Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com
It's amazing how the Red Sox can bring either euphoria or that feeling of impending vomit. A 14 game lead down to 1 1/2. No sense of urgency or energy behind winning the division and/or securing home field advantage. It's not a winning mentality. If it were quiet confidence I would get it. But it's more like indifference or arrogance at best. And then there's Gagne, who perhaps cares too much and has forgotten how to pitch like a closer. He's just trying to throw heat - and throwing too hard while forgetting about his change-up. He' a mess. And his ineptitude sems to be contagious - Papelbon has caught it!
I am the eternal otpimist, however, and believe that as long as the Sox can get hot in the playoffs all will be well. But that means the bullpen finding it's earler dominance and at least some bats getting hot again.
Soon - please, soon!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Iraq and The Surge - The Democrats' Dilemma
The Democrats are in quite a bind right now. Bush's policy in Iraq has clearly failed thus far. Iraq is increasingly less stable politically, violence is increasing, and civil war seems increasingly inevitable.
But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.
The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.
So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.
Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?
But if not the surge, then what?
That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.
In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.
So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.
Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.
But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.
The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.
So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.
Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?
But if not the surge, then what?
That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.
In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.
So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.
Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.
Monday, August 28, 2006
China reflections...
I may take weeks or months for me to fully digest the trip to China earlier this month. Some initial reactions:
- Even having read and seen so much in recent years about China's economic growth and the success some there now enjoy, it still came as a bit of a shock to see the extremes of wealth and poverty there. Outside Xi'an, we visited a family that has lived in a cave for 5 generations. The next day, we were experiencing the enormous wealth and rapid pace of construction in Shanghai - a truly breathtaking contrast.
- Every Chinese I spoke with was more sober and cautious about China's future than I was. they see the enormous challenges that lie ahead and understand how China still has so far to go to become a major economic power on a scale with the US. Per capita, they are right. And China has enormous challenges ahead - educating the masses, improving healthcare and other infrastructure, dealing with the rampant destruction of its environment, the growing poverty gap, unrest in the provinces, etc. But I couldn't help but be impressed by how every educated Chinese I spoke with saw this as a path China is on and that they get what they need to do on every level.
- The people we met in high-tech companies - Lenovo and Augmentum - were very impressive, young, and ambitious. They seem to be blending the best of Western/American business practices with the best China has to offer. They are great at graphic design and high-tech manufacturing. They still lack the innovation that is America's strength - but they know that and are trying to train/educate/empower the next generation to be innovators. How will that mesh with a still very authoritarian regime politically? Great question...
- There are so many opportunities for cooperation with China - alternate sources of energy, environmental protection, urban planning, etc. - that could help us economically and politically avoid seeing each other as threats only. It may well be inevitable that a rising China and the US will see each other as rivals - in Asia and globally - but that does not have to preclude finding areas of mutual interest and cooperation, too.
- We encountered no anti-Americanism. Quite the opposite - in spite of the Chinese government's nationalistic/China First rhetoric over the past years, we found everyone to be very inviting and friendly and eager to help us. Many Chinese tourists in Beijing wanted to take pictures with our students. People in the cities seem to embrace signs of American and Western businesses as evidence of the "international" character of those cities and new economic opportunities, not a cultural/economic invasion.
- The pollution is terrible - did not see a blue sky while I was there. It is tragic that they are destroying their country like they are.
- Traffic in Beijing is bad but not like the worst of Boston or NYC. But it will only get worse as they add so many more cars each day.
- I got the sense that many Chinese in the cities see China's rise as its reemergence. For thousands of years China was a great civilization. After a brief interlude, it is back! China as an advanced and great power is seen as China's normal state and destiny, not a new phenomenon. Shanghai is clearly on its way to becoming the commercial and financial center of Asia - and China is intent on making that happen.
- The poor farmers living in the cave are so disconnected from the "new" China. When asked about the economic changes and growth - with the nearby highway construction as evidence - one woman said, "It has nothing to do with us."
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Bush on Darfur - Still too little, still too late...
President Bush is doing a great job of sounding concerned about Darfur without actually doing anything that will stop the genocide. On March 29, he said:
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
I'm deeply worried about the human conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government
that spoke out about genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President
Obasanjo
for the AU presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the
presence was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be
a blue helmeting
of not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And the
reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part of the operation is twofold:
One, to provide logistical and command and control and airlift capability, but
also to send a clear signal to parties involved that
the West is determined
to help a settlement -- to help affect in a settlement, that this is serious
business, that we're just not playing a diplomatic holding game, but that when
we say, genocide, we mean that the genocide needs to be stopped.
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
DARFUR: Bad news from NATO...
This from Reuters today:
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Separately, NATO said it had agreed to a request by U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan to look at how it could provide support to troops there, but said
there was no question of it intervening on the ground.
"No one is discussing, planning or considering a NATO force on the ground in Darfur. That is not one of the options," NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a regular
briefing.
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Monday, March 27, 2006
UN's idea of "quick" action...
The UN Security Council Friday put an April 24 deadline on the development of options for the UN in Darfur. So now we wait another month, while more people are killed and more women are raped. Another month for UN bureaucrats to "plan" a mission that has been discussed over and over again, a mission that should have been planned and implemented long ago. And once the options are fully developed, the Security Council will take them under consideration and more time will be needed for more diplomacy - diplomacy that so far has failed to secure even Egypt's support for a UN mission in Darfur! Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Administration cannot get Egypt - which has received well over $50 billion in US aid over the past thirty years! - to support a UN mission to save Muslims from genocide. Wonders never cease to amaze...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
NY Times Sudan Supplement - Taking $$$ from Genocidal Regime!
