October 29, 2007 by Alpha.

Some time in the sixth century BC in China, Sunzi composed a code of maxims for the sensible prosecution of a war–not just the how, but the when and the why. He writes in his Art of War that “to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” and that “the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.”

There’s a great deal of murmuring and muttering continuing to circle concerning whether or not and if so to what extent there presently looms a broadening of the occupation of Iraq into Iran.

Of course, no one is talking about it like that. The discussion seems to be about “bunker busters” and “bombardments” with the plain assumption that Iran won’t retaliate in any way. Does that really seem like something that even could happen?

If we were to hypothetically pursue some strategic initiative involving smart bombs and precision-guided widgets and whatnot, here’s what would happen: the 1,458 km border between Iraq and Iran would evaporate, a large portion of the 30 million Iranians ages 18-49 would be hastily activated for military service and they would fortify the border and in a trice we would find ourselves involved in a three way regional conflict between the predominantly Sunni Iraqis and the predominantly Shi’ite Iranians, neither of whom have much love for the Stars and Stripes.

The most successful combatant is he who imposes his will on his opponents without resorting to war to do it. While recreating the preconditions to the genocide in Rwanda may serve someone’s interests it certainly would not serve the interests of the United states. What is the enlightened nation to do when faced with an oppositional, defiant opponent and regional rival?

First, we must remember that we do not and cannot act in a vacuum. Iran would respond to any at of war with a vigorous response, if only because the leadership of Iran would have to respond as such in order to maintain their authority over their own people.

Second, we must consider our position. We are involved in two wars now, with almost half our military missions staffed by private contractors (or mercenaries, if you prefer). Our ability/willingness to deploy another 100,000-plus soldiers to keep the Iranians out of Iraq is pretty well depleted. One wonders whether Americans have much stomach to fight a war with one group so that we can “protect” another war.

Third, we have to consider where exactly we would like to be. It seems as though there is some division on this point: do we prefer war or peace? There’s certainly some sizable portion of America that seems to relish war. They bask in the simplicity and the unity of a nice, long, ugly scrap. I understand–there is a purity of both action and purpose, and an intoxicating abandonment of critical thought that can be very charming.

Whenever we consult the angels of our better judgment, whenever we take a moment to think of honor, dignity and nobility, we know that peace is preferred.

So why, I ask finally, would anyone suggest that we bomb Iran?

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Alpha.

Dear President Bush,

You and I don’t agree on much, these days. You say potato, I say quagmire. We both like baseball, though! What are your thoughts on designated hitters?

I digress. You and I would probably agree, more or less, on the short list of major threats facing the United States today. You and I would definitely both put al-Qaeda. As international criminal organizations go, you might have to skim James Bond novels to find anything better. They are thought responsible for significant attacks in 15 countries in the last 20 years, beginning with the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s.

I would like, as a member of the 9-11 Generation, to offer you some advice on the remainder of your term in office. Consider the terrorist, from the suicide bomber in Tanzania to Osama bin Laden in Waziristan. What is it that he seeks? What, in his mind, justifies his sins?

The stated mission of al-Qaeda, as put forth by Mr. bin Laden, is the establishment of a new Muslim caliphate. To that end, he requires the elimination of foreign forces from Muslim lands. In pursuit of this goal he has made a double-edged campaign, on the one hand working to galvanize the people of the Middle East to cast out the blasphemers (that’s us, Sir) and on the other hand using that same religious fervor to whip up a violent global effort to make our continued presence in the region as expensive and untenable as possible. These two efforts reinforce one another, as one hand washes the other.

Any thinking person would see that this delicate relationship is the lynchpin in Mr. bin Laden’s plan. If we refuse to kowtow to his demands or if we refuse to play the evil interloper in the holiest places in the most popular religion in the world, perhaps we can eliminate this particular danger.

