The Menacing Pleb

US Troop Deaths in Afghan War Under Obama Now Twice That Under Bush

2011-10-18T00:32:00.004-04:00

This weekend marked a new milestone for the war in Afghanistan: the total number of US troops killed in the war has doubled since President Obama took office, according to icasualties.org and our US Troops in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush web counter. That means that two-thirds of the total US troop deaths have occurred in the last two years and eight months, which accounts for roughly a third of the duration of the war to date.

1728 US troops have died in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, with 1153 of those deaths having occurred since President Obama's inauguration. 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during President Bush's term in office.

We've all heard the argument before: Bush ignored Afghanistan, Obama did what he promised by escalating the war, and since more troops means more deaths, we shouldn't be surprised by the increased death rate.

Back in June, when US deaths in Afghanistan under Obama reached 1000, I wrote a piece about this argument. I'm not going to address it further here, because there are more pressing issues of concern than looking to the past.

Just weeks before US troop deaths under Obama hit 1000, the President announced his strategy for a troop drawdown in Afghanistan. In this speech, he outlined a proposal for removing 10,000 troops at the end of this summer, with 23,000 more following at the end of next summer. After that, troops will “continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

What many Americans inferred from this passage was that all US troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014. This is quite understandable, and was perhaps the intention of the passage. To say that, by 2014, “the transition will be complete” and “the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security” seems to suggest little or no role for the US military.

Unfortunately, this inference is invalid. The key statement here is that “our mission will change from combat to support.” It is this transition that will be completed by 2014 and not the transition out of Afghanistan. That means that there is still no deadline for the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Furthermore, if the Pentagon gets its way, it will be a long time before our military leaves Afghanistan. In August, the Telegraph reported that the Pentagon was in negotiations with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. Just to give you a little context: there were 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan in 2007. So, a drawdown to 25,000 troops by 2014 would merely be a return to 2007 troop levels. Funny thing that a support mission would require just as many troops as a combat mission!

But perhaps you're thinking that the support troops will have a different role than the combat troops.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had something to say about that. When asked what the difference is between combat and non-combat troops, Gates said that non-combat troops have a “combat capability” and will engage in “targeted counterterrorism operations.” Which prompts the question: how, again, are non-combat troops different than combat troops?

In 2007, 111 US troops died in Afghanistan. Extrapolating from this data, if the US leaves 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan from 2015, the beginning of the support mission, until at least 2024, we may lose over a thousand troops under the guise of a support mission.

This is unacceptable. A recent CBS poll indicates that two-thirds of Americans support ending the war in Afghanistan within the next two years. If Americans knew that the war isn't coming to an end in 2014, if they knew how insufficient the proposed US withdrawal really is, I think that they'd be angry. I think they'd be angry enough to do something.

That's why we created a new site, countdowntodrawdown.org. Here, we plan to track the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to educate Americans about the lack of a timetable for full withdrawal, and to mobilize Americans to demand an end to this war. You'll find a counter tracking the number of US troops still in Afghanistan, 10 facts about the US withdrawal, and a petition to President Obama.

Mark this grim milestone in the war by sharing this information with your friends and neighbors. With the Occupy protest movement gaining steam, and demands for ending the wars receiving more attention than they have in a while, this is the moment to make sure people know the reality of the situation we face so they can fight even harder and more effectively against it.

As Occupy Wall Street Marks One Month Anniversary, Movement Revises Mission, Still Lacks Exit Strategy

2011-10-18T00:12:00.003-04:00

NEW YORK—America heaved a collective groan today as the mercurial Occupy Wall Street movement revised its mission for the fifth time in as many weeks while continuing to avoid the issue of the occupation's end game.

In a consensus decision reached during last night's General Assembly, Occupy Wall Street protesters determined to hold a press conference this morning in order to “clear up some misunderstandings concerning the mission and goals” of the occupation, according to the press release.

Standing atop the stone staircase located at the west end of the newly christened Liberty Park, otherwise known as Zuccatti Park, Natasha Gary, a member of Occupy Wall Street's media working group, addressed reporters through the people's mic, a system of human amplification that involves the echoing of a speaker's statements by the surrounding crowd. After a resounding round of “mic check!” resonated through the audience, Gary stated that “the mission of Occupy Wall Street is very simple: to eliminate the influence of corporations in our government.”

She denied that this signaled a shift in strategy—only a clarification.

Previously, individuals within the movement have described a wide range of goals for the occupation, including ending corporate hegemony, making the corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, and addressing economic inequality.

When asked how the occupation plans to combat corporate domination of our political and economic systems, Occupy Wall Street organizer Liam Weeks replied, “we're not ready to make that announcement yet. We're currently researching alternatives and considering various paths in informal conversation as well as in our nightly general assemblies. But it should be quite clear to America what the immediate path ahead is for this occupation.”

But many Americans were left even more confused and frustrated than they were before the address.

“I just don't understand what corporate greed, student loans, economic injustice and the wars have to do with each other,” said Tammy Kerr, a tourist from Tulsa, Oklahoma. “And I surely don't get how they're related to the influence of corporations in our government.”

“Shouldn't they have come up with a strategy with particular, concrete goals before they took over the park?” asked Lou Chang, a truck driver from Flushing. “It's like they jumped into this occupation without thinking it through, and now they're stuck there with no idea how to get out.”

“These Occupy Wall Street people revise their mission every other day,” said Rick Tanner, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. “What they're trying to do is cover up the fact that they really don't have a mission. They don't know what they're doing out there. Meanwhile, they're wasting an egregious amount of tax payer money every day they continue this aimless occupation.” Tanner estimates that the total tax payer bill for one week of the occupation, including police overtime, orange netting, paddy wagons, pepper spray and plastic handcuffs, “runs into the hundreds of millions.”

Furthermore, as Tanner points out, “the protesters have no plan for ending their protest and no strategy for leaving the park.” Once the protesters do leave the park, “a massive clean-up is going to be required. We're looking at a long-term commitment here for the city's sanitation department. Ten years, maybe more.” Tanner estimates that the total cost of the occupation, as well as the hundreds of other occupations across the nation, could add up to “five to ten trillion dollars.”

Human rights groups and local activists are also concerned about the repercussions of an indefinitely long occupation of Wall Street.

“Occupations like this tend to leave behind dangerous artifacts that often lead to the injury or death of members of the native population long after the occupation ends,” said Deborah Barnum-Devois, Director of Freedom Not Bongos. “We expect local residents to stumble upon crochet needles and other hazardous arts and crafts material for decades to come.”

“I used to walk through this park everyday on my way to work,” said Goldman Saks investment banker Jonathan Meyer. “Now, I have to walk half a block out of my way because the walkways in the park are packed with the occupation's equipment.” Meyer paused a moment to shake his head solemnly before adding, “it's been really hard on me, mentally. I had to jet down to Saint Maarten last weekend to recenter myself. I may have to do the same this weekend.”

“Injustice is being done here,” Meyer proclaimed, gesturing toward the park. “I hope America wakes up to the human cost of this occupation.”

