On the Contrary

I think it is time for a reality check.  In America we only seem to remember the last problem as long as it personally affects us and then it is forgotten to come back and bite us another day.  Take ex-Vice President Cheney.  Here is the guy who had the memos and intelligence to prove WMD and an Al-Qaeda connection in Iraq and now we are listening to him on the efficacy of torture?  Oh well what can I say?  More importantly have we missed the lessons of our latest problems as things seem to be abating and we have changed nothing,  Here are some things that I think are patently obvious or as one of my math professors used to say, glaringly obvious to the casual observer, but totally being ignored by the mainstream, media or otherwise:
•    Economy – On Tuesday there was an article in the New York Times that the economy might be getting better (Markets Rise on Consumer Optimism).  Simon Johnson in his Baseline Scenario blog noted that “…among the people I talk with on Capitol Hill, there is a very real sense that business is returning to usual; certainly, the lobbyists are out in force, they want what they always want, and it’s hard to see many of them as seriously weakened.”  If this is correct then nothing has really changed and we still have a fundamentally flawed market and banking system.  But I don’t think they have it right.  I think the worst is yet to come.  Those on Wall Street are all patting themselves on the back because the banks haven’t failed, but the U.S. is up to its eyeballs in debt bailing them out and they have not been restructured.  They are still too big to fail which is how we got here in the first place.  Almost every state is facing cutbacks and layoffs.  More and more mortgages are defaulting as people lose their jobs.  I think what we have is that the middle class and working people are continuing to suffer and that suffering is getting worse, while the investment class has been saved from feeling the effects by the bailouts.  As more states tighten their belts and more people get laid off, there is going to be anger like we haven’t seen in a long, long time.  There is a real disconnection between working men and women and our upper classes.  We have corrected nothing and restoring the status quo is a recipe for disaster.
•    Iraq – The reality here is that it is going to get bloody and there is nothing we can or should do.  The “Awakening” is over and the results for the Sunnis were not what was hoped for.  Now we will see a great deal of violence as each party jostles for position in the coming power grab.  This is inevitable and the Iraqis will have to sort this out among themselves if they are ever going to stand on their own two feet.  Delaying our withdrawal will simply delay the inevitable and get us caught up in the middle of their local power politics.  Al-Qaeda will be a minor player and should be of little concern as Iraqis dual for power and control, use Al-Qaeda if it suits their means, and then abandon them when they secure power.
•    Afghanistan – The reality here is this will also get a lot bloodier.  As we step up our efforts to eradicate drugs and empower a very corrupt government, we are going to be in the middle of tribal warfare.  I have mixed emotions here as I see that if we are willing to fight the hard fight, the fight that should have been fought seven years ago (thank you Dick and George), it is going to be another 10-15 years before Afghanistan is stable.  I really wonder if it is worth it.  I guess I would have to say no since if I don’t want to sacrifice my own son for this endeavor, then I cannot justify sacrificing anyone else’s.
•    Health Care – This one is a no-brainer.  Without a single payer, government option, nothing is going to get accomplished.  I have written at length about the business model of health care insurers and nothing is going to fundamentally change that until you take profit out of health insurance (See Health Care Wars and Scare Tactics and Reinventing the Wheel – Universal Health Care).  We need a pared down Medicare plan for everyone as a choice with the ability to add additional services and benefits by piggybacking private insurance.  That really is their only role and the only place where profit makes sense in health care.
•    Energy – I don’t think we are getting anywhere fast on a real energy policy that will change our country in a fundamental way.  As soon as gas prices dropped, our eye was off the ball and the forces of the status quo swiftly reasserted them selves in our choices.  But the reality here is that this is the lull in the storm, but in the meantime we are losing precious time.  The cap and trade bill to reduce our dependence on polluting fuel sources is being watered down by special interests invested in the status quo.  If you are not even going to make a dent, why bother.
•    Infrastructure – On the infrastructure side, there may still be hope if I am right about the economy.  If I am, and the economy will stagnate further and a massive infusion of money this time actually focused on rebuilding our infrastructure is our only hope.  It provides good jobs in the short term, and is a long-term investment in a viable economy in the future.  I am not the only one who sees this no brainer.  See Bob Herbert’s column in the New York Times on Tuesday (Our Crumbling Foundation).

I don’t know about the rest of you, but it seems like we are being lulled asleep again and we are failing to make the big changes that are necessary to really change our direction.  I almost feel like we have lost our momentum for change and the Republicans will be allowed to obstruct any real progress as we lose our sense of urgency.  I hope I am wrong.

