The annual US State Department Report on Human Rights has just been made public. It is too early to know if this, like many previous reports is tainted by ideological or national security concerns, criticizing those who are our political enemies and going light over the faults of those who are our friends and allies. In one sense, it coes not matter. The question of truthfulness is certainly not determined by US State Department dictamens. There are many good, honest independent groups who can do this. The question if "credibility." And it is on that point that that the US reports is, has always been and will continue to be in the category of "hypocritical", not "credible."
The Washington Times report on the State Department findings wants to use it as a way to criticize Hillary Clinton's recent statements in China about human rights not interfering with other developing agendas. So the Times quotes an Amnesty International source to make their point: "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific. "But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future U.S. initiatives to protect those rights in China."
I am not sure what role T. Kumas plays with Amnesty International, assuming the Times correctly quotes and identifies him, but his statement does his organization no good service by tying its credibility to the credibility of the US.
Clinton, by the way, maintains that human rights is very important to her personally and to the US State Department under her leadership.
The guy from Amnesty is wrong. What meaningful and credible stand can a country like the US which has not even signed many of the most crucial and significant UN Human Rights treaties make to any country in the world? I will not even mention that many independent human rights groups are currently making assessments of who in the previous US government to bring to international courts on charges of violations of human rights and even crimes against humanity. Then add Guantanamo. But, really, even before the Bush administration decided that the only human right that mattered was their right to do unto others before they do unto us, the credibility of the US has always been in question because of its lack of commitment to basic human rights witnessed by the lack of its signature on many of the treaties. this may also explain why the report of the US State Department has always been more reflective of political concerns rather than objective monitoring and evaluation based on human rights criteria.
I guess I am old fashioned or out of tune with reality, but I had the impression that first you had to demonstrate your commitment to human rights (by signing basic traties accepted by considerable number of other states in the world) and, then, demonstrate that you actually respect them before you go around pronoucing on how others respect human rights.
I am confident that human rights violations are growing in China (many credible sources have documented this fact). I am not confident at all that whatever the US State Department says about Human Rights has much more reach in the world other than that, in times of economic trouble, it creates and supports some number of jobs in order to create the report.
If Clinton and the Washington Times (sic) are really concerned about human rights they can begin by joining together in a campaign to get the Congress to sign, let's see, there are so many, but lets begin with the UN Treaty of the Rights of The Child (President Clinton signed it but the Congress did not ratify). That would be a first step back toward credibility.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Despite the Other half (1/2)
i heard what should be a relatively intelligent financial investment professional say that he did not want to help out (speaking of the stimulus bill) folks who made a bad decision or who cannot afford a house as big as the the one they live in to receive help to make up for their mistake. Nevermind that helping that person would help the nation, a reality this same supposedly intelligent financial investment professional admitted in his next breath of air, stating that the current crisis began with housing and would not be over until housing recovered. so, which is it? You want to punish the jerk who bought the wrong home for the wrong price, at the urging of compaines who were making life good for relatively intelligent financial investment professionals or you want to help restore the economy so we all can have a better life?
About 1/2 the country - the Republicans and Republican sympathizers - does not not want to help the nation recover because they want to punish the democrats for being so disrespectful in calling the last 8 years of Republican rule a disaster. So, with the country living through an economic nightmare, with a president who actually thinks we can do something about it and has asked us all to pull the same way on the rope, the other 1/2 says no. we are not going to pull the same direction. We might even (Rush Limbaugh included) pull in the opposite direction hoping the nation descends further into hell just to prove that the Democrats are as bad or worse than we are. billiant strategy! Very helpful! Really appreciate the concern you have for those with whom you share the planet. This must be compassionate conservatism at work.
now someone is ready to say...Yeh! But what about the democrats the last eight years; they were pulling the other way against Bush. True... I would just say that there is a difference between trying to prevent someone from drowning the nation and trying to save the person who is about to drown.
Despite the other half (1/2) the rest of us are beginning to pull together in the same direction - proposing actual solutions, seeking to care for those who are hurt the most, trying to figure out some creative ways to address our common problems - and we will right the ship and set it on its way. And you know what, the other 1/2 who supported all the leaders who tried to drown us and who now want to do nothing to help the ones who are drowning; they don't deserve the economic recovery that is coming our way due to pulling together, but they will benefit from it along with the rest of us. I think this falls under the Scriptural explanation of reality: "The rain falls on the good and the evil, just the same."
