From the NYT, the best comment I’ve yet seen on the Iraqi election. It’s Saddam Hussein, by a Whisker
Teaser: “Mr. Hussein won 100 percent of the vote, but Mr. Hussein’s aides claim that the real number was probably closer to 110 percent.”

As a result of the Washington shootings, there are increasing calls in the US for gun ‘fingerprinting’. The idea is guns would be test-fired and records of the bullets kept for matching with those retrieved from crime scenes. As both opponents and critics have acknowledged, this would, in effect be a registration system, something that is anathema to the National Rifle Association and other supporters of an unrestricted right to bear arms.

However, I didn’t want to comment on this debate but on an article in which it is argued that such fingerprinting won’t and can’t work. This piece, linked by Instapundit.com:, was published at a site called Junkscience.com which purports to refute “”Junk science” defined as” faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda. ”

The publisher of Junk Science is Steve Milloy, who is an adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute. So, one might ask whether Milloy’s definition of junk science applies to his own site. Since scientific truth is always provisional it’s hard to prove that any particular piece of scientific work is ‘faulty’ (alternatively, if you apply a sufficiently high standard of rigour, all work is faulty). So the obvious question is whether the work is being used to ‘further a special agenda’. After all, scientific facts being as awkward as they are, anyone who pursues objective research is sooner or later going to come up with results that have political implications they don’t like.

This has, however, not happened to Milloy, as far as I can see. I went through his site, and failed to find a single instance where the results he reported weren’t in line with the poltical agenda of the Cato Institute. On some issues, such as global warming, his claims are clearly inconsistent with the views of even the most sceptical scientific commentators. Milloy says
“Global warming is a silly controversy that should have faded long ago. But gullible youth, a corrupt bureaucracy and biased media may keep it alive for years to come.”
Among serious scientists, even strong Kyoto opponents like Richard Lindzen agree that the balance of evidence favors the existence of some human-induced global warming, and argue only that the uncertainty surrounding the issue is too great to justify immediate action. Milloy would be hard-pressed to find any credible scientist who would endorse his claim.

But more to the point, even when Milloy’s facts are right, what he’s doing is advocacy disguised as science. He selects the facts that support his political case, and ignores those that don’t. Does anyone seriously suppose, for example, that if a new and improved method of gun fingerprinting were developed, Milloy would publicise it? What he does is rightly described as “junk science”.

This kind of thing is done on all sides of politics, particularly in relation to environmental issues. What makes Milloy particularly dangerous, however, is that he engages in advocacy while purporting to defend scientific objectivity. Quite a few others, often claiming to be ‘sceptics’, do the same thing. The right word for someone who believes scientific evidence will always confirm their preconceived views is ‘credulous’ not sceptical’.

A good test on this relates to environmental and food safety ‘scares’. There have been a great many of these over the past thirty or forty years, relating to such diverse risks as acid rain, aluminium saucepans, Alar (a pesticide used on apples) and asbestos, to name only the first few on my list. Anyone who investigates them honestly will find some where the scientific evidence of danger is overwhelming, some where it is non-existent and some that are in-between. It follows that someone who always finds that scares are justified, or always finds that they are not justified, is not a scientist but a lobbyist.

The revelation that the North Korean government, the second member of the Axis of Evil (and it seems pretty clear that Iran was only thrown in to make up the numbers) has been trying to build nuclear weapons has forced rethinking of lots of positions. At this stage, it appears probable though not certain that no bomb has actually been built and also probable but not certain that the Pakistani government gave assistance in return for missiles. What is clear is that the North Korean government has violated a range of agreeements it made with the US under the Clinton Administration.

The big rethinking is going on as various people try to adjust their positions on Iraq or use this news to justify their earlier positions. I’m in the latter category myself, and I suppose most others will be also, human nature being what it is.

The North Korean news indicates a need for a much sharper focus on weapons of mass destruction and the abandonment of the idea of regime change for its own sake. It’s clear, despite the Axis of Evil rhetoric, that the US Administration has no real desire to launch an invasion of North Korea, even though its (the Koreans, I mean) rulers are every bit as evil as Saddam. And despite the rhetoric of hyperpower, the idea that even the US can run wars on four fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Al Qaeda) stretches credulity.