You have, however not done these things, Sir. You have encouraged the American people to be afraid of Mr. bin Laden, when they are more likely to die by being struck by lightning or by choking on a toothpick than they are to be killed in an act of terrorism. Even more stupefying, Sir, is the nearly quixotic fervor with which you have delivered Mr. bin Ladin and al-Qaeda ammunition with which to besmirch and defame whatever good name we may have had in the Middle East. Perhaps worst of all, you appear to have attempted to best our foes at their own game by directly attacking the civil rights of American citizens and wilfully ignoring your responsibility to the Constitution.

Here is my advice to you, Mr. President: do, with what time remains everything that you have not done in the first six-and-a-half years of your presidency. Open your eyes, and open your mind. As Machiavelli wrote, while it is better to be feared, it is never to your benefit to be hated.

If you cannot do good Sir, I beg you to do better.

Posted in National, Rants | 2 Comments »

July 18, 2007 by Bravo.

In a recent fit of insomnia, I happened upon the C-SPAN coverage of the all-night Senate debate over funding for the war in Iraq. I caught the arguments of a Republican Senator from Oklahoma pressing the panic button repeatedly over an early withdrawal of troops. Early withdrawal, he said, would place the troops in grave danger.

Am I missing something? Seems to me that staying in Iraq longer is the grave danger for troops. Maybe our leaders would be better served to get some sleep before the next vote.

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | No Comments »

July 4, 2007 by Alpha.

Dear President Bush,

I have tried, I really have, to give you the benefit of the doubt. I started trying when evidence surfaced in 2000 that your aide, Mr. Rove, had run some remarkably offensive push-polls indicating that Senator McCain might have had some scandalous interracial dalliances.

But today, sir, I am truly glad that I never doubted you. I never, not for one delirious moment, doubted that you were exactly the scum-sucking would-be tyrant you have shown yourself to be.

The true shame of what you have done may, if you are very lucky, die with me and my generation. This is unlikely. Your many misdeeds have been so brazen and heinous and cowardly that you are most likely to go down in history as the most shamefully wanting “leader” that this nation has ever had. I sincerely hope that you wear that mantle for many, many years.

Now, just before America’s birthday, you have shamed her again.

You swore to the American people that whoever was responsible for the public release of Valerie Plame’s identity would see hard justice done to them. That you took that disclosure as a serious crime, worthy of severe penalties.

Now that a man has been found guilty in precisely that treason, you find that time in prison, any time in prison at all, is simply too cruel, to inhumane to lay on his head.

Sir, Mr. Libby is guilty. He lied while under oath and he lied to the FBI, obstructing an investigation that would very likely have buried Vice-President Cheney, another whose notoriety will hopefully serve as a lesson to future generations.

What is the pursuit of justice worth, Sir? You once claimed that we would find justice in Iraq. Surely, if the ugly shadow of justice that breathes in Baghdad is worth the lives of a few hundred thousand men women and children, then some real justice in Washington, D.C. must be worth a guilty man at least visiting a prison cell.

But no. Mr. Libby has been isolated, he has been terrorized, and he must now be rewarded for his loyalty. Of course, he can’t be pardoned, because then he could not claim his Fifth Amendment right to refuse self-incrimination.

Sir, I am truly disgusted.

My disgust notwithstanding, I try to be a benevolent man. In that spirit I will offer to you some guidance.

First, you must accept that the deception has failed. You have turned back into a pumpkin, and the wheels have fallen off of your Presidency. I know that you crave respect. What man does not? But you can no longer manufacture or demand that respect. If you want any more respect, you will have to earn it.

I urge you, I ask you, I beg you to tell the people of the world the truth. The real truth. No matter how ugly. Tell us who was responsible for what happened in 2000 and 2004. Tell us who was on that Energy Policy task force back in 2001. Tell us who gave you the forged documents that you used to propel the United States into Iraq. Tell us why. Tell us where the bodies are buried and show us the skeletons in your closet.

Sir, enough lies. Perhaps truth will change your legacy.

You concluded your statement on the occasion of the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence  thusly: “The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.”

This gets at the crux of your dysfunction as an American President. You have repeatedly pursued those uses of your power which are “appropriate,” or “justified.” This standard is unacceptably low. You are not just the “Commander Guy.” You are the most powerful man in America, and you are responsible for her health. I know that responsibility has never been your strong suit, but the time has come when you have only two options.

