The Weekly Standard just published a strong story about Afghanistan. The three authors, Max Boot, Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan, spent 8 days traveling the country and feel hopeful that the war can conclude successfully.  They don’t define what success is, but my assumption reading the article was that we will succeed when we can pull our troops out and  leave behind a stable Afghan government that provides its own security.

The positive focus is a welcome contrast from the doom and gloom in most US reporting.  The article is also refreshingly free of partisan  bickering and is properly focused on our efforts to secure the country. Far too many articles written about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan actually focus on local US politics. We are all in this together and we need to find ways to solve these problems – regardless of political stripe.

Well done, Weekly Standard. We need more reporting on what is actually happening on the ground.  And the three authors offer a wealth of details about many aspects of our effort. The multiple voices  also mean that the article suffers from a lack of overall direction as separate sections are loosely stitched together, but the article is well worth reading.

The authors are not free of politics but they make a few excellent points that could really enlighten our national debate:

• The term Taliban is all but meaningless. There are so many factions with layered, shifting allegiances that it is ridiculous to speak of them as a single, cohesive resistance.
  
• Extra troops could secure and hold more areas of the country. But we do will not have enough troops to secure the entire country. The Afghan forces are performing well but there is not nearly enough of them.
  
• The NATO structure needs overhaul as short assignments, too many players with different missions are leading to inefficiency and waste

I do have some questions for the authors.

There is no money, political will or plans to train enough Afghan forces to secure the country.  How can we succeed without finding a way to dramatically increase the size and capabilities of the local forces?

The authors rightfully point out that increased US troop strength could push some of the insurgent further west, close to Iran.  The authors says this is a problem because we don’t have troops there and won’t anytime soon.

Why do we need troops near Iran?

Iran has long been involved in that area of Afghanistan and shares language, custom and history with the Tajiks Western Afghanistan (25% of Afghanistan is Tajik). Iran helped us immensely during the 2001 war.  Iran doesn’t want to see radical Pashtuns in power and they want to curb the flow of drugs. They would be glad to secure this area; why don’t we work with them?

They are naturally allies here.  Why would we send in more Americans to fight in that god-forsaken terrain when it will antagonize a country that would love to do that fighting for us?

Economic development is crucial to a successive conclusion of the war. Security has to come first, but economic development needs to follow hard on its heels. A working economy will be the best way to maintain stability and the lack of one will quickly erode all our hard fought gains.

We need to start thinking about how to rebuild the country. Solving this may prove as difficult as creating security and we need to get it moving now.

Perhaps the American people can help.  We are sick of letting our soldiers do all the work. Poverty is caused  by a lack of money and there are new ways for those with resource to connect with those you don’t. If there are ways that we can help foster economic activity that will solidify the Afghanistan and bring our people home – count me in.

Let us all pick up on what this article started and continue to imagine how the US can succeed in Afghanistan, what peace will look like and how it will work.

Economic commentators tailor their comments to the expectations of their clients.  We all know that, right? So what? The what is that one of pro-pundits, Zachary Karabell, admits it in Newsweek.

The article is an odd mix of expose (all experts have agendas), advice column (decisive pundits get hired), and apology (the rise of certain pundits is market driven).  Karabell begins the article by describing the fickle, self-interest of financial analysis and ends it by telling not to worry – the market determines who we listen to.  Is this supposed to make us feel better?  Karabell ends the article telling us to question financial experts but his argument suggest that we should question the entire investment system.

1. He contradicts himself about experts skewing their opinions.   First, he says that all analyst “emphasis” perceptions that fit their niche. He worked for a company that focused on growth markets, so he depicted a half -full picture.  Pundits working for more bearish companies provide a half-empty image.  Fair enough, except he also claims that pundits don’t “skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line.”  Emphasizing sounds a lot like skewing to me. Karabell probably meant to say that most pundits don’t out right lie or purposely rig their options.  But we can rest assured that they skew their opinions, for he already told us so. We don’t have to back pedal – they do it.
2. Karabell does not seem worried about disclosure either.  Wouldn’t the public benefit from knowing professional stance of TV experts?  Wouldn’t this information help us decipher their opinion?  Isn’t this a very easy step that would help bring clarity and accuracy to professional economic reporting? Mr. Karabell evidently doesn’t think so, for his confessional article doesn’t even mention such simple adjustments.
3. The psychological basis of markets – the most important thing Karabell says is that investors choose experts based on how they are currently feeling.  When investors feel confident, bullish experts become popular and when worried, bear experts reap the rewards.  For all the fancy number talk and derivative parades, human emotion drives the market.  Could we have a better indictment of our insane wealth transfer system? Again, Mr. Karabell must not agree for he tells us not to worry – the markets drive us. NO, NO, NO – our emotions drive the markets and that is what your agruement suggets.