What is needed now is a really serious focus on weapons of mass destruction everywhere, not just in Iraq. This means
(i) continuing the push for unfettered inspections and destruction of all weapons facilities in Iraq
(ii) demanding the same in N. Korea. Clearly agreements without verification are worthless. This should be pushed through the UN with whatever bribes are needed to prevent a Chinese veto
(iii) a really serious effort to denuclearise the fragment states of the former Soviet Union
(iv) pressure on France and the UK governments to abandon their nuclear weapons. These are pure status symbols with no remaining strategic role, and set an immensely bad example to prestige-seeking governments in the Third World
(v) more cuts in Russian and US arsenals
(vi) the US government recanting its opposition to germ warfare and other treaties (as I pointed out earlier the US objections are the same as those of Saddam
(vii) Pushing hard for a settlement of the Israel/Palestine dispute, then offering the Israelis incentives for nuclear disarmament

This is a long and dishearteningly difficult agenda. But step (i) is looking good and several of the others seem a lot more possible than they did when Reagan and Brezhnev were in office.

The biggest and most difficult issues relate to India and Pakistan. Someone in the comment thread referred to the idea that since S11, Americans focused on the ‘worst case scenario’, and that this justified an invasion of Iraq. But the most plausible worst case scenarios I can think of involve Pakistan – beginning either with a nuclear war between India and Pakistan or with Pakistan’s bombs getting into the ‘wrong’ hands (worse than those they’re already in, that is). If someone could persuade India and Pakistan to take $100 billion apiece in return for agreeing to a settlement in Kashmir and giving up their nuclear weapons (or even scaling back to half a dozen apiece), it would be money well spent.

As an aside, I try when blogging to distinguish governments from the people they rule and, in some cases, represent. For example, I talk about whether Saddam* will comply with UN resolutions and how the Bush Administration will respond. On the other hand, an invasion of Iraq, since it is the country that will be invaded and occupied. This isn’t always a simple distinction to draw, and I haven’t been entirely consistent, but it’s worth remembering, particularly when we think about countries like Indonesia.

* I have formed the impression that ‘Saddam’ is the least respectful form of his name, and therefore use it at all times.

Jack Kapica has a nice take on the music biz.

In one of the first warblogger responses to the proposed compromise resolution on Iraq, Stephen den Beste at USS Clueless confesses himself confused, reaches the obvious conclusion that crucial allies (he names Kuwait and, interestingly enough, Qatar) wouldn’t go along with a unilateral war without UN approval, then contradicts himself by saying:

Given that the Bush administration now has the ability at any time to kiss off the UN entirely and move if it becomes necessary, then as long as we’re marking time anyway, there’s little danger in this.

One possibility is that the US “agrees” to the two-stage approach, and when the time comes it will go back to the UNSC and say, “It’s time for that second resolution. Oh, by the way, the bombing began fifteen minutes ago.”

Are these strikes supposed to be launched from Kuwait and Qatar? And while den Beste is confident that the US can do without the ‘Europeans’, he doesn’t clarify whether this includes the British, who would certainly be unable to countenance this kind of thing, and whose forces are operationally integrated with those of the US.

But the best clue to how den Beste really sees things is in the filename link to his post, which is “Knuckling under.shtml”.

The fact is that, if the proposed resolution is passed, and the inspectors are admitted and do not report Iraqi obstruction, the US government will find it virtually impossible to launch an invasion unless it is willing to violate the sovereignty of numerous allies in both Europe and the Middle East. den Beste and others should admit this and start thinking about the consequences, rather than grasping at straws.

Stephen den Beste replies “I guess I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. Publicly, Kuwait and Qatar are saying they need UN approval. Privately, I suspect they don’t, but they want to be seen saying “No” right up until five minutes before the bombing begins, launched from their territory. (Launched from Qatar. Kuwait will be holding some of our troops preparing for ground assault.)”

I still don’t think this analysis stands up. The presence of UN inspectors, operating under a resolution agreed by the US, is going to impose incredible costs on any country that participates in an invasion, unless of course, Saddam obliges by obstructing the inspectors to the point where they report noncompliance back to the UNSC. Why put Qatar and Britain in this position just to please the French?

If the US were really committed to an invasion, surely it would be far more sensible to have proposed a resolution that was vetoed by the French or Russians. Then Bush could denounce the UN and present the US as the only real opponent of terrorism. Of course, the “veto” part of the story assumes that the US resolution would have obtained a majority, which doesn’t seem likely, but that isn’t crucial.

