New York Times — Decision on Afghan Troops May Wait
Americans understand that losses are part of achieving the aims of a war. But seeing troops die in service of an unclear objective or because of political hand wringing is another matter.
Sixty nine troops have died in Afghanistan since President Obama started his lengthy reconsideration of the war there, starting with his review of the McChrystal report on deteriorating security conditions. Obama is starting to pay a heavy political price for suspending his strategy, announced in March and vigorously defended in August, with troops still in harms way.
Writers Peter Baker and Sabrina Tavernise pass along the message from the administration: we’ll tell you our new strategy after the Afghan government gets itself sorted out.
What the White House seems to want is a coalition government between President Karzai and his top opponent following a runoff election. The election is still weeks away and would likely be another violent affair with more American casualties.
And while making American involvement conditional on the political machinations of the second-worst country in the world (but closing on Somalia) may seem like a nifty political trick, Americans have little patience for casualties in service of an unclear mission.
“The delay, though, reflects deep uncertainty inside the White House about the prospects of waging a successful war without a partner in Kabul with widespread legitimacy among the Afghan people. A delay could also provide some political space at home for Mr. Obama, whose efforts to pass health care legislation are reaching a climactic moment in Congress, although the White House has denied any relationship between the two issues.
The election in Afghanistan was so badly marred by allegations of fraud that they helped prompt Mr. Obama to rethink the strategy he unveiled just in March, officials have said. Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr, among others at the White House, had already soured on Mr. Karzai, whose government and family are accused of corruption and ties to drug dealing. The election reinforced those doubts, officials said.”
New York Times — By Air and Ground, Pakistani Soldiers Penetrate Militant Heartland
The major campaign for the Pakistani military against the Taliban is underway and the government said that the offensive into the tribal areas on the Afghan border is being met with limited resistance.
Writer Jane Perlez explains that despite a new load of American aircraft weapons systems for the Pakistani military, the Taliban is hoping to draw the army into the mountains and then pick them off during a long winter campaign.
“As Pakistan’s boldest and most difficult offensive against the Taliban unfolded, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as head of the United States Central Command, arrived in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, on Sunday to consult with the nation’s civilian and military leaders.
The United States military has been urging the Pakistanis to forge ahead with the offensive, saying that the Pakistani Army must stand up to the Qaeda-fortified Taliban and its network of militant groups bent on trying to take down the nuclear-armed nation.
The Pakistani Army began the long-awaited operation into the Taliban heartland inside South Waziristan in the early hours Saturday, after six major attacks by the Taliban on Pakistani security installations in the previous 12 days, including one on the army headquarters, forced its hand.”
Wall Street Journal — CEOs Tally Health-Bill Score
Ask the markets who the winners and losers in the health care debate are going to be. It’s not you, by the way.
Writers Janet Adamay and Greg Hitt check with CEOs and market performance to see how insiders are looking at the Democratic health-care plan.
The alliance between President Obama and the pharmaceutical industry is already paying off for big Pharma in higher stock prices. Losers include the insurance industry, hospitals, medical device makers and more.
Among other slaps at insurers, the bill makes them pay $6.7 billion a year in new taxes, distributed by their market share.
Insurers Human and WellPoint Inc. have the highest percentage of their earnings at risk based on the proposed changes, according to research by Goldman Sachs. Humana derives much of its profit from administering Medicare plans, which face more than $100 billion in cuts under the Finance bill. WellPoint provides insurance to many individuals and small businesses — a market that would move to a government-run health-insurance exchange under the legislation.”
Washington Post — In health debate, those numbers are just numbers
Writer Lori Montgomery provides a key service super geeks: an introduction to the assistant to the top numbers nerd at the Congressional Budget Office.
Montgomery looks at how Phil Ellis, the top man on health policy at Doug Elmendorf’s CBO, has been doing his job in the past six months.
In the process she shows what an inexact science scoring health-care legislation can be.
“To help with this task, the CBO has constructed a computer model built on a government survey of 70,000 people, who were asked about family structure, health status and insurance options. The data are layered with scholarly research that suggests how those people might respond to various policies. The CBO also has assigned each worker to a “synthetic firm,” whose virtual executives also have decisions to make, such as whether to offer insurance to their workers or pay a penalty to the government.
Ellis compares the model to SimCity, a computer game that reacts as players construct a virtual metropolis. Ideas go in (What happens if there’s a $750 fine for not having insurance?), and a forecast comes out (Some people would choose to pay it, generating about $1 billion a year for the government.). Each legislative package contains dozens of such provisions, and they interact in infinitely variable ways.”
Wall Street Journal — A Leader Delaying Lisbon Treaty? Czech
Writer Charles Forelle looks at how the EUrocratic dream of a federal union for the continent is being frustrated by the free-market loving, global-warming denying, self-promoting president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.
Klaus will probably sign on eventually and give the Brussels-based government it’s authority after years of frustration with holdout nations.
But for now, Klaus is enjoying making his fellow continentals a little miserable.
“During the weekend, conflicting signals emerged: In a legal filing with the Czech high court (where allies have tried to buy him some time by lodging a last-ditch complaint about the treaty), Mr. Klaus said Lisbon would strip the Czech Republic of sacred sovereignty, but in a Saturday interview with a Czech newspaper he said it appeared too late to stop the treaty.
Mr. Klaus’s intransigence has its roots in a deep skepticism of the European project and an isolation borne of his status as a lone classical free-market liberal among leaders of a continent that has long tilted left.
But Mr. Klaus is more than just stubborn. He is a deliberate provocateur, a wily political combatant, an irascible contrarian (global warming is his current bugaboo), and the dominating presence of Czech politics for two decades. He has been president or prime minister for more than half of the young democracy’s life.”
–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.