Karabell pulls a fast one on us but telling us a bit of truth but then pretends that it doesn’t really matter.  Human emotion and self interest drive our financial markets – take it from him, even as he refuses to admit what he said.

The questions is do we really want to continue handing over so much our national sovereignty to these small group of greedy, emotional men?

I don’t.

It is time to get the media to open up their source book and for us to put faith into smaller, local markets. Why give all the money to a few super rich owners who know little and care less about what a company actually does?

Let’s invest in worker ownership and share risks (and benefits) with the people who really work. This is one of the great possibilities of our day and one of the great opportunities of this crisis.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last week Bret Stephens unabashedly repeated Benjamin Netanyahu’s war-mongering view of Iran without any pretense of analysis or perspective.

He did not question the veracity of the statement or Netanyahu’s purpose for claiming that Iran is the “mother regime” of Hezzbollah and Hamas.   Never mind that Hezbollah has long targeted Israeli military installations and not the public. Never mind that Iranian ‘control’ of Hamas is a ridiculous.  If Netanyahu says it, Stephen will accept it – and even amplify it to cover all ‘terrorism’, slyly intimating that Iran might “somehow” be responsible for al Qeada and the Taliban.

Does WSJ normally publish such work thin work or are they just happy to have another chance to antagonize Iran?

Netanyahu may see Iran as the major threat in the region, but that does not mean the US has to.  Netanyahu may well be concerned about Iran having the bomb but we don’t have to follow in lock step. Not until we at least answer a few questions.

What would Iran gain from a nuclear attack against Israel? Does Netanyahu really think Iran is suicidal and will stop at nothing to destroy Israel?  If so, why didn’t they sneak into Iraq during Gulf War I or II and lob a few missiles at Israel?  It would have been easy and the resulting conflagration could easily have consumed Israel.  But Iran stood down and even helped the US by letting us use their air space. Why?

The fact is Iran is already so powerful that nukes may be more trouble than they are worth.  They are expensive to maintain and difficult to guard.  Plus, the resulting regional nervousness will roll back their recent political gains. If Iran is smart (6,000 years of history suggests that they are), the nuclear issue is just a tool to tie the West up in knots and ultimately get whatever they want in trade for the program.

Read the rest of this entry »

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) voted against the Bush Administration’s $700 bailout because it lacked accountability.  He just voted against the Obama Administration’s nominee for Treasury, Tim Geitner, because he helped create our current problem.

Sanders is a true independent who votes his conscious and he is supporting Obama’s stimulus package.  He explained why today on Democracy Now!:

It provides “a huge investment in infrastructure. A huge investment in energy… A massive investment in education…. The stimulus package is a significant step forward for working and middle class families in America.”

There is no doubt that the Republicans are right to examine the bill for there are things wrong with it.  But they are not interested in fixing the bill or offering other ideas.  They simply like playing the opposition, as evidenced by their constant repetition of foolish distortions and calls for tax cuts.

The Democrats don’t look much better. They try to answer the Republicans questions and in the process lose sight of the big picture. Right now, the Senate Dems are packing the bill with pork. They should cut the fat, come clean and talk directly to America about what is essential in the bill.

We need a grown up discussion of how best to fix the economy and build a 21st century country. But all we get is blather about ‘unleashing’ the economy and whether or not the CBO offerered a report. Senator Sander’s focus on the benefits to middle and working class Americans is most welcome.

US media has only a few media outlets that give knowledgeable people time to explain the complexity of situations.  One such show is Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! and today’s interview with Columbia University Professor, Rashid Khalidi, provides great insight into the political turmoil the people of Gaza face.

Juan Gonzalez begins the clip by asking Prof. Khalidi about politics within Gaza:

The Fatah took part in the blockade and Hamas lobs rockets into Israel for no defined political purpose.  Most of the people of Gaza are fed up with both sides of the smashed political system.  They seek a way out from under both the PLO and Hamas.