Here are the things in the news that prick my sense of “hello?”:

Iraq – Violence is trending upward there.  Apparently our strategy is to keep doing what we have been doing and hope things calm down until we can leave.  It is not going to happen.  Iraq is a mess with seething unresolved power stuggles between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.  They are all vying for position when we do leave. Remember that we gained the Sunni support by buying them off.  The Shiites will not want to continue buying them and would like to take away their weapons.  Most of the nation has segregated into their sectarian groups.  Many of the critical issues about sharing power have not been resolved.  I am afraid our sense of holding the top on this boiling caldron is misplaced responsibility.  It is time to set a date certain and get out understanding that there is going to be a great deal of violence before all of this settles out.  The alternative is to stay forever which just exacerbates our problems elsewhere.

Ted Stevens – Ted Stevens, his legal team, and Chris Mathews have been declaring that Uncle Ted has been found innocent and that he unjustly lost the election because of prosecutorial abuse.  Two problems with this:  First, he wasn’t found innocent or guilty, the conviction was overturned, rightly so, because of the misconduct of the prosecutors.  But the evidence about his accepting unreported gifts stands.  Several jurors have stated that they would have convicted him anyway.  Second, the conviction did not come until after the election and the facts about the gifts he did accept and the cozy relationship with those that sent him campaign money were probably more a factor for his defeat.  Ted was business as usual and it was time for his ilk to go and that is what Alaskan voters decided.

The Stock Market – The stock market showed signs of a gain and pundits are starting to say maybe we have bottomed out.  What fools these people are.  For one to understand the crisis we are in, one must look at the world economy, not just the United States.  Our ability to buy and sell will be a function of the health of the world economy, and right now things appear to be worsening.  This rosy outlook also assumes our economy is the stock market instead of the ever increasing unemployment figures.  Think of it this way:  We can not go back to our number one export item, packaged debt, and take up where we left off.  So just what is it that we are going to sell to the rest of the world to make ourselves solvent again?  Right now the economic engine just continues to slow down because we haven’t faced this truth yet, the truth that we are not the great innovators we once were and our failure to invest in ourselves is the root of our problem.

Cutting Services to Balance the Books – States are cutting way back on services to reign in their deficits but many of these cut backs will actually result in bigger bills later.  Aid to the elderly is one of those items, and as they don’t get the help they need, they get sicker and then the costs for the taxpayer balloons.  You can think of many other examples.  Just maybe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of down the road expenses.  Maybe states ought to do a long-term cost analysis before they go slashing services.  Or maybe our politicians are finally thinking like businessmen, short term.

Heroes – What got me going on this one is the rescue of the Captain of the freighter that was hijacked by Somali pirates.  I listened to CNN report this and use the word hero over and over again in their description of his actions.  Maybe he was, but just when did it become heroic to just do your job.  Our military are heroes or so the press tells us at every step, but actually they are just doing their jobs.  Captain Sullenberger is a hero when what he did was his job.  All of these people are thrown into extraordinary circumstances and they do what they are supposed to do and we are so shocked we call them heroes.

Let’s take Sully.  You are a pilot and your job is to plan and train for bad things.  It is routine discipline for a pilot to think through bad things that can happen and plan alternatives.  So when you are taking off, you think about engine failure and what are your options.  In his case there was only one option unless you think you can land an airplane in New York City, and through his flying skill and luck, he landed in the river with no fatalities.  He made sure everyone was off the plane before he got off.  That is not being a hero, that was doing his job.  Now he is writing a book about his life.  Oh brother.

If you were in any of these guys/gals positions would you not have done the same thing?  What other options do you have?  Maybe the financial community and our “business” leaders are representative of what we think is now the norm these days, those who look out only for themselves, take what they can get, and get out.  So when someone actually does their job in difficult circumstances we think they are heroic.  I think when we just start expecting people to live up to the responsibilities of their job and not call it heroic, then we may be a society that can begin to heal itself.  We need to move away from this personal worship thing and just expect people we put in charge to do the right thing.  It would be a nice change.

