Today, we're all remembering what happened 13 years ago. And we're facing tough questions that harken back to the decisions made in the aftermath of September 11.
Not even a year after 9/11 and the start of the Afghanistan War, then President George W. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq. We were initially told Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11. Then, we were told Saddam Hussein was providing safe harbor to al-Qaeda terrorists. Then, we were told Iraq was somehow part of the "Axis of Evil". Then, we were told of "smoking guns" and "mushroom clouds".
Ultimately, then President Bush got the war he wanted. Thanks to neoconservative allies in Congress like Senator
John McCain (R-Arizona), approval for the Iraq invasion was a snap. And Bush never had to worry about obtaining more funding for what later became a war of "liberation" and "spreading democracy".
Senator John McCain, along with so many of the other regular cable "news" talking heads and Sunday show pundits, have regularly been proven wrong on their constant assertions that all we need is another war in order for Americans to "feel safe".
But what if we don't need another war in order to "feel safe"? What if we don't need to repeat the mistakes from our last war in the region? What if we actually think before we act?
We can't afford to make the same mistakes we made in Iraq last decade. While Isis indeed poses a threat to regional stability in the Middle East, it's not the some rapidly approaching apocalypse for America. Yet if we make the wrong move there, we risk further destabilization of the region (and ironically, a stronger Isis).
Contrary to what certain "TEA" flavored media pundits like to say, sports analogies won't help. Neither will bombastic rhetoric. And probably neither will yet another full scale Middle East war.
Perhaps we should think some more before we act. We have no obligation to repeat the mistakes of the previous Iraq War. And we have no obligation to commit thousands more American troops to a geopolitical Pandora's Box that only promises more brutal & bloody mayhem if opened. However, there are 535 people on Capitol Hill who do have an obligation to hold a vote. We'd like for them to think and act on it.
Showing posts with label war and peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war and peace. Show all posts
Thursday, September 11, 2014
My Own 9/11 (& Deja Vu, Fog of War)
(Especially in light of President Obama's big announcement on Isis last night, I figured now's a good time to rerun this piece from September 11, 2011. I'll have more on the President's plan to take on Isis later today.)
September 11, 2001, is a day I can't forget... Even though it was a day that seemed to start like so many others had. While I was getting ready for school, America's beating economic heart and central political nervous system were under attack. And as I was starting what I just thought would be my second day of high school, my entire outlook on life would forever change.
That morning, I woke up as just another Orange County kid attending just another conservative Christian fundamentalist private school. In the following weeks, I would be relegated as "extreme" as that crazy "anti-American" extremist, Barbara Lee. Why? Well, I agree(d) with her.
It was my first experience of expressing dissent, and of paying the price for holding an unpopular point of view. In the immediate days following 9/11, there was a sense of national unity. And while it was helpful in many ways, on the other hand it allowed for the Bush Administration to embark on policy prescriptions that we would later learn to be quite harmful to our country. It was easy to go with the masses and cheer on "retaliation" against the "evildoers". It most definitely wasn't easy to point out what would happen once Congress gave George Bush a blank check to engage in endless war.
I was just trying to make sense of everything that was happening all around me... And it just wasn't making sense. Even as everyone else around me kept beating the drums for war more loudly, I kept wondering why we were doing this. My teachers and my own mother were asking why I sympathized with "terrorists". Other students just saw me as "the liberal weirdo". Nothing seemed to make sense then...
But it all comes together now.
Fast forward ten years, and now Rep. Barbara Lee's words ring more prescient and true than ever before. We're mired in multiple wars abroad, yet we supposedly can't afford to create jobs for the unemployed here at home. Nearly ten years after the USA (Un)PATRIOT(ic) Act passed, Americans are now asking where their freedom went. And now that memories of a nation so proudly patriotic seem so distant, Congress has reached a new low in unpopularity as seemingly anything and everything is being questioned.
In many ways, it feels like the tables have turned. Back then, I felt so alone in opposing what seemed so American as apple pie. But now, I'm trying to explain how things work to the very same people who are now losing faith in the entire American experiment. It can be sad to watch, but I can't lose hope that our people will recognize what needs to be done to restore our democracy.
September 11, 2001, is a day I can't forget... Even though it was a day that seemed to start like so many others had. While I was getting ready for school, America's beating economic heart and central political nervous system were under attack. And as I was starting what I just thought would be my second day of high school, my entire outlook on life would forever change.
That morning, I woke up as just another Orange County kid attending just another conservative Christian fundamentalist private school. In the following weeks, I would be relegated as "extreme" as that crazy "anti-American" extremist, Barbara Lee. Why? Well, I agree(d) with her.
It was my first experience of expressing dissent, and of paying the price for holding an unpopular point of view. In the immediate days following 9/11, there was a sense of national unity. And while it was helpful in many ways, on the other hand it allowed for the Bush Administration to embark on policy prescriptions that we would later learn to be quite harmful to our country. It was easy to go with the masses and cheer on "retaliation" against the "evildoers". It most definitely wasn't easy to point out what would happen once Congress gave George Bush a blank check to engage in endless war.
I was just trying to make sense of everything that was happening all around me... And it just wasn't making sense. Even as everyone else around me kept beating the drums for war more loudly, I kept wondering why we were doing this. My teachers and my own mother were asking why I sympathized with "terrorists". Other students just saw me as "the liberal weirdo". Nothing seemed to make sense then...
But it all comes together now.
Fast forward ten years, and now Rep. Barbara Lee's words ring more prescient and true than ever before. We're mired in multiple wars abroad, yet we supposedly can't afford to create jobs for the unemployed here at home. Nearly ten years after the USA (Un)PATRIOT(ic) Act passed, Americans are now asking where their freedom went. And now that memories of a nation so proudly patriotic seem so distant, Congress has reached a new low in unpopularity as seemingly anything and everything is being questioned.