I conclude that the Powell faction in the administration has won, even if the hawks haven’t yet realised it. And of course, there’s still the possibility that Saddam will give Bush the war he wants.

Further update Powell is now engaged in desperate spin to conceal the fact that the compromise he’s agreed to will make a unilateral US decision to go to war with Iraq almost impossible. But they can’t go without Britain, so it’s useful to read what the Brits have been saying:
“Britain, the United States’ only ally so far in its campaign for military action against Baghdad, stepped in to try to bridge the persisting gap between Washington and Paris, assuring France and other wary Council members that London would insist on another round of “detailed discussions” before any military assault.”
and
“Even Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador, felt forced to insist that “our first preference is a peaceful solution.

He said that whenever Mr. Blix or weapons inspectors reported that Iraq was not cooperating, Britain would insist on a new Council meeting to “hear the view” of other members.”

In other words, once the compromise resolution is passed, the issue is in the hands of Saddam and Mr. Blix. No negative report, no grounds for war.
Update Powell’s spin has kept some warbloggers happy. But remember that only a couple of months ago, the US position was an unconditional demand for regime change. All that’s left in the reported draft resolution, and in the statements of the UK and US governments, is that, if inspectors report obstruction to the UNSC, the US and UK will not necessarily accept a veto on military action cast by, say, France. This keeps the pressure on Saddam to comply, which is good, but concedes defeat on the original US position, which is also good.

At least for those of us who favor unfettered weapons inspections rather than war with Iraq, the news that the US is to offer a deal for a U.N. Resolution on Iraq is very encouraging. If Saddam rejects this, there will be no alternative but to send in troops. But the global consequences of an attack on Saddam backed by the entire world would be totally different from, and far more favorable than, those of a US invasion with no clear casus belli or war aims.

Facing strong opposition from dozens of nations, the United States has backed down from its demand that a new U.N. resolution must explictly authorize military force if Iraq fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, diplomats said Thursday.
Instead, the United States is floating a compromise that would give inspectors a chance to test Baghdad’s will to cooperate on the ground. If the inspectors report that Iraq is obstructing their work, the United States would agree to return to the Security Council for further debate and possibly another resolution authorizing action, the diplomats said

(As an aside for any remaining Mark Steyn fans reading this blog, it appears that none of the countries he claimed were “on board” for an invasion stepped up to support it, and several explicitly opposed it.)

This outcome is going to be very helpful to us in getting full co-operation from Indonesia in the hunt for the Bali bombers and their backers. The last thing we need in this context is a reminder of the ‘deputy sheriff’ and similar episodes. So far the Indonesian response has been much better than I expected, but a lot of goodwill is going to be needed over coming months and years.
No amount of good news for the world as a whole can offset the continuing sadness and anger of Australians seeing bereaved survivors returning from Bali, and families here being forced to give up hope. But the prospects of a united world fighting against this evil are better than they have been at any time since the immediate aftermath of September 11.

We had a big duststorm in Canberra last night and when we woke up everything was covered in red dust. It makes you think about what’s happening out in the bush. Of course, I know that drought is part of the natural cycle, that a lot of the problems are caused by overallocation of water, that Farmhand is just a front for the privatisation of Telstra, and so on. But when you see people not only washing their cars but hosing down their drives to get rid of that nasty dust, you begin to think that criticism of farmers can only go so far.
To be fair to my fellow Canberrans, only a minority engaged in conspicuous water waste. Driving to work, the 4WDs all looked as if they’d been off-road for once, and the average motorist looked like a rally car driver.

Update: As is so often the case on this blog, the comments add more value than the original post. Be sure to click on the comment link, and read a lengthy and thoughtful comment from Gary Sauer-Thompson

In this post last week, I pointed out that the following claim by Mark Steyn

“Just as a matter of interest, how many countries does George W. Bush have to have on board before America ceases to be acting ‘unilaterally’? So far, there’s Australia, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Turkey”

was false, at least as regards Australia. I meant to check on the other countries listed but have been focused on the Bali bombing and its consequences. Today I did a Google search on “x support Iraq invasion”, substituting each of the listed countries in turn. Here’s what I found:
Qatar opposes U.S. invasion of Iraq
Denver Post.com – Turks oppose U.S. invasion of Iraq
Spain Urges Easing of Sanctions Against Iraq
Italy confident of Bush consultation before any Iraq action. 24/8/2002. ABC News Online
NetworkOfMinds.com: Regional: Czech Republic and Slovakia news: 08/29/2002
“Czech Cabinet opposes military invasion of Iraq”