Meanwhile, some experts, such as Franklin Silversmith, a sociologist at Columbia University, are concerned that the occupation could make more young people turn to banking as a career, ultimately leading to a greater influence of Wall Street over America's foreign and domestic policy—not less.

“Young people who are growing up in areas under occupation and who are being subjected to such cruelty as incessant folk music and direct democracy, like the children of Manhattan's financial district, may turn to banking as a means of retribution,” explained Professor Silversmith. “For instance, banking would give them the opportunity to secure all public and private lands in the hands of the banks, thus effectively denying the right to assembly.”

But demands, exit strategies, and human rights aren't the only issues connected with this occupation.

“What we should be asking is, 'why do these protesters want to occupy this particular park?'” said Heritage Foundation analyst Phil DeLongo. “Zuccotti park is in a prime location in the middle of the financial center of the world, where a one bedroom apartment goes for $2,500 plus a month. It's close to the water front, there's easy access to pretty much every subway line plus the Path, and it's within walking distance of not only Wall Street but City Hall, Folly Square and Chinatown. There's a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Duane Reade, all within reach. Plus, it's pigeon-free, which in and of itself makes it a very valuable outdoor space, New York City-wise.”

But the natural resources and strategic importance of the space aren't the only sources of potential profit, explained DeLongo. “Who got the contract to clean the park for the occupation? Who is handling their food services? And who is manufacturing and selling them their tarps, their cardboard, their markers, and their drums?”

“Someone is profiting from this occupation. What we need to find out is who.”

Asked whether there were any leads, DeLongo admitted that, while he had no evidence to draw a justified conclusion, “it's got to be George Soros.”

“And if it's not Soros, it's definitely [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”

Soros nor Ahmadinejad could be reached for comment.

Beyond Asking "Why?"

2011-09-11T12:41:00.001-04:00

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. And freedom will be defended.”

The memory most often recounted by those in New York on September 11th must be how clear and blue the sky was that day. I, for one, will never forget that sky. It was unblemished, a pure cerulean dream. And then came the cloud, though it was not the sort that carried rain—it held the sins of men. When the wind blew north the next day, I breathed in that cloud—that acrid, deathly thing—and I, and all Americans, have borne its burden ever since.

But many Americans do not see this burden for what it is, for it is not simply a grief for the events of that day. One of the lessons of September 11th should have been that events do not stand in isolation: causes extend far and wide, in time and space, and so do consequences. And perhaps now, more than ten years ago, there is a greater understanding among the general public of the hidden nature and history of U.S. foreign policy. I know that my own understanding and perception of things has grown and changed. Albeit I was only 17 on that fateful day, a college freshman for a mere week, but having been a JROTC cadet in high school, required to deliver a weekly presentation on international issues, I fancied that I was more knowledgeable than most my age. It turned out that I was quite in the dark. So, after September 11th, I wondered “why?” Many Americans did, and some even asked it of our leaders. But the answer they received was deceit.

In the days following that infamous Tuesday, I watched no television, avoiding the news or tuning it out when it happened to be on in the room. Even then I felt uneasy about the effects such programs would have on my conception of recent events. I saw the effects that it had on the people around me—their anger, their impetuousness—which seemed counterproductive given the moment.

So it was only second-hand that I learned of the explanation being proclaimed by our government for the attacks. I remember the moment fairly well because it was the first time my father and I had a substantive disagreement about politics and world affairs. A Vietnam vet, he had opposed my joining the JROTC, believing that it would lead me into the Armed Forces. Having been a draftee, he held that he had done enough service for everyone in his family. But, somehow, he still believed that the United States was a benevolent force in the world and that anyone who opposed America must be wrong. At the time, I believed this as well. But for him, being a lifelong New Yorker, having worked a block away from the World Trade Center for 20 years, having watched the towers being built during his lunch hours, an attack on New York ossified a loathing that needed no explanation for its persistence, only a direction for its emittance.

The scene took place during a car ride near my family's home. We were, of course, talking about September 11th. My father informed me that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, al Qaeda, were the prime suspects. I had heard of them before, having been familiar with the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. In those cases, I had never asked “why?” Perhaps because they took place far away, or because the casualties were not that great. But at this moment, I did ask, “why?” I asked, “do they know why they did this?” My father, his voice laced with scorn, replied, “because they hate our freedom. They hate our way of life, and they want to destroy it.”

“But that doesn't make sense.”

“Why not?”

“It doesn't seem like a good reason. They don't like the way we live? What does that have to do with them?”

“I don't know. It doesn't matter. They're ideologues. They're crazy bastards.”

“Is this the reason they gave? That Osama bin Laden gave? Has anyone asked him?”

“Why the hell should we ask him?”

“Because there has to be more to it than that.”

After which one side of the conversation devolved into epithets and evasions. But it turns out there was far more to it than that, although I wouldn't know this until much later. Listening to our leaders, though, one would have been led to believe that these “enemies of freedom” hated not only that ideal contained in their appellation but “our value system”, “our political system”, and “democracy” in general as well. They “resented” our “successes of society.” They targeted America because it's “the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world” and “freedom's home and defender.” But this wasn't an attack just on the United States, it was an attack “against civilization.” The United States was “called to defend freedom” from those whose goal was “remaking the world” by “imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere,” whose objectives were to “change our way of life” and “restrict our freedoms.” But it wouldn't be al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden or the Taliban that accomplished this latter feat—it would be you, Mr. President.

But even among the lies there was truth hidden, accessible to those with the background knowledge to fill in the gaps. It's amazing how differently one can understand the following passage from Bush's September 20th address to Congress given a different set of beliefs—how differently I understood it then and how I understand it now:

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what they see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

Imagine now that you believe that, for the most part, the United States government is a benevolent force in the world. You do not know much about the history of U.S. intervention, and what you do know, or think you know, is that the U.S. intervenes, if not always, then most of the time, for the good of the people of that nation in which it intervenes—or, at the very least, for the good of the American people. This is what many Americans believed then; this is what many Americans believe today. This is what I believed on September 11th. And so, even though I had questions, even though I could not accept the talk about the terrorists wanting to change everyday life in America, even though I thought there might be something more to the explanation than what we were hearing, I believed that these people, these terrorists, attacked the United States because it supported freedom and democracy in countries where they sought fundamentalism and totalitarianism.

I believed this for a long time. My awakening was painfully slow, partially because my interest in politics and world affairs lagged in college. I became frustrated with political rhetoric, with turbid debates and ad hominems. I stopped paying attention to the news. It wasn't until late 2007, when the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program was released, that my interest was renewed. I wondered why there was such tension between the U.S. and Iran. This time, instead of just wondering, I picked up some books. I began to read about the history of U.S.-Iran relations. I uncovered that hidden history about the Anglo-Iranian oil company, now known as British Petroleum; about the reprehensible way the British government treated the Iranian people; about Mohammed Mossadegh's plan to nationalize the oil company; about the failed attempts of the British government to overthrow the duly elected Prime Minister; and about the successful coup staged by our own CIA, planned in the basement of the U.S. embassy, to install the Shah of Iran, whom the United States then proceeded to support for two decades in his bloody repression of his own people. It was this repression that led to the Islamic revolution. When people ask, “why does the United States have such a sour relationship with Iran?” they are often told it's because of the hostage crisis, or because the Iranian regime is a totalitarian regime that, by its very nature, hates America. But that the United States bears some responsibility for this state of affairs is rarely explained.

