What bin Laden's Death Says about Pakistan and a Little Economics

     Early Monday morning (May 2, 2011), one of the most dangerous terrorists was killed in his home by a group of American Navy Seals. From the moment the public was told this, there have been mass celebrations and general feelings of greater security. I must believe that this celebration is due to the end of a serious threat to America and a good portion of the western world, and not due to the end of a human life (even though he was very disturbed on many levels). It is because of this belief (no matter how naive or increasingly ill-founded it is), I wonder why the government is questioning whether to release Osama bin Laden's post-death photos. The government is well aware that Arab nations around the world, especially those populated with a large number of fundamentalists, will view such an action as tasteless at best, and a challenge/direct insult at worst. Since an argument for caring what other nations think has never appealed to many in America, I ask, "Would you want the post-death photos released of American soldiers or civilians that have been killed over there?" The answer is, "No. Of course not. That would just be a grisly trophy being shown to shock us." So why do the same? It is not as if releasing the photos will make the action of those Seals more triumphant, or bring back anyone that perished in those terrible 9/11 attacks, or even ward off future acts of aggression from "Islamic fundamentalists" against the U.S. (I put that term in quotations because someone who is really returning to the fundamentals of Islam would not do the things they do to begin with).

     However, the killing of bin Laden does mark a victory for the U.S. in many fronts. In addition to the ending of a serious threat, the Navy Seals also took possession of five computers, ten hard drives, and over one hundred file storage devices, such as DVD's, CD's, and flash drives. The government believes that this information will tell us what acts bin Laden was planning, future Al-Qaeda movements and plans, and even possibly who their operatives are in the West. On top of this, it has further proved that Pakistan is NOT our ally.

     Pakistan, a country that has supposedly been our ally for decades, and to whom the U.S. sends billions of dollars annually in relief money, has a lot of explaining to do, which they should not be allowed to do at all. Soon after President George W. Bush commenced his War on Terror, the U.S. alerted Pakistan that there was good evidence that bin Laden had fled Afghanistan and was hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan denied this, but subsequently began "searching" for him. It turns out that Osama bin Laden had been "hiding" in the town of Abbottabad for at least the last SIX YEARS. On top of that, Abbottabad is a town that sits two hours (by car) from Pakistan's capital city of Islamabad and houses its own military academy, near which sat bin Laden's home. That would be akin to a terrorist living right next to the West Point Academy or the Annapolis Academy. And Pakistan wants us to believe that they couldn't find him for those six years!

     Well, they don't really want us to believe that because as soon as they learned of bin Laden's death, they reproached the U.S. for its "unauthorized" action and expressed their concerns that the U.S. would do something like that without consulting them. Why would we consult them when bin Laden's been living with them for six years? After they released that statement, Pakistan's government took a step backward and sent word to the U.S. that they were forced to react in that way because of the fundamentalists that live in Pakistan. If the U.S. released a response like that and then said, "We had to do so in order to quell a possible uprising from extremists in our country," the world court would crucify us. The response is even more shocking when one considers that the response of the Taliban was not nearly as stern as Pakistan's...and they are the main enemy we've been fighting in Afghanistan! All of this diplomatic confusion can be cleared up by looking at other countries. India, Pakistan's neighbor, is beckoning the U.S. to press Pakistan on this issue and force them out of involvement with Afghanistan, while China (who, in part due to their owning at least ten percent of our national debt, could literally take over our country soon if everything continues as it has been) is standing by Pakistan, who is China's ally as well as ours. Doesn't that make an odd bed to sleep in: the U.S. and China having the same ally when we are so often at odds with one another?

     Speaking of China, they have made U.S. economic news recently. SI Group Inc., a U.S. chemical maker, is locked in a court battle in Shanghai. The company outsourced to China to supply the tire industry there with one of SI's rubber-bonding resins. At some point, SI's factory manager quit SI and started working for one of SI's Chinese competitors. This company, Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co.,  started making an identical product soon after the factory manager, who, as per the usual, was entrusted with SI's formula, started working for them. Of course, the Chinese company is denying anything more than a coincidence in timing. This legal battle is just further proof of how bad outsourcing is, both to the U.S. economy and for the business doing it in the long run.

subsidizing Renewable Energy development and sources (an idea gaining weight in Washington) was a bad idea. He spoke of the fact that renewable energy already has a market and if left to the "free market," the innovative ideas would pay for themselves without the need for subsidies. This argument is clearly flawed. First, the idea of a "free market" today is laughable at least. The government already subsidizes a plethora of industries and thousands of companies, including, as the author also pointed out, oil and gas companies (the competitor of renewable energy companies). How can a market that is interfered with millions of times a day be called free? Second, the author (and the federal government for that matter) seems to not understand for what purpose subsidies are supposed to be used. Subsidies (those for new industries and technologies, not for farming or things of that nature), as originally thought of, were supposed to be used to help new technologies and industries that the government thought would become lucrative, good for the economy, or beneficial to the American people for reasons of economics or health to pass the stages of research or initial implementation and continue to wide-stream commercialization and market exposure. Once the industry or technology had become advanced enough to counterbalance their costs, the subsidies would be removed, thus freeing up money for the government to subsidize other technologies and allowing the industry to thrive on its own. The use of subsidies have since been corrupted, obviously, since oil is subsidized and is still costing Americans around four dollars per gallon.

     The last note of the day is for the Debt Reduction Council that will meet tomorrow, Thursday, May 5, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden and a couple of senators will propose their different plans to cut the national debt by four trillion dollars in the next ten to twelve years. Let us hope this committee remembers one word that many in Washington have forgotten: compromise. Compromise for the good of America, allow intelligent people to prevail, and Good Luck!