Just when you could hope that it was true, this previous talk about "them" and "us" (i.e. "we" get the economic recovery and "they" go further into hell), it will be proved, once again, that in fact, we are all in the same boat (ie. we all get the economic recovery). But, come on God, couldn't we just throw a few overboard?
About 1/2 the country - the Republicans and Republican sympathizers - does not not want to help the nation recover because they want to punish the democrats for being so disrespectful in calling the last 8 years of Republican rule a disaster. So, with the country living through an economic nightmare, with a president who actually thinks we can do something about it and has asked us all to pull the same way on the rope, the other 1/2 says no. we are not going to pull the same direction. We might even (Rush Limbaugh included) pull in the opposite direction hoping the nation descends further into hell just to prove that the Democrats are as bad or worse than we are. billiant strategy! Very helpful! Really appreciate the concern you have for those with whom you share the planet. This must be compassionate conservatism at work.
now someone is ready to say...Yeh! But what about the democrats the last eight years; they were pulling the other way against Bush. True... I would just say that there is a difference between trying to prevent someone from drowning the nation and trying to save the person who is about to drown.
Despite the other half (1/2) the rest of us are beginning to pull together in the same direction - proposing actual solutions, seeking to care for those who are hurt the most, trying to figure out some creative ways to address our common problems - and we will right the ship and set it on its way. And you know what, the other 1/2 who supported all the leaders who tried to drown us and who now want to do nothing to help the ones who are drowning; they don't deserve the economic recovery that is coming our way due to pulling together, but they will benefit from it along with the rest of us. I think this falls under the Scriptural explanation of reality: "The rain falls on the good and the evil, just the same."
Just when you could hope that it was true, this previous talk about "them" and "us" (i.e. "we" get the economic recovery and "they" go further into hell), it will be proved, once again, that in fact, we are all in the same boat (ie. we all get the economic recovery). But, come on God, couldn't we just throw a few overboard?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Afghanistan: More Difficult Than the Economy
The Economic problems may be difficult because they are so profound and were, for so long, untreated, but they are more susceptible to being addressed in a positive way than other problems in the world that our new President will have to address.
Afghanistan, for instance, is a more difficult problem to solve than the economic recession. First, for all the reasons I listed in a previous blog (Afghanistan: Another Word for Failure). Second, because we do not know the basic rules of the game and/or there are no basic rules of the game and/or the rules of the game, unknown to us, ensure that no one wins, at least for long.
It can be hoped that the President's envoys who have visited recently will return with the sobering news that there is no agreement on what the mission is in Afghanistan and among the various options, none seem to be within reach of actually being achievable.
But, there might be some wisdom in beginning with correcting the srategic mistakes in the original mission which was also confusing as it had several parts - find Osama Bin Laden, disarticulate Al Quaeda, overthrow the Taliban, do something to stabilize the nation.
There is only one reason to be in or around Afghanistan: to disarticulate Al Quaeda, or more realistically, to severely disrupt Al Quaeda's ability to strike against Western targets in the West. Everything else is peripheral and not within our real capacity to address or not really our problem (the "our" here means the "Nato Group").
the original strategy was to find Osama and disarticulate Al Quaeda by winning a proxy war with the Taliban. It was mistake, like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
to the degree possible, we ought to forget about the Taliban as our enemy. They don't have nuclear bombs or missles and they are not a terrorist group in the classical sense. They just terrorize the population with their fundamentalist laws and inhumane punishments.
There is no strategic victory possible by continuing to put our troops or NATO troops in the middle of the Taliban struggle with the Afghan government and others, for control of territory. This is the job of the Afghan army. That the Afghan army needs training, etc, might be true and that might be a special mission of one of the "allies" But the "surge" in Afghanistan is absolutely impossible because there is no Sunni population to arm and pay - the poppy crop is able to arm and pay all the various forces now.
What we need is to surround the area with intelligence about where Al Quaeda is present and what they are doing, and develop military or police actions in partnership with Afghans and Pakistans who actually do oppose terror to continue to make it difficult for them to operate and extremely restrictive in what they can do.
It is time for a Gideon strategy - less troops who know what they are doing with a very specific mission related of intelligent application of international law enforcement actions against terrorist groups which threaten all of the NATO countries and many in the Middle East. A protected base of operations or two and offshore naval presence ought to do the trick while the United Nations works with the Afghan government to see if they can stabilize the country and give that government some room to work.
Then, we need very good diplomacy to begin to resolve all of the untreated questions related to Pakistan, a country which does have nuclear weapons.