I read voraciously and began to see this same pattern play out in the histories of many U.S. relationships. What I didn't understand on September 11th, but what I do understand now, is that some people are angry at the United States not because it supports freedom and democracy around the world, but because it supports just the opposite. From the Shah of Iran to Pinochet to Suharto, for decades, the United States has been overthrowing democratically elected leaders, sponsoring repressive regimes and international policies, and providing training and funding for death squads in order to control the people and resources of foreign nations. Out of the three governments Bush mentioned in the passage above—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan—all three were ruled at the time by dictators who served at the pleasure of the United States, often supporting policies that were unpopular with their people in their attempts to appease their “ally”—in particular, policies pertaining to a certain apartheid regime with which the United States colludes in its humanitarian crimes. Two of those countries continue in this state. And it is not toward freedom or democracy or even the interests of the American people that these policies are pursued, but for the gains of the few—the few here and the few there—in those realms the few are all too concerned about: money and control.

This is the history of the United States that you do not learn in school or from major news outlets. This is the history that you must seek after yourself. And it is this history that September 11th compels us to understand.

I know that it is difficult to accept these claims. It was difficult for me to do so. I don't mean to defend bin Laden or al Qaeda but to explain why they have found support in some places, why they have been able to recruit and find refuge amongst some people, why their message has resonated with them. I don't expect anyone to be convinced by what I've written here. What I do hope, though, is that you spend this 10th anniversary not solely in remembrance of the tragedy of that day but in contemplation of the causes and effects. Ask again, “why?” Ask, “what don't I know about U.S. foreign policy?” Ask, “what is the true nature of the governments and international policies the United States supports now and has supported in the past?” Ask, “if I lived under that sort of regime, or was subjected to that sort of policy, and I knew the United States supported it, how would I feel about that country?” Ask, “what do the terrorists and others angry at America say?” Ask, “is current U.S. policy confirming their claims?” Conduct research, don't just rely on the news media or political pundits for your answers. Go back in history, and then go further back, because while some events may no longer live in American public memory, they may be all too alive in the memories of those in foreign countries. Be skeptical and follow the money. Then ask yourself the most important question of all: “what can I do to change this?” That is how we can prevent another September 11th—not by invading or occupying other countries and perpetuating the crimes that the terrorists accuse us of, but by looking within and asking how we can make U.S. foreign policy reflect our true values, the ones Bush himself proclaimed: respect and dignity and human worth.

Ten years distant, I now know that the sky that day was a dream, for the clouds had advanced long before the first plane hit its mark.

In Wake of Token Drawdown Announcement, U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan Under Obama Set to Reach 1,000

2011-06-30T16:26:00.000-04:00

Only a week after the President stood before the nation to proclaim the successes of the war in Afghanistan under his guardianship, the Obama strategy is set to reap one of its most grisly rewards: within the next few days, 1,000 U.S. troops will have died in Afghanistan since President Obama took office, according to iCasualties.org and our counter, "U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs. Bush" (right). By comparison, 575 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan under President Bush. In other words, after managing the war for a mere quarter of its duration, Obama is responsible for nearly two-thirds of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan.

What is that I hear? Ah, it's a groan coming from up in the balcony. I believe they're saying, “of course more troops were going to die under President Obama's Afghanistan strategy than President Bush's. More troops means more deaths. It was only because Bush ignored Afghanistan that Obama had to expand the U.S.'s troop commitment in the country. And now you're blaming him for it?”

I think that there are a number of things wrong with this argument, the primary one being that President Obama didn't have to escalate the war in Afghanistan; he chose to do so. There is no law of nature that describes the necessity of a President's expanding a flailing war whenever he encounters one. President Obama was beseeched by numerous Members of Congress, think tanks, organizations, and individuals (the linked materials being illustrative, not extensive) not to pursue a long-term, open-ended counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, not to engage in nation-building. He was warned of the futility, of the inevitable waste in both money and lives. But the President chose, knowing full well the likely consequences, and knowing full well the maxim we hear echoing from the balcony—that more troops means more deaths—to commit a total of 70,000 troops to Afghanistan in not one but two “surges”. He could have chosen otherwise: to narrow the mission from rooting out the Taliban and propping up an unpopular, corrupt puppet government, to dismantling al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He did not. And it is telling that it is only the latter mission that can remotely be deemed successful, although what success there has been has not been due to the large troop presence in Afghanistan.

The second issue I take with the argument above is with the invocation of the maxim that more troops means more deaths. Sure, more troops in harms way seems, intuitively, to lead to more troops dying. What's surprising here, however, is not merely the number of troops that have died under Obama; rather, it's how quickly the casualties have piled up.

The war in Afghanistan was waged for roughly seven years and three months under President Bush, but President Obama has only been overseeing the war for two years and five months. In those two years and five months, the total number of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan has increased by 274%. More troops means more deaths, but it also means more deaths much more quickly.

Let's keep in mind this maxim of “more troops means more deaths” but shift our discussion from the present to the future.

Last week, President Obama announced his plan for a drawdown from Afghanistan: 5,000 troops now, 5,000 more by the end of the year, and another 23,000 by the end of next summer, which will leave roughly 68,000 troops in the country in September 2012. There were only 34,000 troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office. So even at the end of his proposed drawdown, there will be twice the number of troops in the country than when he took office. And, as we know, more troops means more deaths.

The kicker is that the U.S. doesn't need so many troops in Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda, seeing as how there are fewer than 100 of them left in the country. As for the Taliban, only a political settlement will end that conflict, as the President himself recognized in his speech last week. Consequently, if President Obama adopted a more significant and speedy drawdown strategy, as, among others, the Afghanistan Working Group, the Center for American Progress, the CATO Institute, numerous U.S. Congressmen and national editorial boards, as well as 27 U.S. Senators, endorsed, troop levels in Afghanistan would have diminished drastically by the end of this year. May I propose the counter-maxim, “less troops means less deaths,” as the one to live by?

How much longer will we keep such an enormous amount of our citizens in harms way? Unfortunately, the President wasn't so clear on how—or when—those remaining 68,000 troops will leave Afghanistan. He said that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan will transition from combat to “support” by 2014, but what he didn't say is how many troops this “support” mission will require. If it's anything like the support mission in Iraq—where, nearly a year after the transition was completed, 50,000 troops remain—we may need to mark many more grim milestones before the end comes.

One final note: those of you who have been paying attention to the news and whose arithmetic skills are not lying dormant will have noticed that the total number of deaths that I'm reporting here, 1,575, is less than the number that some organizations and news sources have been reporting recently, which is over 1,600. Allow me a moment to clarify this ambiguity that's been pervading coverage of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan.

