Ethnic Nationalism

I started sharing magazines with a coworker of mine. I give him copies of my old New York Review of Books (which I haven't done yet) and he gives me old copies of Foreign Affairs. One of the first articles I read was this one about ethnic nationalism (or ethnonationalism). Although at first glance it seems like your standard troupe suggesting that different cultures cannot get along, it is actually very well argued and the tone is reasonable.

Basically his argument is that Americans tend to underestimate the power of ethnonationalism and assume it is an idea created by humans. The author admits that is is a fake construct, but that doesn't diminish its power. He then sites all the examples of ethnic conflict that eventually lead to peace following mass murder and / or mass migration. He argues that the peace is caused by homogenization and separation of the populations. His examples are hard to refute - although some of them I lack enough knowledge to be able to know if his analysis is accurate (he goes back to post World War I changes).

If his analysis is right, it doesn't bode well for some current or recent conflict situations. We look at places like Iraq, Kenya, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and the Balkans, and wonder if they'll be able to hold together in their current state. And in fact, in Iraq, there has already been significant displacement, especially in Baghdad. Neighborhoods are much more homogeneous now after minority residents were forced to leave or killed. It makes you wonder if some of the decrease in violence is attributable to this.

I don't want to be a pessimist. I don't want to believe that the only way to stabilize places like Sudan or the Congo is through separation. At the same time, there is a reason we supported Kosovo's declaration of independence (and it's not just because of guilt). Maybe the answer isn't clean one way or the other, but needs to be decided on a case by case basis. For example, Rwanda is relatively stable for now, and Kenya appears to be getting back on track.

I think though our first step should be to get involved and try to help the populations stay together. Then if it isn't working, to allow for separation and make the mass migrations as painless as possible. But since we haven't been trying very hard in places like Congo, Sudan, and Somalia, we don't know whether the only option is ethnically homogeneous states.

Crazy Week in New York State

The big news this week, especially here in NY State, is the Spitzer prostitution scandal. The only thing I want to say for now about Spitzer is how disappointed I am. His administration had so much promise; he swept into the governor's office with high popularity - at the same time that Democrats overtook Congress. He promised to reform Albany and bring sound management mixed with progressive (although somewhat moderate) politics to the state.

On the other hand, I am very excited about David Paterson. He impressed me in the few interviews I saw of him when he and Spitzer came into office, and his recent speech and Q&A made me feel even better about what he can do. He comes off very smart, reasonable, and candid. Most of the recent news reports say he is also more progressive (liberal) than Spizter. He also has a reputation of having a more collaborative style. I tend to favor politicians who are more collaborative and less combative.

Paterson, like Spitzer, is committed to reform in Albany. Before being Lieutenant Governor, Paterson was minority leader of the NY State, which is a perfect vantage point for seeing how messed up Albany is (basically, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority Leader have all the power and seemingly little accountability). This will be no easy task, especially if the Democrats fail to take over the NYS Senate. And I am a little concerned that his more collaborative style might not work as well in this instance.

I also think it is great that the incoming governor will be New York's first African-American governor as well as first blind governor (good Op-Ed here regarding that). Here is part of his speech and Q&A from Thursday:

In some ways I feel that I’m sitting on a sand castle that other people built. There are so many African-Americans, both men and women, who throughout the past couple of centuries have struggled unremittingly to try to advance opportunity for all people and for themselves. I think they would have been far more qualified than me to serve in this position. The fact that it’s taken this long in some ways is a sad note. But if it in any way allows for African-Americans or those who are disabled — 71 percent of the blind are unemployed, 90 percent of deaf people in this country are unemployed. Maybe one of them could figure out a cure for cancer, but we can’t get them into the workplace. The educational proficiency of the disabled surpasses the national education average, and yet we have these horrible unemployment rates in those communities. So to whatever extent my presence impresses upon employers, or impresses upon younger people who are like me in either way, or Hispanics or women — we’ve never had a governor from either of those communities — then I would feel very privileged, very proud and very flattered to be in this position.

I am disappointed in Spizter, but my hopes and expectations for Paterson might be even higher than they were for his predecessor.

Update: There is an article in today's NY Times taking a look at Paterson's record as a legislator. It's not all flattering. But I still have faith. And here is a column from Bob Herbert on the incoming governor. Apparently, this is how the call from Spizter went:

The call from Mr. Spitzer himself came at 10 minutes after 10 a.m. on Wednesday. Mr. Paterson remembers it this way:

“He said, ‘I’m going to resign.’ And then, at that turbulent moment in his life, he gave me such a kind compliment. He said, ‘David, I told you that in the event I didn’t serve my full term that I wanted a person there who understood how Albany worked and could work well with colleagues. Right now, as bad as I feel about myself, I am so happy about convincing you to come with me.’ ”

Maybe She Can Reapply

I can't even express how disappointed I am that Samantha Power had to resign from Obama's campaign. It said a lot to me that Obama would hire someone whose only claim to fame is an exhaustively researched book about the genocides of the 20th Century. I don't want to go into whether she should have resigned or not - or how bad her comment was (or not) because I can't even pretend that I am capable of being objective. I am a huge fan of Samantha Power; in fact I think I like her more than I like Obama. My hope though is that if Obama does win the nomination and eventually the White House, there will be a big role for her there. As the leading voice for intervention in genocides (as well as the leading critical voice for the times we haven't), she is seriously needed inside Washington.

And just as a reminder, Samantha Power was very critical of the Clinton Administration (which includes Hillary if she is claiming that time as part of her extensive 35 years of experience) in her book A Problem From Hell for refusing to do anything in Rwanda as 800,000 people were slaughtered. And we know how much Clinton's hate being criticized. So I am sure they are particularly happy knowing they knocked Power out.

In an ideal world, the Clintons would truly be sorry for letting the Rwandan genocide happen, and would forgive Power and say that someone who has worked so hard to advocate for those without a voice deserves a second chance. But we know the Clinton's are not capable of that.

What Happens if it Works?

I feel the need to talk about experience again. Hillary's claims of 35 years of experience never cease to fill me with anger. It is such a gross exaggeration. It works for now because in comparison to Obama, she does have the edge. But that will all change if she wins the nomination.

If she faces John McCain in the general election, she'll be up against someone who, by any objective standards, has considerably more experience. So while her argument right now is that the biggest qualification for being president is experience, she'll have to change her tune and all of a sudden and argue that experience isn't as meaningful. Sure, she can change what she talks about by focusing on how similar McCain is to Bush. But I don't know if the press will let her change the subject so easily. I imagine she'll try to continue using the "35 years" line, but when you compare McCain's 22 years in the Senate to what she has been doing over the last 22 years, he comes out way ahead.

This is one of the things that bothers me about her. She has no problem using an exaggerated and disingenuous argument even if she knows she'll have to backpedal later. Obama on the other hand is arguing for change. That applies whether you are talking about preventing another eight years of Clintons or getting the Republicans out of the White House. And I don't anyone doubts his actual desire for change.

I know there are a lot of pundits out there saying why one candidate or the other is better for the general election. I am not claiming that my argument is original, but I am surprised I haven't heard more people voicing it.

State of the Primaries

This NY Times editorial is such a great and concise description of the current state of the Democratic primary:

The election seems stuck where it has been for months. Mrs. Clinton's distinctly more negative campaign has left her open to bad memories of her husband's administration. Mr. Obama's notions of transformational change are as airy and unformed as they were when he first began using them.