It should be mentioned to President Obama the historic difficulty to undo an escalation - one leads to another. There ought to be a huge space for reconsideration of any plans to send more troops. A decision to increase troops has no other end than a further request for more troops somewhere down the line.
President Obama does not need to prove he can be the Alpha Male on this one. He needs to prove that he can be Omega Man (last one standing) by using real intelligence. Make Peace, not War is still good advice.
Afghanistan, for instance, is a more difficult problem to solve than the economic recession. First, for all the reasons I listed in a previous blog (Afghanistan: Another Word for Failure). Second, because we do not know the basic rules of the game and/or there are no basic rules of the game and/or the rules of the game, unknown to us, ensure that no one wins, at least for long.
It can be hoped that the President's envoys who have visited recently will return with the sobering news that there is no agreement on what the mission is in Afghanistan and among the various options, none seem to be within reach of actually being achievable.
But, there might be some wisdom in beginning with correcting the srategic mistakes in the original mission which was also confusing as it had several parts - find Osama Bin Laden, disarticulate Al Quaeda, overthrow the Taliban, do something to stabilize the nation.
There is only one reason to be in or around Afghanistan: to disarticulate Al Quaeda, or more realistically, to severely disrupt Al Quaeda's ability to strike against Western targets in the West. Everything else is peripheral and not within our real capacity to address or not really our problem (the "our" here means the "Nato Group").
the original strategy was to find Osama and disarticulate Al Quaeda by winning a proxy war with the Taliban. It was mistake, like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
to the degree possible, we ought to forget about the Taliban as our enemy. They don't have nuclear bombs or missles and they are not a terrorist group in the classical sense. They just terrorize the population with their fundamentalist laws and inhumane punishments.
There is no strategic victory possible by continuing to put our troops or NATO troops in the middle of the Taliban struggle with the Afghan government and others, for control of territory. This is the job of the Afghan army. That the Afghan army needs training, etc, might be true and that might be a special mission of one of the "allies" But the "surge" in Afghanistan is absolutely impossible because there is no Sunni population to arm and pay - the poppy crop is able to arm and pay all the various forces now.
What we need is to surround the area with intelligence about where Al Quaeda is present and what they are doing, and develop military or police actions in partnership with Afghans and Pakistans who actually do oppose terror to continue to make it difficult for them to operate and extremely restrictive in what they can do.
It is time for a Gideon strategy - less troops who know what they are doing with a very specific mission related of intelligent application of international law enforcement actions against terrorist groups which threaten all of the NATO countries and many in the Middle East. A protected base of operations or two and offshore naval presence ought to do the trick while the United Nations works with the Afghan government to see if they can stabilize the country and give that government some room to work.
Then, we need very good diplomacy to begin to resolve all of the untreated questions related to Pakistan, a country which does have nuclear weapons.
It should be mentioned to President Obama the historic difficulty to undo an escalation - one leads to another. There ought to be a huge space for reconsideration of any plans to send more troops. A decision to increase troops has no other end than a further request for more troops somewhere down the line.
President Obama does not need to prove he can be the Alpha Male on this one. He needs to prove that he can be Omega Man (last one standing) by using real intelligence. Make Peace, not War is still good advice.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
There is Change and then, There is Change
CNN carries the story today that Republican Senators McCain and Lindsay Graham are saying that the way the President got the stimulus package approved was not a good example of bipartisanship. According to McCain, this violates the promise of change that President Obama promised the people in his campaign. Well, there is change and then there is change.
As I remember it, from my perspective and, evidently from the majority of all voters, the change we wanted was not exactly that every bill would be supported in a bipartisan manner, but that the bills passed by the majority would actually be helpful to the nation. This is the change we wanted after 8 years of partisan bills passed by the Congress which did not help the country or bills that would have helped the country but did not get any support from the Republicans.
As far as I remember, the Congress, like the country is working on agreeing to whatever gains a majority of votes. In the Senate, the President needed at least three Republican votes and he found three sane Republicans (I am not sure if this represents all of them...the sane ones, I mean)and got the 60 votes he needed.
So maybe what McCain and Graham want is that we change the rules and give the minority the opportunity to get what they want as long as they get, let's say, 40% of the vote.