There are two figures that are often reported interchangeably, deriving from two different sets of data. One of these sets is data for the war in Afghanistan. The other, larger figure is for Operation Enduring Freedom, which not only includes the war in Afghanistan, but U.S. military activities in Yemen, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and other locations. Oh, you didn't know that we had U.S. troops dying in Yemen, the Horn of Africa, or the Philipines, or that it was part of Operation Enduring Freedom? Well, don't you learn something disturbing everyday!

A Reaction to the President's Afghanistan Announcement

2011-06-24T16:29:00.000-04:00

Hey guys, did you all hear? We're getting out of Afghanistan! Yes, finally, after nearly ten years, over 1,500 American lives, countless Afghan (and Pakistani) lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, the President says we're pulling our forces out and the war is going to end! Hold on, I have the quote right here:

… starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point.

Wait a second—what did he say? Only 10,000 troops? But, does he know that we have over 100,000 in Afghanistan? And that there are less than 100 al Qaeda left in the country?

Let's do the math: 10,000 out by the end of this year leaves us with over 90,000 troops in Afghanistan. Another 23,000 by summer 2012 brings us down to roughly 68,000. There were about 34,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan when Obama took office. So, one year from now, the President's proposed drawdown will leave us with double the amount of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than were there when he got involved in this whole mess. Is this sounding less like a withdrawal plan and more like a bait and switch to anyone else?

And then the remaining 68,000 American forces … wait, what is the plan for the rest?

After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

“Our mission will change from combat to support.” “By 2014, this process of transition will be complete.” Putting these together, we get that, by 2014, the mission in Afghanistan will be a “support” mission instead of a “combat” mission. “Support” mission sounds reassuring. But, curious me, I want to know a tad more. How many of the troops will be removed at this “steady pace”? How many will be required to stay as part of this “support” mission?

Well, let's look at the best example we have: Iraq. The combat mission in Iraq ended in August 2010, and the mission now is one of “support”. So, we must not have that many troops there, right?

Not so fast. In September 2010, U.S. forces in Iraq were reduced to just under 50,000. A year later, there are still nearly 50,000 troops in the country. So, if we leave a proportionate number in Afghanistan (using the highest number of troops as denominator in both cases), that would leave a bit over 30,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a “support” mission. Which is just a smidgen under the number of troops that were in Afghanistan when Obama took office, with no plan for removing them. Now that's some sophisticated chicanery!

But, of course, some major news outlets would have us believe otherwise. The LATimes heralded the reduction as “major”, while the NYTimes deemed the President's withdrawal proposal “substantial”, claiming that he is “speeding” the pullout from Afghanistan. How could they get it so wrong?

Well, if you insist on comparing the mass of an ant to that of a water molecule, of course you'll come to the conclusion that the ant is a giant. It's been reported that Petraeus preferred an initial drawdown of 5,000 troops with another 5,000 out by next summer. Now, if Obama had announced anything less than 10,000, the show would have been revealed for the farce it was. Because, really, if Obama had gotten up in front of the nation and proclaimed that his long anticipated troop drawdown would amount to a four-digit number, even the cameraman would have been obliged to laugh. The five-digit number gives the proposal an air of robustness—and the fact that Obama chose the smallest five-digit number should clue us in that this was merely about airs.

And let's not forget that uniformed U.S. forces are not the only ones in Afghanistan. There are roughly 40,000 international troops, 110,000 contractors, 290,000 Afghan National Security forces, and 150,000 Pakistani troops on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In six months, with our 90,000 U.S. troops, that will be about 680,000 forces against less than 100 al Qaeda. Seems a bit overkill.

Something isn't right here. Oh, yes, it's that the objective of U.S. policy in Afghanistan isn't just to dismantle al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it's to … wait, what is it again?

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: No safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies.

Right. The funny thing about slogans is that they often miss out on much of the substance. On your reckoning, Mr. President, al Qaeda's affiliates include the Taliban, right? Or, at least, elements of the Taliban. Or, well, in any case, if they become too powerful, the first thing they'll do is turn back on that giant neon sign on the Af-Pak border that proclaims “Welcome, al Qaeda!”

Also, excuse me for asking, but how exactly do we keep Afghanistan from being a safe haven for these groups?

We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people, and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures –- one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Well, that's informative. “Build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures.” What kind of partnership is this? Does it require leaving a substantial “support” force in Afghanistan? And is it just me, or are others hearing “nation-building” echoing throughout this segment? Oh, Mr. President, I thought we had ridden you of this nation-building nonsense.

Also note that Obama said the goal is to ensure “no safe haven” for al Qaeda, not “no safe haven in Afghanistan.”

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We'll work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keeps its commitments.

Of course: Pakistan! Because the authorization for the use of force includes Pakistan. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

As Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the Rand Corporation, told the LATimes, "I don't think 10,000 is going to have a meaningful impact on the strategy." New speech, same strategy—a strategy that's been defeated by both argument and experience so many times that everyone is just about sick of bringing it up. The issue has been so overworked even Congress has caught on. A few weeks before the President made his announcement, 27 U.S. Senators signed a letter addressed to Obama calling for “a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.” They go on to say,

Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront our terrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan.

The only way to end the conflict in Afghanistan is by a political settlement, one that reconciles all Afghan groups, including the Taliban. Obama did recognize the importance of a political settlement in his speech. But a substantive commitment to withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan—and, yes, a shift in strategy—is necessary for these talks to be successful. Unfortunately, the drawdown outlined by President Obama just might not be enough.

And the war continues …

Restart

2011-06-09T20:11:00.002-04:00

I'm restarting this blog because I need somewhere to put my political writings. Also, I felt it a shame to waste such a fantastic header graphic as the one donning this blog. The Menacing Pleb has returned! Take that, Augustus!

The posts below date back to 2008. I'm leaving them up for posterity's sake. Go ahead and take a gander, but don't laugh too hard or I'll cry.

History Case Study: Guerilla Warfare

2008-04-24T11:16:00.015-04:00

The following is an excerpt from Robert Kee's The Green Flag: A History of Irish Nationalism, the definitive work on the subject, originally published in 1972:

Anything short of [the IRA's] total annihilation by the Crown forces was going to leave [the IRA] in a position of advantage. For the government to negotiate with them at all was to undermine much of the attitude it had adopted towards them throughout, to recognize at least some substance in what they stood for and acknowledge them as representatives of the Irish nation. To this extent, though Sir Hamar Greenwood might talk manfully as late as May 1921 about fighting on 'until the last revolver had been plucked from the hand of the last assassin', the government were engaged in a losing battle...

Militarily, the British Army, by a series of large sweeps and the use of flexible columns of their own, were proving increasingly troublesome to the IRA's flying columns, who were also short of arms and ammunition... The essential truth of the time, militarily, is that thought the IRA did not have the same control of parts of Ireland they had had in the middle of 1920, they were now more experienced and better organized, and to have beaten them would have required a far greater military effort than any yet seen in Ireland.