The Spain reference is pre-S11, and the Italy story refers to Berlusconi as an “instinctive Bush ally”, which is obviously also true of Howard and Blair, neither of whom have declared themselves “on board” for an invasion without UN authorisation. But it’s clear that Steyn has misrepresented both countries.

In summary, Steyn is wrong on every count. He is either one of the most incompetent journalists ever to be published by a major newspaper or a shameless liar. Any assertion he makes should be assumed false in the absence of independent confirmation.

Update: See two posts up for more direct refutation of Steyn’s claims. Also, be sure to check the comment thread for an erudite and entertaining discussion between Jason Soon and Jack Strocchi regarding Baathist ideology. It’s great to be able to publish this stuff, but given the flakiness of commenting systems, I endorse Jason’s suggestion that Jack should publish his own blog.

The news that Dynegy is to abandon its energy trading business must cast grave doubt on the future of the entire US electricity market, which replaced vertically integrated regulated monopolies in the 1990s. The earlier collapse of Enron was seen by some optimists as the product of firm-specific fraud, but it’s now clear that the whole energy trading market was based on underestimation of the risks involved. And without energy trading those risks are shifted either back to generators or forward to retailers and consumers. I say a bit more about this here.

Update: Another nail in the coffin
Further update: And another

As I did earlier this week, Tim Blair draws on the successful European fight against leftist terrorists like the Red Brigades in the 1970s and 1980s as a model for the fight against Al-Qaeda. As he notes, similar groups like the Weathermen (later the more PC Weather Underground) and the Japanese Red Army operated in the US and Japan, but on a much smaller scale. There were also right-wing groups who while less prominent were more like Al-Qaeda, going in for indiscriminate attacks like the Bologna railway bombing of 1980 which killed 85 people and injured 200. In nearly all the main cases of terrorism, the perpetrators were eventually caught and brought to trial (A closer look at the European evidence has led me to revise my earlier assessment, that we are unlikely to identify individual perpetrators in most cases).
Blair is right to point to Europe as a model, but I don’t think he’s fully absorbed the implications, and certainly his subeditor hasn’t. Blair says ‘Killing and jailing terrorists wipes out terror’ and his piece is headlined ‘Killing terrorists wipes out terror’.
As a corrective to the kind of nonsense being spouted by people like Bob Ellis this is all well and good. There is no point in being nice to terrorists – they must be hunted down remorselessly and brought to justice.
But the European model has a lot more implications, and Blair doesn’t mention these. Unlike many countries that tried and failed to fight terrorism, such as Argentina and Uruguay, the Europeans stuck to legal strategies. Many more terrorists were tried and jailed than were killed. Suspicions have been raised about the prison suicides of Baader and Meinhof, but there’s no good supporting evidence, and these were isolated instances.
There were, at the time, plenty of calls for a less scrupulous response, and suggestions that what was needed was a ‘man on horseback’. Countries in Latin America and elsewhere that heeded those calls paid a high price. The Europeans, with their annoying legalism succeeded where advocates of ‘direct action’ failed.
Blair is also missing the point when he says:

The only major European terrorist group from that era to survive in any significant way is the IRA, which tells us something: attacking terrorists doesn’t breed terror. Negotiating with them does.

Negotiations with the IRA only began in a serious way when attempts to crush it had clearly failed. For two decades, the British government steadfastly refused negotiation and condoned a wide range of extreme measures, including torture* and internment without trial, aimed at suppressing the IRA by force. The failure to beat the IRA had a number of causes, to which I will return in a later post, but excessive willingness to negotiate was not one.
(* Routine use of sensory deprivation, and illegal but widely-known insances of physical torture as well as a number of assassinations)
I’d like to end on a positive note. The tone of right-wing US commentary on the way to fight terrorism has been anti-European, often venomously so. Particular scorn has been poured on European legalism and hostility to vigilante action. It’s good to see someone like Tim Blair recognising that the European model is the one to follow.