I think it says something when a paper that endorsed Hillary says openly that her campaign is more negative. But I also agree that Obama, while inspiring is still quite elusive on policy.

The Times editorial also says this:

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

I think the NAFTA issue has enraged me the most. Both candidates were tripping over themselves to be the most negative about NAFTA while making sure to offer statements that were vague enough to avoid being pinned down. Granted, in part I was so offended because I largely support NAFTA. But either way, I hate seeing candidates misrepresenting their positions for votes.

In the end, I am still supporting Obama because I don't want the Clintons back. They claim that being divisive is necessary. I don't buy that when Paul Krugman says it, and I don't believe it when they say it. I want something different, even if it is a vague and airy sort of different. I just wish that the different I will be supporting was more honest and offered a little more depth.

Imperfection

Maybe I should have made this point sooner. Both of the top candidates in the Democratic primary are imperfect. Barak Obama lacks experience and specific policy proposals. But his message is positive, inspiring, and offers change from 20 years of Bushes and Clintons. Hillary on the other hand has more experience (not as much as she claims though) and apparently has more detailed policy plans for the nation. But she also offers another presidency similar to her husband's. And since his presidency was remarkable only in its divisiveness, it isn't so appealing to bring the pair back to the White House.

In the end then, our decision, as per usual, is between two imperfect candidates. For better or worse, I am going to choose the one that offers some change while inspiring me and my generation. Barak may let us down, but I would rather take a chance on that then travel back in time to the 1990s - a time where our country refused to get involved in genocide, but had no trouble following every detail of a president's sex life or a celebrity murder trial.

Good Ole Kristol

I will try to be quick with this one. Yes, I am writing about Bill Kristol again. While my main argument for supporting his new column at the times was for diversity of view points, I also realized there would likely be a few times when I agreed with him. I didn't realize though that it would be so soon.

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

[Edit]

Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.

That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!

Kristol is right. The recent improvement in Iraq is due in large part to the troop surge. The role of Sunni Iraqis turning on Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia also contributed greatly to the increased security. The credit belongs with both of those developments and has nothing to do with Democrats vapid positions on Iraq. The only place I would differ with Kristol is that McCain deserves the credit, not Bush. It took Bush four years to realize he needed more troops, McCain knew from the beginning.

More on Hillary's Experience

There have been two really good articles lately, one by Nicholas Kristof (back from book leave!) and the other by Timothy Noah, that basically get at the experience issue as it relates to Hillary Clinton. The interesting thing though is that after I read their pieces, I read the NY Times article that talks about her experience as First Lady. While the article does have a dismissive tone of her experience, I did come away feeling better about it than I did before. Based on the article, she does seem to have experience from her time as First Lady that Obama hasn't had yet.

That doesn't mean I am changing my vote though. While I do believe more now that she does have an experience edge over Obama, it still isn't significant enough for me to outweigh the negatives. The bottom line is that it still comes down to the fact that I don't want four (or eight) more years of the Clintons. They didn't do a good enough job to deserve more time.

The Federal Budget... Mmm...

What you see before you is the president's fiscal year 2008 budget request. Granted, this may be a bit obsolete, since Congress recently passed the 2008 budget, and if it hasn't been signed yet it will be soon because the president isn't expected to veto it. Anyway, since I couldn't find the approved budget, this will do for now for big picture analysis.

The budget you see here actually only includes discretionary spending, which is less than 40% of the total budget. Non discretionary spending includes Medicare, Medicaid and social security. I have posted this mostly for any of my libertarian friends who might read my blog. There is a lot of talk about how much federal taxes are and I think that talk should be connected to knowledge of how much each government service costs. On the far right column is percentages of the total discretionary budget.

To be honest, this seems to pose more questions than it answers. But it is a good starting point to understanding where your federal dollars go and how much you could actually expect back if you cut certain programs (my analysis is that you would not get much back) or whether we could increase spending in certain areas. I plan to talk more about the details in the future, so stay tuned. If you want more detail, you can go here and get agency level detail.

Support for the War

I posted a while ago about Hillary Clinton's support for the Iraq War and how her justification seemed to make sense. This NY Times article muddies the water a little. Since I wasn't paying attention as much then as I am now, I find it hard to really understand how the debate played out - whether the resolution was a threat to Saddam or whether people should have reasonable expected Bush to use it to go to war. I don't have the energy right now to argue this through. But read the article, it is brief but interesting.

Praise for LBJ?

I feel a little bad that I have been bashing Hillary a lot lately. But it seems like I keep getting more reasons to. Most recently, she made the following comment, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

There is so much that enrages me about this statement. First, it has long bothered me when people, usually presidential biographers but now Hillary too, give the credit for advances in the civil rights movement to Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson. While it is true we should be thankful that they did the little things they did, the civil rights movement was achieved not because of them, but because of groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, NAACP, and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were marching on Washington, working in the deep south for African-American voter registration, or boycotting buses and lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks.

Furthermore, Johnson in particular got behind the movement when there was already the momentum for it. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, arguably more important, was passed in 1965. This was nearly ten years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, kicked off after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.

I know there are political science theories about "pressure cookers" and acting at just the right time, but personally, I think they are bunk. It is a way of celebrating someone who did nothing other than wait until there was popular support. Johnson may have worked hard in 1964 and 1965 for the bills to be passed, but the issue already had popular support - especially among northern whites who were outraged by footage of police attacking non-violent protesters in the south. He didn't use his position as Majority Leader of the Senate in the late 50's for these issues. Because of this, he doesn't deserve the credit for the Civil Rights Act.

This is about more than just one seemingly inappropriate comment though. I think it says something about the Clintons that they would celebrate Johnson's role in the Civil Rights movement. Bill Clinton, as president, seemed to rarely use his control over the agenda to promote big issues that didn't already have strong national support. Two major examples of this are Rwanda and the Balkans - and Somalia too for that matter (yes, it seems that I will never forgive President Clinton for his poor choices in the face of genocide). And Hillary has the same reputation. The point is, I don't want a leader who will be good at recognizing an issue whose time has come. I want a leader that will recognize something like civil rights and fight for it until others are on board. Hillary can't be that person if she is willing to make a comment like the one above.

On Experience

With the presidential elections right now mostly between Obama and Clinton, and since I just got official news that Richardson has dropped out, it seems appropriate to talk about experience. Hillary has spent much of this campaign claiming she has more experience than the rest of the field. What has bothered me was that if we were really voting on experience, we would have chosen Richardson without question. During his not-yet-complete two terms as governor of New Mexico, he was wildly popular, oversaw growth (especially by attracting businesses), cut some taxes, and watched as some major state indicators improved (including education). On top of that, he has been Secretary of Energy, US Ambassador to the UN, and a volunteer negotiator to Iraq, North Korea and Sudan.

But experience isn’t the main criteria. It is popularity / name recognition. Then, once we look at the popular ones, we can compare their experience. Okay, so let’s compare Hillary and Obama. Hillary has served one full term in the Senate, and when the presidential inauguration comes around, she’ll have completed two more years – for a total of eight. Barak Obama will have served four years in the Senate when inauguration day comes around. So Hillary has a small advantage there – nothing worth bragging about.