Subsequent experience of regular forces with guerrilla movements enjoying support from their own people - in Palestine, Cyprus, and Algeria - suggests that a military victory is never possible in such circumstances. Once such guerrillas have been able to establish themselves effectively at all there can only be a political solution. British public opinion in 1921, deeply disturbed about the violence in Ireland and the apparently inevitable lawlessness of Crown forces in the prevailing conditions, would have been most reluctant to see further repression on the inevitably gigantic scale required. In this sense the IRA won a victory by forcing political negotiation.

Although all guerrilla war situations differ in some way or another, the unifying characteristic between the Irish case and the "war on terror" is "guerrilla movements enjoying support from their own people." The support of the people doesn't have to have existed from the beginning of the movement - the 1916 Easter Rising was extremely unpopular with the Irish people to the extent that the arrested participants were booed by crowds as they boarded ships for transport to England. What began to turn Irish public opinion was the subsequent executions of the leaders of the rising, who were turned into martyrs in the Irish tradition. It created a clear division between Irish and British. The Irish saw the situation as the British executing Irishmen instead of the government executing rebels.

Even in light of the executions, successive IRA activities, such as the murders of Royal Irish Constabulary officers, British government officials and Irish people suspected as "spies" for the British government, were not met with acceptance - in fact, they were harshly rebuked, especially by the Catholic Church. It was only when the RIC officers and Auxiliaries began committing acts of reprisal on the common people that Irish public opinion turned forever towards the Nationalist cause. The IRA manipulated the people into compliance, but that was not the important point. What was important to the Irish was that Irish people were being killed by representatives of the British government. The mythology that the IRA clung to, of the Irish physically suffering under the arms of the British, became reality - there was finally a war between the Irish and the British.

Now we must pose the question: Why has al Qaeda attacked the United States?

1. They want to kill all Americans;
2. They want the US out of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia and Israel, and they thought that attacking the US would make us pull out;
3. They want the US out of the Middle East, ultimately, but they know that they won't be able to accomplish this without the popular support of the people of the Middle East; thus, they hoped for reprisals from the US which they could use as a rally cry to their cause.

My money is on 3. In a video broadcast on al Jazeera in December 2001, Bin Laden is clearly using recent US bombing campaigns as a rally cry to his cause:

It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. Those who lived under continuous US raids for the past months are aware of it. How many villages have been destroyed and how many millions have been pushed out in the freezing cold? These men, women and children who have been damned and now live under tents in Pakistan, have committed no sin. They are innocent. But on a mere suspicion, the United States has launched this fierce campaign... After they (the Americans), for no reason, bombed entire villages to scare the inhabitants, the defense secretary said it was the United States' right to exterminate the peoples since they are Muslim and since they are not American.

While Bin Laden has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American civilians, nowhere is it stated that the ultimate goal of the movement is to kill all Americans; rather, the killing of Americans is a means to an end as well as a cleaver in the distinction between Muslims and Americans - ALL Americans are enemies of ALL Muslims. This, again, is a rally cry to his cause.

But a rally cry to what? In February 1998, Bin Laden and al Zawahiri issued a fatwa which detailed a few grievances: US troops in Saudi Arabia, coercion of leaders of government in the Middle East, and the support of the Israeli state. These are valid grievances, though I do believe that the leaders who are propped up by the United States do not serve totally unwillingly, for they know that without US support they would not be in power.

This is part of the problem. While the IRA represented a nation insofar as they were backed by elected officials, al Qaeda does not represent a specific nation nor a specific people, although they wish to represent all Muslim people. They know that this is not the case - that average people would rather live their lives in peace than to fight and be subject to abuse for a cause which is quite foreign from their everyday existence. That is why they had to make al Qaeda's cause an issue in the everyday existence of the average Middle Easterner; that is why they have provoked the United States into open war. They, like the IRA, are manipulating their people into a struggle they would otherwise not get involved in.

The leaders of our government have been perpetuating the notion that there is no precedent for the terrorist activities of Islamic extremists but we have seen that this is simply not the case. There may not be perfect matches between current events and historic - this is a universal truth - but there are similar cases available to use as reference points for current policy. Thus, given the relevant historical case studies for our current situation in the Middle East, specifically the case of Ireland, here are the possible logical conclusions we may draw concerning the mentality of our leaders:

1. The leaders in government are not aware of these historical cases;
2. The leaders in government are aware of these historical cases but have chosen to ignore them;
3. The leaders in government are aware of these historical cases and have chosen their policy with these lessons in mind.

Many people would like to believe that 1 is the case either to feel superior to their leaders or to protect themselves from the alternative, but I believe that is simply ridiculous. 2 is tempting, but I believe that this case can only be adopted if 3 can be shown invalid, so let's try to reason 3 to absurdity:

History tells us that when a group with guerrilla movements has the cooperation of the civilians in a location, one must either kill or disarm all of the guerrillas or come to a political solution. A political solution is ruled impossible; thus, every guerrilla must be killed or disarmed. Killing or disarming every guerrilla will take a tremendous amount of troops, time and resources, but as time goes on the guerrillas become more experienced and more guerrillas are imported or made by the cause, thus making it nearly impossible to clean the country out. If it is impossible to kill or disarm all of the guerrillas and the only solution is to kill or disarm all of the guerrillas, then we have a perpetual war.

Unfortunately, this is a valid argument, though perhaps it gives the government too much credit. Why would the United States want to get involved in a perpetual war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Let's return to the Irish situation. The British didn't want a perpetual war; they wanted the Irish to acquiesce to their authority. To the British, preserving the empire was the top priority, for that meant control over the trade and resources of that land and places to house their vast military operation.

The object in the US-Iraq situation is also control - over resources, most notably Iraq's oil reserves, and over the area, a strategic military position in the center of the politically volatile Middle East. The difference between this and the Irish case is that the US has no claim whatsoever to Iraq, which is a sovereign nation. Thus, if there were some sort of peace in Iraq, the US would be forced to relinquish control of it to its people. Since there is strife, the US is able to maintain military and administrative control. A perpetual war allows the United States to continue its presence in Iraq until a political agreement is reached, it is forced out by insurgents or forced by world or domestic public opinion to abandon its enterprise. As a result, the US has to secure that none of these situations come to fruition before the government decides that it is no longer in need of Iraq. The current administration will never acknowledge the terrorist parties as political, nevertheless negotiate with them. This in and of itself would be considered, they would claim, a victory for the terrorists and a major setback for the United States. Additionally, while the US doesn't actually have the resources to continue this war, it does seem willing to mortgage the nation to continue the fight for as long as it deems necessary. Finally, the propaganda machine has been working overtime to quell negative public opinion with pearls such as, "they attacked us because they hate our freedoms." The same argument can be run on Afghanistan.

Thus, each side is manipulating its people into compliance. But where does it end? The lessons of history have shown us that the only solution is a political one. But in the case of al Qaeda, how does the United States negotiate with a group that does not represent a clear political body? And in the case of so-called "terrorist" groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, how do we combat the doctrine "thou shalt not negotiate with terrorists"? It is apparent that the continued use of military force will only rally more Muslims to the insurgents' cause; but, perhaps, that is precisely what U.S. policymakers want.