What President Obama promised was that he would work in a bipartisan way, which all agree he did. But, in the end, despite making some compromises that the rest of us think are ridiculously inneffective (the tax cuts, for instnace), there was no response. He is not obligated to contribute to Republican efforts to hold the country hostage for the sake of some idea that McCain and Lindsey have of what it means to be bipartisan. Most of all he cannot deliver real change to the country by agreeing to include ideas and actions proven by the last eight years to be innefective, wrong and detrimental in legislation just for the sake of meeing the McCain/Lindsey definition of "bipartisan."
The Republicans made a big mistake in not voting for the stimulus. President Obama cannot save the Republicans from their shortsighted view of how to play politics in a world that needs vision and bold action. Instead, the Republicans played to the Limbaugh base and, thus, deepened their irrelevancy for the nation.
It just brings joy to my heart to see the Republicans trying to hide their cowardice behind criticism of the President's understanding of bipartisanship. It is a strategy without legs. The more the Republicans can discredit themselves, the better chance the country has for a good life.
As I remember it, from my perspective and, evidently from the majority of all voters, the change we wanted was not exactly that every bill would be supported in a bipartisan manner, but that the bills passed by the majority would actually be helpful to the nation. This is the change we wanted after 8 years of partisan bills passed by the Congress which did not help the country or bills that would have helped the country but did not get any support from the Republicans.
As far as I remember, the Congress, like the country is working on agreeing to whatever gains a majority of votes. In the Senate, the President needed at least three Republican votes and he found three sane Republicans (I am not sure if this represents all of them...the sane ones, I mean)and got the 60 votes he needed.
So maybe what McCain and Graham want is that we change the rules and give the minority the opportunity to get what they want as long as they get, let's say, 40% of the vote.
What President Obama promised was that he would work in a bipartisan way, which all agree he did. But, in the end, despite making some compromises that the rest of us think are ridiculously inneffective (the tax cuts, for instnace), there was no response. He is not obligated to contribute to Republican efforts to hold the country hostage for the sake of some idea that McCain and Lindsey have of what it means to be bipartisan. Most of all he cannot deliver real change to the country by agreeing to include ideas and actions proven by the last eight years to be innefective, wrong and detrimental in legislation just for the sake of meeing the McCain/Lindsey definition of "bipartisan."
The Republicans made a big mistake in not voting for the stimulus. President Obama cannot save the Republicans from their shortsighted view of how to play politics in a world that needs vision and bold action. Instead, the Republicans played to the Limbaugh base and, thus, deepened their irrelevancy for the nation.
It just brings joy to my heart to see the Republicans trying to hide their cowardice behind criticism of the President's understanding of bipartisanship. It is a strategy without legs. The more the Republicans can discredit themselves, the better chance the country has for a good life.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
If the Republicans Oppose It, It Is Bound to Work
The nightly news channels are reporting that the announced financial rescue plan by the Obama Administration was met by scorn among the Republicans in Congress. This is a sure sign that it must be good. Okay, not exactly. The rule from any sensible reading from recent history is that as far as the economy goes, if the Republicans are for it, it definitely will not work. While the other side of the equation cannot be historically proven, it would seem a good bet: if the Republicans oppose it, it is bound to work. The Republicans created this mess we are in and it is a huge mess. They were not wrong a little or just now then, but big and almost all the time. Makes a tough road for bipartisanship, because, in fact, if the Republicans can agree to it, it probably is wrong. Just do it, Obama. Nobody has a better idea. Certainly not the Republicans who only have ideas proven not only to be wrong, but dangerous for the nation. This is what it means for "Republicans" to be the "loyal" opposition. As long as they vote their convictions we know what is right and wrong. If they say yes, it must be wrong and if they say no, it must be something good. We will lose this rudder to guide us once the Republicans start voting for what is actually good for the nation.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Republicans Define What It Means to Have No Shame
Here are the facts: Reagan Presidency: The National Debt began at $1 trillion and ended at 3 trillion (I think this amounts to a 300% increase). Bush 1 Presidency: The National Debt began at 3 trillion and ended at 5 trillion (only 66% but he only had 4 years). Clinton Presidency: National Debt began at $5 trillion and ended at $6 trillion (20% increase over 8 years). Bush 2: National Debt began at 6 trillion and ended at 11 trillion (about 83% increase over 8 years). Since Reagan, the National Debt has increase 10 trillion. Clinton was responsible for 1 trillion in 8 years and the Republicans responsible for $9 trillion in their 20 years. Governemnt spending in the 8 years of Reagan increased 25%, In the Bush II 8 years, another 25%, in Clinton's 8 years it increased 9%.