Before being Senator, Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate. Hillary served eight years as first lady. So here is my question: Is being First Lady substantially better experience than serving in a state senate? I do think it depends on the First Lady. In this case, I don’t know of any major items that would help her claim of experience except her work on Health Care reform. I don’t want to minimize that just because it failed. I do believe it was valuable experience. But that is the only thing I can think of. Instead, it seems like she is suggesting that she was involved in the decision-making process in some capacity. I don’t doubt that her and Bill discussed policy and politics nor do I doubt that she provided valuable advice. But even so, I am still not convinced that giving good advice to the President when consulted can be used to back up the claim that she has far more experience than Obama.

Any way I analyze it, the three candidates we are left with are all relatively inexperienced. I only wish that people would realize this and we could move past it and focus on the things that really separate these candidates: their ideas, their beliefs, and their character.

On New Hampshire

I wrote a really long post about New Hampshire, and it mostly focused on bashing Hillary. I have decided instead to start anew and this time be more concise. So, as far as New Hampshire goes, I was upset to see Hillary win. I was afraid she won back that air of inevitability, but I don't think that is actually the case yet. Either way, I really don't like Hillary.

There are two main reasons I don't like Hillary. First, if her campaign is a referendum on Bill's presidency (and it has to be if she is claiming her time as first lady as "experience" that sets her apart from Obama), then I don't think they deserve another term in the White House. I can't for the life of me think of anything significant they / he did while President. Besides offering a really nice apology to Rwanda and finally getting involved in the Balkans (better late then never), I am at a loss. There was also welfare reform, which I don't oppose, but I don't know how successful that really was, nor was it his doing if I remember right. Granted the economy was very strong, but I would say he / they did a good job of not ruining the growth as opposed to being responsible for it. So why should we reelect a team that produced very little after eight years in office? The only explanation I can come up with is that we just want someone who won't ruin the world as Bush has done. But I think we need to set our expectations higher.

The other reason I don't like her just has to do with her personality. I realize that a truly informed person wouldn't base their decision on something as nebulous as personality. But in reality, a candidate can be as wonkish as they want, and have lots of detailed policy ideas going into office, but that all washes away once they try dealing with Congress and once the world changes and forces events on them. So in the end, I have to trust the person I am going to vote for; I have to trust that I know their core beliefs and trust that they will make good decisions. That's why I used to support McCain (before it really sunk in how socially conservative he is). And that's why I don't support Hillary. This Maureen Dowd column gets at some of the reasons. But basically I think she is too strategic, and not real enough. (It is true thought that this charge didn't really stick to Bill much because of how charismatic he is.)

Despite how much I am beating up on Hillary, the truth is that I will definitely vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But I would much rather see Obama there.

Okay, so much for being brief.

Finally, a Repalcement for Safire

I was thrilled when I read that the Times was hiring the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, to write a weekly column for the paper. I have missed William Safire since he stopped writing political columns, and although I think David Brooks is pretty good, he just feels too moderate to really count as the paper's token conservative. (This quote in a Slate article on the same subject sums it up nice, "Brooks tries to persuade his readers of his views gently, as if he's a guest in the house. Kristol lives to brawl and make enemies.")

The fact is that I think we need someone at the Times who is going to shake up liberals like me. I rarely agreed with William Safire, but it was important to know what he, and others like him, were saying. And most times it made me more sure of my position and got me more riled up against the conservatives like him. But I rarely missed one of his columns.

What I don't get is why people would be upset about it. That there should be at least one conservative voice at a liberal paper seems like common sense. But it seems that there are people that would rather the paper remain pure and only hire liberals (or at worst inoffensive moderate conservatives). This way, they'll never have to actually hear from intelligent conservatives. And painting Kristol as on the fringe is ludicrous. He is a standard neo-con, and his views are pretty widely shared by Republicans - including many of those in the party's presidential primary.

The bottom line is that those that are scared to let the opposition talk do so because they are not confident enough in their own message. They are afraid that by giving him a platform at a liberal newspaper, he'll convince liberals to become neo-cons (sorry, but Friedman already tried that). I have no problem letting Kristol speak because I know that if we make our case right, next time we'll be able to prevent another Iraq. And if not, it's our fault, not Bill Kristol's.

Update: Kristol's first column was on Monday. It neither enraged me nor made me think differently about my opinion. Basically, it was pretty plain. But I am still glad it is there. And I am sure that in the coming Mondays his columns will do what aggressive conservative columns are supposed to do to me - and for me.

Dyersville?

So, I haven't posted here in a while. Since I started blogging at the Human Rights Committee, I haven't made the time to continue blogging here. But since I have a few minutes, I thought I would get down my thoughts about the recent Iowa caucus. (I meant to write about who I supported before the first primaries, but that just didn't happen)

Overall, I am pleased. Right now, I am a fan of Obama, mostly because I am not a fan of the other contenders, or former contenders. I can run through them all if you'd like:

* Biden is now out - but hopefully he'll be considered for secretary of defense or national security council (positions he would be much better at then president)

* Richardson is more experienced than any of the three remaining candidates but his Iraq plan is lunacy - maybe he'll get a good appointment also

* Edwards - I just don't like his tone - his aggressive posturing towards big business and the right is both a turn off to me and I am not convinced it is the most effective strategy for progressive reform

* Hillary - as much as I would like a female president she seems a little too hawkish (I think I have changed over the last few years) and I am never sure whether her positions are genuine or strategic. On top of that, I think she is running on Bill's legacy too much, both to boost the level of "experience" she can claim and to simply hearken back to the good old days of the 1990's.

* Obama - He is young, inspiring, and super intelligent. He may not be a policy wonk, which leaves him a little fuzzy on specific plans, but in the end, I trust his judgment more than any of the other candidates. And right now, that is all I can ask for. Because truly, no matter what someone says in the debates, their positions can change quickly if you elect someone who isn't smart or consistent (think back to Bush's plans for isolationism during the 2000 Presidential debates).

Plus, I think I am ready for a change. I am sick of the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle.

As for the Republicans, the only one I would maybe consider is McCain. He stood by his belief of increasing troop levels (something he has been saying for years) and that has produced results. But in the end, I still think I want a Democrat for president.

What Have We Learned?

On the blog for the Human Rights Committee that I am a part of, I talked a little about the situation in Pakistan where General Musharraf has declared emergency rule and imprisoned 500 people from the opposition party. What I want to talk about here though is the broader foreign policy involved.

Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.

Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.

In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.

To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).

Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.

I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.

No Bipartisan Revolt?

A friend and I discussed the history of the strong executive in an email exchange last week. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been expanding presidential powers since they took office - mostly through the effort of VP Cheney. As I have thought about this, I often wondered if I would object as much if it were a Democrat seeking greater powers. In fact, my friend got us started on the debate by referencing Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. After reading that book, I was glad Lincoln was firmly in charge instead of Congress.

Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.

My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).

What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.

Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush

I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.

All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).

My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.

Can't Manage

If we are going to be honest we need to admit that the Democrats have been such a letdown in Congress. And I don't mean this from a policy perspective. Most of the things they have fought for I agree with (increased funding for some social welfare priorities for example). But from an effectiveness perspective they have been useless. On Iraq they have done very little that is meaningful and even their comments are vapid and useless.

Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.

My New Venture

Although I haven't been posting here nearly as much as I want to, I will be posting even less here in the future. I have joined a human rights advocacy committee - part of the Young Professionals for International Cooperation - and I started a blog for that committee. Anything I write about human rights will be posted there. I hope you will check it out. I will continue to post some things here related to domestic policy and parts of foreign policy that don't quite fit under human rights.

To Rebel?