President Obama promised to be out of Iraq in 16 months and he said we probably need to shift our emphasis to Afghanistan.  In the interim he is listening to the generals and today redirected about 12,000 troops headed for Iraq to Afghanistan.  On the question of Iraq, Tom Ricks, author of The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that his view is that the war isn’t anywhere near over, the civil war is still waiting to happen, and we will probably need to stay there another six or seven years.  “The war in Iraq isn’t over. The main events may not even have happened yet.”  It was an honest assessment without the political baggage. Washington Post

In Afghanistan, recent studies have found the government totally corrupt, nation building failed, the violence rising, with some Afghans saying the Russians were better occupiers than we were, some, like women’s groups begging us to stay, and others wishing we would just go away.  Needless to say that the rising Taliban influence deep in the heart of Kabul accentuates the need for more troops to quell the situation.  Many have wondered if Afghanistan will be President Obama’s Viet Nam and are we setting ourselves up to be bogged down their for many years to come?

So we have two very different countries and one has to ask not only what we should do, but what can we afford to do.  I am somewhat concerned if President Obama is listening too much to the generals.  They are good Americans, but sometimes the short term situation becomes their focus over the long term outcome.  So that raises the obvious question, just what is possible in those two countries and are those outcomes worth spending the small national treasury we have left.

My starting point for evaluating what should be done is some sage advise given by Edwin O. Reischauer, I think in his book, Beyond Vietnam: The United States and Asia, which I was reading on a flight to Thailand and the Vietnam War.  His advice on foreign wars is to never get involved in a country’s internal affairs/wars and help them militarily unless they could win the war without us.  I think this applies today.  In Iraq who are we fighting?  Mostly Iraqis.  So if the government can’t stand on its own, why not?  Is the civil war inevitable and if so what are we doing there?  Many analysts actually think that the real threat is Iran and once we are out of the area, the thorn in all Muslim’s sides just might be removed.  So exactly what are we doing in Iraq?  I think that the answer here is set the date certain and 16 months seems reasonable and then they are on their own.  If in that time they cannot internally generate enough common ground to prevent a war, so be it.  We can’t go on being their policeman forever and they have to shoulder their own destiny.  If it gets messy we will work with the region to resolve it.

We have been in Afghanistan for almost eight years.  Before us, with much larger forces were the Russians.  So what are we thinking?  Do we think a basically tribal society is going to ever come together as a unified nation?  Again we are fighting the Taliban, who by definition are Afghans.  Why, if the Taliban is so bad, can’t the Afghans build a force sufficient to provide their own security?  What the hell has gone on for the last eight years?  Well there are complex answers to all these questions, but as in the Iraqi case, sooner or later, it is their destiny to work out.  The critical question for President Obama is how much longer do we want to prop up a failed government before we force the Afghans, like the Iraqis, to sort out their own problems.  My guess would be two years at the most.  But for now I don’t see any plan except to commit more troops, but what is the end game?  In my mind the term from economics keeps popping up — moral hazard.  In both Iraq and Afghanistan, if they think we are going to save them, they will leave the heavy lifting to us.

It is time to quit kicking the can down the road on these two failed beachheads of democracy.  We have invested much time, effort, cash, and blood, and we have nothing to show for it.  Give each an endpoint, provide them with as much support and help as possible, but when it’s over, its over.  We have other priorities.  Its radical, its tough, and we have never tried it except in Viet Nam and it took time, but is working.  Maybe it is about time we do the same in the Middle East.  Otherwise we are going to be there forever.

Every now and then it pays us great dividends to stop, think, and evaluate and examine some of our preconceived ideas.  As I am totally absorbed by the economic crisis, on this Monday morning in our rush to fix the problem, maybe it is time to slow down and think, not just about the economy, but some of our other assumptions especially with the upcoming debate.  So here goes:

• The conventional wisdom is we need to act fast to save our economy.  My simple mind understands the economic rescue plan as an attempt by the Fed to buy up bad credit instruments to restore liquidity and capital for borrowing so necessary to the function of our economy.  But the first thing that crosses my mind is that this Republican Administration that touts small government, low regulation government is expanding government and its supreme control over the economy in ways that tower over anything we have ever known.  From an administration that rails at the mention of a government controlled medical system we get a government controlled economy.  Second thought is will it work?  Why should we be bailing out these businesses if the $700b could be used to simulate the economy in other ways?  Exactly who controls this money and what assets will secure these outlays?  Who are the winners and losers in this thing and what is the impact on our ability to rebuild our infrastructure and make investments in alternate energy that are also critical to our financial survival?  If our economy impacts the world economy, why aren’t they offering to help in the bailout as we have helped them in the past?  The people who are structuring this plan are the ones that presided over this debacle, so why are we giving them the benefit of the doubt?  I think it is time for some calm debate about what our choices are instead of being rushed into a 3 page plan for $700b hatched in a backroom and rushed to Congress for a rubber stamp.
• The conventional wisdom is that the surge has worked in Iraq and this works in the favor of John McCain.  This claim and belief is based upon the fact that the violence has been reduced during the surge, ergo, the surge is working.  But this ignores the fact that the policy of paying Sunnis (the Awakening) came into play and full fruition about this time and that as the surge started the segregation of the population into sectarian groups was just completing.  There are an estimated four million displaced Iraqis, half of which left the country and the other half in sectarian enclaves to protect themselves.  So we put more cops on the beat and street thugism is down, but are we not still sitting on a seething caldron of unresolved hate?  Add to that as the Shiites take control of the country, they are not incorporating the Sunnis into the military or police in any meaningful way.  Meanwhile the Kurds are solidifying their control of oil rich areas.   I think we are sitting on a ticking time bomb which has little to do with al-Qaeda.  One might ask John McCain what his definition of winning is and just how much longer can we be responsible for holding the lid on this thing.
• The conventional wisdom in Afghanistan is that this is where the real war is, we had almost won it, and now we need to recommit to it with more troops and strong investment in the soft forms of power (read economy and nation building).  In a highly informative and basically non-partisan discussion, five previous Secretaries of State on CNN’s “The Next President: A World of Challenges” reflected this view.  But in an equally informative interview on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, the 85 year-old wise ex-Prime Minister of Singapore gave this advice on Afghanistan:

“You’re going to bring democracy to Afghanistan? They have been warring with each other for hundreds of years. They enjoy warring with each other. Thirty-plus years ago they killed a king who was nominally holding the country together, and it’s been shattered ever since.

How do you restore the writ of Kabul? By some 30,000 NATO troops, ISAF, and a few more brigades of Marines or special forces?

The Russians had 140,000 boots on the ground with tanks, helicopters and the lot. And they left.

I think nation-building is not doable. I mean, are you going to do nation-building in Pakistan? If you can’t get Pakistan right, you will never get Afghanistan right.

That Durand Line was arbitrarily drawn by the British between the Northwest Frontier Provinces and Afghanistan. They are the same tribes, brothers, cousins — porous borders. They’re in and out.

Now you’ve not only got Talibans, you’ve got Pakistanis joining the Talibans — or that’s the latest intelligence that I’ve been reading.

It can go on for decades. Do we want to be in Afghanistan for decades?”

So the bottom line here is we are starting down the same road we went down in Iraq.  I think we ought to have a real debate on what is doable and what we can afford.  We may have to weigh whether improving our security through improving our economic strength and position in the world is a better investment that occupying countries in the 7th century who are still engaged in tribal warfare.

Just some idle thoughts of a Contrarian as we move toward the debates and understand that every question asked comes with hidden assumptions that may not stand up to the test of reality.  Thus the answer may be the answer to the wrong question.

I once heard a Republican in the Bush Administration say Republicans will define reality.  They may be right.  I found a web page by a Republican, Dick Bush, who said, “We Republicans need to remember our morals make us right.”   Apparently they really believe it because the Republican Convention was about an America that doesn’t exist and facts that weren’t facts.  It would appear that the truth doesn’t make any difference anymore*.  Just get your story out there, the 24/7 press will repeat it over and over, and by the time the truth is known, nobody cares anymore.  You have convinced whom you need to convince.  That was the Republican approach at their convention with most of speeches full of outright misrepresentations to lies.  They invented the liberal eastern establishment that has caused all of our problems even though they have been ruling the roost for 12 years.  The K Street project, a scheme by Republicans to force all lobbyists to be Republican, wasn’t a Democratic scheme.  Then they brought out Sarah Palin with a whole biography that is not holding up to examination.  But my point is it may not matter.  They made their point, although a fabrication, the mainstream press gave it a full airing without vetting, and now it is going to stick even when reality testing shows it doesn’t pass the test.  This is how they won the last two elections and it just may work again. Why do you think she won’t face the press?  The downside is what they propose for our future has not worked in the past.