The current Republican outrage at the trillion dollar stimulus should be listed by Webster's dictionary as a definition of what it means to have no shame.
The current Republican outrage at the trillion dollar stimulus should be listed by Webster's dictionary as a definition of what it means to have no shame.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Three Goals for the Next Four Years
Despite the failing economy, there are fantastic gains for humanity and the nation possible in the next four years. Here is my top three goals that would enhance human life at no cost to taxpayers
1. Goal: Through Intensive Research program, double the wattage that each solar panel can produce. Or, to put it in economic terms: cut in one half the cost of what it costs to install solar panels for the entire electric needs of a home. Think of the jobs this creates and think of the electric bills this will diminish. Think of the exports we could realize.
2. Create a set of relationships in the world that enables the United States to so reduce its perceived security needs that we can cut the Military budget in one half. (Actually, we could cut it in half right now and still be secure as the more we spend the less secure we are.)
3. Figure out a way for the government to own or share in the ownership of all good alternative energy companies. In two years, if we meet goal #1, the government will be able to recoup all the stimulus bill money.
Okay two more that would help us too:
4. Create a one payer national health system
5. Provide enough educational aid to schools that we can cut the average class size in elementary schools to 20 students.
1. Goal: Through Intensive Research program, double the wattage that each solar panel can produce. Or, to put it in economic terms: cut in one half the cost of what it costs to install solar panels for the entire electric needs of a home. Think of the jobs this creates and think of the electric bills this will diminish. Think of the exports we could realize.
2. Create a set of relationships in the world that enables the United States to so reduce its perceived security needs that we can cut the Military budget in one half. (Actually, we could cut it in half right now and still be secure as the more we spend the less secure we are.)
3. Figure out a way for the government to own or share in the ownership of all good alternative energy companies. In two years, if we meet goal #1, the government will be able to recoup all the stimulus bill money.
Okay two more that would help us too:
4. Create a one payer national health system
5. Provide enough educational aid to schools that we can cut the average class size in elementary schools to 20 students.
Its the Spending, Stupid, not the Tax Cuts
Be honest. When you get your $500 or $1000 in tax cuts, will you go right out and buy a new car or a new home? No, the tax cuts are useless. The government needs more money, not less.
For stimulus of the economy - jobs which produce people who do need to buy cars and can afford housese should be the goal and the tax cut will not create one job.
Now, if you propose that we get all the CEOs together from Wall Street, the Finance Industry and the Automakers and force them to give each American $500 for what they have done to ruin our economy, then the $500 a person seems like a reasonable proposal because, unlike the government, these folks don't need more money and even after they gave us each $500, they still would living better than all of us.
The waste in the stimulus bill is the tax cuts, not the spending. Get it right!
For stimulus of the economy - jobs which produce people who do need to buy cars and can afford housese should be the goal and the tax cut will not create one job.
Now, if you propose that we get all the CEOs together from Wall Street, the Finance Industry and the Automakers and force them to give each American $500 for what they have done to ruin our economy, then the $500 a person seems like a reasonable proposal because, unlike the government, these folks don't need more money and even after they gave us each $500, they still would living better than all of us.
The waste in the stimulus bill is the tax cuts, not the spending. Get it right!
Beyond Bipartisanship
President Obama gave it a try and discovered what many of us have known for some time now: the only bipartisan group in the US is the Democratic Party. The Republicans, at their core, represent that part of America which does not want to work in a bipartisan way. You cannot be bipartisan with the Republicans because they never respond in any bipartisan way to initiatives: whether in the Majority or in the Minority, they just insist on the same worn out formulas of the past.
But, if we think of "bipartisan" in the sense that is more profound and not in its very limited sense of actions which might gain the votes of both parties, we could move beyond the absolutely useless goal of trying to get Republican votes for sane legislation. "Ruepublican" and "bipartisan" are contradictory terms (like Military Intelligence).
The majority of Americans, I suspect, do not really care if any particular legislation is "bipartisan." They only care that it works for the betterment of the situation it addresses. At this point, neither the President nor the Democrats in the Congress should worry about getting one Republican vote. They should only worry about whether the legislation will help the majoriy of Americans, across generational, racial and ideological line. That is, "bipartisan" legislation is legislation that meets the needs, solves the problem of the majority of the nation.
This is exactly why the Republicans are not "bipartisan", because what they propose and support in the way of legislation is always something that solves the problem of the elites and not the majority.