There was an article in the NY Times yesterday where a reporter was sitting in on debates between officers in the US Army. The debates were about the Iraq War and whether generals should have said more in the lead-up to the war about troop levels. The main argument in the debate seems to fall around when you are supposed to follow orders and when you should speak out in hopes of changing policy. I have been thinking about their arguments recently, because it both is meaningful in terms of having civilian control of the military but also because it applies to my work as a public administrator.

For many liberals, this issue doesn't seem hard at first. The generals should have spoken out and prevented the war from happening (or calling for many more troops, which would have had the same effect). One of the officers in the article though mentioned that if the military prevented any policy it disagreed with by fighting it in the press, the civilian leaders would no longer be in control of the military. Imagine a different scenario where a president wants to get involved to end a genocide but his or her military leadership drums up opposition to prevent it. This is unfathomable; Colin Powell was opposed to intervening in Bosnia.

This issue plays itself out in settings outside the military as well. I was trained in public administration, and one of the issues we talked about was when you are supposed to go along with an administration you don't agree with, and when you should resist or resign / quit. As civil servants, this is a big issue. Of course in class we watched a video about the Japanese Ambassador to Germany who signed papers allowing many Jews to leave Germany. This is a grand example, and although it was tremendously brave, doesn't help with the less obvious examples. Many of us might think Iraq is an obvious example, but we can think about working for EPA for example under President Bush. Liberals working there might want to fight his policies that are ruining our environment, but if everyone followed that lead, president's would be powerless and civil servants would run government. At some point, people have to be willing to work for a leader even if they don't agree with him or her.

The point of this rambling post is that we need to be careful what we wish for. A more outspoken military leadership might prevent meaningful interventions (or otherwise stand in the way of good policy).

Myanmar

The most recent article I read about Myanmar turned my anger into depression. It seems that the military is a big part of the culture, and decreasing its role seems unlikely. At the same time though, it shouldn't be impossible to give it a role similar to ours. The need for a strong US military is rarely questioned in mainstream America. But it doesn't rule the country or violently crack down on protests (although the police does sometimes).

What's worse is that it seems like sanctions won't do a thing, and there is little hope that any UN or American peacekeeping force would be tolerated. So, with the help of China, we'll probably get some concessions from the military junta that makes it look like it is opening up, and then soon enough things will go back to normal - where normal means monks get beaten and arrested when they call for democracy.

UPDATE:
You have to love The Onion, and not just for its crude but random humor. It's political satire is so often spot on. Take this one for example:

First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House was ready to slap sanctions on the Burmese military government if it did not move toward democracy. What do you think?

Ian Brannon,
High School Administrator
"I didn't care about Darfur. Good luck getting me to give a shit about Burma."

So true - and so depressing. Although the fact that Laura Bush is talking about it suggests that the American public is likely to be more sympathetic towards monks in Burma than Africans in Sudan.

Our New Best Friend

Many conservatives were supportive of Bush's "go-it-alone" approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately, it looks like the result was that we traded partners like France, Germany, and the UN for China. I wonder if that was part of the plan.

Granted, part of the reason they are a partner is they have the leverage we need in dealing with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar; leverage that we wouldn't have going through the UN. Still, this (along with the Iraq War) shows the limits of "Cowboy diplomacy".

I would say that it is comforting to see China being so active, but in the end, they are doing it because it is in their interest.

No Hope in Congo

Summary:
There has been an epidemic of rapes recently in the Congo. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 may be one of the causes.

I wonder if President Clinton realizes the long term consequences of our acceptance of the genocide in Rwanda. Sure, he has apologized for it, and maybe he thinks he really meant it. But if he thinks the situation is behind him - and behind the world - he is wrong.

In Congo, there is a serious epidemic of rape (an odd phrase since one rape is too many, and two might be enough for me to consider it an epidemic). Here is the NY Times on the story: According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country. We know that women have been victims during conflict; rapes were a part of the genocide in Rwanda and are a major concern in Darfur and refugee camps for those feeling the violence in Darfur. But the sheer numbers in the Congo, particularly the Eastern region is horrifying.

The reason I link this to the genocide in Rwanda is that one of the groups carrying out the rapes were members of the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. Since then they have apparently fled Rwanda into Congo. The NY Times article suggests that the psychological damage from the genocide might be playing a part in the particular savageness of these crimes.

To me, the bigger reason is the lawlessness in the region. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in Congo(17,000 troops), but it isn't nearly big enough. Until the world gets seriously invested in protecting the victims of conflict and post-conflict situations, we will continue to hear horrifying stories like this.

Not Interested

I've got to say, I don't really understand all the attention we give to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. He is far weaker in his own government than we make him out to be. So why do we pay so much attention to him, when all it does is make him more popular and make him look strong? It isn't smart strategy. If I were the Bush administration, I would make sure to say things like, "We are disappointed that the President of Iran is saying this, but in the end, we listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for information about the policy direction of Iran." It also makes us look dumb to care so much about what he says because it makes us look like we don't know that he is mostly powerless.

Yup, I Like Vouchers

Summary:
Guess what? I now support vouchers. Two studies are showing that some voucher programs are demonstrating early positive results. And I can no longer find reasons to defend why low income students should be kept out of private schools when their public schools are failing.

The New York Sun published an article about new research that shows vouchers improved public schools in Milwaukee. The research was done by Federal Reserve Economist Rajashri Chakrabarti, and is available here. Further, RAND Corporation released a study that also investigates effects of school vouchers. Their conclusion is that it is too early to judge for sure whether these programs have or have not worked, but some programs have shown promising results, and program design is very important to the success of the school choice program.

I have two comments about these studies. One is that when more research like this comes out, liberals need to trust its findings and change their opinions just like they expect conservatives to do when studies show evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I don't actually expect either side to do this, but I feel the need to say this anyway. The fact is, liberals (including myself) yell and scream when conservatives say that people on welfare are just lazy, despite overwhelming evidence that most want to work but face significant obstacles (need for childcare, no jobs nearby, no easy way to get to jobs that are far away, etc). So if our goal is to improve education opportunities (as opposed to just trying to preserve funding for public schools regardless of results), and if it seems some voucher programs do improve achievement, than we need to adjust our thinking and support them.

My second point though is on the philosophy of school choice. I am finding it harder and harder to defend the opinion that we need to force people who can't afford private schools to remain in traditional public schools. The current argument seems to be that public schools are sacred institutions and we need to preserve them at all costs. It is hard to see public schools this way when so many schools are failing so many people.

There is often debate about whether education is valued in some of the communities where performance is worse. It doesn't seem hard to understand though why people would stop believing in education if they were in a place where the public schools were terrible and there were no other options available. Many of the studies I have seen show high parental satisfaction rates with charter schools and voucher programs - even when performance isn't improving. So obviously parents want options.

So after reading the results of these two studies, I am ready to support vouchers (I already support charter schools) in low income areas with low performing schools. The program should be specifically targeted to those in the failing schools, and should be direct subsidies instead of income credits. Anyway, I suggest everyone reads at least the press release of the two studies - or if you have to choose one, read the RAND press release.

It's About Time

So who else is excited that the NY Times finally ended TimesSelect? See, now when you read my posts, you can actually read the Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman columns that I link to. You're excited aren't you?

I would link to a column now to celebrate, except Kristof in on book leave, and Friedman's recent columns haven't been great.

I'm with Bremer

Summary: I don't think Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army was necessarily a bad one. And the problem in Iraq isn't this issue, the problem is that we didn't go in with enough troops and didn't plan for the occupation.