In many ways, it feels like the tables have turned. Back then, I felt so alone in opposing what seemed so American as apple pie. But now, I'm trying to explain how things work to the very same people who are now losing faith in the entire American experiment. It can be sad to watch, but I can't lose hope that our people will recognize what needs to be done to restore our democracy.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Where to Start on Isis
This is something we touched upon last month. And this is something we must talk about today. Iraq is pretty much on a razor's edge right now. And now that Isis is killing journalists along with soldiers as it expands into Syria, alarm bells are ringing.
Even here in Nevada, Members of Congress are demanding some sort of strategy to take down Isis. But what should we do?
The usual "TEA" fueled suspects actually seem to be advocating exactly what Isis wants: a 21st century "crusade". And for a number of Republican politicians, neoconservative belligere nce is suddenly en vogue again. We guess all it takes is a foreign crisis for "libertarian populism" to be thrown out the window.
President Obama has already ordered air strikes against Isis in Iraq. Now, the President is considering rallying allies to expand the air campaign into Syria. This is now on top of the agenda at the NATO summit in Estonia (alongside the ongoing conflict in Ukraine).
Already, we're hearing plenty of opinions on what to do in Syria & Iraq. And that's all fine & dandy. We just need to see this debate move into Congress.
That's where it needs to be. That's where military action must be authorized before it proceeds. And no matter how much they want to avoid going on record with a floor vote, that's what must happen.
There are no easy answers here. There are plenty of good reasons to doubt the utility of yet another large scale US military intervention in the Middle East... But can we afford to do nothing? Some sort of action may be needed to curb Isis, but that action probably shouldn't involve useless bluster.
So what should we do? What we know for sure is that it needs to start with Congress stepping up to the plate.
Even here in Nevada, Members of Congress are demanding some sort of strategy to take down Isis. But what should we do?
The usual "TEA" fueled suspects actually seem to be advocating exactly what Isis wants: a 21st century "crusade". And for a number of Republican politicians, neoconservative belligere nce is suddenly en vogue again. We guess all it takes is a foreign crisis for "libertarian populism" to be thrown out the window.
President Obama has already ordered air strikes against Isis in Iraq. Now, the President is considering rallying allies to expand the air campaign into Syria. This is now on top of the agenda at the NATO summit in Estonia (alongside the ongoing conflict in Ukraine).
Already, we're hearing plenty of opinions on what to do in Syria & Iraq. And that's all fine & dandy. We just need to see this debate move into Congress.
That's where it needs to be. That's where military action must be authorized before it proceeds. And no matter how much they want to avoid going on record with a floor vote, that's what must happen.
There are no easy answers here. There are plenty of good reasons to doubt the utility of yet another large scale US military intervention in the Middle East... But can we afford to do nothing? Some sort of action may be needed to curb Isis, but that action probably shouldn't involve useless bluster.
So what should we do? What we know for sure is that it needs to start with Congress stepping up to the plate.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The Iraq Question
At one point, it seemed like it was beginning to fade from our memory. It was becoming "ancient history". And with so much to worry about at home, why must we think about it again?
But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.
The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.
In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.
Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.
US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).
What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.
By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.
Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.
As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.
But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.
The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.
In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.
Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.
US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).
What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.
By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.
Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.
As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Leave No Soldier Behind
As faithful readers here know, we try our best to avoid "Campaign Silly Season". But sometimes, the season becomes so silly that we can't avoid it any longer. Today happens to be that kind of day.
And we're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) couldn't hold back any longer. In fact, he tweeted this earlier today.
Whenever an American Prisoner of War has been taken, our armed forces always go all in to ensure the safe return of that POW. Always. Never before has this been "controversial"... Until now.
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) tweeted, "Best news I've heard in a long time! #standwithbowe", soon after news broke of the Taliban's release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. That tweet was later deleted, and one of Amodei's staff then "blamed" the earlier tweet on another staff member who sent it "without knowing the terms of the release or consulting the congressman".
Believe it or not, Amodei isn't the only Republican who's flip-flopped on #standwithbowe. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), and Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) all called for the safe return of Sgt. Bergdahl... Until President Obama announced the prisoner exchange. And then, all of a sudden, a common wartime practice became some "ACT OF TREASON!!!!!111111!!!!!11".
Oh, yes. That's right. They're going there. Move over, #Benghazi. #Bergdahl is the G-O-TEA's newest & hottest haute faux scandal.
And just like their previous favorite haute faux scandals, they're not even bothering to check the facts on Bowe Bergdahl. Rather, they're just leaving it to Republican campaign consultants and hypocritical blowhard scumbags to attack Bergdahl without any actual facts. Because, of course, Obama.
Whatever happened to "leave no soldier behind"? Whatever happened to due process? And hell, whatever happened to "country first"?
We don't know exactly how and why Sgt. Bergdahl went missing. We just know President Obama made sure he was brought home safely. And ultimately, that's what matter. He made sure to leave no soldier behind. Why does anyone want to punish him for that? There's "Campaign Silly Season", but this goes way beyond that pail.
And we're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) couldn't hold back any longer. In fact, he tweeted this earlier today.
"We rescue our soldiers first and ask questions later. If action by justice system is needed, I prefer American justice over Taliban justice."
Whenever an American Prisoner of War has been taken, our armed forces always go all in to ensure the safe return of that POW. Always. Never before has this been "controversial"... Until now.
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) tweeted, "Best news I've heard in a long time! #standwithbowe", soon after news broke of the Taliban's release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. That tweet was later deleted, and one of Amodei's staff then "blamed" the earlier tweet on another staff member who sent it "without knowing the terms of the release or consulting the congressman".
Believe it or not, Amodei isn't the only Republican who's flip-flopped on #standwithbowe. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), and Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) all called for the safe return of Sgt. Bergdahl... Until President Obama announced the prisoner exchange. And then, all of a sudden, a common wartime practice became some "ACT OF TREASON!!!!!111111!!!!!11".
Oh, yes. That's right. They're going there. Move over, #Benghazi. #Bergdahl is the G-O-TEA's newest & hottest haute faux scandal.