So, by definition, to think of "bipartisan" in the normal sense means that in the more profound sense - legislation that serves the needs of the majority - it can never be achieved. Any legislation that the Republicans agree to is, by definition, legislation that serves the needs of only a small minority.
Let us go beyond "bipartisan" in its traditional sense of trying to get votes on both sides of the aisle and think of it as legislation that serves the needs of the majority (whatever partisan interests they might have). As long as the democrats have the majority, it will be enought to try to get enough Democratic votes to pass legislation that serves the needs of the majority. Concentrate on that challenge, Mr. President and forget about the Republicans. Pretend they don't exist. MAybe they will go away, in which case the nation and the world will be well served and we can all go on trying to find out how to pass really bipartisan laws to help the majority.
But, if we think of "bipartisan" in the sense that is more profound and not in its very limited sense of actions which might gain the votes of both parties, we could move beyond the absolutely useless goal of trying to get Republican votes for sane legislation. "Ruepublican" and "bipartisan" are contradictory terms (like Military Intelligence).
The majority of Americans, I suspect, do not really care if any particular legislation is "bipartisan." They only care that it works for the betterment of the situation it addresses. At this point, neither the President nor the Democrats in the Congress should worry about getting one Republican vote. They should only worry about whether the legislation will help the majoriy of Americans, across generational, racial and ideological line. That is, "bipartisan" legislation is legislation that meets the needs, solves the problem of the majority of the nation.
This is exactly why the Republicans are not "bipartisan", because what they propose and support in the way of legislation is always something that solves the problem of the elites and not the majority.
So, by definition, to think of "bipartisan" in the normal sense means that in the more profound sense - legislation that serves the needs of the majority - it can never be achieved. Any legislation that the Republicans agree to is, by definition, legislation that serves the needs of only a small minority.
Let us go beyond "bipartisan" in its traditional sense of trying to get votes on both sides of the aisle and think of it as legislation that serves the needs of the majority (whatever partisan interests they might have). As long as the democrats have the majority, it will be enought to try to get enough Democratic votes to pass legislation that serves the needs of the majority. Concentrate on that challenge, Mr. President and forget about the Republicans. Pretend they don't exist. MAybe they will go away, in which case the nation and the world will be well served and we can all go on trying to find out how to pass really bipartisan laws to help the majority.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Another Word for Failure is "Afghanistan"
Despite Fareed Zakaria's most recent reasoned essay on how to pull something positive for US national security and regional stability in the volative far Middle East out of a situation that daily deteriorates, getting it right in Afghanistan means getting out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Here are three things that wre wrong about going to war in Afghanistan to begin with:
1. Itis not our country
2. It is not even a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country to be a problem
Didn't you wonder how all the training that supposedly went on in the Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan contributed to 9/11. Specifically, I could never understand how all the people running, jumping, shooting in the tapes we saw of the training camps in Afghanistan translated into 12 hijackers flying airplanes into the NY Towers. Somebody more intelligent than I am can tell me what the connection is. And, I am sure that the security obessessed folks who run much of our national security apparatus would be glad to tell me what the connection is.
Still, in my ignorance, I can imagine that we could have done a much better job of disarticulating Al Quaeda by not invading and not stationing troops exactly in the middle of one of the longest standing and intractible conflicts of modern history (that is the one between competing tribes exacerbated by surrounding interests who specialize in intrigue. The idea that we could establish somekind of democratic government in Kabul that would, eventually, win the hearts and minds of Afghanis assumes first that all the people withing the national boundaries conside themselves Afghanis and, secondly, that if they did, that the central goverment with no resources could do more for them than the poppy fields could.
Somebody who knows how to play chess, could probably have figured out a way to enter the conflict/intrigue of the region in a way that would eventually reduce Al Quaeda to a minor player. And, we would not have been embarrassed by so little success, have not demonstrated so clearly that we have no criteria for friendship (that is the Pakistan as ally thing), and would not have been the reason for so many civilians being killed by stray bomb blasts.
So, more troops, better counter-insurgency tactics, more humanitarian and evelopment aid for Kabul, geting tought with Pakistan....I am sad to say, it all just costs money, lives and destabilizes a region that had managed to stay stable for decades despite the incipient conflicts sowed into the soil of the region prior to our arrival. Worst of all it all still fails to take into account three things, if the goal is to disarticulate Al Quaeda's power:
1. It is not our country
2. It is not a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country
Best advise to President Obama is to "declare victory, go home and play chess."