I have so much I want to write about, I don't quite know where to start. I guess I will begin with something quick. Recently, L. Paul Bremer 3 has been defending his decision to disband the Iraqi army and move forward with de-Baathification. In hindsight, both decisions seem to have been very poor choices. But I don't know if this was obvious as they were being carried out. Before I get into it though, I want to be clear that I think these failed strategies point to the bigger problem that the Bush administration clearly didn't plan for what to do with Iraq after they ousted Saddam.

I have to say, I think it would have been hard to keep the Iraqi army together after our initial run to Baghdad. The army was a symbol of Saddam's brutal oppression, especially to Shiites. And the group whose support we needed from the beginning was the Shiites. They are the majority in the country, and they have reason not to trust us. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged them to rise up, and then refused to intervene when Saddam crushed them. Leaving the army in place would have sent a very bad sign, and might have caused an even stronger Shiite resistance than we see now.

In the end, the reason this failed isn't so much a few policies that didn't work. It failed because we went in without enough troops and without much thought planning about how to handle the country once Saddam was gone. We need to focus on that, and not get lost arguing about some of these smaller issues - especially one like this where neither option is a very good option.

Rousseau and Hobbes (Nope, No Calvin)

Summary:
An article in the NY Times magazine puts a new spin on religious extremism in the Middle East by comparing it to the West's religious history. The author suggests that our move towards secular liberal democracy might be unique and we cannot expect the Middle East to jump on board. If so, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate?

I am getting caught up on my back issues of NY Times Sunday Magazine and finally finished this article. It puts religious extremism in the Middle East in the context of the West's own religious history. The author's main point seems to be that our own history is similar to what the Middle East is going through, but our conversion to secular liberal democracy is unique. We therefore can't expect the Middle East to follow that path, especially at so fast a pace.

In showing how similar the current situation in the Middle East is to our own history, the author tries to make us recognize that religious extremism is a natural human impulse. He talks about how we use terms like fascism to describe the extremism we are witnessing, and we blame it on the economic and political systems that lead people to messianic views of religion. This point is compelling, except that it ignores Hobbes' description of why religion took hold in the Middle Ages; life was chaotic (solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short...) and religion gave people comfort. Similarly, people in the Middle East are turning towards a form of religion that is empowering. So I don't think we can discount how overall life conditions affect the strength of religious devotion and the lengths to which believers will go in its name.

The author's conclusion is that we can't expect secular liberal democracy to develop and we will have to accept non-secular governments in the Middle East, even some who base their laws on Sharia. The author sites Muslim writers like Tariq Ramadan (who was prevented from taking a teaching position at Notre Dame by the US government) who are pushing for more modern interpretations of Islam but are not suggesting that Muslims disavow Islamic law. This is a very different position from people like Thomas Friedman who say that liberal democracy is the only hope for the Middle East.

This article seems to illuminate two really difficult issues. One is whether or not other countries / cultures have to follow the West's development path. If so, the next question is whether they have to follow all our steps or can we help them jump ahead to our stage. This is an obvious issue in development, but I see it here too. Can we help the world achieve secular liberal democracy, or do we need to step back and let them figure it out?

The other broad issue is the tension between relativism and universalism. While we think about whether cultures will follow our path, we should also think about whether they have to? We believe secular liberal democracy is the best form of government - but should we impose it on everyone else (even if try methods less violent than Iraq)? If not, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate? The author of this article suggests we might have to accept governments based on Sharia, but with more modern interpretations of the Koran. I don't believe that you have to be either be a universalist or a relativist. There is a middle ground - no matter what adjunct professors at graduate school say. There are some things we cannot accept, like rules that completely subjugate women.

I think both of these issues lie at the crux of our foreign policy (that is, if we care about having a thoughtful and consistent foreign policy). What do we accept, and what should we do to move governments towards what we find acceptable?

Overthrow: A Synopsis

Summary:
Stephen Kinzer lays out all of the situations when the American government has overthrown a foreign government. It is indeed a long list: Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In most of the situations, our reasons seem incredibly unjust. Unfortunately, the book is far too superficial to feel completely confident in all of its conclusions. Either way though, in the end our actions rarely resulted with us achieving our aims in the long run and in many of the situations we should feel ashamed for what we did.

The idea of the book is brilliant. It means to show how badly America has been at regime change and how many times our reasons for intervening were both bunk and unjust. Unfortunately, the book lacks solid detail and analysis, and gives the feeling that the author wanted to rush through the book so he could fit everything in. Overall it makes a good point, but for the individual cases, I feel that I would need to do more research to draw any real conclusions. (This is of course the exact opposite feeling you get from Samantha Power's book - you don't feel like she left anything out.)

The author notes that he has left Indonesia, Brazil, the Congo, Mexico, Haiti and the Dominican Republic off the list because for the first three the US didn't play the decisive role in the overthrow and in the last three the US invaded but did not overthrow the governments. Kinzer also does a good job of giving us a list of villains, including John Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger, and everyone in the George W. Bush administration.

Kinzer breaks the book into three sections based on the types of intervention. The first section describes overthrows that were based largely on imperialistic grounds. This isn't how it was justified to the public, but based on the evidence Kinzer gives us, there is little doubt the reasons were to expand our power and protect American business. The following countries fall into this list: Hawaii (now a state), Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Of these countries, Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua and Honduras have had a tumultuous history since our intervention and were much more peaceful beforehand.

The second part shows covert action against supposed leaders leaning towards communism. Countries included in this section are Iran, Chile, South Vietnam and Guatemala. In each of these countries though, threat of communism was either misinterpreted or a veil to disguise imperialist reasons.

Presidents and others had no doubt the Soviets were manipulating Mossadegh [Iran], Arbenz [Guatemala], and Allende [Chile]. That turned out to have been wrong. The three leaders had differing views of Marxism - Mossadegh detested it, Arbenz sympathized with it, Allende embraced it - but they were nationalists above all.

In Guatemala and Chile, various American business interests (United Fruit, telephone, railroad, and others) would have been hurt by the popular socialist / nationalist governments. And in Iran, Mossadegh, their popular leader, wanted to take back control of the country's oil wealth from foreign companies. Our current poor relations with Iran can be traced back to the moment we overthrew Mossadegh. And our history in Chile, where we overthrew a popularly elected president and supported a violent far-right government, is something we should forever be ashamed of. Vietnam was of course unlike the other three in that we were overthrowing a leader while we were aiding that country in war - we hoped to get a leader who would be better in the war against North Vietnam.

The third section focuses on actual invasions. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq all fall into this section. We know much about the later two; I think most would say that our invasion of Afghanistan was just, but we turned our attention to Iraq far too soon, and Iraq was neither just nor has it been managed well. The first two also might be argued as somewhat legit (Noriega and the New Jewel leaders were ruining their countries), but again, poorly managed and unstable following our intervention (the looting in Panama is all too similar to Iraq).

What we see throughout the book, and still present today, is American aggression towards countries that attempt to exercise independence and empowerment. On the flip side, America exhibits tolerance for oppression and violence by leaders of countries that support us and give free reign to our businesses. Our role in Iran has had disastrous effects on our foreign policy, we are still paying for preventing elections in Cuba, and we should be seriously ashamed by what we tolerated in Chile and elsewhere in the name of propping up governments that would be anti-communist and pro-American (but not democratic). We should have learned our lesson before Iraq, and we should mind it when we deal with someone like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

Red Scared

Summary:
Communism v. Capitalism is really equality (fairness) v. efficiency. In gov't, want more fairness. In business you want more efficiency so you can have a higher overall standard of living. But market failures lead to necessity of gov't intervention to fix some inequities.