And just like their previous favorite haute faux scandals, they're not even bothering to check the facts on Bowe Bergdahl. Rather, they're just leaving it to Republican campaign consultants and hypocritical blowhard scumbags to attack Bergdahl without any actual facts. Because, of course, Obama.
Whatever happened to "leave no soldier behind"? Whatever happened to due process? And hell, whatever happened to "country first"?
We don't know exactly how and why Sgt. Bergdahl went missing. We just know President Obama made sure he was brought home safely. And ultimately, that's what matter. He made sure to leave no soldier behind. Why does anyone want to punish him for that? There's "Campaign Silly Season", but this goes way beyond that pail.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The Scandal That Isn't There (vs. One That Is)
Scandal! Scandal! It's time for a new haute faux scandal. And this time, it's (again) coming from Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And this time, it's (again) targeting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D).
So what happened? Long story short, Robert Gates decided to release a book that throws plenty of shade at the Obama Administration. Why? President Obama dared to question the wisdom of indefinite extension of the Afghanistan War and look for a full spectrum of options on Libya (in 2011). Apparently, Robert Gates didn't like President Obama asserting his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
And now, Gates is digging further back in time to try to read Senator Reid. No really, he's taking to the media to rehash comments the Senator made nearly 7 years ago on the Iraq War. Of course, he fails to mention that Senator Reid has been proven correct on Iraq.
We can't help but wonder why Republican politicians are chomping at the bit to see more of Robert Gates throwing political punches at President Obama, Senator Reid, and other top Democrats. Is it because they hope Gates' comments can revive their meme of #ObamaFAIL? Is it because they still refuse to acknowledge the Obama Administration's foreign policy successes? Is it because they want to use Gates' recent comments as ammo in their battle against President Obama & Senator Reid on Iran policy?
Or could the motivation behind the "Gates-gate" hype lie closer to home? Just as "Gates-gate 1.0" was starting to hit its stride in the media, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) screwed it all up with the emergence of his own (very real) Bridge-gate scandal. Might "Gates-gate 2.0" just be a clumsy G-O-TEA attempt at diverting media attention from the scandalicious slow motion implosion of Republicans' "Great White Hope for 2016"?
Whatever the motivation(s) behind "Gates-gate", it just seems like there's no there there. And we should keep this in mind in case someone decides to manufacture a new "Harry Reid SCANDAL!!!"
So what happened? Long story short, Robert Gates decided to release a book that throws plenty of shade at the Obama Administration. Why? President Obama dared to question the wisdom of indefinite extension of the Afghanistan War and look for a full spectrum of options on Libya (in 2011). Apparently, Robert Gates didn't like President Obama asserting his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
And now, Gates is digging further back in time to try to read Senator Reid. No really, he's taking to the media to rehash comments the Senator made nearly 7 years ago on the Iraq War. Of course, he fails to mention that Senator Reid has been proven correct on Iraq.
We can't help but wonder why Republican politicians are chomping at the bit to see more of Robert Gates throwing political punches at President Obama, Senator Reid, and other top Democrats. Is it because they hope Gates' comments can revive their meme of #ObamaFAIL? Is it because they still refuse to acknowledge the Obama Administration's foreign policy successes? Is it because they want to use Gates' recent comments as ammo in their battle against President Obama & Senator Reid on Iran policy?
Or could the motivation behind the "Gates-gate" hype lie closer to home? Just as "Gates-gate 1.0" was starting to hit its stride in the media, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) screwed it all up with the emergence of his own (very real) Bridge-gate scandal. Might "Gates-gate 2.0" just be a clumsy G-O-TEA attempt at diverting media attention from the scandalicious slow motion implosion of Republicans' "Great White Hope for 2016"?
Whatever the motivation(s) behind "Gates-gate", it just seems like there's no there there. And we should keep this in mind in case someone decides to manufacture a new "Harry Reid SCANDAL!!!"
Thursday, September 19, 2013
How Diplomacy Works
In the midst of all the latest and greatest manufactured crisis, it can be easy to forget about the real crises we face. Earlier this month, our eyes were on Syria as the nation seemed to be inching closer to joining the war already raging in that corner of the Middle East. But last week, President Obama scored a diplomatic breakthrough as Russia finally offered a deal for Syria to unload its chemical weapons that the US, France, and the UK could accept.
Since then, this story has continued... Along with the civil war. Unfortunately for many in Syria, the conflict remains. Yet even with some belligerent language continuing to creep into the international dialogue on Syria, an international consensus on how to remove the chemical weapons from the Assad Regime is still near.
And on top of this, we may be nearing another major diplomatic breakthrough. President Obama has recently exchanged letters with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and a deal may be near to prevent Iran from developing its own stockpile of nuclear weapons. While there aren't any official plans (yet?) to normalize US relations with Iran, it at least looks like there's some sort of dialogue and some sort of budding agreement on (refraining from developing) nuclear weapons.
While there are clearly still challenges ahead, it looks like progress is being made. So why doesn't it seem this way? That's a good question. And it may have something to do with certain politicians and talking heads not understanding how diplomacy works.
Fortunately for everyone, progress is being made on Syria and Iran. And progress is being made without any shots being fired. This is how diplomacy works.
Sure, it may not be as salacious as provoking armed conflict. And it may not be as "sexy" as causing a stir on the pages of Pravda. But again, this is how diplomacy works... And this is why Capitol Hill has been able to shift focus from real crises back to the usual manufactured crisis.
Since then, this story has continued... Along with the civil war. Unfortunately for many in Syria, the conflict remains. Yet even with some belligerent language continuing to creep into the international dialogue on Syria, an international consensus on how to remove the chemical weapons from the Assad Regime is still near.
And on top of this, we may be nearing another major diplomatic breakthrough. President Obama has recently exchanged letters with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and a deal may be near to prevent Iran from developing its own stockpile of nuclear weapons. While there aren't any official plans (yet?) to normalize US relations with Iran, it at least looks like there's some sort of dialogue and some sort of budding agreement on (refraining from developing) nuclear weapons.
