In this week's Liberty Update we highlight the potentially catastrophic threat of H.R. 3, the healthcare…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Notable Quote: WSJ on H.R. 3, Biden & Pelosi's Dangerous Healthcare Bill

In this week's Liberty Update we highlight the potentially catastrophic threat of H.R. 3, the healthcare and drug price control bill that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are attempting to rush through Congress.  The Wall Street Journal helpfully offers further insight this morning on how H.R. 3 would threaten lifesaving U.S. pharmaceutical innovation and leadership, including on things like the Covid vaccines:

Companies that refuse the government’s price must pay a 95% excise tax on all revenue they generate from that drug in the U.S.  They’d also have to offer the government price to private insurers.  There’s no “negotiation” when a gun is pointed at your head.  A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that drug spending in the U.S. would…[more]

September 23, 2021 • 10:23 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
David Petraeus: An Indispensable Man for an Impossible Mission? Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, June 24 2010
Many of the general’s colleagues have pronounced this week that if anyone can pull this mission off, it’s David Petraeus. That may be true. But time may prove the futility of being the best man for an impossible task.

There are no indispensable men in American life.  That is one of the many lessons surrounding the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, who up until earlier this week was serving as the commander of American forces in Afghanistan. Another lesson?  If you have designs on being an indispensable man, make sure that there’s not someone even more indispensable who’s able to do your job at a moment’s notice.
 
In one of the most cunning moves of his presidency, Barack Obama diffused the scandal surrounding McChrystal’s disparaging remarks about the administration’s handling of Afghanistan by accepting McChrystal’s resignation and appointing General David Petraeus – who, after his turnaround of Iraq, is the closest soldier America currently has to a national hero – to take over command of the war effort.
 
The move is highly unorthodox. With Petraeus serving as the Commander of U.S. Central Command – responsible for virtually the entire Middle East and a huge swath of Central Asia – narrowing his focus to the Afghan theater is technically a demotion. But it’s one that works on several levels. 
 
First, Obama avoids the uncertainty that would accompany a new, untested commander. Petraeus already enjoys public support, respect from the military and a command of counterinsurgency that can judiciously be described as superior to McChrystal’s; Petraeus did, after all, literally write the book on the subject. 
 
Second, it allows Obama to demonstrate his resolve as Commander-in-Chief. Dr. Eliot Cohen, whose book “Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesman, and Leadership in Wartime” is among the finest ever published on the topic of civil-military relations, had it precisely right earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal:
 
“It is intolerable for officers to publicly criticize or mock senior political figures, including the vice president or the ambassador (who is, after all, the president's personal representative to a foreign government). It is intolerable for them to publicly ridicule allies. And quite apart from his own indiscretions, it is the job of a commanding general to set a tone that makes such behavior unacceptable on the part of his subordinates.”
 
Third – and perhaps most cannily – Obama has managed to serve his own political interests at the same time that he’s securing the nation’s strategic imperatives. There is no potential candidate for the presidency in 2012 who inspires as much fear from the Obama crowd as Petraeus himself. Now the general has much deeper equity in the president’s war. And walking away from the front lines in Afghanistan for a bid at the White House is a much more acidic way to start a campaign than leaving Central Command’s air-conditioned Tampa headquarters.
 
Yet for all its tactical brilliance, the change at the top may prove to be strategically meaningless. McChrystal’s dismissal tamped down a media blitzkrieg, but it did nothing to abate the stress fractures that caused the general’s complaints in the first place.
 
When Petraeus takes the reins in Afghanistan, he’ll still have to deal with fractious leadership in Washington – Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – and in Kabul – U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and, not least, Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Among this group, there are seemingly as many positions on the war as there are principals.
 
He’ll still be stuck with a timeframe that calls for a troop drawdown to begin only about a year from now – a provision that acts as an accelerant for Afghan resistance.
 
And finally, Petraeus, the counterinsurgency guru par excellence, will still be left with a country where the preconditions of his doctrine – a stable political partner, adequate troop strength and copious reserves of time – appear sorely lacking. 
 
Many of the general’s colleagues have pronounced this week that if anyone can pull this mission off, it’s David Petraeus. That may be true. But time may prove the futility of being the best man for an impossible task.

Quiz Question   
What is the single deadliest disease epidemic to the U.S. population in history?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"The House will vote Thursday on the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill, pushing back an originally planned vote for Monday that Democratic moderates had demanded as part of a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).Lawmakers will still debate the bill on the House floor on Monday, but the actual vote will be pushed to Sept. 30, when some surface transportation programs are set to expire…[more]
 
 
—Cristina Marcos, The Hill
— Cristina Marcos, The Hill
 
Liberty Poll   

Pres. Biden is seeking IRS authority to monitor every American financial transaction exceeding $600. Is there any legitimate government reason you can think of for such micro-monitoring of individual financial transactions?