A coworker and good friend of mine likes to make a show of her support for communism around me. I think in part she plays it up because it gets me all agitated - apparently people get a kick out of seeing me in an excited state. Each time she brings it up I make it clear that I think communism is unrealistic - that the theory obviously doesn't understand human nature. The point being that communism can never work without being propped up by authoritarian government.

What I really should point out though is that even if communism was implemented democratically, it would still be bad policy. In my mind, free market and communism represent opposite extremes of efficiency versus equity / fairness. I believe that government should be much closer to the extreme of equity and fairness, which is why I firmly believe in a government of collective decision-making (democracy).

In the business world though, I lean more towards efficiency because with more efficiency, you can have a higher overall standard of living. Communism has never been able to achieve the level of comfort and average wealth that free markets have. This is the case in part because in a free market you have a select group of people managing the assets and making decisions. The basic idea of communism is the opposite - collective ownership of the means of production. In this scenario, all workers make all decisions collectively and share the risk and reward. While collectives and co-ops can be successful, on the whole I think they are far less efficient. On a bigger scale where profit motives disappear, efficiency decreases.

I will acknowledge that I am oversimplifying economic theory significantly in places, but I think the overall point still stands. And I know I am not breaking any new ground necessarily, but if I were I would likely be in a Econ PhD program.

Now, one more point before I conclude. While I clearly celebrate the virtues of free market capitalism, we must also acknowledge what a lot of the strict free marketeers won't: Markets aren't perfect. There exist glaring market failures that government has a role in correcting. One obvious example of this is the environment. While our economy puts a price on land, it doesn't put a price on air. Without government intervention, businesses would not have worked to decrease their environmental impact in the 80s and 90s (we still have a long way to go). And without further intervention, businesses will not decrease their green house gas emissions.

Another example of a market failure is unemployment. While a certain amount of employment is necessary for a stable and efficient economy (theory holds that "Natural Unemployment" protects against wage inflation), any decent sense of fairness requires that government intervene to take of those that are left out. This is why social welfare programs are necessary.

There will always be a trade-off between fairness and efficiency. And like a good moderate, I believe that the only way to be successful is to keep both in mind. An efficient system allows us all to have the best life we can - to enjoy both comforts and necessities. And a fair system helps us take care of people and problems that the market doesn't value.

Punch Someone in the Face

So I finally finished A Problem From Hell. I don't think I need to say too much about it, since I posted about it when I first started reading, and ever since it has obviously had a huge impact on my beliefs and writings. In fact, I think I will let a good friend of mine sum it up:

Everytime I look at that book on my shelf it makes me angry to think about. I think about how much of a parallel situation Sudan is with Rwanda or the Balkans and how we're absolutely doomed to repeat ourselves. Its amazing that this country has fallen into exactly the same pattern. A few vocal individuals supporting action, lip service by the higher ups, and not nearly enough outrage by the general public. I mean, how can this not be a topic of debate for the upcoming election? It makes me want to punch someone in the face!

Seriously, that sums up everything I have been thinking about that book. It is the most enraging book I have ever read. It makes me disgusted at almost everyone - from politicians I thought I respected (Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, etc.) to family and friends who aren't as outraged as I am.

And yet I feel quixotic when I try to convince people how important this issue is. People tell me that the world doesn't care about genocide and this fact will never change. Samantha Power in her book shows how the few people who did speak out were thought naive, that they didn't understand the world. With her final paragraph, she inspires me to continue talking about this.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." After a century of doing so little to prevent, suppress, and punish genocide, Americans must join and thereby legitimate the ranks of the unreasonable.

If you want to know the two books that have most changed my political life, it is of course this one and From Beirut to Jerusalem. The later was my introduction to international events and gave me nightmares when I was in the middle of it.

Dobbs and the All-American Team

So I have been trying to get caught up with my NY Times Sunday Magazine articles, and I just finished this one about immigration debates in local governments. I have to say, I have a hard time seeing the urgency in this whole debate. Why is illegal immigration all of a sudden a big issue? Granted, part of the answer is that Karl Rove has pushed it hoping to help the Republican party attract Hispanic voters and create a permanent Republican majority. But this doesn't explain why the rest of the country is invested.

As best as I can tell, this hasn't been playing out as a security issue. None (or very little) of the debate seems to be about preventing terrorists from crossing the border from Mexico. If we think that the town in the Times Magazine article is representative, it seems that a big part of the debate revolves around culture. One of the pieces of legislation the town council tries to pass is one recognizing English as the main language of the town. What becomes clear pretty quick is that people supporting this kind of legislation seem to be using "illegal immigrant" and "Hispanic" interchangeably.

I am often amazed at how arguments don't really evolve over time, but merely repeat themselves. Arguments by people like Lou Dobbs sound very similar to Nativist arguments at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century. Each time a new group becomes conspicuous in our country, people make allegations that the group isn't trying to become American. If that is a concern, one should know that second and third generation Hispanic immigrants do speak English at home, in the same way that previous immigrant groups did.

But even that fear I don't understand. I can't wrap my mind around the fact that some people don't want this melting pot to include certain ingredients. As if all of a sudden, there now is an American culture that shouldn't be changed - that everyone else should have to change into instead of allowing new people to influence it.

I have only ever heard one good argument form people who vocally oppose illegal immigration for why the status quo needs to be changed. The husband of a former co-worker of mine worked in landscaping and he was having trouble competing with other landscapers because they were hiring illegal workers and he was not. But my response then is that we need easier immigration rules so that business owners who want to hire new immigrants can do so without a major bureaucratic headache.

Look, I don't mind debating immigration, so long as it isn't about issues like making English the only language and other efforts that make it clear that Hispanics in general are the targets. And I get the feeling from people like Lou Dobbs and the All-American Team of council members in the Times article, that their goal is to make Hispanics feel unwelcome.

Boy Soldier

In a similar vein, but different in mood, from my previous post, the news from Sierra Leone is particularly interesting after having read A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah. The book is amazing, but very haunting. The violence that the author saw regularly and then had to deal with is incredible. The article in the NY Times today says that elections there seem to be going well. Good news.

The Hyena's Belly

It is amazing how a personal narrative can change how you see things. I think the last time I posted about Somalia, I was mostly concerned with whether or not an extremist Islamist government would remain in power. But after reading Notes from the Hyena's Belly: An Ethiopian Boyhood by Nega Mezlekia, I find myself more despondent than anything else. His memoir, beautifully written, describes what it was like to be one of the otherwise faceless people suffering during Ethiopia's famine and civil wars.

Having a picture of this person in my mind, I see the war so much differently. Based on Somali culture and history, the country isn't likely to rally behind a central government (or any government). Instead, the Islamist extremists are likely to continue the fight indefinitely, backed by foreign Muslim groups. And the Ethiopian army will continue the fight backed by Western money. And both sides will act with complete disregard towards the civilians caught in the middle.

The truth is, we have a long history in this region, backing Ethiopia, then Somalia, then Ethiopia again, again and again. Unfortunately, this region continuously finds itself in the middle of battles it doesn't seem to start. First it was the West against totalitarian Communism - now it is the West against Islamic terrorism and extremism. Our response is always the same - we send in arms to whoever seems to be on our side at the time, but immediately turn our back when our interests are no longer in danger.