While there are clearly still challenges ahead, it looks like progress is being made. So why doesn't it seem this way? That's a good question. And it may have something to do with certain politicians and talking heads not understanding how diplomacy works.
Fortunately for everyone, progress is being made on Syria and Iran. And progress is being made without any shots being fired. This is how diplomacy works.
Sure, it may not be as salacious as provoking armed conflict. And it may not be as "sexy" as causing a stir on the pages of Pravda. But again, this is how diplomacy works... And this is why Capitol Hill has been able to shift focus from real crises back to the usual manufactured crisis.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Really?
A little earlier, we caught up on the latest news regarding the possible diplomatic breakthrough on Syria. The Obama Administration is now agreeing to UN talks on Syria. While White House officials are publicly leaving military options on the table, they are looking closely into Russia's latest offer.
So against this backdrop, Senator Dean Heller (R-??!!) finally announced his opposition to military action against Syria. Um... OK?! And this came on the heels of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Duck & Cover) announced his opposition to military action against Syria.
Why did they announce this today? Frankly, this feels awfully "day late and dollar short".
Many Members of Congress have had to struggle over this decision. And many have reached differing conclusions for various reasons. And yes, some have even still had trouble reaching a conclusion very recently.
However, it seems awfully odd that certain Republicans have quickly abandoned theirbellicose foreign policy posturing "principles" to oppose President Obama no matter what. Some have even gone as far as to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin for recent developments while castigating President Obama for... Something, anything! And Republicans wonder why their party has become so dysfunctional?
Many on the left and on the right have differed with President Obama's Syria proposal for legitimate and principled reasons. That's not being questioned here. Rather, what is being questioned is politicians playing political games with the Syria issue.
In recent days, we've had a chance to have a legitimate debate on the use of force, and on the future of US foreign policy. It's just irritating to notice how some have tried to cheapen the debate by trying to score fast political points while ignoring the real policy issues at stake.
So against this backdrop, Senator Dean Heller (R-??!!) finally announced his opposition to military action against Syria. Um... OK?! And this came on the heels of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Duck & Cover) announced his opposition to military action against Syria.
Why did they announce this today? Frankly, this feels awfully "day late and dollar short".
Many Members of Congress have had to struggle over this decision. And many have reached differing conclusions for various reasons. And yes, some have even still had trouble reaching a conclusion very recently.
However, it seems awfully odd that certain Republicans have quickly abandoned their
Many on the left and on the right have differed with President Obama's Syria proposal for legitimate and principled reasons. That's not being questioned here. Rather, what is being questioned is politicians playing political games with the Syria issue.
In recent days, we've had a chance to have a legitimate debate on the use of force, and on the future of US foreign policy. It's just irritating to notice how some have tried to cheapen the debate by trying to score fast political points while ignoring the real policy issues at stake.
Peaceful Answer to the Syria Question?
What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the drumbeats of war sounded awfully loud. But today, a diplomatic solution to the Syria crisis looks near.
Just hours after Russia stepped forward with a proposal for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile to international control, France decided to test the seriousness of this proposal by submitting it to the United Nations (UN) Security Council for consideration. And the Syrian Government is now claiming it will comply with this agreement.
But then again, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was denying possession of chemical weapons just 48 hours ago. And Russia was openly challenging the veracity of Western intelligence on Syrian chemical weapons just last week. So is this offer truly in good faith?
This is why President Obama is proceeding cautiously. However, he is proceeding with this in hand. After all, this may be the breakthrough that the world has anxiously been waiting for.
Yesterday, the numbers in Congress did not appear to be on the side of military intervention in Syria. But today, things may be changing. While intense skepticism remains, there are also new questions about this potential diplomatic solution. Yet with this diplomatic solution now on the table, this may provide an escape hatch for Members of Congress who were caught between a desire to "punish Syria & snub Russia", and real fear of the US being caught in another Middle East war.
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the American people live. But now, he needs a new script... Or does he? At least now, the Syria Question may be nearing a peaceful answer.
Just hours after Russia stepped forward with a proposal for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile to international control, France decided to test the seriousness of this proposal by submitting it to the United Nations (UN) Security Council for consideration. And the Syrian Government is now claiming it will comply with this agreement.
But then again, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was denying possession of chemical weapons just 48 hours ago. And Russia was openly challenging the veracity of Western intelligence on Syrian chemical weapons just last week. So is this offer truly in good faith?
This is why President Obama is proceeding cautiously. However, he is proceeding with this in hand. After all, this may be the breakthrough that the world has anxiously been waiting for.
Obama had planned to use [today's] meetings with Democratic and Republican senators to personally lobby for his plan of targeted strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces in retaliation for last month’s massive chemical weapons attack outside of Damascus. Instead, he signaled in interviews ahead of his trip to Capitol Hill that new diplomacy involving Russia and others could eliminate the risks of a repeat chemical attack without requiring an American intervention. He presents his case to the American people Tuesday night.
“The key is, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we don’t just trust, but we also verify,” Obama told CBS. “The importance is to make sure that the international community has confidence that these chemical weapons are under control, that they are not being used, that potentially they are removed from Syria and that they are destroyed.”
Yesterday, the numbers in Congress did not appear to be on the side of military intervention in Syria. But today, things may be changing. While intense skepticism remains, there are also new questions about this potential diplomatic solution. Yet with this diplomatic solution now on the table, this may provide an escape hatch for Members of Congress who were caught between a desire to "punish Syria & snub Russia", and real fear of the US being caught in another Middle East war.
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the American people live. But now, he needs a new script... Or does he? At least now, the Syria Question may be nearing a peaceful answer.
Monday, September 9, 2013
The Syria Answer?
It's been on everyone's mind this past week. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) has been thinking about it as well. And while he still hasn't yet announced a firm position on military intervention in Syria, he is sounding increasingly skeptical.
And he's not alone. The public remains largely skeptical of the utility of any kind of military action against Syria. And Congress is increasingly feeling pressure from the left and the right to reject anything seen as approval to join in the Syrian Civil War.
