LyrArc Article Gist
Lt. Gen Trainor and Michael Gordon describe the situation during the last months of U.S. presence in Iraq. President Obama is ambivalent about the size of the military presence he would like to leave, settling for 3000 troops and a few F-16's from a inital figure of 10,000. Obama sees the presidential election approaching and sets an objective of keeping it minimal. The military cooperation treaty with Iraq has to be approved by a Iraqi parliament with different factions in parliament not likely to approve it. Prime Minister Malliki decides not to move ahead. In the end no military cooperation treaty is signed after 8 years of war and a date is set for a complete withdrawal. Iraqi airspace is used by Iran to ship supplies to Syria's Assad regime, and the U.S. has less leverage in the region as the Arab world goes through a transition to popular government and elections. The Obama administration shifts most of its attention to Afghanistan where the U.S. has no vital stake in the long run compared to the Middle East region, with its large population, growing economies, move towards democracy and meeting the aspirations of hundreds of millions of young people. One Middle Eastern leader says the U.S. had no long term policy under the Obama administration for Iraq, and this applies also to the rest of the Middle East region, and mostly reacted to events as they happened. The Obama administration's committment to the war in Afghanistan, just as it focussed on winding down the war in Iraq, responded to the American public's waning support for the war in Iraq. It did not reduce the total cost of the conflicts because of the initial escalation of the war in Afghanistan and later slow progress towards a negoiated settlement to that conflict. A negotiated settlement is the best the U.S. could achieve, and the best desired objective considering the limited interests in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan most of the dynamics would be determined in the long run by the situation in Pakistan, and India-Pakistan relations, which the U.S. could influence constructively only through dialogue, promoting cooperation between the two countries, and economic relations....

LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.

LyrArc Article Gist
Through 2015 oil companies expect to spend $15 billion a year on pipelines and to retrofit refineries to process heavy sands Canadian crude, and production of heavy sands crude is expected to go up to 3.7 million barrels a day by 2020 from 1.2 million barrels a day today. This is changing the way crude pipeline map looks as the diminished supply from Mexico and Venezuela means less crude going north, and more going south from Canada.

LyrArc Article Gist
Marathon gets 20% ownership of Athabasca oil sands from Western of Calgary.

LyrArc Article Gist
The oil sands project by the Syncrude consortium which includes 12% ownership by Petro-Canada came in at twice the the original US$4.1 billion estimate. Petro -Canada faces similiar problems in its own project to produce 280,000 barrels a day by 2014. The project is expected to cost US $24.8 billion. Cost are rapidly escalating for oil sands projects and it require very good project execution skills. Oil price below $60 could change the viability of these projects.

LyrArc Article Gist
Alberta will get more royalties from the Canadian oil industry of about $1.4 billion or 20% more han before, after increases in oil royalties announced by Alberta's premier following a government review panel's reports.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair says she fears the next crisis will start in Washington. Bair points to the need for urgent action along the lines recommended by the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission. Areas identified by Bowles-Simpson should be tackled as early as possible, she says - tax subsidies for housing and health care that lead to misallocation of resources, defense spending, special-interest provisions. She points out that the increase in the deficit is a result of the unwillingness of governments over the last two decades to make the hard choices necessary to control the structural deficit. Total federal debt doubled in the last 7 years, to almost $14 trillion, or about $100,000 for every American household. Bair, as Chairman of the FDIC, played a critical role in the efforts to control the US financial crisis of 2008-2009. Relentless federal borrowing she says, undermines the confidence private investors have in US government obligations. The cost for bond investors and others to purchase insurance against a default by the US governmet went up from 2 basis points in January 2007 to 100 basis points in early 2009, and is now at 41 basis points. With 70% of US Treasury obligations held by private investors scheduled to mature in 5 years, a decline in investor confidence would lead to higher government and private borrowing costs. She writes this just as the debt crisis in Ireland is taking place, following the one in Greece, and contagion to Portugal and Spain is feared. Bair fears a similar loss of confidence in US public debt. High and volatile interest rates could lead to losses for financial institutions holding Treasury debt and raise funding costs for depository institutions....