My Primary Vote: Barack Obama

2008-02-03T16:46:00.007-05:00

Super Tuesday is just around the corner and I, along with voters from 24 states around the country, will be casting my ballot in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

Unfortunately, the person that I was planning to vote for dropped out of the race recently. As it stands, only two candidates remain. Thanks, American Primary System and Mass Media!

Since the two remaining candidates are almost identical to one another in their professed policy concerns and I believe them both willing to "play the game" (even though Obama claims he wouldn't - there is a reason why he is still in the race), I have chosen my candidate based mostly on image and an abhorrence of dynasty.

Yes, I choose Barack Obama - and I have prepared a defense.

As concerns professed policy, like I said, they differ slimly. For instance, neither of their health care policies are truly universal, neither removes the ridiculous link between health care coverage and employer (although they claim to be portable, without expanding the tax exemption on health care premiums to non-employer-provided policies, almost everyone will still be tied to their employer's insurance) and both merely wish to patch up holes in a leaky roof that needs to be replaced - Obama's plan does not include a mandate for adults and has provisions for children's health that Clinton's plan does not mention: more physical activity (as in gym class, because a lot of inner city and poorly performing schools lack this standard) and a healthy cafeteria menu.

Obama is also not hostile to the idea of a single-payer system - he just doesn't have the guts to run on it. His reasons for promoting his plan are pretty much bullshit - he doesn't want people to have their lives disrupted too much? We already have a system, so we are stuck with it and we should just try to improve what we have? That's just private-insurance/pharmaceutical industry propaganda. People should support a single-payer system - they are infiltrated with bull from the media about "lack of choice" Canada didn't always have a single-payer system - they changed their infrastructure to allow for it! Which is what will be necessary in the US. I am hoping that Obama is running a mainline campaign in order to get into the White House and then allow for the "change" he keeps yapping on about. I hope, but I will not hold my breath.

But, like I said, it comes down mostly to image. I do hate to admit favoring someone because of their image, people around the world judge the members of a nation by their leaders. Thus, the image of a President is not necessarily important to those at home; rather, it is a strong signal to the rest of the world, letting them know which way we wish to take our country.

Many nations around the world have already elected women to their highest posts - most of these women were members of dynasties from which male relatives had ruled in the past. Thus is the case with Hillary Clinton. If she is elected, by the end of her first term, two groups of people will have ruled the nation for 32 years - The Reaganites (Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like) and the Clintons. I do not like the precedent that this sets.

Barack Obama is a member of a minority class in this country, he has no political ties in his family and he is a master orator. On top of that, his name, Barack, or baarack(a), means "blessing" in Arabic! You must think that would have some impact on the Arabic world's perception of the United States. To elect a fresh-faced, self-made man who has proven inspirational to some would set a new precedent much more attractive than the alternative.

Now, his supposed faults: the popular media has perpetrated the idea that Obama's major faults are his lack of experience, related to that, his ineffectiveness in the Senate and his willingness to talk to leaders of hostile nations.

Let us first tackle the experience question.

I'm amazed that no one brings this up, but Obama's experience is very similar to another former Illinois State legislator turned President - Abraham Lincoln.

While Abe vied for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, he won only one bid - for the House of Representatives.

Yes, that's right: before becoming President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln spent one sputtering term - that's two years - in the U.S. House of Representatives - the rest of his political experience was in the Illinois State House of Representatives.

Obama has spent four years as the junior Senator from Illinois - not only has he spent more time in federal office, but he has played a more influential part in the Upper House, mostly because Lincoln shot off his big mouth and made enemies of the big men.

The two have even more in common - they are both great orators, both are progressive thinkers, and both have been viewed as a new face either to a burgeoning political party, in Lincoln's case, or a dying party - and nation - looking for a revival.

I don't mean necessarily to say that Obama will be the modern Lincoln - that has yet to be seen. I mean that he should not be discounted merely on his "lack of experience".

Concerning his effectiveness in the Senate, I must admit, he is a bit lacking, though not in comparison to his rival - Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama sponsored 66 bills and 86 amendments in the 109th Congress and he has, so far, sponsored 63 bills and 50 amendments in the 110th Congress for a grand total of 129 bills and 136 amendments. 120 bills did not make it past committee, six were enacted and only one is actually effective. For a good laugh, here are 5/6 of the bills Obama has been able to get passed:

S.RES.133 - A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 - A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
S.RES.291 - A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
S.RES.516 - A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
S.RES.529 - A resolution designating July 13, 2006, as "National Summer Learning Day".

Apparently, National Summer Learning Day is a cause close to Senator Obama's heart.

This is the policy-oriented bill that passed:

S.2125 - A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee, and only 2 effective ones have been enacted. That's one more than Senator Obama, plus she has served four more years than him in Congress. GovTrack even gives Senator Obama a better same effectiveness rating relative to peers than Senator Clinton- so why is Senator Obama's effectiveness constantly brought us as an issue in comparison to Senator Clintons? There seems to be no reason beyond libel and propaganda.

Senator Obama has also able to get passed 21 amendments in the 109th Congress and 18 so far in the 110th - almost all of them actually affecting policy. He even managed to get six of his amendments ruled out of order by the chair - two when trying to hinder former congressmen's ability to obtain lobbyist positions, and four when trying to regulate hurricane contracts. That's promising.

What I think is important here is not his success rate - obviously his bill success rate is nothing special, although his amendment pass rate is pretty good - but what sort of bills and amendments he is sponsoring. He has been willing to push the envelope in the past, as is proven with the out of order rulings. He has also sponsored bills concerning the same issues he has been campaigning for: energy efficiency, government transparency and anti-corruption, implementation of Information Technology for the sake of health administration efficiency, etc.

The final major "problem" with Obama's candidacy is his desire to convene a meeting of leaders of the Middle East to ask the question: what is your problem with the United States and what can we do to aid our relations?

Many people think that the president needs to be strong and resolute and, thus, not speak to leaders of countries that want to hurt us unless they are willing to submit. Well, let's see: that's been our policy for the last half-century or so and look at what it's got us!

Ever since September 11th, we have been told that Muslims attack us because they hate our freedoms. That has always sounded a bit illogical and chaotic to me - if they merely hate us, then they will never stop killing us until either they kill all of us or we kill all of them. That, of course, is what the current administration wants us to think - it makes an everlasting war on the Middle East necessary.

But the people of the Middle East do have valid grievances against the United States - hell, 90% of the world does! Western Europe has been ravaging the rest of the world ever since they were able to jump on ships and travel huge distances with relative ease. The US was a late-comer to the imperialist party - by that time imperialism had to dissemble itself in the raiments of economic development, free trade and democracy promotion - but I believe the country has made up for its tardiness with the intensity of its avarice. Constant medaling and a need to control everything has made the US - and, unfortunately, common Americans who don't realize the extent of the atrocities of its leaders over the past half-century - hated around the world. It is time to try to rectify the situation and showing that we are willing to listen to others is a step in the right direction.