So is it game over for the Obama Administration on Syria? Perhaps... But with a twist.
Over the weekend, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that a deal was in the works for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons. Then, Russia's Foreign Ministry emerged with a plan for the Assad Regime to surrender its chemical weapons to "international control". And now, the Syrian government appears willing to surrender its chemical weapons.
Is this what President Obama wanted all along? If so, then his tough talk is finally making sense. And Rep. Horsford & other Members of Congress can now see the logic behind the Obama Administration's hard red line.
This past week, fears have grown over a larger scale Syria War... And especially one that involves the US. And at this point, it still may not be completely out of the question. But in light of the latest developments, it's increasingly looking like The White House's tough diplomacy may soon pay real dividends. And if this deal is sealed, we can avoid a potentially dangerous global war.
And he's not alone. The public remains largely skeptical of the utility of any kind of military action against Syria. And Congress is increasingly feeling pressure from the left and the right to reject anything seen as approval to join in the Syrian Civil War.
So is it game over for the Obama Administration on Syria? Perhaps... But with a twist.
Over the weekend, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that a deal was in the works for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons. Then, Russia's Foreign Ministry emerged with a plan for the Assad Regime to surrender its chemical weapons to "international control". And now, the Syrian government appears willing to surrender its chemical weapons.
Is this what President Obama wanted all along? If so, then his tough talk is finally making sense. And Rep. Horsford & other Members of Congress can now see the logic behind the Obama Administration's hard red line.
This past week, fears have grown over a larger scale Syria War... And especially one that involves the US. And at this point, it still may not be completely out of the question. But in light of the latest developments, it's increasingly looking like The White House's tough diplomacy may soon pay real dividends. And if this deal is sealed, we can avoid a potentially dangerous global war.
Friday, September 6, 2013
What Will Congress Do on Syria?
This week, we've been talking plenty about the crisis in Syria. President Obama wants a limited military strike to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from instituting any sort of mass genocide and/or causing any more problems for American allies in the Middle East (like Israel and Turkey). But with growing skepticism at home, the President will have to deliver a nationally televised address on Tuesday to try to convince a war weary public and jittery Congress to go ahead and authorize the strike.
So will it work? At this point, no one knows for sure. Even AIPAC whipping in favor of Syria military intervention hasn't seemed to move many Members of Congress in their direction. And typically, very few on Capitol Hill have been willing to endure the "anti-Israel" and "weak on defense" lines of attack that AIPAC and other hawkish outfits wield at those who don't adhere to their foreign policy goals.
According to the latest whip count, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) has moved to a definite Nay while Reps. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City, and finally announced something), Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas), and Dina Titus (D-Paradise) remain undecided. We're now hearing conflicting reports on Senator Dean Heller(R), since one lists him as a likely Nay while others still count him as undecided. Only Senator Harry Reid (D) so far is a firm Yea.
There's a real possibility Congress won't authorize any use of military force in Syria. Perhaps that’s why Secretary of State John Kerry sat down for an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes to make the Administration's case for military action.
Clearly, he and the President are worried about the consequences of not striking. However, most Americans are now more worried about the consequences of striking. They just don't want to see more US troops dying in yet another mistaken war.
This weekend, I'll explain my own take on Syria. For now, I'll just say I can see the logic in Chris Hayes' and Joan Walsh's respective arguments. This is a messy situation that may not even get cleaned up with US military action.
So what can we do? And what should we do? Again, I'll get into more detail on that this weekend. And in the mean time, I'll update this space if we hear more breaking news on Syria.
So will it work? At this point, no one knows for sure. Even AIPAC whipping in favor of Syria military intervention hasn't seemed to move many Members of Congress in their direction. And typically, very few on Capitol Hill have been willing to endure the "anti-Israel" and "weak on defense" lines of attack that AIPAC and other hawkish outfits wield at those who don't adhere to their foreign policy goals.
According to the latest whip count, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) has moved to a definite Nay while Reps. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City, and finally announced something), Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas), and Dina Titus (D-Paradise) remain undecided. We're now hearing conflicting reports on Senator Dean Heller(R), since one lists him as a likely Nay while others still count him as undecided. Only Senator Harry Reid (D) so far is a firm Yea.
There's a real possibility Congress won't authorize any use of military force in Syria. Perhaps that’s why Secretary of State John Kerry sat down for an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes to make the Administration's case for military action.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Clearly, he and the President are worried about the consequences of not striking. However, most Americans are now more worried about the consequences of striking. They just don't want to see more US troops dying in yet another mistaken war.
This weekend, I'll explain my own take on Syria. For now, I'll just say I can see the logic in Chris Hayes' and Joan Walsh's respective arguments. This is a messy situation that may not even get cleaned up with US military action.
So what can we do? And what should we do? Again, I'll get into more detail on that this weekend. And in the mean time, I'll update this space if we hear more breaking news on Syria.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Syria: Where We Stand Now
This week, we've been discussing the tough decision that Congress must make on Syria. Not only are there many questions on whether the US should take any military action in Syria, but now we're also seeing questions arise on how broad that action should be (should it be approved). And this is further complicating White House efforts to build support for a military strike, since some Members of Congress only feel comfortable backing a very limited air strike while others only feel comfortable backing a much much broader military campaign.
As it stands now, the fate of authorization for military force (AUMF) is still very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. This certainly holds true for the Nevada Delegation. According to TPM and Think Progress, Senator Dean Heller (R) and Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) are all still undecided. Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) still hasn't declared a position, and only Senator Harry Reid (D) is a firm Yea. The only recent movement has come from Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson), who's increasingly sounding like he’s preparing to vote Nay.
This is coming on the heels of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voting 10-7 (with one voting present) in favor of a bill crafted by Senators Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) to only authorize 60-90 days of air strikes. While Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) succeeded in adding amendments in support of ultimate regime change in Syria, they're non-binding and don't commit any troops on the ground.
While AUMF passage looks like a fairly strong possibility in the Senate, the House is still a very different story. There, progressive and conservative groups may be close to securing an anti-war majority. But even there, it's far from settled, as there are still enough undecideds to tip the scales in favor of passage.
