Ted Galen Carpenter proposes taking on Pakistan next. He argues that many Al Qaeda members were able to cross the border into Pakistan and are now hiding out in the northwestern frontier province. He further argues that the province is barely controlled by Musharraf and that his forces really have no ability to capture or wipe out the terrorists there.

That’s not to mention that many of Musharraf’s military henchmen are sympathetic to Al Qaeda in the first place. Indeed, it was Pakistan that for years supported the Taliban’s hold on power. Carpenter writes:

It would be a mistake to allow misplaced gratitude to the Musharraf regime for belatedly abandoning the Taliban to deter us from taking the war against al-Qaeda to its next logical stage. The principal nest of terrorist vipers is not in the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, or Somalia. It is in Pakistan.

I do agree that the U.S. has no security reason to be in any of the countries Carpenter names, and that Pakistan poses a much more credible next target in going about the business of wiping out the folks who actually helped organize Sept. 11. I’m undecided right now about whether this is a good idea; I’d like to learn more.

Gee, I wonder why Saddam has decided to temporarily stop oil exports. Is it really because he’s such a strong ally to the Palestinians that he’s willing to forgo the $62.1 million a day oil sales could bring in? Not likely.
It’s clear that Hussein, feeling threatened by Dubya’s clear attempts to gather Arab support for an invasion of Iraq later this year, is doing whatever he can to ensure that his Arab neighbors don’t turn on him. That’s also why he’s started offering $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

So here we have a disruption to the global oil supply and a worsening of Israeli-Palestinian tensions thanks to Dubya’s war rumblings. All of that might be worth the cost of doing business, if overthrowing Hussein were necessary. But it’s not, as I argued here. Hussein is not a threat to the United States and never has been. The alleged nuclear/biochemical threat is easily overpowered by U.S. nuclear superiority.

Only 27 percent America’s crude oil supplies come from the Persian Gulf, and all OPEC boycotts fail, eventually, as cartel members break ranks to get a small taste of artificially heightened prices. No matter how evil Hussein is — and certainly, cutting off oil sales after years of complaining that the U.S. embargo has killed a million Iraqi children shows the depths of his depravity — he is ultimately just a petty dictator who wants to hang on to his little piece of turf. And no one sits on a pot of black gold. Sooner or later, it gets sold — and we’re the buyers.

A very on-target column by Cato’s Leon Hadar argues that the United States should keep a low profile when it comes to the Middle East.

Not only is the situation pretty much an intractable civil war over long-disputed territory, but there’s no convincing rationale for why the United States should stick its neck out. In addition to sending Colin Powell in with a pair of kneepads so he can beg and plead for some kind of peace, some pundits say the U.S. should send troops into the region to help out. Hadar writes:

But those critics have still to come up with a rationale for placing the Israel/Palestine conflict at the top of U.S. foreign policy. Or, to put it differently, they should explain to the American people why a benign neglect approach toward that conflict would have an adverse affect on core U.S. national interests. In fact, raising the U.S. diplomatic and military role as part of a Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking strategy would not only harm U.S. interests, it would not help resolve the bloody dispute.

Right on the money. We have a lot to lose in the Middle East — and Sept. 11 suggested to a small extent what has already been lost — but very little to gain. The future of Israel is a worthwhile concern, and all decent people want to see an end to the bloodshed in the region, but not only does an American heavy hand heighten our country’s security risk, it delays the day of reckoning when the two parties –realizing that there’s no one to look to for salvation but each other — will work out some kind of agreement, no matter how unsatisfactory to both parties.

I have no problem with having the U.S. diplomatic corps act as an “honest broker,” but the United States should get its dogs out of the fight. Stop funding Israel, Egypt, etc., and let these two puppies fight it out until their too tired and need to lick their wounds.

It now appears that, with the building of a new detention facility in Guantanamo, Dubya & Co. don’t plan to ever try the “detainees” in custody for their crimes. The administration won’t call the men in custody prisoners of war, because then they would be legally obliged to send them home after the war in Afghanistan ends (if it ever does).

That’s fine. I think there’s strong reason to believe that these folks are dangerous and would pose a future terrorist threat. After all, they were captured fighting as members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, right? That seems to be prima facie evidence that each is guilty of criminal conspiracy in the Sept. 11 murders or, at least, obstruction of justice in trying to stop capture of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

If these prisoners are so obviously guilty and so patently dangerous, why would 12 men and women have difficulty in finding them guilty and legitimize the imprisonment they are now suffering without the courtesty of a trial? On the other hand, if the U.S. government fears that 12 men and women would find the evidence of their guilt lacking, how can we in good conscience continue to keep these folks locked up? Is the supposed evidence just the hearsay of the U.S. government? I sure hope not.

This could have far-reaching consequences, setting a precedent for future cases of imprisonment without trial, so long as the U.S. executive declares the country to be at war. Jeez, it doesn’t even require an official declaration by Congress.

Parents who don’t homeschool their children are complaining that homeschoolers have an unfair advantage over their institutionalized children in the national spelling bee because they have more time to study spelling.

It’s no wonder, as most homeschooled students spend half as much time “school” as schoolhouse students, especially government-school students. With the kind of one-on-one attention afforded by homeschooling, much more gets done in less time.

According to writer Jessica Wehrman, Paul Wehrman, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said:

… having a few homeschooled bee champs does not necessarily show the superiority of homeschooling. Saying one child’s triumph is evidence of the success of homeschooling, he said, is like saying all North Carolina colleges are good because basketball champion Michael Jordan attended one.

Hmm … there have been three homeschool champs since 1997, and in 2000 the top three finalists were homeschooled. Perhaps it doesn’t mean that all homeschools are good, but it certainly does mean that the best homeschools are awfully good, and that allowing parents the freedom to homeschool can do a lot of good for their children.

But what could be expected from the head honcho of an organization that opposes school choice, charter school districts and alternative certifications but strongly favors pumping up direct federal aid to government schools?

I think homeschooling activist Vonnie Crumpton said it best, as quoted in the story:

“Yes, we get math and English and grammar and everything, every day,” she said, “but we had more time to dedicate to the talents that God has given him … that’s the
beauty of homeschooling. You can spend more time where they have interests.”

Some people think that the Enron debacle proves the folly of allowing people to invest some of their Social Security money in the stock market. Think
again. Enron and Social Security have more in common than you might think, as Cato’s Andrew Biggs explains.