Dear Bill

Bill Richardson for President
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Dear Governor Richardson,

Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.

In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.

What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.

It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.

Sincerely,

Chainz

[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]

Just My Ramblings

It's another one of those posts where I examine our role in international affairs. Since I am in the middle of a number of articles and books (Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, Notes from the Hyenas' Belly - a memoir from Ethiopia, and this article in the NY Review of Books about Bush's presidency), it might be better to wait until I have finished. But I figure since the mood struck me now, then now I shall post.

I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.

This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)

My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.

I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).

My Mentor, Only He Doesn't Know it

When I read Thomas Friedman's columns, I see the same frustration in him that I have. I think we both have an underlying optimism and faith in humanity. But so often the news stories from the Middle East (and elsewhere too) knock us down, unable to catch our breath for a while. We soon recover soon after by latching on to a piece of good news as proof that progress is coming. At least, I get the impression that he feels this way too.

Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).

Screaming from the Minarets

This picture broke my heart. It is two pictures of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, Iraq. On the left is before two separate bombings a year apart. It is agonizing to know that everything beautiful is being destroyed in Iraq. Although I know that is part of war - so much beauty in the world has been lost due to past wars - I think this affects me so much because I feel that we are partly responsible for this. Although I know it is the nihilists who actually bombed the dome one year ago, and the minarets recently, we are still at fault for allowing it to happen. We (not just Bush - all of us) started a war without thinking about how to finish it. We went in unprepared to deal with insurgents. We ignored mounting evidence that more troops were needed.

What makes this even worse is knowing that the bombing of the mosque's dome started the civil war that Iraq has been in the middle of now for over a year. And every new bombing like this makes it more clear that things are not improving and may not improve. I don't mean to give the impression that I really thought the troop surge would create security, but I did hope for it. And each story like this makes me lose more hope, after thinking I have no more to lose.

My Trip to Zambia

Summary:
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.

So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.

Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.

Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).

When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).

I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.

Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.

On Israel and Palestine

Summary:
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.

My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.

Whatever happens, the Palestinian movement will remain a fluid entity, as difficult to pin down as it will be to pressure or to deal with. The US and Israeli governments will be tempted to ignore the change, persisting in their attempts to isolate Hamas and deal only with non-Islamist members of the government. But it is only a matter of time before such fantasies come crashing down. One of the goals of the US and Israel may be to bolster Abbas, yet nothing has weakened the Palestinian president more than misplaced international attempts to strengthen him. If Hamas feels thwarted in its attempt to share power, it will do what it can—and it can do much—to torpedo Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. One cannot prevent the Islamists from ruling and then expect them to acquiesce in a political process from which they have been kept out.

The fact is that neither Hamas nor Fatah have any real power or authority to make decisions, nor do they know what they are willing to sacrifice for their goals. The article talks about how Fatah is still overwhelmed with corruption and patronage, while Hamas has to decide whether it wants to be a legitimate political group or an armed resistance group. There are serious problems both internally and externally for the Palestinian government, but it is unclear who holds power.

Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:

Corruption, no longer an aberration, virtually is a way of life. Less surprised than resigned, Israelis are disillusioned with politics and government. The scarcity of charismatic leaders and the new generation of run-of-the-mill politicians is another symptom of a system in crisis.

[Edit]

Israeli governments are often short-lived, subject to the vagaries of an anachronistic political arrangement, itself the product of an electoral system which often requires coalition governments and allows smaller parties to dictate their parochial wishes to larger ones or, alternatively, to oust them from office. A peace initiative threatens to upset the delicate political equilibrium and reduce the prime minister's term in office. The stubborn gap between the public's support for an agreement with the Palestinians and the leadership's inability to accomplish it is explained in part by this feature.

The article goes on to also talk about the possibilities of a multi-party agreement that would include normalized relations between Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as American efforts in the region.

In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.

Friedman for President

I have to say, one of my favorite formats that Thomas Friedman uses for his columns is when he writes a speech President Bush should give. If you have TimesSelect, definitely read this. If you don't, here is a highlight:

I want to take this opportunity to speak to the Arab and Muslim nations gathered here today and to the world at large. I begin with a simple message: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I rushed into the invasion of Iraq. I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong, and I now realize that in unilaterally launching the war the way I did, you all feel that I breached a bond of trust between America and the world. Not only did that alienate you from us, it made us less effective in Iraq. We had too few allies and too little legitimacy. I apologize — sincerely.

I’m most sorry, though, because my bungling of the war has prompted all of us to take our eye off the ball. I messed up the treatment so badly that people have forgotten the patient really does have a disease. Now that I’ve apologized, I hope you will stop fixating on me and look closely at what is happening in your backyard: the forces and pathologies that brought us 9/11 are still there and multiplying.

If only Bush really had the humility to give this speech.

Bad Gore

Gore has been getting some criticism for his high energy usage. My first thought was that people were just using it to attack global warming. While I think that is the case, his critics still have valid points.

Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)

I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.

Olive Branch From Iran?