But the fact is, we should care about this. We should be invested and concerned about the lives of the people who are continuously caught in the middle of the violence that stems, at least in part, from the weapons we have supplied to the region. It is because of us and the USSR that these armies and para-armies have the ability to kill so many people so quickly.

For the Kurds

Summary:
This article in the NY Review of Books really has me thinking about Iraq. Basically it says that the benchmarks are bunk, there won't be much more violence than there is now, and there is a better option than Biden's three-way partition.

I haven't read a more convincing article about Iraq than this one in the New York Review of Books. It basically slaps down most of my arguments and concerns. First, it says that Iraq will not really fall apart after we leave.

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.

Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today—a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.

It also says there is really no chance for success through American troops and the benchmarks that Congress is so fond of.

But even if Iraq's politicians could agree to the benchmarks, this wouldn't end the insurgency or the civil war. Sunni insurgents object to Iraq being run by Shiite religious parties, which they see as installed by the Americans, loyal to Iran, and wanting to define Iraq in a way that excludes the Sunnis. Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power. The Shiites believe that their democratic majority and their historical suffering under the Baathist dictatorship entitle them to rule. They are not inclined to compromise with Sunnis, whom they see as their longstanding oppressors, especially when they believe most Iraqi Sunnis are sympathetic to the suicide bombers that have killed thousands of ordinary Shiites. The differences are fundamental and cannot be papered over by sharing oil revenues, reemploying ex-Baathists, or revising the constitution. The war is not about those things.

The author also makes really good points about how Iraqi politicians aren't able to achieve any of the benchmarks anyway; the political coalitions are weak and divided, and the leaders have learned how to move slow and avoid action. So what is to be done about this?

Iraq's Kurdish leaders and Iraq's dwindling band of secular Arab democrats fear that a complete US withdrawal will leave all of Iraq under Iranian influence. Senator Hillary Clinton, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke are among the prominent Democrats who have called for the US to protect Kurdistan militarily should there be a withdrawal from Iraq. The argument for so doing is straightforward: it secures the one part of Iraq that has emerged as stable, democratic, and pro-Western; it discharges a moral debt to our Kurdish allies; it deters both Turkish intervention and a potentially destabilizing Turkish– Kurdish war; it provides US forces a secure base that can be used to strike at al-Qaeda in adjacent Sunni territories; and it limits Iran's gains.

For the longest time I have been convinced that a regional war would erupt if we left. This article did a good job of making me reconsider that. But as convincing as this all is, I still think violence internally would increase. Without American troops, Sadr's militia would have no one holding them back at all and Sunni attacks could conceivably increase even more.

What I really like though is the idea that we would stay to protect the Kurds (and prevent Turkey from invading). This plan is far more reasonable than Biden's proposal to partition the country into three (although as well as things are going, I suppose that should be left on the table). And I like that while it talks about American withdrawal, it is mindful of the country we are leaving behind. I never got the impression that people like Richardson (or Vilsack) were too concerned with Iraqis at this point.

Pork - It's What's For Dinner

Summary:
Guess what? Remember how Democrats said they were going to bring transparency and responsibility to pork spending? Well, they are doing the opposite. Surprised? Seriously though, check out the NY Times graphic - it sums it all up.

I am going to let you all in on a major lesson I just learned. Maybe you are all smarter than me and already knew this. But in case you didn't know it, here it goes: Whichever party is in control in Congress will abuse pork spending. This holds despite campaign promises of reform (by Democrats) or fiscal responsibility (by Republicans). In fact, not only will they abuse pork spending, but they will refuse options for transparency.

The NY Times has a truly absurd example from the bill to increase health coverage for children.

Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers under a bill passed this month to help low-income children.

Instead of naming the hospitals, the bill describes them in cryptic terms, so that identifying a beneficiary is like solving a riddle. Most of the provisions were added to the bill at the request of Democratic lawmakers.

One hospital, Bay Area Medical Center, sits on Green Bay, straddling the border between Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, more than 200 miles north of Chicago. The bill would increase Medicare payments to the hospital by instructing federal officials to assume that it was in Chicago, where Medicare rates are set to cover substantially higher wages for hospital workers.

Lawmakers did not identify the hospital by name. For the purpose of Medicare, the bill said, “any hospital that is co-located in Marinette, Wis., and Menominee, Mich., is deemed to be located in Chicago.” Bay Area Medical Center is the only hospital fitting that description.

For more charming examples like this one, check out this graphic. I feel the need to point this out for two reasons. One, it really pisses me off that the Democrats campaigned loudly that they would come into office and end these practices and instead they just use their power to get the pork for themselves. The sad thing is that the Democrats did the same thing when it came to ethics reform - they made a lot of big speeches to humiliate Republicans, then didn't do anything significant.

But more importantly, I think it illustrates a valuable point. Neither party is actually more moral or responsible than the other party. People tend to forget this - purposefully or not. They yell loudly when the opposite party does it, but explain it away when their party is caught. Instead, it should be the opposite. You should yell the loudest when it is your party giving away money. But I suppose that expecting people to actually look at these issues objectively is naive.

Lessons Learned

Summary:
After finishing Overthrow and coming to the end of A Problem From Hell, I have learned two things. First, we need to accept that America has made many mistakes in our past. Second, America needs a consistent foreign policy.

The two books I am finishing now have a common theme: American foreign policy is full of examples where our decisions have not lived up to our projected better nature. Both books show this from two very different angles; Overthrow contends that our actions have pushed many countries into chaos while A Problem From Hell shows how our inaction allowed millions of people to fall to genocide.

It is armed with knowledge like this that people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky earn converts. (Also, one of Jimmy Carter's weaknesses as a President was his acknowledgment of these flaws.) Where I disagree with Zinn and Chomsky is not their view of history, but in how it affects our policies. Chomsky opposed our invasion of Afghanistan because we lacked the moral standing to call anyone terrorists. It seems to me that his goal in pointing to Americas flaws is to call for inaction, instead of calling for better action in the form of more moral policies.

My goal is the latter. We need to understand where we failed the world to understand where we can do better. With Overthrow, we learn that in the past we have used military force to change democratic governments that are not friendly to the US (and US businesses) - but in some situations not dangerous - into oppressive but US-friendly governments. Policies like this hurt our international standing; we can't claim to support democracy if we only support pro-US democracies.

On the flip side, the US has refused to intervene in every genocide of the 20th century. In fact, Samantha Power shows that we didn't even speak out against them. The lesson we still haven't learned is that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to stop mass murder. Each time we say never again, but each time we ignore the next one. If Samantha Power had waited a few years, she could have included a chapter on Darfur.

This leads me to my second point - that we need a consistent foreign policy. The interesting thing is that these two books can lead to opposite cautions in foreign policy. Overthrow warns of intervention, and A Problem From Hell calls for it. But the two can be part of the same foreign policy plan. An administration can choose to do all it can to stop genocide, while also recognizing that it shouldn't intervene in situations like Bush's Iraq War, or Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, or Panama. (I think Afghanistan was the right decision and had Bush kept his eye on the ball, there would have been a far better outcome.)

Every once in a while - or all the time - we need to look at our past decisions and ask if they live up to our moral standards. And we need to do this objectively. There is nothing wrong with criticizing our flawed policies, as long as it is meant to improve our decision-making in the future.