I don’t think there is any point in going over Sarah Palin’s resumé, the touted one or the real one.  It will come out in the next several weeks from the librarian she tried to fired for not being compliant enough in banning books, to her lack of credentials as a fiscal conservative and how she has lied about her accomplishments (the plane did not sell on ebay and it was at a loss, etc., but it sounded good).  The corrections will probably not matter with a public that only listens to what they want to hear.  What is really important is the politics she could potentially bring to the White House and how John McCain has compromised all of the beliefs we use to admire him for in standing up to the Republican Party in an attempt to win the White House.  The Republican’s strategy will be that with the pick of Sarah Palin, she is real change.  Well here is what we do know about her and her politics so far and I am not sure it is a change we can survive:

• We know she tried to have a librarian fired and that she had approached the woman about the potential for banning some books in the library.  Are they related?  You be the judge.  I would just tell you that anyone who thinks that they can judge what the rest of us can read is not a democrat (small “d”).  Note she also fired the police chief for purportedly not supporting her re-election.  First thing you have to think about is how many librarians do you ever see fired and second, can she work in a government that doesn’t agree with her on every issue?
• We know that she thinks creationism should be taught in the schools albeit along side evolution.  What this tells me is that she does not understand the appropriate separation of church and state, nor does she understand the difference between science and religion.  This mixing of religion and science simply dumbs us down and brings faith and dissention back into the classroom.  By the way, if we should teach creationism, what other religious beliefs about the origin ought to be given equal time?  From her view there is only one true view and that should worry you shouldn’t it?
• We know that she is being investigated for firing the Alaskan public safety commissioner as an abuse of power.  We don’t know if it is true or not but it does smack of good old boy politics which is what Alaska is all about.  So at the lowest level, this raises the specter of same old politics in Washington.  K Street project come to mind?
• She believes that life should be defined as beginning at conception and as a result of this believes all abortions should be banned period.  Joe Bidden also believes this but he understands that this belief is based upon his faith and he cannot and should not legislate his faith on others.  What does Sarah think?  We won’t know until she finally faces the press, which may never happen if they can’t rehearse her enough.  Does this make you nervous?
• She has said she supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.  The California Supreme court overturned the ban on gay marriage in California as being inherently unequal.  You have to wonder who would modify our Constitution to enforce inequality on some of our citizens because of their religion.  Certainly that wouldn’t be the Party of Lincoln would it?

More will come out about her claimed fiscal conservative approach in Alaska and the reality that Alaska is an oil welfare state that has received more federal aid than their population will justify ($4000/citizen in earmarks in her little town).  But one has to wonder why John McCain, the supposed maverick, would pick such a person who is so opposite to his original views on these issues and would bring the religious right back into government.  There are two highly probable answers here that should give you pause.  The first one is that it was not his choice.  And from that conclusion you should realize that he does not have the free reign to implement change and reach across the aisle as he claims and someone else may be pulling the strings.  The second answer is that it distracts the voters from the real issues and we are going to waste our time on all of the above identified cultural wars we thought we had put behind us.

And where are John McCain and Sarah Palin campaigning?  In the hinterlands in Middle America where people really do cling to their religion and guns.  Yes I know it was Barack’s impolitic remark, but that doesn’t make it not true.  These are the voters responsible for our last eight years of misery with their “small town values.”  It is easy to distract these voters with these cultural wars where the real issues of our economy, the mortgage crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, our energy crisis, the climate crisis, Russia’s new found thugism, are all ignored or addressed with sound bites to dismiss them because all these crises happened under the Republican’s watch as part and parcel of Republican policies.  It’s smart politics, but it may be disastrous for our country.  It may even win an election, but will not move the nation in the direction we need to go.   I think on the issues, the real issues, the Republicans lose, but it remains to be seen if we will ever get to discuss them.

* There may be another reason that facts don’t inform reality for conservatives:  If you followed my blog, How Conservatives Think, then you will understand that they view the nation state and authority through the strict father family model.  Work hard, be obedient to the strict father (Authority), you will develop discipline, be successful, and most importantly moral.  Conservatives cannot believe that their philosophy (the rules) could be a problem which is why they truly believe that there is a liberal eastern establishment the wrecked their time in power and is painting a false picture of them.  If you just have discipline, be obedient to authority, and follow the conservative rules, success and morality are guaranteed.  In conservative’s eyes this is what Sarah Palin represents.  She is a conservative Republican therefore by definition she is moral, she is disciplined, followed the rules (in this case the religious right’s rules), and is proof their morality gets rewarded (her success and meteoric rise in politics), therefore she is the incarnate and embodiment of what they believe about truth and justice in the world.  In other words they are emotionally invested in her story and her success.  Facts that discredit that perception of her must be disregarded as untrue or in their mind are untrue.  Like I said it is very similar to religion where when reality denies their faith, it has no impact on their belief.