Yet most American media, writes off the people of Gaza as supporters of terrorism or worse.  Americans need to realize who the Palestinian people are and how oppressed and brutalized they have been.  No matter how awful the rockets attacks are, Israel’s response has been outrageously out of proportion and will ultimately prove counter – productive.

I expect my government to stop this kind of atrocity, not support it.  We need an immediate cease fire and diligent, even handed approach to permanent peace. Not only is this the just thing to do, but it is also a smart move as it will change how people see the United States.

President-Elect Obama’s interview on ABC’s This Week is getting a lot of deserved attention for saying that “no one is above the law.” Upholding the basis of our society is an excellent idea as is finding a peaceful resolutions to conflicts.  P-E Obama also said that he will move quickly to engage with Iran and expect them to live up to the standards of a world actor.

Video

This is exactly the kind of respect and responsibility that can pull Iran into the world on nations and help them become a partners in peace.  Their influence and might will rise but as Henry Kissinger reminds us, it is good to have power friends.

I have written a couple of quick posts of the Brookings Institutes’s report Beyond Iraq: A New U.S. Strategy for the Middle East but finally have the time to summarize its view of US-Iranian relations.

The report boils down to say that John Lennon was right and that we should give peace a chance.  The US can make progress with Iran on nuclear proliferation and regional security but we have shift our posture from confrontation to engagement. And that requires understanding that Iran’s power in the region has grown and we opened the door for it.

First, we got rid of two of its biggest enemies – Saddam and the Taliban, and then we excluded them from any responsibility for reshaping the region.  More free to maneuver in the region and convinced that engagement with the West was doomed to failure, they upped their investments in Hezbollah and Hamas. The effectively have offered the region a methodology for reform that is a based on violence and the Iran way has the upper hand right now.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are all concerned about the growing influence of Iran and would welcome a viable alternative.  We can impact Iran by working with these partners to create a moderate approach based on “reconciliation, negotiation, political and economic reform, peaceful  settlement of conflict and the upholding of international norms that better meet the needs of the people” (Beyond Iraq page 6)

Real, even-handed progress with Syria or Palestine will help turn people away from the Iranian way and will also get the attention of the  Iranians.  Currently  confrontation is Iran best path to regional power, but if another path emerges, they may well take it.  The country has shown a willingness to follow whatever direction leads to the most influence, we need to offer them one.

The report lays out a plan for how to create that path and my hope is that the new Administration follow this approach or one like it for we finding a way to work with Iran remains imperative for creating lasting stability in the region.

Mark Krispin Miller calls attention to an issue that should alarm all Americans – the continued massive voter fraud being conducted by the Republicans.  Yes, the Republicans – not ACORN – are ones stealing elections.

The major media have paid lip service to this theft of our democracy but this hard hitting admission from a respected Republican computer expert should focus a universe of attention on our voting system.  Instead the media simply plays fool to the diversionary tactics of the McCain campaign.

A few phony regisrations pose a few minor threat to our political system, but this “Man in the Middle” scheme but control of election into the hands of one political party.

TSN! is glad to see democracy at work in America.  For years a few, closed-minded individuals have dominated the public debate about immigration.  Of course, strong voices such as Rep. Shelia Lee Jackson Lee have long stood up for the rights of those who come here to improve their lives and our country.

But the media silence is usually cracked by voices of intolerance and prejudice.  The overwhelming American response yesterday is a clear indication of one of the things that makes this country great – the open arms of liberty offering refuge and hopes to those willing to come and work for it

Twice over the past couple of weeks leaders of the Defense Department have asked Congress for increases in our diplomatic capabilities. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates asked for large increases in USAID and the State Department and Admiral Gary Roughead recently testified that the Navy is more than boats in the water.

He expects his sailors to know the culture and language of the local people for they need to work with local cultures to produce the desired changes. Both of these high level DOD leaders diplomatic efforts as critical to our the success of our strategic objectives around the world.

The country could not have a clearer example of how our aggressive military-first foreign policy needs adjustment. Talking to people is absolutely necessary and we need to make the proper adjustments to and investments in diplomacy.

Yet the State Department is so underfunded that the many under-staffed will cut staff in 2008. We are moving in exactly the opposite direction.

These significant development are hard to find out about. You won’t hear them on CNN or FOX but only by trolling C-SPAN hearings. The DOD is suggesting a major shift in our international priorities and operations yet the major press organs do not find these statements worth comment. They are sensational openings which wouldn’t require much to pry into bigger stories. Is the media not interested in peace? Does war play better, pay better?