Wow, They Have Feelings

It is amazing how often it turns out that the right thing is also the more efficient policy option. Sometimes it seems so obvious, it's hard to imagine that people don't see it ahead of time. For example, it turns out that killing civilians by mistake when trying to bomb insurgents, turns local civilians against your cause. Imagine that. So if we were smart, we could avoid civilian deaths, actually engage insurgents, and we would be more successful. Of course this won't happen, because people are a little slow at catching up to anti-insurgent tactics.

With Friends Like These

Just so you know - our foreign policy is full of hypocrisies. The most clear example of this is of course Saudi Arabia. They have an unelected and extremely oppressive government, women there have few rights, and they are mostly responsible for the spread of violent Sunni Islam throughout the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Northern Africa. But yet they are considered one of our best allies.

In this article, Shiite Muslim British citizens accuse the Saudi secret police of torturing them. I wonder how many people in the Bush administration will say anything. Probably none. But Saddam - he was really bad, except there is no connection between him and Al Qaeda.

Lots Going On

It seems that everyone is talking about Iraq again. I don't know if I have the energy to recap everything. Suffice it to say, it has got me thinking a lot. As you know, I am a fan of Nicholas Kristof. His recent column has me reconsidering (a little) my position that our troops are doing more good being in the country.

Basically, Kristof cites a poll that shows a large majority of Iraqis think the presence of US troops is hurting the country and they want us to leave.

First, a poll this spring of Iraqis — who know their country much better than we do — shows that only 21 percent think that the U.S. troop presence improves security in Iraq, while 69 percent think it is making security worse.

Granted, the danger with any poll is that it can be misleading depending on how it is administered - who is asked to participate and how the questions are worded.

If we assume for now though that the survey is an adequate representation of the feelings of the Iraqi people, then maybe I have not assessed the situation correctly (which means maybe I owe Gov. Richardson an apology). I still have trouble accepting this given the level of violence and the fact that it is not so much directed at us but at each other as each group fights for power and revenge.

On the other hand, this argument was used in Vietnam to keep us there, and if my understanding of history is correct, there wasn't too much violence after we pulled out. I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are the same war (the violence in Iraq is between the main ethnic groups, not a nationalistic uprising), but there are some similarities, especially in the rhetoric that is used.

Kristof also does a good job of articulating the frustration of watching our commander in chief talk about "progress" for three years. We all know nothing of the sort has happened at any time he has used the word, but he continues to try to sell the country on it. It is seriously enraging to hear it and I wonder that he has any supporters left.

Progress in North Korea

Summary:
Nuclear inspectors have been let back into North Korea. This is good news and a rare victory for the Bush administration. But how different is this from Clinton's deal with North Korea?

The good news continues in North Korea. Nuclear inspectors will check the main nuclear reactor in North Korea. While I think this is a victory for the Bush administration, there is still a lot more that needs to be negotiated, especially accounting for any nuclear weapons and weapon capabilities the government has.

Some are saying that this agreement is similar to the deal the Clinton administration had with North Korea. It also seems that it is not the direction VP Cheney wanted to go in. It is becoming clear that Bush is finally realizing his Veep doesn't have the right answers. Hoping for the Kim Jong Il government to crash probably isn't a good policy anyway, considering the amazing damage that would result in a hard landing.

The one thing I am unclear on is whether this deal came from the five-nation talks the Bush administration was requiring, or whether there were secret two-party talks. This is pretty important, considering it was the cornerstone of Bush's policy in dealing with North Korea.

Same Old Talk

Summary:
We claim to support democracy, but our actions show that isn't always true. In Pakistan we are supporting the military government of General Musharraf, even though there is ample evidence that a popularly elected government would not support Muslim extremists.

It is amazing how often history repeats itself. During the Cold War, we supported fascist governments over left-leaning, popularly elected governments. Sometimes, those governments might have been moving towards communism, but many times they weren't. (Iran is a perfect example of this, as are Guatemala and Nicaragua.) So basically, we only support democracy when the popularly elected government is one we agree with.

General Pervez Musharraf's military government in Pakistan is a perfect example of this. We support his regime at every turn while he suppresses reforms towards democracy. Our reason for doing this is Musharraf's cooperation in the War on Terror, as well as his ability to make Bush believe that if Pakistan were not ruled with an iron fist, and if democracy were allowed to flourish, the country (a nuclear power) would be ruled by religious extremists.

The reality in Pakistan doesn't seem to support Musharraf's claim though. There appears to be very little popular support for Muslim religious extremists in the country. Granted, recent violence in the country, including the government storming of a mosque occupied by extremists and suicide bombings in response, might appear to support Musharraf's argument. But if there isn't widespread support for the extremists then there isn't any reason why a popularly elected government couldn't deal with recent events.

One day, I hope our rhetoric actually matches our actions. I wouldn't expect Bush to ever accomplish this - but the problem isn't just with Bush, is it?

No No-Fly Zone?

There is a really thoughtful opinion piece on Darfur in the NY Times. The author takes Hillary Clinton and others that support a no-fly zone over Darfur to task. I should admit that I have written posts in support of no-fly zones over Darfur. The fact that this might ground humanitarian aid, which is unsurprisingly dependent on the use of airplanes, is something I had not thought of. It certainly makes me reconsider supporting this strategy.

On the other hand, the author also argues against threats of coercive military action. While I can see how a military strike could give Khartoum justification to crack down even more or send humanitarian aid away, I also think that without any coercion, the government in Sudan will continue to delay until the Darfur region is repopulated and rid of black Africans*. I don't know what the right amount of pressure is, but I have to guess that they need more than we are giving right now, not less.

The timing of this opinion is good, because I have been thinking about Darfur alot recently. The truth is that I haven't posted much about Darfur in the past year or more, and I haven't done much in the way of advocating for action outside of the blog either. What I realize is that I have basically given up. In reading Samantha Power's book Problem from Hell (which I still haven't managed to finish - it is too enraging), there is a Congressman who gives a speech everyday until America acts on genocide. It is noble to read about someone like that, but I haven't been able to muster that kind of commitment.

I saw that the international community wasn't going to give Darfur the attention it needed for a real resolution, and so I felt powerless and I gave up. I feel like a hypocrite for turning my back to the crisis, but I can't bring myself to write the same posts day after day. The situation isn't changing; people are still being attacked and displaced, and the world is still ignoring the problem. With nothing new to write, I decide to write nothing. We'll see if I can bring myself to check in on this issue more often; in the meantime, remember this: We will be apologizing for Darfur just like we did for Rwanda.


*From a recent Nicholas Kristof column: One of the most troubling signs is that Sudan has been encouraging Arabs from Chad, Niger and other countries to settle in Darfur. More than 30,000 of them have moved into areas depopulated after African tribes were driven out.

Refugee Numbers

Last year there were nearly 14 million refugees worldwide, according to a US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants report. Ponder that for a moment. That means 14 million people could not be in their home area (for any number of reasons - famine, war, forced relocation, etc). If you are having trouble wrapping your mind around that, join the club. The population of New York City is only 8 million.

Last year's number was an increase of 2 million from the year before, driven by Iraq as well as registration in Pakistan that revealed an extra one million Afghani refugees. In total, there were 3.3 million refugees from Afghanistan (which has been one of the largest sources of refugees long before the US invasion), 3.0 million from the Palestinian territories and over 1.7 million from Iraq. The article doesn't say where the other refugees come from, so when I get a chance I'll check the report.