LyrArc Article Gist
An indepth look at Mexico, its assets, its huge potential and what is holding Mexico back. It ranks much higher than Brazil in many respects- higher investment as a fraction of its GDP, technical education, an easier place to do business, less regulation, better management talent, more industrialized. In 2010 Mexico had $400 billion of business with the U.S. With rising Chinese wages Mexico is an attractive place for foreign investment, with a hardworking and educated workforce. Mexico suffered badly during the 2008 recession in the U.S. It is trying to reduce its dependence on exports to the U.S in key areas such as the automotive industry. Exports to the U.S. by the automotive industry are now 65% of the total, and the auto industry association in Mexico is working to bring this figure to 50% by exporting to Latin America and Europe. Economic growth was 5.4% in 2010, and expected to be 4-5% in 2011. Drug violence may have reduced the growth by one percentage point according to some estimates. The think tank, Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, estimates that economic growth would be 2.5% percentage points higher if labor market and competition laws are changed, and the oil industry is opened up to foreign investment as happened in Brazil. A study by OECD and the Federal Competition Commission (CFC) of Mexico has shown that 31% of Mexican household spending goes to products operating in high price monopolistic or oligopolistic markets. The bottom ten percent spend even higher proportion of incomes, around 38%, for products supplied in such markets. This includes pharmaceuticals, airline travel, banking, and electricity. Taking on these cartels is a difficult task. The CFC is beginning to take the first steps in this direction, in what will be a long road to fair prices for Mexican consumers. Banking was opened to Wal-Mart. The collapse of Mexicana was an opportunity to auction landing slots to other airlines. An auction system has been developed by CFC for drugs. A new competition law sets penalties for collusion in pricing, with upto 10 years in jail. And Carlos Slim's telephone monopoly was fined $1 billion for its telecom monopoly practices. In 2009 the Calderon government shut down Luz y Fuerza, a state electricity company costing the governmment $3 billion in subsidies for an highly inefficient operation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the graph showing inflation adjusted GDP growth in the South African apartheid years of 1980-1994, show GDP declines in 6 of the 14 years, with 3 years of decline in the last 5 years of apartheid rule. Which shows that the economy was suffering from a combination of world sanctions and the war with the African National Congress to defend apartheid. In 1996 an agreement was reached with the ANC to transfer power and end apartheid in South Africa. Some of the pressures against apartheid came from the business community's perceived interest in maintaining growth. This has been borne out by the graph showing the inflation adjusted growth in the years of ANC rule starting in 1995, which show a striking difference with growth between 4-6% for 1995-2008, high growth rates for 13 of 14 years, and slight decline in only one year 1998. This bears out the policy of business and a democratically elected government with respect for minority rights, and black-white-colored and tribal loyalties being reconciled to goals of economic growth and democracy. For two years Nelson Mandela head of the ANC maintained continuity in economic policies by retaining the white finance minister from the previous apartheid government. In 1996 Trevor Manuel who had little economic experience- who worked as an activist to organize protests against high bus fares and rents under apartheid governments- was made finance minister. He has been finance minister now for 13 years, and only resigned when President Mbeki resigned after losing the leadership election of the ANC. In the early years he controlled government spending to pay off South Africa's tremendous debt. He brought down inflation and built up foreign reserves. After the election of Jacob Zuma, another ANC veteran, supported by young black people, in September 2008, and his likely win in the current election, it appears that Zuma will retain Trevor Manuel. This ensures continuity in the face of the global recession, especially hitting commodity producers like South Africa. South Africa compares favorably with Nigeria in economic growth and modernization, spread of mobile phones, computers, literacy rates, but suffers from high unemployment, and low life expectancy. Pressures are increasing to do more for unemployment, address the crumbling infrastructure, and provide more help to the poor. Zuma has the support of the unions known as Cosatu and the Communist party, and of young blacks, in a country where one third of the population is under 15 years of age and over 40% of the population has mobile phones. South Africa has the largest economy in South Africa, is larger in land mass than Nigeria, has about 45 million people - a third of the population of Nigeria with 127 million population which has fertility rate of 5.6 twice that of South Africa- and GDP of 213 billion compared to $72 billion for Nigeria. Literacy rates are 82% for S. Africa and 68% for Nigeria, showing that higher literacy rates are lowering fertility rates and population growth. The figures are from the 2007 Economist pocketbook World in Figures. A strong press and media provides check on corruption which siphons away development funds in the public sector in commodity dependent countries like Nigeria. The private sector controls commodity exports of South Africa. So even with the relative lack neglect of the poor and unemployed in South Africa, and of health care, South Africa has done better overall than Nigeria. Average annual inflation was 5.1% in South Africa, compared to 15.7% in Nigeria, and this hits the poor the hardest. It goes to show that when it comes to modernization it helps to be inclusive, reconciliation oriented, and bring together all the resources of the country including a vigorous press and media, and business, regardless of color, race, creeds, faith, tribe or caste....

LyrArc Article Gist
Pope Francis is strongly critical of the manner in which the capitalist system has functioned in recent decades, increasing inequality, and hurting the marginalized, the working class and poor. Pope Francis tells people during his visit to the poorest countries in Latin America, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay, that the Catholic Church committed grave errors during the period of Spanish colonialism by allying with the ruling classes and creating great inequalities and suffering. The director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of America, Stephen Schneck, says the Pope is reflecting a century of activism on social issues since the Pope Leo XIII encyclical in 1891, calling for social and economic fairness for labor, with the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or "On the Condition of Labor." The Pope's message in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, to nearly 2000 social activists, farmers and trash workers, neighborhood activists, was that change has to come from grassroots, that the local communities have acquired the knowledge which is valuable to act for economic and environmental betterment. He praised cooperatives and local organizations that enhanced the value of labor. His message resonates say Catholics because he has stayed in close contact with local communities, and the poor, working class people in Argentina. It is focussed on empowerment of local communities. In Bolivia the left government has adopted measures that attract foreign capital and investment, so that it is a model that stays away from socialist ideology, while at the same time embracing the grassroots idea of empowering local people and communties. In this way it has improved living standards in Bolivia and received favorable ratings in capital markets....