1. Itis not our country
2. It is not even a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country to be a problem
Didn't you wonder how all the training that supposedly went on in the Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan contributed to 9/11. Specifically, I could never understand how all the people running, jumping, shooting in the tapes we saw of the training camps in Afghanistan translated into 12 hijackers flying airplanes into the NY Towers. Somebody more intelligent than I am can tell me what the connection is. And, I am sure that the security obessessed folks who run much of our national security apparatus would be glad to tell me what the connection is.
Still, in my ignorance, I can imagine that we could have done a much better job of disarticulating Al Quaeda by not invading and not stationing troops exactly in the middle of one of the longest standing and intractible conflicts of modern history (that is the one between competing tribes exacerbated by surrounding interests who specialize in intrigue. The idea that we could establish somekind of democratic government in Kabul that would, eventually, win the hearts and minds of Afghanis assumes first that all the people withing the national boundaries conside themselves Afghanis and, secondly, that if they did, that the central goverment with no resources could do more for them than the poppy fields could.
Somebody who knows how to play chess, could probably have figured out a way to enter the conflict/intrigue of the region in a way that would eventually reduce Al Quaeda to a minor player. And, we would not have been embarrassed by so little success, have not demonstrated so clearly that we have no criteria for friendship (that is the Pakistan as ally thing), and would not have been the reason for so many civilians being killed by stray bomb blasts.
So, more troops, better counter-insurgency tactics, more humanitarian and evelopment aid for Kabul, geting tought with Pakistan....I am sad to say, it all just costs money, lives and destabilizes a region that had managed to stay stable for decades despite the incipient conflicts sowed into the soil of the region prior to our arrival. Worst of all it all still fails to take into account three things, if the goal is to disarticulate Al Quaeda's power:
1. It is not our country
2. It is not a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country
Best advise to President Obama is to "declare victory, go home and play chess."
Obama Dodges a Bullet: Daschle Steps Down
Of all the choices that President Obama has made for his leadership team, the one that troubled many the most was Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services. Former Senator Daschle is, by all accounts, likeable, intelligent, reasonable and knowledgeable. The trouble is that this is not exactly enough for the position he was nominated for. In fact, it was not exactly enough for the position he previously had in the Senate as Minority Leader. There is something about Daschle that comes up short somewhere between being a good person and being an effective leader. For years he seemed to be always just a tad short of what was needed for effective opposition to a really destructive Republican control of Washington.
As one who has worked out of the countries, I can at least appreciate that Geithner might have not understood fully his tax liability as the laws are at least more complicated than if one works in the US and is paid by a US employer. I understand that the Killifer situation was also minor. Daschle, on the other hand, had a problem that was neither understandable or minor. Whatever it was within him or his system of managing life that caused him to think that his delinquent taxes would not be a problem somewhere in his political life might be exactly that thing that always kept him short of effective, while still being quite a nice guy.
President Obama will now be free to choose someone who is more clearly capable of leading what will be a controversial, but extremely important position as we go into the debates on how to solve the national health care crisis in all its dimensions. No matter who is HHS Secretary, it will have to be the President who carries the ball on the debate with the vested medical and financial interests who will resist constructive change that would provide for health insurance and care to be universal.
President Obama dodged a bullet on this one. Unfortunately he was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun. Next time, it can be hoped, metaphorically, that he hits the target.
As one who has worked out of the countries, I can at least appreciate that Geithner might have not understood fully his tax liability as the laws are at least more complicated than if one works in the US and is paid by a US employer. I understand that the Killifer situation was also minor. Daschle, on the other hand, had a problem that was neither understandable or minor. Whatever it was within him or his system of managing life that caused him to think that his delinquent taxes would not be a problem somewhere in his political life might be exactly that thing that always kept him short of effective, while still being quite a nice guy.
President Obama will now be free to choose someone who is more clearly capable of leading what will be a controversial, but extremely important position as we go into the debates on how to solve the national health care crisis in all its dimensions. No matter who is HHS Secretary, it will have to be the President who carries the ball on the debate with the vested medical and financial interests who will resist constructive change that would provide for health insurance and care to be universal.
President Obama dodged a bullet on this one. Unfortunately he was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun. Next time, it can be hoped, metaphorically, that he hits the target.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Republicans, Looking for Someone to Blame, Pick Another Black Man
The Republicans and their repugnant and now repudiated view of economic and poltical reality are looking all around for someone to blame for the unprecedented problems they have created and the fact that the nation rejects them in historically high numbers (see recent polls of party identification).