Meanwhile, President Obama is in St. Petersburg, Russia, for the G-20 Summit. There, he's dealing with a skeptical international audience... And Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's as dead-set against military intervention in Syria as ever. Can President Obama win over more international allies?
That may ultimately determine Congress' decision on Syria. Hardly anyone wants the US to go it alone. And President Obama risks violating international and US law if he orders military strikes without Congressional approval. So what happens in the coming days will be critical.
As it stands now, the fate of authorization for military force (AUMF) is still very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. This certainly holds true for the Nevada Delegation. According to TPM and Think Progress, Senator Dean Heller (R) and Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) are all still undecided. Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) still hasn't declared a position, and only Senator Harry Reid (D) is a firm Yea. The only recent movement has come from Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson), who's increasingly sounding like he’s preparing to vote Nay.
This is coming on the heels of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voting 10-7 (with one voting present) in favor of a bill crafted by Senators Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) to only authorize 60-90 days of air strikes. While Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) succeeded in adding amendments in support of ultimate regime change in Syria, they're non-binding and don't commit any troops on the ground.
While AUMF passage looks like a fairly strong possibility in the Senate, the House is still a very different story. There, progressive and conservative groups may be close to securing an anti-war majority. But even there, it's far from settled, as there are still enough undecideds to tip the scales in favor of passage.
Meanwhile, President Obama is in St. Petersburg, Russia, for the G-20 Summit. There, he's dealing with a skeptical international audience... And Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's as dead-set against military intervention in Syria as ever. Can President Obama win over more international allies?
That may ultimately determine Congress' decision on Syria. Hardly anyone wants the US to go it alone. And President Obama risks violating international and US law if he orders military strikes without Congressional approval. So what happens in the coming days will be critical.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Decision Point
Yesterday, we looked at the increasingly difficult situation in Syria. There's no easy solution, but Congress must decide on something soon.
As of now, many Members of Congress remain on the fence. Yet as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has tailored a narrow resolution for a 90 day air strike, a few skeptical Senators jumped on board... While a few (hardened hawks) jumped off (because they want full war). Let's just say it's a very complicated picture on Capitol Hill right now.
And so far, it's looking quite complicated here in Nevada as well. Nevada's Members of Congress so far sound mostly undecided. And the hesitation is crossing party lines.
Meanwhile, Senator Dean Heller (R) is sounding even more hesitant about military action, explicitly saying it should only be considered as a last resort. So far, Rep. Mark Amodei (R) hasn't publicly announced any position on Syria. At this point, only US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has publicly announced support for President Obama's plan for military operations on Syria.
Opposition to military action is building on the left and on the right. And this is happening as Congressional leaders (Reid included) are trying to build bipartisan support for authorization (for use of military force). As we were saying yesterday, there are still a whole lot of moving parts to this story.
And as we were explaining yesterday, this is so difficult for so many in Congress to swallow because of the legacy of the Afghanistan & Iraq Wars. But for The White House, there are two distinctly different historical comparisons at work. They may very well have memories of Rwanda and Bosnia in mind as they're asking for intervention in the already bloody Syrian Civil War. Does America want to be culpable for sitting on the sidelines as genocide begins?
But again, many in Congress are making different historical references. For many, memories of Iraq & Afghanistan are still quite fresh. And the nation is still paying the price for rushing into war.
So what are we to do? This is for Congress to decide. So they need to be incredibly careful and deliberate in the days ahead.
As of now, many Members of Congress remain on the fence. Yet as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has tailored a narrow resolution for a 90 day air strike, a few skeptical Senators jumped on board... While a few (hardened hawks) jumped off (because they want full war). Let's just say it's a very complicated picture on Capitol Hill right now.
And so far, it's looking quite complicated here in Nevada as well. Nevada's Members of Congress so far sound mostly undecided. And the hesitation is crossing party lines.
“The administration has not yet articulated what a potential strike on Syria would accomplish beyond a ‘punishment’ of the Assad regime,” said Republican Rep. Joe Heck's spokesman Greg Lemon in a statement Tuesday. “There are still many more detailed questions that must be answered in order to make a case for military action.”
“The president must demonstrate to the American people and Congress that any use of military force would be strategic, effective and short term and promote our national security and stability in the Middle East,” Democratic Rep. Dina Titus said Tuesday.
“I believe the American people deserve and rightfully expect to know that any engagement with Syria is in the best interests of our country and will truly help those it is intended to help,” Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford said last Thursday, following Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement that officials had determined that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched chemical weapons against his own people.
Meanwhile, Senator Dean Heller (R) is sounding even more hesitant about military action, explicitly saying it should only be considered as a last resort. So far, Rep. Mark Amodei (R) hasn't publicly announced any position on Syria. At this point, only US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has publicly announced support for President Obama's plan for military operations on Syria.
Opposition to military action is building on the left and on the right. And this is happening as Congressional leaders (Reid included) are trying to build bipartisan support for authorization (for use of military force). As we were saying yesterday, there are still a whole lot of moving parts to this story.
And as we were explaining yesterday, this is so difficult for so many in Congress to swallow because of the legacy of the Afghanistan & Iraq Wars. But for The White House, there are two distinctly different historical comparisons at work. They may very well have memories of Rwanda and Bosnia in mind as they're asking for intervention in the already bloody Syrian Civil War. Does America want to be culpable for sitting on the sidelines as genocide begins?
But again, many in Congress are making different historical references. For many, memories of Iraq & Afghanistan are still quite fresh. And the nation is still paying the price for rushing into war.
So what are we to do? This is for Congress to decide. So they need to be incredibly careful and deliberate in the days ahead.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
No Easy Solution
Just since this morning, we've seen movement(s) on Syria. Congressional leaders now seem to be forming a united front behind President Obama. Even House Speaker John Boehner (R) announced his support after meeting with the President.
So it's a go? Not so fast.