You must either spend the rest of your Presidency taking responsibility for your past actions and working to exemplify the kind of stewardship that this nation so badly needs after six years of your lies and manipulation, or you must simply go down in history as an excellent example of the excesses of power.

The choice is yours, sir.

Alpha

Posted in Presidential, National, Rants, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

June 26, 2007 by Alpha.

Whereas the Republican Presidential nomination is developing into something approaching a cohesive narrative (Giuliani and McCain collapsing, Fred Thompson fizzling, and Mitt Romney picking up the proverbial spare) the Democratic picture remains murky. Here are the national polling numbers:

Six Months Ago/Today
Clinton: 35% / 34.4%
Obama: 18% / 22.6%
Edwards: 12% / 12.4%
(Gore): 12.5% / 15.9%

Hillary Clinton has a huge cash-on-hand advantage, that should serve her well as February 5th approaches. Her fundraising numbers for Q2 are rumored to be low, but my gut tells me her campaign is sandbagging. Her campaign has, however, started showing signs of “fruntrunnerosis,” from the quirky selection and announcement of her “campaign theme” to the downright strangeness of the Clinton webteam’s own Drudge-style newsfeed. And although she leads decisively in national polls and holds leads in New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida, she’s lost traction in South Carolina and Iowa. If her national ad machine can’t make Super Duper Tuesday a big victory, Hillary might face big troubles.

The biggest present threat to Clinton comes from Barack Obama, who shows a recent but sizeable lead in South Carolina and who beat Clinton’s mark for primary-funding in Q1. He is hugely popular with younger voters, and has the netroots support to drive that crowd to the polls. The big questions hanging over Obama now are ones that only he can put to rest: Is America ready for a President with a black dad? Is Obama ready for the White House?

John Edwards, though locked in third for the last several months, is still sitting on more than enough cash to mount an effective advertising blitz going into February. He has an excellent staff and he enjoys a significant lead in grassroots organizing in many states, particularly Iowa, where he leads in polling. Edwards certainly has everything he needs at this point to be a contender, but if he wins it will be a thrilling race.

And then there’s the rest of the pack. These five candidates are all strong(ish) but are more marked by question marks than by exclamation points. Will Joe Biden let Sam Brownback steal his Three-State Solution for Iraq? Will Chris Dodd impress, well, anyone? How did Dennis Kucinich land his wife? Is Mike Gravel older than Bob Dole? What’s Bill Richardson’s strategy for dealing with the fact that he is hispanic in the middle of a truly ugly immigration debate? Finally, just how long is Al Gore going to continue getting asked if he’s running? If he’s said it once, he’s said it a thousand times: “Well, not right now, no.”

I strongly doubt that, with the amounts of money being raised by the top three candidates, any of the second-tier fellows will make it through the end of the year. That said, a certain Arkansas governor made quite a splash in 1992, have been ranked as low as 13th in primary polling. Who the heck knows what will happen?

Edwards has raised enough to keep up the fight till the end, no matter how bitter. But realistically, his numbers can’t compare to the $20M+ Clinton and Obama have raised, especially given the frontloading of next year’s primaries. The Obama/Clinton fight is going to be an ugly one: Clinton’s certitude against Obama’s optimism; Clinton’s cold calculation against Obama’s apparent improvisation; Clinton’s triangulation against Obama’s guesstimation; Clinton’s ineptitude against Obama’s inexperience.

Then there’s the elephant in the room. A woman? Competing against a man? Who is only half white? This is madness. You’d think that the Democratic party had turned into some kind of heathen land, where people who weren’t white men could, maybe, just maybe, have a shot at the Presidency.

In all seriousness, we have to ask ourselves which prejudice is more entrenched, and getting liberals to freely discuss a quantitative or even qualitative comparison of racism and sexism isn’t my job. If it were, I’d demand a big raise.

I’ll cut right to it: Hillary has a lead among women, but she trails among men. Obama looks good among African-American voters, but that difference is smaller. Is it possible that women like a woman who frequently gets called masculine more than blacks like a man who is… mulatto? I think so, unfortunately.