Thus, I have made my decision to back Barack Obama. While Clinton will surely perpetuate the status quo, Obama offers a fresh-face to American politics abroad and a new, more attractive precedent.

The MTV/Myspace Debate: Best Forum this Season?

2008-02-03T00:23:00.001-05:00

Who would have guessed that the network most famous for covering the exploits of horny twenty-somethings would bring us arguably the best Presidential Forum to date?

I mean, it doesn't take much to compete with the CNN/YouTube debates - or, for that matter, any of the debates that aired on mainstream networks because of their extreme bias to the "major" candidates - but wow. It wasn't until the end of Huckabee's segment that I realized one, Huckabee is kind of making sense here, and two, I am probably watching the best Presidential Primary coverage I have seen - and it's on MTV.

Now, most of what Mike Huckabee said in his segment he has said in previous debates, but he came off very well and I think he was able to sum up the positive notes of his campaign very nicely. He obviously has a good sense of humor - his previous appearances on the Colbert Report are a testament to that. He also has some good ideas, like repairing our infrastructure and eliminating of the IRS, although there are some kinks to the latter proposal. Are businesses going to pay the same taxes on goods and services as the average consumer? If not, what keeps businessmen, executives and such who already write off or attribute a good deal of their personal expenses to their companies from avoiding more taxes than common people? And if businesses are supposed to pay the same amount in taxes on goods and services, then won't they merely pass along the expense to their own consumers and employees, just as they do now?

The most distinguishing mark of this forum was the ridiculous - and by that, I mean equal - amount of airtime Ron Paul was alloted. I don't think that he has been allowed to speak even half as long as this in any other major telecast. Apparently, he wasn't even invited to the forum at first. So either the push from his supporters, many of whom are young, or the lack of a second Republican candidate willing to appear, or a combination of both propelled MTV/Myspace to finally invite him.

Ron Paul did not field his first question very well. He was asked how he would deal with the Darfur situation. As he is prone to do, he referred to the constitution - which does not allot for the US government to get involved in these sorts of conflicts, no matter how humanitarian. He did, however, say that the UN - if the UN ran the way it ideally should - should get involved, or a humanitarian effort outside of the government, likely funded privately, but not the government using US tax dollars. He does have a point but this particular point does not rub well with idealists who oft are young.

Ron Paul also hangs onto the constitution a little too strongly - he sometimes comes off like a Christian who reads the bible literally. Ron Paul - ever hear of an Amendment? Those were encouraged by the founding fathers, you know. As times change, so must the constitution.

But I am with him most of the way. I admire the fact that he has read the constitution, understands the foundations of its law, and allows it to govern his stance on issues - it's sad, but he is unique in this manner. I especially like how he brought up the section on how to deal with pirates in relation to how we should deal with terrorists. Since the terrorist witch hunt began, we have had people feeding us bullshit that the fight against terrorism was unprecedented and that we must go from country to country smoking them out and, oh, disposing a few dictators here and there and murdering a large portion of the populace - and here comes Ron Paul with an analogous scenario in the constitution!?! I need to look this up - in fact, I am committing right now to read the entire constitution and write a commentary on it. Stay tuned.

I must say, a while back, I would have thrown all of my support and campaigned for Ron Paul. He is the sort of Republican I used to be back before I realized how greedy and conniving people are - quite frankly, they are assholes, for the most part. This lead me to the realization that markets are not efficient, de-regulation will not make the market work better, it will only allow people to manipulate it even more - to sum up, the people cannot be trusted to be ethical enough to allow a free market system to work. This is why I am no longer a Republican. But in an ideal world where people weren't complete garbage I would be a Ron Paul Republican.

The Democratic half of the forum was, as could have been predicted, pretty boring. There were only two things worth mentioning: one is that I felt that there was a bias in favor of Obama. His questions were easy - they were flattering more than anything. On the other hand, all of Clinton's, besides perhaps the first, were scathing - she was able to deflect, for the most part, but then again, she is a politician.

Lastly, Clinton's first question concerned student loan debt and the runaway cost of college tuition. She talked about getting rid of the private lenders and making college lending an entirely government-sponsored program so that all students - not just those whom FAFSA claims need it - can enjoy loans at a low, 3% rate. She also talked about loan payment programs, such as those that some law school graduates already enjoy - if you take a low-paying job in the service of the community, the program will pay your loan payments as long as you are in the job, or you pay a low percentage of you salary. The latter could be bad if you are just making minimum payments on your loans - this will mean that you will owe a hell of a lot more later because of the continuously accruing interest. But the former is, like I said, similar to programs that some law school grads currently enjoy and would, I believe, be a great incentive for people bogged down in debt, such as myself. The best idea, though, is for universities to reign in their expenses and stop charging ridiculous amounts of money.

I also loved how she called the new college grads who have a lot of debt and who take on a job they hate as "indentured servants" - that's the exact terminology I use! Actually, that's pretty sad.

The Democratic Primary Debates: A Close Examination of the Data

2008-02-02T16:17:00.003-05:00

In this post I am going to examine the data from this election season's Democratic presidential primary debates.

There are 21 Democratic Debates listed on the wikipedia Democratic Primary Debates page - surely there may be more, minor forums, especially ones where only one candidate was highlighted, but these have been excluded. The most important data here is for the debates on major networks because these have the greatest visibility and, thus, audiences. Out of all of these debates, 6 were sanctioned by the DNC - one of which was canceled due to the WGA strike. The sanctioned debates are marked with "DNC Sanctioned".

I added ratings information where available (apparently you have to be a "qualified journalist" in order to access the full Nielsen Ratings). I also noted which candidates were invited, which attended, and if there were any exclusions, on what basis and the candidate's response to his exclusion.

Let's take a look at each of these. Debates on major networks are in red:

April 26, 2007 - Orangeburg, South Carolina - MSNBC
Candidates:
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio
Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire - CNN
Ratings: 2.8 million
Candidates:
All

June 28, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - PBS
Candidates:
All

July 12, 2007 - Detroit, Michigan - NAACP webcast
Candidates:
All

July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina - CNN/You-Tube Debate - DNC Sanctioned
Ratings: 2.6 million
Candidates:
All

August 4, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois - YearlyKos webcast
Candidates:
All except Biden, who was at Congress for a vote

August 7, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois - MSNBC
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who failed to submit a written questionaire by the deadline.

August 9, 2007 - Los Angeles, California - Logo (LGBT) Network
Candidates:
All except Biden and Dodd, who had scheduling conflicts. Gravel was not invited originally because he didn't meet a fundraising threshold, but because of ardent protest from his supporters, he was finally invited.

