Happy Independence Day!

[Friedrich]

A front-page article in yesterday's issue of "The New York Times," I
believe, indicates that Pakistan obtained a major concession from the
U.S. with Secretary of State Clinton's statement that the U.S. is
"sorry" about the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers as "collateral
damage" in our military efforts in the region. Previously, Mr. Obama
was willing to express regrets for the deaths but not to apologize for
killing the soldiers by "mistake."

This U.S. apology leaves open the question of exactly what is the
American position with regard to the numerous victims of robot bombs
(whose relatives are likely to sue for damages in international
forums), especially children in Pakistan and numerous other nations in
the region.

This apology is also a remarkable precedent since, traditionally, the
U.S. policy was never to apologize for actions of the American
government or military. The first President Bush -- called "Bush-the-
Greater" by Arundhati Roy -- famously stated that he "would never
apologize for America's actions" after an airliner from North Korea (I
believe) was downed by U.S. military personnel, "accidentally."

Is this American apology to Pakistan a reversal of policy, Madame
Secretary? The result of all this bowing and blushing has been to
allow for the continued flow of supplies through Pakistan. I suspect
that an important lesson has been learned about the limits of U.S.
power, one that should not escape even Mr. Romney. We cannot win the
so-called "War on Terror" alone. We must take account of the agendas
of others in the region and throughout the world -- others whose
mysterious "deals" with the enemy we should know very well.

An item in the media indicates Mexico's soon to be seen REVERSAL of
policy on the Pentagon-inspired "War on Drugs." It is amazing how very
popular this "war" metaphor seems to be for some people seeking simple
military solutions to complex geo-political problems. After years of a
costly military or quasi-military effort against the Mexican drug
cartels, it appears that larger amounts of illicit drugs are entering
the U.S. markets than ever before from these billionaire organizations
driving prices down and increasing usage in America.

The cartels have diversified their portfolios by investing new wealth
in unrelated industries, like gambling and cinema or entertainment.
The cartels have refused to enter the financial markets with their
funds because, they say, "Wall Street is full of crooks."

Perhaps the "get tough" policies of the past have not been entirely
successful? What do you think, Mr. Holder?

The U.S. Chief Justice's controversial decision in the Health Care
case is widely seen as a political solution aimed at legitimating the
Court by conveying the impression that U.S. Supreme Court decisions
are non-political. However, this very decision that relies primarily
-- whether explicitly or not -- on political and policy calculations
relating to institutional integrity and protection of the Court, as a
branch of government, rather than the merits of legal arguments or the
facts in controversy, has the effect of deligitimating the
jurisprudence of the Court. Decisions should be based on facts and
law, not necessarily what is best, strategically, for the perception
of the Court in a political sense.

This may be a brilliant calculated move by Chief Justice Roberts as
well as a left-handed tribute to the great Chief Justice, John
Marshall, in "Marbury v. Madison." By granting a result to the liberal
justices on a major part of this law, through seeming "judicial
modesty," Mr. Roberts paves the way for a host of 5-to-4 decisions on
strictly party lines which will be immunized from criticisms based on
partisanship since the Chief Justice can point to his Obama Care
concurrance. Smart, Mr. Roberts.

As the presidential election approaches, Mr. Obama is gaining support
and rising in polls in key states as compared with Mr. Romney. If
reelected, Mr. Obama is likely to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and
Iraq, finally, and seek to rebuild a shattered economy while restoring
a depleted military arsenal. It may actually be possible (some day) to
restore modest funding for research and development in our
universities, infrastructure repair, and to create some jobs for
Americans who desperately need them.

If we are lucky, in November, Mr. Romney will be among the unemployed.