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.

Sunni Against Sunni - Our Only Hope

Here is a recent headline in the NY Times:

G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants

This definitely isn't the first time we have seen reporting on US military attempts to turn Iraqi Sunnis - including nationalistic Sunni insurgents - against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (the main Al Qaeda group in Iraq). And each time I see reports of this, a new hope grows in me. It is one of the only strategies that could actually work in Iraq.

I don't really buy into the talk that Iraq is just made up of different ethnic groups that can't live together. Our problem is that we haven't been able to provide security. And the main reason we haven't been able to provide security is our inability to pacify Sunni insurgents.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about political reconciliation and forcing the Iraqi parliament to make compromises. But that is all meaningless until Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is shown the door. We have proven incapable of doing that with the troop levels we have - even with the surge. So we need Iraqis to help us with this. Bush may be an idiot, but his military commanders are not. They have been trying to get Sunni nationalists to turn against Al Qaeda for a long time. Let's hope it really starts working.

Fawlty Logic

Summary:
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.

I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.

Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.

It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.

The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.

At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.

Perish the Thought

This is a hilarious Opinion piece. Basically, it talks about how countries like China and Venezuela are providing aid to developing countries with only their interests in mind. Perish the thought.

Because the goal of these donors is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they seek to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda or even line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they aid.

Sound a little hypocritical? That accurately describes the history of our foreign policy. While I understand that we are promoting democracy and transparency (sometimes), as compared to autocratic governments, we still continue to operate to benefit our interests. After all, why would fight to protect Kuwait, but not lift a finger in any disputes in Africa?

Sorry, More Friedman

This is an interesting column ($). I am not sure I completely agree, but it might end up being our only option. Friedman suggests that since the surge isn't working, our only other option is to move our troops into the Kurdish north. This would allow us to prevent the inevitable civil war from spreading outside the country, while using a democratic and peaceful "Kurdistan" as a model for the rest of the Middle East.

First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.

Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.

Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.

Another Mentor of Mine

So there are two people who have had a large impact on the development of my international perspective. You have already heard about Thomas Friedman; the other is Nicholas Kristof. In this column ($), he talks about civil conflict and instability as the greatest killer in Africa.

Mr. Collier [author of The Bottom Billion - a book I want to read as soon as the NYPL gets a copy], a former research director of the World Bank, notes that when the G-8 countries talk about helping Africa, they overwhelmingly focus just on foreign aid. Sure, aid has a role to play, but it’s pointless to build clinics when rebel groups are running around burning towns and shooting doctors.

One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.

Sometimes I feel like the reason good governance and foreign aid are emphasized is because military intervention is much less popular. So we console ourselves by talking about how much money we send to developing countries. I think promoting good governance ($) is a joke when you are talking about somewhere like Congo (or Iraq) - stability is a definite prerequisite. But that won't happen until this country and its leaders make a serious decision to actually protect all the victims in war torn regions.

I Hate Agribusiness - and Congress too

Here is another example of what is wrong with our agriculture subsidies. Not only do they give us an unfair advantage in global trade (effectively keeping developing countries from actually developing), but they don't even go to the farmers that really need them. It is shameful to see how often Congress gets it wrong - how often they send money to powerful interests while cloaking it in language of helping those in need.

Hypocrisy

I love it when life circumstances show the hypocrisy in someone. Here, we see that Robert Bork, conservative judge with strong tort reform views, is now a tort plaintiff. Actually, instead of him being a hypocrite, this seems to support my hypothesis that often times conservatives are merely good people lacking imagination or empathy. In the past, Bork might have been unable to understand why someone would need to use the legal system to seek compensation for some wrong committed. Maybe now he understands. If only it would make him reconsider the rest of his conservative judicial philosophy.

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.

Pakistan's Moderates

Summary:
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.

I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.

New Format

By the way, I am trying a new format. I am including a summary at the beginning of my posts. This way, people know what my post will be about and can choose to read it or move to the next one. I think of it as mixing USA Today with the New York Times (don't worry, I don't really think I am as good as the Times, but I thought the comparison was somewhat apt since I am long winded and most frequently link to the Times).