August 19, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa - ABC - DNC Sanctioned
Candidates:
All

September 9, 2007 - Coral Gables, Florida - Univision (Spanish Network)
Candidates:
All but Biden

September 12, 2007 - Yahoo! and Huffington Press "mash-up" posted online
Candidates:
All

September 20, 2007 - Davenport, Iowa - PBS, AARP
Candidates:
All but Obama, Kucinich and Gravel. Obama declined his invitation, citing that he was limiting debate appearances organized by special interest groups. Kucinich and Gravel, on the other hand, were excluded because they did not meet AARP's criteria: a campaign office in Iowa and one paid campaign representative. Kucinich cited special interest bias on the part of AARP.

September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire - MSNBC - Official
Candidates:
All

October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - MSNBC - DNC Sanctioned
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who failed to meet the requirements set for invitation: 14 visits to New Hampshire and/or Iowa in the last year, polling at 5%, or $1 million raised. Gravel ardently argued against his exclusion. Political director for NBC, Chuck Todd, called Gravel's claims "ludicrous." Gravel staged a counter-debate across the street from the NBC venue. When Kucinich was excluded from the MSNBC debate on Jan 15 and complained that the three other candidates didn't mention his exclusion, Gravel called him out for not mentioning his exclusion from this venue.

November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada - Nevada Dem Party/CNN - DNC Sanctioned
Ratings: 4.5 million
Candidates:
All but Gravel, who was again excluded. Controversy flew when it was suggested that the "ordinary voters" who gave questions were planted and their questions censored. This is a given, I thought?

December 4, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa - NPR "radio only"
Candidates:
All but Richardson, who was attending a funeral for a Korean War casualty.

December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California - CBS - DNC Sanctioned - CANCELED
Canceled because candidates refused to cross picket line.

December 13, 2007 - Johnston, Iowa - De Moines Register/Iowa Public TV
Aired on: Iowa Public Television, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, C-SPAN 3
Candidates:
All but Kucinich and Gravel, both excluded because they did not have a campaign office in Iowa, and Gravel did not have a full-time staff member in-state. Kucinich fumed at the exclusion. At this point, journalists took this opportunity to bring up the fact that Kucinich often refuses to debate candidates for his congressional seat.

- Jan 3 - Biden and Dodd drop out of race due to poor showings in Iowa.

January 5, 2008 - Manchester, New Hampshire - ABC/Facebook
Ratings: 9.36 million; 1.4 million when re-run on CNN
Candidates:
Top four showing in Iowa: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson. Kucinich, again, issued angry remarks.

- Jan 9 - Richardson drops out of race due to a poor showing in New Hampshire. From here on out, the "Big Three" will refer to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada - MSNBC
Candidates:
"Big Three". Kucinich and Gravel excluded. The current controversy.

January 21, 2008 - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina - CNN
Ratings: 4.91 million
Candidates:
"Big Three". Kucinich and Gravel excluded.

- Jan 24 - Kucinich drops out of the race.

- Jan 30 - Edwards drops out of the race.

January 31, 2008 - Hollywood, California - CNN
Candidates:
Obama and Clinton. Man, no one saw THAT coming.

From this data we can see that the first exclusion of a candidate occurred on August 9, 2007 - five months before the first primary ballot would be cast. Regular exclusions began on September 20 - this was the beginning of Gravel's perpetual exclusion. On December 13, Kucinich began his perpetual exclusion - two weeks before the first primary.

Most of these exclusions were made on a financial basis - either not having a campaign office in-state, a full-time staffer, a fundraising floor or a combination of these.

Now, this is considered weeding out the inviable candidates. Sure, Gravel was polling poorly, but Kucinich was polling well in certain straw polls and less scientific audience polls. And even if these candidates weren't "polling well", haven't we seen from New Hampshire that polls can be wildly off? Not to mention the positive feedback loop that polls create with the voting audience looking for the "most viable candidate".

It's also fairly obvious that even when all of the candidates were invited to a debate, the "Big Three" were given the most air time, and out of those three, Clinton and Obama have been considered the front runners and Edwards the solid third-place candidate. Even the candidates joked about it on-stage! The candidates who remain have been selected from the start.

But why these candidates? Why Clinton and Obama?

A future post will attempt to tackle this question.

Kucinich Exclusion Sparks Question: Is There a Better Way?

2008-01-17T15:04:00.002-05:00

As has been widely noted, Dennis Kucinich was barred from participating in the NBC Democratic Debate on January 15th.

A little background: NBC publicly announced its criteria for inclusion in the debate to be a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll, which Kucinich met by placing fourth in the USA/Gallop poll earlier in the month. NBC sent him an invitation and then, less than 44 hours later, rescinded it, stating that it had changed its criteria for inclusion to limit participation in the debate to only three candidates. In response, Kucinich sued NBC in Nevada for breach of contract, a lower courts judge filed an injunction to prevent the debate from going on if it excluded Kucinich, and then NBC appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada to have the ruling overturned. Needless to say, NBC won, and the debate continued without Kucinich or much debate, period.

In any case, Democracy Now! gave Kucinich the chance to respond to some of the debate during their daily broadcast. You can watch it, listen to it, or read the transcript here. Skip about 25 minutes in to get to Kucinich's part.

But why did NBC wish to exclude Kucinich from participation in the debate? Kucinich claims corporate bias. Sure, Dennis, the big bad corporations are out to get you, just like the aliens in their UFOs. Poor, funny looking man.

Thankfully, NBC News correspondent Kevin Corke cleared up everything and explained the network's position on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show:

"We were expecting to have the three major candidates. Why? Well quite frankly, because those are the probable candidates. That pool is the most viable pool. And truthfully, most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say. After all, those are probably the three they’re going to be picking from."

How right you are! Why should we want to hear the views of a candidate who has no chance of being elected because no one knows much about his ideas?

As if he couldn't dig himself a bigger hole, Corke continues, addressing Kucinich's presence at the debate:

"I’m not so sure it serves the voters that well, but certainty there’s a feeling here that every voice needs to be heard."

This brings me to my point: why are private corporations allowed to have this much control over our presidential election?

Now, I am not of the opinion that every news source and television station should give equal air time to each political party, as there are enough competing sources that bias to either party to allow people access to the full spectrum of popular ideas. I use "popular" to denote mainstream major party candidates or ideas because, let's face it, those are the only ones you are ever going to hear about in the mainstream media, even with an equal air time mandate.

Presidential primary debates are a different matter. Many Americans get most of their information about candidates from the debates. The debates are also the biggest outlet for the "minor" candidates' views - they do not have big budgets to saturate the media with ad campaigns and they are certainly not mentioned often by newscasts and panel shows. Lastly, only one debate airs at any given time, sponsored by one network and/or one special interest group, thus presenting one "slant" on the matter - whether it be through outright physical exclusion of candidates from the debate or a symbolic one by focusing on the pre-selected, "most viable" choices.

What is most disturbing is that every network - and every special interest group that has had its debate aired on a major network - has shown the same bias to the same candidates, namely Clinton and Obama, and to a lesser extent, Edwards.

It is this homogeneous showing that leads to the question: is there a better way? In the next few posts, I will take a closer look at the debates, making my focus first on the Democratic presidential primary debates as they have had the highest frequency of exclusions.