Day: February 2, 2013

Straight shooting

The White House wants you to know the President can shoot straight:

President Barack Obama shoots clay target on the range at Camp David, Md., Saturday, Aug. 4, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama shoots clay target on the range at Camp David, Md., Saturday, Aug. 4, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take the occasion to confess that I enjoy shooting guns too. I learned to shoot as a pre-teen at summer camp. Somewhere I’ve got the National Rifle Association marksman medals to prove it.  A few years ago I had an opportunity during a State Department security course to try it again.  Squeeeeeze.  Definitely fun.

But learning to shoot, knowing how to shoot and enjoying shooting do not translate into owning a gun.  Why not?  Because

a) having one around the house is a big responsibility;

b) there is only a miniscule probability that I would be able to use one to good effect when faced with a threat.

I don’t really mind if well-trained and reasonable people have them around the house, provided they are more confident they can use them effectively than I am.  But a gun is at least as dangerous as a car.  It should be kept locked.  You should have a license that requires you to meet some minimal criteria:  sanity and competence in gun safety would be my primary candidates.  There should be no loopholes.

I am a good deal less comfortable with people carrying guns around town, whether in the open or concealed.  I can find no substantial evidence for the assertion that this reduces crime.  And it makes life for law enforcement personnel far more difficult.  In recent mass shootings, I don’t remember an instance of someone intervening to good effect with a weapon they happened to be carrying.  Even if you are carrying a gun, using it against someone during a crime is not a sure thing:  it will attract the criminal’s most homicidal instincts and it may even bring a hail of gunfire from law enforcement, mistaking the gun toter for a miscreant.

The issue of “carrying” is one on which people in different parts of the United States tend to disagree.  There are  big east/west and urban/rural divides.  I really don’t care if people in Texas want to carry guns.  But then I find it difficult to understand why they should care if here in DC we don’t want people carrying guns.  This is something that states should regulate.

But that leaves open the question of what kind of gun should be allowed.  If people start driving around in battle tanks or “technicals,” claiming that they have the right under the second amendment, I’m pretty sure the authorities (even in Texas) will find a way of limiting the firepower a citizen can appear with on the street.  Assault weapons are lower on the firepower spectrum.  I don’t really see any reason why all the states should necessarily choose the same limit, but there are obvious practical advantages if they do.  Assault weapons aren’t going to stay only in the states in which they are legal.

There are so many guns already in circulation in the United States (upwards of 300 million) that it is going to be hard to keep them out of the wrong hands and hard to keep them out of some states and not others.  There are good reasons in some places for people to keep guns, provided they do so meeting some safety standards.  But I sure would like to be able to trace a gun used in a crime back to its owner.  We make that relatively easy with cars by requiring license plates.  Ballistic fingerprinting of bullets, or marking them so that they are identifiable, is possible.  I can hear the outcry from the gun lobby already, but think about a world in which cars did not carry license plates.  There would be an outcry against the requirement, but it would certainly be fully justified.

Tags :

Afghanistan’s economic transition

Laurentina Cizza reports:

“Transformational development” is not something we generally associate with Afghanistan. Yet that was the term Alex Thier, Assistant to the Administrator and Director of the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs at USAID, used to describe Afghan social and economic development over the past decade.

Thier opened the Center for American Progress panel on “Afghanistan’s Economic Transition,” which focused on the role of the US and the international community in the transition toward a sustainable political outcome that safeguards its development progress. The panel, composed of the former Afghan Ambassador to the US Said Jawad and Clare Lockhart, Co-Founder and CEO, Institute for State Effectiveness, concluded that to help safeguard Afghan stability, the US and it’s allies should shape economic assistance to reduce dependence on foreign aid and foster a sustainable, private-sector led economy.

Thier’s keynote speech made three main points:

1) US and allies’ investments in Afghan civilians fostered tremendous development in a mere ten years.

Since 2001 Afghanistan’s GDP increased ten-fold from $2 billion to $20 billion. Although poverty in Afghanistan still runs deep, this rise in GDP brought the country’s per capita income up from $100 a year to $600 a year. Ten years ago life expectancy in Afghanistan averaged about 42 years, one of the lowest ranking countries in the world. Any form of basic health care could reach a mere 6% of the population. In this past decade, life expectancy rose 15 to 20 years and investment in low-cost distributive health care increased access ten-fold, now reaching 64% of Afghans.

Education also underwent a transformation. In 2002, a mere 900,000 boys attended school. Today, of the 8 million children that attend school, 37% are girls.

2) Maintaining these gains is critical for the future stability of Afghanistan.

Although flaws permeate the political, economic, and educational systems, millions of Afghans are now stakeholders in a government responsible for the successful delivery of many services. A USAID fragility analysis found that abrupt interruption of global resources to Afghanistan would increase the risk of a return to conflict by 15%. Although politics and security remain more decisive factors in Afghanistan’s stability, economic growth plays a fundamental role as Afghans attain unprecedented degrees of agency.

3) USAID today has changed its investment strategies to amplify the impact and sustainability of its efforts.

USAID’s new approach involves three main tenets: promoting economic growth with a strong emphasis on agriculture, maintenance of the gains made in the past decade, and developing Afghan capacity to sustain these gains.  However, the “how” trumps the “what” in this new investment approach. Thier emphasized USAID’s focus on cost-effectiveness and accountability.

Today, the Afghan government delivers 50% of USAID development resources.  Agreements like the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework hammer out the details of what Afghans and the international community must continue delivering to keep the investment and aid forthcoming.  USAID programs like the Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan Initiative vet partners and limit subcontracting to ensure US taxpayer dollars don’t go to waste. This investment strategy aims to create a path for Afghanistan, alleviating the uncertainty the country faces in 2014 and beyond.

Jawad’s overall message was simple: the Afghans need assurance. Assurance that 2014 will not represent an abrupt break. Uncertainty more than insecurity represents Afghans’ more immediate fear. Reducing dependence on foreign aid and transitioning toward a private sector led economy should be the priority.

Lockhart insisted that the paradigm in Afghanistan should shift from aid to development. Although US support will remain critical, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank will take on increasingly critical roles. She warned that getting the right design for aid is of fundamental importance. Continued investment in human capital that helps the private and social sectors get on their feet is crucial for creating an environment that doesn’t drive citizens to destabilize the state.

Development cannot be forced, and Afghans must want it more than we do. Afghan ownership of the challenge is the only path toward endogenous growth. Our role now is to re-assure Afghans that the world will not abandon them come 2014.

Tags : ,
Tweet