One note:  On the issues and one we all care about, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Fareed Zakaria had an interview with Rory Stewart, a Farsi-speaking British diplomat on his show Sunday (CNN GPS) who was appointed deputy governor of Amarah and then Nasiriyah, provinces in the remote, impoverished marsh regions of southern Iraq; who spent the next eleven months negotiating hostage releases, holding elections, and splicing together some semblance of an infrastructure for a population of millions teetering on the brink of civil war.  Here is a man who knows the reality of that part of the world and his discussion was about what is possible over there.  Our political discussion has been about whether the surge worked, who said we should put more troops into Afghanistan first, but not about a realistic endgame.  Whether the surge worked or not, and whether things in Afghanistan are deteriorating, the real issue is what is possible and what should we do.  Neither candidate has addressed our end game strategy and what we can afford or realistically accomplish.  This interview sheds a great deal of light on this subject and oh how I wish the candidates were discussing it.

There are three major stories that have our attention from American’s point of view in the realm of foreign affairs:  They are the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Russian invasion of Georgia.  The conventional wisdom on this (Republican and Media) is that the surge is working in Iraq, Afghanistan needs more troops to quell the Taliban uprising, and Russia may be reverting to Cold War behavior and must be stopped.  All of these are wrong.

First let’s take Iraq:  John McMean has been saying that he will win that war and bring our troops home victorious.  Political implication is Barack wants to lose it by bringing our troops home early and in defeat.  It’s bogus, but that is for another day.  Iraq is a ticking time bomb.  Nothing has been resolved and the Sunnis are being denied any real role in the military and police forces, much less government.  We are simply paying them off, hence the decrease in violence, but the promised inclusiveness into the ruling Shiite government has not occurred.  I would recommend you read Leila Fadel”s of McClatchy News story, “Former Sunni militants find job door closed” that appeared in the Sacramento Bee (sorry I can’t find a link).  The war is about power jockeying among Shiites, and the sectarian conflict and disenfranchisement of the Sunnis.  Nothing has changed and time is running out for reconciliation.  As one Sunni put it, “If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero.  I will not give up my weapons.  I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again.  If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol.”  So as John McMean promises you victory and stay the course, all I hear is “tick, tick, tick”.  Ask yourself why we remain embroiled in an 8th century cultural war?

Afghanistan, by all measures, is degenerating as the violence increases.  Both candidates are promising to increase our troop presence there.  Here is my question:  More troops to do what?  We have already been occupying the country for seven years.  What is the long term strategy for once again taming an 8th century culture?  If the strategy is more troops, for how long, to do what, and what is the end game?  Somewhere in all of this we need to step back and re-evaluate our strategic priorities.  Whether Afghanistan is a democracy or a theist state is really irrelevant.  Whether they produce poppies for income is irrelevant.  What is important is that it is not a beachhead for al-Qaeda and attacks on the rest of the civilized world.  Once again we are bogged down in the wars of a very backward people that is going to go on for a very long time.  Our strategic goal should be to make sure that they are not a threat to the world and move on to more important conflicts and issues and not be tied down there.  Ask yourself this:  If we could attack, mostly with air power and route the Taliban in a very few days back in 2001, why isn’t that a good strategy forward instead of a 50 or 100 year commitment to nation building?  If we put more troops in there without a long-term plan, what I hear is “tick, tick, tick”.

Finally we have Russia and what to do about their belligerent behavior.  Well what I see is the same arrogance that we exhibited when we invaded Iraq.  There is a silver lining is this thing.  First and foremost, America and Europe have finally come to their senses about who Putin is.  Second, right now Russia is rich in oil money and thinks it can afford to try to reestablish its old Soviet Union influence.  They learned nothing from their incursion into Afghanistan, as we didn’t in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now they think they can project their power through brute force in other countries.  These countries are not going to sit idly by while their nationalism is tramped upon.  Resistances will arise, and the cost to Russia will become immense to maintain this level of control.  Like us, they will find that it saps their power and their wealth to invade and occupy another country.  We don’t need to start another cold war and we certainly cannot afford an armed conflict.  So John McMean, sit down and shut up.  We need to take prudent diplomatic actions in unison with the European Union that makes Russia pay a price in the Western world for their actions.  I wonder if there are any assets we could seize through the World Court (of course we would have to recognize it) to cover the cost of the humanitarian aid?  We need to support the break-away countries to stand tall and join the West in developing strong economies.  This doesn’t mean encourage belligerent action like that of Georgia that set off this whole thing.  I wonder if John McMean has a conscious or feels any responsibility for any of this?  Sooner or later Russia will start to feel the pain and relent as its people start to grumble. On the other hand if we start another cold war it will mobilize the Russian people behind Putin.   It is not the 80’s and the world has tasted freedom and nationalism.  You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.  In this case, the short term victory in Georgia is the ticking time bomb for Russia.