Pew and ABC-Washington Post released new polls today showing large opposition to any military action against Syria. And these follow earlier polls showing mostly similar numbers. This is probably what Code Pink's Medea Benjamin was referring to when she and other Code Pink protesters briefly disrupted the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on Syria.
This is probably also why the fate of military authorization is still very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. Many members (including some from here) are still far from making up their minds. The horrors of the Assad Regime are certainly front and center... Along with many memories of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
So far, Congress is pretty fractured on Syria... And it goes beyond the usual party lines. Can the President's foreign policy team break through this? Or are enough Members of Congress so "war weary" that they'll even say no to what's supposed to be a "limited strike" on Syria?
There doesn't seem to be any "appealing option" when it comes to Syria. Do we want to risk lives by ordering a military strike? Or do we want to risk lives by letting Bashar al-Assad (who may be using chemical weapons, if we're to believe White House declarations) hang around for a while longer? Is there another way to handle this?
Ultimately, everyone will have to meet at the negotiating table. So how do we get the warring factions in Syria there? And what are we willing to do to help put an end to this gruesome civil war? These are among the many questions we keep asking about the Syria crisis. There's no easy solution, but we have to decide on something.
So it's a go? Not so fast.
Pew and ABC-Washington Post released new polls today showing large opposition to any military action against Syria. And these follow earlier polls showing mostly similar numbers. This is probably what Code Pink's Medea Benjamin was referring to when she and other Code Pink protesters briefly disrupted the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on Syria.
This is probably also why the fate of military authorization is still very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. Many members (including some from here) are still far from making up their minds. The horrors of the Assad Regime are certainly front and center... Along with many memories of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
So far, Congress is pretty fractured on Syria... And it goes beyond the usual party lines. Can the President's foreign policy team break through this? Or are enough Members of Congress so "war weary" that they'll even say no to what's supposed to be a "limited strike" on Syria?
There doesn't seem to be any "appealing option" when it comes to Syria. Do we want to risk lives by ordering a military strike? Or do we want to risk lives by letting Bashar al-Assad (who may be using chemical weapons, if we're to believe White House declarations) hang around for a while longer? Is there another way to handle this?
Ultimately, everyone will have to meet at the negotiating table. So how do we get the warring factions in Syria there? And what are we willing to do to help put an end to this gruesome civil war? These are among the many questions we keep asking about the Syria crisis. There's no easy solution, but we have to decide on something.
The Syria Question
There's a reason why you don't often see foreign policy questions here. Since this blog focuses on the policies and politics affecting the State of Nevada, we typically stick to domestic issues. But as our state economy becomes increasingly exposed to the global economy, this may change.
And in the mean time, the buzz on Capitol Hill has actually moved away from manufactured crises... At least for now. After all, there's a real crisis at hand. And this real crisis is increasingly overshadowing the fake ones.
So now, Congress has critical decision to make. Congress must now figure out what to do regarding Syria. President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande, and others are quite convinced that the Assad Regime has been using chemical weapons against its own people. Yet in the wake of the British Parliament's surprising rejection of that nation taking military action against Syria, new questions have been rising about the scope of military action, the goals, and the cost. Some at home and abroad are even questioning US, British, and French intelligence blaming the Syrian Military for the chemical weapon attacks.
We're coming off two long, protracted, and grueling wars. Both were initially "justified" by 9/11 and fears of future al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. One (Iraq) turned out to be a rather bloody war of aggression sold to the American people with faulty intelligence, while the other (Afghanistan) has increasingly looked like a futile effort to prop up a flailing and corrupt regime. Obviously, the past decade of experience has given most Americans "War Fatigue". And as a result, there's plenty of resistance now to any kind of military involvement in Syria that we did not see in the build-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
This is why President Obama is trying to reassure the nation and the world that this time is different. Can he convince us? This is why the coming deliberations on Capitol Hill will be so important.
Last decade, Congress agreed to let the Bush Administration rush us into two wars, two clunky attempts to curtail civil liberties (the "USA PATRIOT Act" and FISA Amendments Act), and seemingly endless billions of dollars worth of military spending that are coming back to haunt us now. Can we afford to let that happen to us again? Can we afford to let Congress abdicate its role in shaping US foreign policy?
Perhaps this time is different. After all, Barack Obama is now President. He hasn't tried to rush us into war in Syria. And the world community look to be more persuaded by our intelligence this time.
Still, the stakes are incredibly high. And the risk of the US falling into a quagmire in Syria may ultimately be greater than that of Iraq & Afghanistan last decade .
Clearly, the Obama Administration has had to think long and hard about the question of what America should do next on Syria. Now, it's Congress' turn. And we can only hope they're serious about finding the right answer.
And in the mean time, the buzz on Capitol Hill has actually moved away from manufactured crises... At least for now. After all, there's a real crisis at hand. And this real crisis is increasingly overshadowing the fake ones.
So now, Congress has critical decision to make. Congress must now figure out what to do regarding Syria. President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande, and others are quite convinced that the Assad Regime has been using chemical weapons against its own people. Yet in the wake of the British Parliament's surprising rejection of that nation taking military action against Syria, new questions have been rising about the scope of military action, the goals, and the cost. Some at home and abroad are even questioning US, British, and French intelligence blaming the Syrian Military for the chemical weapon attacks.
We're coming off two long, protracted, and grueling wars. Both were initially "justified" by 9/11 and fears of future al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. One (Iraq) turned out to be a rather bloody war of aggression sold to the American people with faulty intelligence, while the other (Afghanistan) has increasingly looked like a futile effort to prop up a flailing and corrupt regime. Obviously, the past decade of experience has given most Americans "War Fatigue". And as a result, there's plenty of resistance now to any kind of military involvement in Syria that we did not see in the build-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
This is why President Obama is trying to reassure the nation and the world that this time is different. Can he convince us? This is why the coming deliberations on Capitol Hill will be so important.
