proceedings. But Powell should get credit for laying out the case for reform clearly and strongly, before this less-than-supportive audience.
Nevertheless, the testimony hit one flat note. In an effort to reassure consumers that service won't be cut off, Powell stressed the Commission's authority to prevent telecom firms, even bankrupt ones, from discontinuing service. He also asked Congress to extend that authority to Internet backbone services such as UUNet. It was that request (not the far more important regulatory proposal) that lead the headlines. Sen. Hollings promised legislation to close the "loophole."
Of course, service interruptions are one of the greatest fears of policymakers. After all, voters might not notice immediately if regulation stymies investment or freezes innovation. But they sure get upset if their phone is cut off.
But does that mean government should force theses companies to deliver? Lots of markets get along quite nicely without regulators requiring providers to provide. And the Commission's current authority to stop telephone disconnections was created in a different world: one in which providers were granted legal monopolies, leaving consumers with no choice should service be cut off. That's far from today's reality in long-distance or Internet backbones.
So, what's the harm? First, any economist could tell you that raising barriers to exit from a market will discourage entry -- you're much less likely to invest if you see the industry as a flytrap.
Second, the extension of the FCC's power over backbone providers would be a major step toward federal regulation of the Internet. A small step, but regulators rarely stop at small steps.
Perhaps most importantly, pursuit of more regulatory authority detracts from Powell's larger point that misguided regulations are holding back this industry. Focusing on service continuity rules may instead simply reinforce the view that more regulation, not less, is the answer to telecom's woes. What a shame that would be.
(James Gattuso is a research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation.)