So we have a choice, we can continue what we have been doing, as John McMean proposes, or we can recognize what our real interests are and quit fighting battles from the last century.  It is the difference in whether you think experience is looking backwards and applying old solutions to old problems, or is it learning from our mistakes and looking forward for new solutions.

This seems to be the mantra of the Republicans who want you to believe that if we had followed the Democrat’s plan for withdrawal, we would have “lost”.  Let’s start this argument by remembering that these are the same guys, including John McMean, who promised us a “cakewalk” and that Iraqi oil would pay for the whole adventure.  Don’t forget the claim of yellow cake uranium, mobile chemical weapons trailers, and Iraqi involvement with al-Qaeda, all of which were false.  So let’s look at this claim of “Winning”.

First of all let’s look at the cost in a kind of a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Those crazy Republicans think market place analogies apply to everything so lets use their own logic to look at “winning”.  The cost to date is four million displaced Iraqis, half of which are in ghettos in surrounding countries in breeding grounds for terrorist activities.  The rest of the population has segregated itself into Sunni and Shiite populations.  Estimates of dead Iraqis range from 100,000 to over 600,000.  For our part we know that as of today the American death toll is 4134 with over 30,000 estimated wounded or injured, many horrifically.  Cost in dollars has been estimated at $3 trillion.  This does not include the opportunity costs associated with not investing the money we are spending there in our own nation.  The national debt is approaching $9.6 trillion and would cost roughly $20,000 per person today to pay it off.  Let’s us not forget our loss of prestige and power due to Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture, and loss of habeas corpus at Guantanamo, not to mention our own loss of national identity as we have weakened our Constitution and ignored international law.  Add to this the recruiting power for the radical Muslims of our mistreatment of their combatants, and you get a real look at the costs of this war

Okay, so much for costs, what have we gained?  Well you hear three claims:  Saddam Hussein, a horrible dictator, is gone; we are defeating al-Qaeda and the world is safer; and the violence is down due to the surge.  First Saddam is gone and he was an evil, horrible dictator.  So is the President of Sudan and many other world leaders where the genocide is much, much worse than in Iraq so this claim is fairly dubious when looking at the cost.  Why don’t we attack North Korea?  On the second claim our own intelligence agencies have documented that there was no al-Qaeda threat in Iraq before the war, the threat there is localized and minimal, while the al-Qaeda threat has resurged to its pre-9/11 levels in Pakistan with a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan while we were distracted in Iraq.  So this one on the face of it is a net loss.

Finally we have the claim by Republicans and Neocons that the violence is down and therefore we are winning.  Well define winning.  I have a hard time looking at the costs and saying the violence is down is winning.  We still have a segregated society, armed to the teeth and getting ready to fight for the spoils of the war, control of the oil rich areas.  The Sunnis are no longer attacking us because we are paying them at an estimated cost of $70 million so far.  This may be the real cause of the reduced violence, but there is no way to really know.  So what we really have is a simmering powder keg which we are keeping the lid on with our presence, but no real political reconciliation.  Is this the winning I hear so many times from the Republicans?  But isn’t their military stepping up to the plate.  The problem with that metric is that the Iraqi military is being staffed by the various militia factions and it is unknown what will happen when they have to choose sides when we leave as they vie for the oil pot and power.  So are we winning?  I think we are just treading water.

So was this surge a winning strategy?  I think the best you can say about it is that it kicked the can down the road and when you consider the costs, it simply is not worth it.  If by some miracle some form of democratic government survives, it will be a theocracy where minority rights (other religions and women) lose.  Is that what we were fighting for?  So the next time you hear one of the Republican sycophants saying the surge was a success and we are now winning, consider the cost and exactly what we are “winning”.  Then take them to task.  Ask them under their definition what is the end state in one year, two years, three years, and what is our continued involvement to insure that.  Then consider what it has cost us before you decide if that is “winning”.