Last decade, Congress agreed to let the Bush Administration rush us into two wars, two clunky attempts to curtail civil liberties (the "USA PATRIOT Act" and FISA Amendments Act), and seemingly endless billions of dollars worth of military spending that are coming back to haunt us now. Can we afford to let that happen to us again? Can we afford to let Congress abdicate its role in shaping US foreign policy?
Perhaps this time is different. After all, Barack Obama is now President. He hasn't tried to rush us into war in Syria. And the world community look to be more persuaded by our intelligence this time.
Still, the stakes are incredibly high. And the risk of the US falling into a quagmire in Syria may ultimately be greater than that of Iraq & Afghanistan last decade .
Clearly, the Obama Administration has had to think long and hard about the question of what America should do next on Syria. Now, it's Congress' turn. And we can only hope they're serious about finding the right answer.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Where Has the Dream Gone?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream. All too often, we don't talk about the entire dream. And all too often, we don't want to talk about our failures over the last four decades to get anywhere close to that dream.
So where are we? And what has happened to King's dream? When did the dream become this nightmare?
Not that long ago, it was easy to just laugh off "tea party" extremism as silly... But look at what's happened. And for far too long, questions of inequality have been placed aside. And as we wonder when our occupation of Iraq will end, when our occupation of Afghanistan will come to a close, and when another military invasion and occupation might ensue, we must wonder if we've become far too much of a culture of violence.
When did we forget this...
And embrace this?
What happened? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Where have we gone wrong in the last 43 years? Why are so many of our people still treated as "second class citizens"? Why do we never have the resources to help our people help themselves, but we somehow always have more money to wage more wars? Why have we become so violent toward each other?
These are the questions I have today. As six people have been buried in Tucson, our country is still mired in two wars abroad, Congress is set to debate (again) why we should or shouldn't have access to affordable health care, and federal courts consider whether queer folk actually have Constitutional rights, we need to ask ourselves what happened to Dr. King's dream... And how we can finally turn the dream deferred into the dream fulfilled.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Meanwhile, Outside the Capitol...
The teabaggers got so many protesters today... Wait, you mean those weren't teabaggers?
And these weren't teabaggers.
And these weren't teabaggers (though a number of them are "fighting the establishment").
Oh yes, the teabaggers have been in full force this last week. Yeah, keep freeping those R-J & Sun comment sections!
More than 200,000 people gathered on the National Mall today to participate in March for America, a rally advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
Organized by Reform Immigration for America, the rally brought together groups from around the country — including Service Employees International Union, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Democracia Ahora and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles — to send a message to lawmakers: "The time for immigration reform is now."
President Obama delivered a message from the big screens in the crowd in which he assured the demonstrators of his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform.
And these weren't teabaggers.
And these weren't teabaggers (though a number of them are "fighting the establishment").
Oh yes, the teabaggers have been in full force this last week. Yeah, keep freeping those R-J & Sun comment sections!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Meanwhile, There's Afghanistan...
I know, I know. The media all around here are obsessing over all things City Center, and nary a word is spoken on last night's big announcement... Don't worry, kids, I'm still on it.
The Gleaner is pissed over Harry Reid's acquiescence, and I can understand. It's not like Congress has no power... Remember who controls the purse strings here? Still, I just see this as a symptom of the larger ailment of unchecked executive power and unwise imperial hubris in President Obama really thinking that somehow things will be different when he escalates the military occupation in Afghanistan.
And anyway, I really think Mike Lux is right on all counts here:
Yep, yep, yep. Obama is "spending his political capital" on what, exactly? Escalating an increasingly unpopular war? Forcing a corrupt government on people who don't want it? Doing something that may do nothing to stop al-Qaeda but may do everything to risk losing the cooperation with the Muslim World that the Obama Administration is just starting to rebuild after Bush squandered it all on Iraq?
Our troops don't deserve this. They don't deserve to have their time wasted on this. I only hope that President Obama is being honest when he says he wants to begin troop withdrawal in 18 months.
It really is time to let the people of Afghanistan take back their own country, and it's too bad we won't let them do it sooner.
The Gleaner is pissed over Harry Reid's acquiescence, and I can understand. It's not like Congress has no power... Remember who controls the purse strings here? Still, I just see this as a symptom of the larger ailment of unchecked executive power and unwise imperial hubris in President Obama really thinking that somehow things will be different when he escalates the military occupation in Afghanistan.
And anyway, I really think Mike Lux is right on all counts here:
I am deeply saddened on so many different levels by the President's speech last night, and his Afghanistan policy in general. Steady escalation is not the answer to this godawful complicated mess. It's all well and good to keep making the argument as to why this is not another Vietnam, although it sure does feel that way to a lot of us, but the big question in terms of comparisons is how this is different than Britain or Russia's experience in Afghanistan itself.
I am also deeply anguished as someone who has a much broader agenda than just this war or even foreign policy and national security in general. The money we will spend, and the political capital that will be burnt, by this war are a horrible price to pay- and for what goal? Will this surge defeat Al Queda [sic] and the Taliban once and for all? Will they make Afghanistan and Pakistan safe places for the long run? It just doesn't seem very likely.
This is at its core also bad politics on so many different levels. History is very clear on this topic. Two of our last three Democratic Presidents have had their presidencies broken and sunk on the rocks of a terrible relationship with the progressive base: Jimmy Carter over economics, and LBJ over a wrong- headed land war in Asia. With this escalation, and with Geithner and Summers running Obama's economic policy, this President seems like he wants to pick fights with us in both areas. It truly is heart breaking.
Yep, yep, yep. Obama is "spending his political capital" on what, exactly? Escalating an increasingly unpopular war? Forcing a corrupt government on people who don't want it? Doing something that may do nothing to stop al-Qaeda but may do everything to risk losing the cooperation with the Muslim World that the Obama Administration is just starting to rebuild after Bush squandered it all on Iraq?
Our troops don't deserve this. They don't deserve to have their time wasted on this. I only hope that President Obama is being honest when he says he wants to begin troop withdrawal in 18 months.
It really is time to let the people of Afghanistan take back their own country, and it's too bad we won't let them do it sooner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)