Favorite targets are black men and women. In the last eight years, the Republicans have managed to turn a budget deficit into a $1 trillion a year deficit, a country at peace into a country involved in two wars it cannot win, an economy gorwing at a steady 4% a year into an economy shrinking at about 1% a year.So, Barack Obama, first African-American President is handed the ball, totally deflated, to fill up with air so that American families can stay afloat. Immediately the Republicans stake out their new ground, claiming that if the the stimulus program doesn't work, then President Obama is responsible for the recession (not the foks who created, but the foks who tried to solve it).
President Obama proposes a solution that many economic and political experts in both parties indicate has a good chance to put the air back in the deflated ball. The Republicans give zero votes to the proprosal and immediately realize that it was a mistake as the country repudiate's their resistance to change. Since the Black man in the White house enjoys, for the moment, the teflonic Reaganeque auro, they blame a woman, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, saying that if House Democrats had only worked with them, they could have crafted a "bi-partisam" bill to vote for.
So, who will take responsibility for the unraveling of the Republican domination of the political scene in America that began with Bush and now is in full bloom? The Republicans choose a Black man - Michael Steele, the newly elected Chair of the Republican National Committee - to take the blame. Aside from the obvious qualities reflectd in Steels's resume of business and political leadership, the choice is a cynical attempt to counter the Obama popularity by also showing that Republicans have African-American leaders and, at the same time, make sure that none of the good ole white boys of the party will have to take blame for the next round of failures in elections.
Steele cannot solve the Republican problem. The problem with the Republican party is that it follows the wrong ideological tendencies in its program of governance of all aspects of public life. There are only two things that can save the Republicans from a prolonged decline in influence: a huge failure by President Obama or the return of FEAR and GREED as primary dynamics in the public.
Steele by being Black cannot attract more African-American voters, much less more latinos because neither is blind to the fact that Republicans, by ideology, do not like African-Americans or Latinos, especially if they are poor, but also if they appreciate their own heritage or their recent past in another country.
Barack Obama has the backing of the American people and majorities in both houses. Nancy Pelosi has the majority in the House. Mr. Steele will bring intelligence, new ideas and energy to the RNC, but he only has the Republican establishment to work with. Who do you think will succeed?
Favorite targets are black men and women. In the last eight years, the Republicans have managed to turn a budget deficit into a $1 trillion a year deficit, a country at peace into a country involved in two wars it cannot win, an economy gorwing at a steady 4% a year into an economy shrinking at about 1% a year.So, Barack Obama, first African-American President is handed the ball, totally deflated, to fill up with air so that American families can stay afloat. Immediately the Republicans stake out their new ground, claiming that if the the stimulus program doesn't work, then President Obama is responsible for the recession (not the foks who created, but the foks who tried to solve it).
President Obama proposes a solution that many economic and political experts in both parties indicate has a good chance to put the air back in the deflated ball. The Republicans give zero votes to the proprosal and immediately realize that it was a mistake as the country repudiate's their resistance to change. Since the Black man in the White house enjoys, for the moment, the teflonic Reaganeque auro, they blame a woman, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, saying that if House Democrats had only worked with them, they could have crafted a "bi-partisam" bill to vote for.
So, who will take responsibility for the unraveling of the Republican domination of the political scene in America that began with Bush and now is in full bloom? The Republicans choose a Black man - Michael Steele, the newly elected Chair of the Republican National Committee - to take the blame. Aside from the obvious qualities reflectd in Steels's resume of business and political leadership, the choice is a cynical attempt to counter the Obama popularity by also showing that Republicans have African-American leaders and, at the same time, make sure that none of the good ole white boys of the party will have to take blame for the next round of failures in elections.
Steele cannot solve the Republican problem. The problem with the Republican party is that it follows the wrong ideological tendencies in its program of governance of all aspects of public life. There are only two things that can save the Republicans from a prolonged decline in influence: a huge failure by President Obama or the return of FEAR and GREED as primary dynamics in the public.
Steele by being Black cannot attract more African-American voters, much less more latinos because neither is blind to the fact that Republicans, by ideology, do not like African-Americans or Latinos, especially if they are poor, but also if they appreciate their own heritage or their recent past in another country.
Barack Obama has the backing of the American people and majorities in both houses. Nancy Pelosi has the majority in the House. Mr. Steele will bring intelligence, new ideas and energy to the RNC, but he only has the Republican establishment to work with. Who do you think will succeed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)