In my continuing attempt to answer the questions Anderson Cooper posed to Fareed Zakaria and David Gergen in his “Extreme Challenges, The Next Four Years”, today I would like to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Anderson asked Fareed what we should do in Iraq as our number one problem.  Now I don’t think Fareed thinks it is our number one problem because later in regard to what the new President would have to face in the future, he said:

“I think the system in Washington pulls you towards the urgent.  What you need is a leader who understands what’s important and that the two are different.  We need to get out of the 8th century in Baghdad adjudicating claims between Shias and Sunnis, and move to the 21st century, to China, to India, to Brazil, to where the future is being made, and to figure out what are the challenges for America to prosper and thrive in the future.”

But his point was how long are we willing to stay there.  Both he and David Gergen pointed out that the Bush Administration, and in this election, John McMean, are oversimplifying the “progress”.  As Zareed pointed out:

“There have been incremental steps.  But what I’m most struck by is that, if you look at the Sunni militias, they are maintaining their arms, their command structure.  They have just stopped fighting.  You know, one of things we need to understand is, the surge worked not because we defeated these folks in battle, It’s because they switched sides.”

The point was it is a simmering cauldron and if we remove the top (withdraw) it may just boil over.  So that brought us back to the question of how long we want to stay there because sooner or later, we have to let it boil.  John McMean has told us he wants to stay indefinitely.  Democrats want out as soon as possible.  The real concern for Zareed and David was what would happen to Barrack if he is elected President and the situation degenerates.  If he was seen as the President who lost Iraq, he would be politically crippled in a time we need a bold leader to move us forward.

The way out of this dilemma is to have a reasonable expectation for what we can really achieve there and what cost we are willing to pay to achieve it.  Zareed’s point in his first quote about getting on with the things that will really affect our future and out of 8th century feuding is critical.  John McMean and the Republican’s want us to believe we can “win”, but they won’t define winning, and Senator McMean has said we will stay as long as it takes.  I think we need to get out of the frame of winning or losing and reframe it with what is tolerable and reasonable.  If we can reframe it as we did the best we could, but the real warring parties are the Shias and the Sunnis and if they won’t resolve their political problems on religious grounds, then leaving there becomes a real option.  We have invested as much as we can and now we have to focus on our own future. Besides the have an estimated $78 billion in the bank to fight over while we go broke trying to rebuild them.   We all now know this has nothing to do with al-Qaeda.  And that brings us to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan is a mess.  Right now you are hearing the answer is to involve more troops.  More troops to do what, fight an endless battle with the Taliban?  We need a real strategy in Afghanistan, much like Iraq, that focuses on the reality of possible outcomes.  Our real interest in that part of the world is not establishing some beachhead for democracy because that is not going to happen.  These are ignorant and extremely poor countries and we could spend the next eon fighting religious extremists.  Do we want to be another Soviet Union?  Our interest is that these countries do not allow a safe haven for al-Qaeda to attack from as Afghanistan became before our invasion.  We need to come up with a counter-insurgency long-term plan for Afghanistan that does not tie us down completely.  Remember how quickly we routed them after 9/11?  Maybe we just need to do a little house cleaning once in while.  At any rate, the discussion we are not hearing is what is our long-term plan there other than redirecting the fight from Iraq.  I have a hard time believing either one of these fights which is draining our valuable resources is doing anything for our security or advancing our economy in the 21st century.

Now Pakistan poses a really difficult problem because that is where al-Qaeda resides and is growing, quasi supported by a nation who has nuclear arms.  I don’t have an easy answer.  Those who would have us go in there fail to recognize the problems of the Pakistani army in trying to clean out those areas.  There is no easy solution here and we should really be worried about Pakistan’s religious hatred of India.  If there is going to be a nuclear war, that is where it will break out.  Zareed thought the answer was divide and conquer.  Isolate the extremist factions.  It certainly isn’t a military solution of invasion.  We should have learned that lesson by now.  I can’t figure out what the problem really is.  We could let extremists live in their caves and do their mischief as long as we limited their ability to gain 21st century weapons.  Ever wonder how they are getting armed?

Depressed yet?  The next President, and I am assuming it will be Barrack, will have to take all these problems on while the Republicans try to prove that he cut and ran.  So if we don’t cut and run, will we stay forever and eventually have nothing left to cut and run to?  Tomorrow:  Iran.