During the 2000 election, a friend asked me who I thought the United States would elect first: a black man or a white woman. As I said then, I say now that sexism runs deeper than racism. The big problem with that is that Barack Obama apparently isn’t qite black enough. The mulatto problem, one which has been close to my heart for some time, won’t be solved by Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Barring a significant mistake by the Clinton campaign, or an unprecedented act of sheer genius by the Obama camp, I’m picking Hillary Clinton to face off against Mitt “the Glove” Romney next year.

Posted in Elections, Presidential, National, Campaigns | 6 Comments »

June 14, 2007 by Alpha.

Stuck’s last post mentioned a personal hero of mine: Jim Gilchrist. What a great American! In spite of all of the evidence, both statistical and ethical, that his stance is wrong, he goes right on ahead “defending our borders.” With guns and white supremacists. Who but a giant among men could stand in the face of all things that are good and say “No more! I’ve had it with all these brown people!”

A new poll from the LA Times that has been making the rounds (ah, that ‘new poll’ smell!) shows that 63% of Americans and 65% of Republicans (!) support a path to citizenship including the standard set of hurdles: fines, learning English, and “other requirements.” You know, all that stuff that us natural-born types had to do to be citizens.

The issue of immigration reform hits me close to home. Well, it hits in my home. My mother is foreign-born, but moved to the United States at the age of 16. Earlier this year, after living (legally) in this country for more than 40 consecutive years, she finally got to take her oath as a citizen.

She did it the way you’re supposed to. She got her green card when her family moved to the US and she renewed it as required. In early 2006 she was finally persuaded it was time for her to start speaking her mind, and making her voice count. She wanted to vote.

The processing of her paperwork took some 14 months. The various fees cost her in excess of $4,000. Her husband, children, in-laws, nieces, nephews, colleagues and friends (mostly) are all American citizens. If that makes me one of those awful “anchor babies” Mr. Limbaugh talks about, then I’m damn proud to be one.

Now maybe my mom isn’t a fair test case. After all, she’s fair-skinned and is a native speaker of English with advanced degrees and a good income and a strong set of professional and personal resources. She’s not a Guatemalan single mother of two who doesn’t speak English well enough to get directions to a bus stop. Does that mean that my mom is worth more to America than our fictional Guatemalan family? For that matter, why aren’t we asking which of these two women value America more?

Simply put, it is because this debate isn’t about the preservation of the inherent value of American citizenship, as Rep. Tancredo would have us think. It’s about the preservation of the inherent value of people.

63% support Bush’s plan. 63% support a plan that requires people to pay an unspecified fine to clear their illegal status, return to their countries of origin, learn to speak English, then come back to the US and get in the back of the citizenship line, all for the privilege of paying thousands of dollars to become an American.

How many currently illegal immigrants have legal access to that kind of money? We’re talking about at least $4,000 per person before the fines and costs of returning to their native countries. This path to citizenship is a largely impractical carrot at the end of a relativistically long stick.

So what happens in the interim? Mr. Bush’s wonderfully creative Guest Worker Program! Under this program, illegal immigrants would get to apply for a special new kind of work visa. What’s special about it? How about being put to work at a job where getting fired means getting kicked out of the country? How about being required to pay unspecified fines before entering the program?

So where are all of these illegal immigrants going to come up with the kind of money they’ll need to get into either one of these programs? Especially with all of those undoubtedly hefty unspecified fines running around! They won’t. These folks are mostly working for little more than subsistence, and I anticipate that most of them won’t be able to raise the funds they would need to “go legit.”

So what happens when you offer 12 million undocumented workers access to programs they can’t afford to get into? Nothing. Nothing changes. Whether or not a deal can be struck to pass this so-called “immigration reform” we’re still going to have 12 million undocumented workers.