Summary:
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?

So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.

One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.

I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.

Turkish Politics

This article about Turkish politics shows that sometimes religious groups can support modernization and promote a middle class. It also shows that Muslim countries have to deal with the role of religion in government just like we do. In fact, it seems to play out in similar ways with similar arguments.

Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.

I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.

We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.

Obama and Niebuhr

From a David Brooks column ($):

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

I have never read anything by Niebuhr, nor did I know much about him before reading this column. Brooks says that Obama's answer is a pretty good summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History" - which you can bet I'll be reading soon. The above quote is probably the best and most concise statement of my foreign policy belief right now.

Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.

I HATE AGRIBUSINESS

This is the kind of bullshit that makes me hate the world:

Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome [mass starvation], the World Food Program made an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.

But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews -- a process that typically takes four to six months.

For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies. The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial stakes in the current food aid system.

The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.

I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.

Primaries

There is an incredible interactive graphic on the NY Times site. It shows how much money the presidential candidates raised and where their support came from. Hillary and Obama look even stronger when you play around with the map. I am still holding out hope though that Richardson's experience can make up for it. Anyway, enjoy the interactive!

Responsibility

Summary:
If we assume that Iraq cannot be stable anytime soon, are we still responsible for staying? Our government created this situation, therefore I believe that we should feel morally obligated to stay.

Let's assume for a moment that we cannot provide stability in Iraq (everyday it is harder and harder for me to deny this). Given this assumption, there are two possible choices. One is that since we cannot succeed, we should withdraw (a very popular sentiment). The other school of thought follows from Colin Powell's comment to President Bush before the invasion - "You break, you own it." Since it is very clear that we have broken it, what then is our moral responsibility? (Most people would dismiss this whole debate right now, since moral responsibility is rarely a factor when discussing international relations and foreign policy - but that is not the nature of this blog.)

The fact is that we decided as a nation to create regime change in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that we as a nation are responsible for the outcome. Just because Bush lead the charge, doesn't absolve the country of our collective burden. The war was tremendously popular at the time, and don't forget that these people voted for it. We can't use the excuse that the President lied to us, because there were enough people voicing doubt and not supporting the President that a well-informed person would know enough to not support the war.

I believe that in a democratic system, we all bear responsibility for the decisions and actions of the government and therefore collectively should have to redress any mistakes. The United States government (with limited support including Great Britain) created the unstable situation that now exists in Iraq. And despite increased troop levels, we are still unable to provide any security (this article shows that we are still facing the same problems we have had from the beginning - since we cannot control the Sunni insurgents, Shiite groups get tired of the bombings and decide to retaliate). Since we have caused this problem, aren't we in some way responsible for sticking it out?

I know that many in the Democratic party don't see it that way. I get the feeling that they are content to blame it on Bush - as if knowing that he caused the endless carnage makes it acceptable for us to bring our troops home. This is the easy and popular answer, I just don't think it is the moral answer.

A Real Post About Rwanda

Summary:
Rwanda's president is suppressing dissent in hopes of allowing the country to enact economic and government reforms and give it a chance to remain stable. This level of control though has the potential to spark future violence, which may be unavoidable anyway.

A little while ago I wrote a short piece about the current state of Rwanda. My information came from a small article about Paul Rusesabagina, the real life hero of Hotel Rwanda, and how he views the current government in Rwanda. Looking back, my post was pretty superficial because my understanding of the current situation was also superficial. But after reading this article in the New York Review of Books, I think I have a much better grasp of the situation.

My previous post wasn't actually wrong, but according to the article there is reason for optimism. It is true that the current president Paul Kagame, the former leader of the RPF, the Tutsi military force that took control of the country and ended the genocide, exercises strict control over the population and suppresses dissent. This is something Rusesabagina, a Hutu, opposes. There are some though who feel that this is necessary right now to prevent another genocide and give the country the chance to engage economic and government reforms. Kagame's goals are lofty, and he seems to have the support of some in the West.

The fact remains though that the majority of the country is Hutu. It remains to be seen then how the majority will respond to suppression of dissent. It could end up leading to future violence if the Hutu population feels like second class citizens. According to the article, the potential for future ethnic cleansing lies just below the surface. On top of that, we have seen many leaders in the past resort to authoritarianism as a so-called temporary measure, and then later refuse to give up control.

There look to be so many ways that Rwanda could go wrong and devolve into violence again. There is a long history of civil war in the country even before 1994, and it is a past that will be hard not to repeat. I know the international community wants to see it remain stable, but if it doesn't, I wonder if they will get any real support this time around.

Crashing the Gate

Summary:
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.

I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.

First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.

It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.

Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.

In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).

In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.

Insert Pig Analogy Here

Summary:
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.

Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...

Quagmire Anyone?

Summary:
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.

I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.

Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.

When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.

Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.

Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.

Grading the Presidents

Summary:
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?

I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').

His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:

"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.

"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.

"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.

As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.

Timetable

Summary:
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.

Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.

At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.