Richardson at DL21C

Summary:
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.

On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).

Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.

I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.

So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.

Pelosi, Although Slow and Dangerous Behind the Wheel

As long as Democrats aren't successful, then I agree with Friedman ($) that Pelosi's resistance to Bush's war policy is actually constructive. Although I don't think Iraq is to blame for not having put the country back together yet (that blame lies with us, and people like Tom Vilsack are stupid for even suggesting otherwise), I do think it is useful for the Iraqi government to know that they need to make concessions soon because the Democrats won't allow an extended troop presence. But equally important is Friedman's point that we also need to hope that General Petraeus can make the surge successful. We need some form of stability in Iraq before we can leave. I can't stress this enough.

Let My Poultry Go

I don't know if my favorite vegan would be surprised to hear this or not, but I agree with every word of this opinion piece($). Here is a highlight for those of you who don't have TimesSelect:

Numerous studies have documented crated sows exhibiting behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness. Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America's hog farms.

Basically, I think animals should be treated much better than they are; this is in their interest and in ours. To put animals in unsanitary situations where disease is rampant and combat this by injecting the animals with very high levels of antibiotics can't be good for consumers, and it certainly isn't good for the animals. Free range pork and free range chicken - or at least cage-free - should be the norm, not the expensive exception.

Why Chavez?

To continue on the foreign policy trend, I think the popularity of Hugo Chavez can teach us something important. This article talks about Chavez's appeal in terms of his message of South American empowerment. Although there are many flaws in his positions, he articulates an alternative to US policies that always ensure that South America remains dependent on us. Right now, Chavez is the only alternative for people who are sick of our pressure for policies that always benefit the US (despite Bush's push for ethanol while in Brazil, he is still unwilling to end protectionist tariffs on imported sugar cane-based ethanol). If we were honest about free trade and if our policies really were fair to all parties, demagogues like Chavez would have much less appeal.

Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.

Pick a Side

I can't stress how important this debate is and I wish people really thought about it more. Do we want to use force or do we want to stress diplomacy to accomplish our foreign policy aims? As I see it, one cannot work without the other, although I think Bush is just learning this. The question though is which should we stress?

I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.

The Purse Strings

I know I post a lot about education policy; quite often I talk about early intervention, improving middle schools, and rigor in high schools. The bottom line though is that none of it is really worth talking about if we don't change the way we allocate funds. The only way we can eliminate the achievement gap is by making a determined effort to support schools with the greatest need. This means giving more funding to New York City and Syracuse, and less to Long Island and the Hudson Valley.

The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.

Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.

In Sports, I Follow People

I don't usually write about sports, but I think I just realized something. The sports teams I follow - both now and as a kid - revolve around some person that excites me. As a kid, I liked the Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and Oakland Athletics. I used to be embarrassed about this apparent fickleness because I thought it meant I was a front runner. The reality is that only two of those teams actually won while I was a fan (the Tigers and Cards weren't good in the late 1980s). But the truth is that I liked those teams because of a player that thrilled me. For the Tigers it was Jack Morris, the Mets it was Ron Darling and Lenny Dykstra, it was Ozzie Smith on the Cardinals, and of course Mark McGwire on the A's.

The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.

The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.

But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.

Closing Schools

I feel like this is the part of No Child Left Behind that people don't talk about enough. When schools fail to perform, they are closed down and students are sent to other schools. While it makes sense that poor performing schools shouldn’t just be allowed to continue operating as usual, closing them isn’t having any effect either. A friend in Syracuse told me about one of their schools that closed down. In response, the city essentially sent the kids to another school with a different name; it is still plagued with the same problems. It appears that the schools in the NYC are having the same problems.

The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.

This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.

Unions Protect the Worst

I don’t think I could either be classified as pro-union or anti-union (as a whole, I have been rejecting the idea of binary distinctions lately). I certainly recognize the roll unions have played in our history – the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safe working conditions – the list goes on. But at the same time, I recognize their significant flaws. Above all, their goal is to protect their workers, but in executing this they frequently rely on an adversarial, and unproductive, relationship with management, and worse spend much effort defending poor-performing workers.

When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.

I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.

This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.