But if immigration reform really does blow your skirt up, I have two ideas. First, a huge number of illegal immigrants are actually paying tax on their income. These taxes go to Social Security and other social welfare programs, which non-citizens do not benefit from. I propose that all of these payments be credited against the cost of entering either one of Mr. Bush’s programs. Not only would doing so eliminate one of the most fundamentally unfair conditions imposed upon the undocumented worker (taxation without representation?!) but it might also drive up the number of people seeking legal status.

Second, and this one seems like a no-brainer, enforce the law as it stands concerning the employment of persons lacking legal authorization to be employed. Specifically, reinstitute the IRS worker status verification system, which simply looked at how many hours a week a given Social Security Number was taxed for and flagged anomalous ones. “574-10-2405 was taxed for 200 hours of work last week? Better talk to the employers.” Then, fine the shoes off of anyone who knowingly employs someone without status.

Alright, folks. I must have made someone out there in Blogistan angry. Let’s hear it.

Posted in Washington, Rural, Presidential, National, Rants | 1 Comment »

June 11, 2007 by Alpha.

If current trends are maintained, you can expect to see more Democrats in cowboy hats in the future, a new Center for Rural Studies report indicates.

Key findings:
No significant ideological shift: 50% of respondents still call themselves conservatives.
Significant drop in Bush’s approval: he’s polling at 44%, down 10 since his reelection and down 22 since 2002.
Rural voters are currently favoring Democrats in both Presidential and Congressional races, but these leads are within the margin of error.
Finally, almost 60% of respondents know someone serving in Iraq, though a plurality still support “staying the course.”

What does this mean? While the numbers aren’t convincing us that a whole lot has changed, it’s starting to look like the resurgance of Democratic performance in rural areas last cycle wasn’t just a fluke. We might also hope to see a return to the near-parity that President Clinton’s campaigns scored, and as soon as 2008.

The most pointed question is this: Which, if any, Democratic candidates can deliver the rural vote?

That’s a question I’m honestly not prepared to answer some 18 months out. I’ll be thinking on it, I assure you, and I’ll be sharing my thoughts.

Posted in Rural, National, Campaigns | 1 Comment »

June 11, 2007 by Alpha.

The Senate will today vote on a non-binding resolution expressing a lack of confidence in Alberto Gonzalez’s ability to execute his duties as Attorney General. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the resolution’s sponsor, has expressed doubts that the vote will reach the 60 votes needed to pass.

I’ve seen a lot of chatter suggesting that we should just ITMFA (Impeach The M* F* Already). While I’m totally on board with any meaningful attempts to get rid of Gonzo, I think that this resolution plays an interesting part in the fight to do so. If this resolution does pass, it proves we’ve got the votes in the Senate to impeach. Even if it fails, it puts everyone on record–it gives us a signed, sealed list of Senators who are on the bubble, a target list. If we know who we have to turn, that is what G.I. Joe used to call “half the battle.”

As an aside, Tony Snow spent some time on Fox’s awful Sunday Morning show describing in detail just how much Bush isn’t paying attention. While Bush may well plan on standing by his man, I see it as yet another of the previously discussed stalling tactics. Here’s our rallying cry: “Remember Rummy!”

Let’s give the thing the best chance we can. Call your senators this morning and let them know where you stand. 

Maria Cantwell (D-WA): 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D-WA): 202-224-2621
Larry Craig (R-ID): 202-224-2752
Mike Crapo (R-ID): 202-224-6142
Gordon Smith (R-OR): 202-224-3753
Ron Wyden (D-OR):202-224-5244

Outside the northwest, you can get quick contact info here.

Posted in National | No Comments »

June 5, 2007 by Alpha.

Hello and cheers! I’m Alpha, and I’m a blogger.

I’ll be responsible for the lion’s share of the national and international commentary hereabouts. And where to start but with Iraq news, if we can call it that.

We’ll begin at the Democratic debate in New Hampshire last night, with John Edwards fairly skewering Senators Clinton and Obama for caving in the recent supplemental spending showdown. Said Edwards, “…they went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating.” Both Obama and Clinton did vote as Edwards would have had them–to refuse to send Mr. Bush a bill without timelines. They failed to get in front of the issue, where they might have been able to actually get the original supplemental back before the President.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | 1 Comment »