Like many others, I got this e-mail from the Save Darfur Coalition today:
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
Sunday, March 26, 2006
More thoughts on the Darfur Action Agenda
While the advocacy campaign for Darfur clearly presents more challenges at first glance than the Bosnia campaign did, that should not be reason to abandon hope!
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.
3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
Looking for a Darfur Action Agenda...
Forging an action agenda for the campaign to stop the genocide in Bosnia was simple in comparison. When over 100 grassroots groups gathered in Washington, DC, in December, 1993, they formed the American Committee to Save Bosnia with an ambitious agenda, which included:
- US/NATO airstrikes to stop the shelling of civilians until the Bosnian government could defend itself.
- Lifting of the US arms embargo against Bosnia so that Bosnia could get weapons to defend itself.
- Punishment of the war criminals responsible for orchestrating the genocide.
- Preservation of Bosnia's territorial integrity (no partition along ethnic/religious lines).
The central goal was the lifting of the arms embargo. On one level, it seemed obvious and simple: let the Bosnians defend themselves and we won't have to send our troops to do it for them. The issue, however, was complicated because the UN Security Council had passed a resolution - at Milosevic's initial suggestion - placing an arms embargo on the whole of Yugoslavia prior to Bosnia's independence. Bosnia's independence and the Belgrade-led genocide had rendered the UN embargo moot with regard to Bosnia; every country has an inherent right to self defense, recognized by the UN Charter. But arguing that point sounded to many like legalistic mumbo-jumbo, as former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger complained to me on CNN's Crossfire in 1995. Many with more lobbying experience than I had (none at the time), including a former leading House Democrat supportive of the Bosnian cause, told me we were well-intentioned but naive to think that we could get Congress to lift the embargo.
Even so, in the summer of '95, we were able to get a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress to pass binding legislation lifting the US embargo. that incredible act of congressional leadership is part of what prompted Clinton, after vetoing the legislation while Congress was in recess, to launch the initiative that led to the Dayton Accords ending the Bosnian genocide.
In comparison, Darfur offers little of the clarity in terms of a clear action agenda or public support that Bosnia did at the time. Many Americans still had fond memories of the Sarajevo Olympics of 1984 and the warm and endearing Bosnians we saw on TV. We could watch some of the horrors of Bosnia on TV at night, though the so-called "CNN effect" cut both ways: it brought the war to our living rooms on a regular basis, but it numbed and confused us as often as it enraged us. The Bosnian government and army offered a proxy for US intervention - arm the Bosnians and our troops can stay home. Bosnia was in Europe, and the risk of a broader conflict involving NATO allies was a constant source of concern, as was the image of a slaughter in Europe just a short train ride from hundreds of thousands of US and NATO troops in Europe.
Darfur offers none of those "advantages" the Bosnian genocide offered those of us agitating for some kind of response. With the exception of Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, there has been little regular reporting from the region and few TV images. The apparent US quagmire in Iraq has soured many Americans who might have favored a military intervention in Darfur, either because they have little or no confidence in this administration's ability to carry it out successfully or they are concerned about the backlash from another US military mission in another Arab country.
Kristof, writing in the February 12 Times, offered this menu of options for President Bush:
Here are some grown-up steps Mr. Bush could take: He could enforce a no-fly zone to stop air attacks on civilians in Darfur, lobby Arab leaders to become involved, call President Hu Jintao and ask China to stop protecting Sudan, invite Darfur refugees to a photo op at the White House, attend a coming donor conference for Darfur, visit Darfur or the refugee camps next door in Chad, push France and other allies for a NATO bridging force to provide protection until United Nations troops arrive, offer to support the United Nations force with American military airlift and logistical support (though not ground troops, which would help Sudan's hard-liners by allowing them to claim that the United States was starting a new invasion of the Arab world), make a major speech about Darfur, and arrange for Colin Powell to be appointed a United Nations special envoy to seek peace among Darfur's tribal sheiks.
With a president obviously too distracted or apathetic to take action on his own, activists are left to seek support and leadership in Congress, just as we did during the Bosnia genocide. There is nothing, however, so "simple" as an arms embargo to lift with the passage of a law. Short of declaring war on Sudan, Congress cannot force President Bush to do anything on Kristof's list. Legislation has been proposed that calls for a NATO "bridging force" that would provide some relief to Darfur's victims until a UN peacekeeping force can be "fully deployed." H Res. 723, and its previously-approved Senate version, is not binding legislation - it would not compel President Bush to act.
Moreover, it remains unclear what a "fully deployed" UN force would need to look like or who would provide the troops. Various current and former UN officials have estimated anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 or more troops would be necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur. A serious analysis of what is needed - and who could provide those assets - is needed. NATO's Secretary General indicated on his trip to DC last week that NATO would stand ready to participate if asked. That will require some arm-twisting on Bush's part, at least to get France to sit passively by and not block such a deployment. Such a force would probably require US logistical, intelligence, and transportation assistance - but because of Iraq and the other concerns noted above, US ground troops would not likely be involved.
And that is the real problem. It is difficult to ask others to make sacrifices you cannot - or will not - make yourself. It requires real leadership. That's one of many things we seem to be running a deficit in these days...
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Ann Curry and Nicholas Kristof on Today
Click the title of this post for a good update on Darfur and discussion of the crisis, including the use of rape as a means of genocide. Kristoff has been amazing as, perhaps, the most vocal and eloquent advocate on Darfur. There also are other videos that Ann filed from the region:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
Darfur
After some time away from blogging, I'm going to give it another go. The spark for this new blogging is the ongoing genocide in Darfur, though I will feel free to blog about other subjects as they arise.
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
Thursday, April 08, 2004
The 9/11 Debate - Clarke Hits the Mark
The ubiquitous Richard Clarke has sparked an intense debate over the Bush Administration's attitudes and policies toward terrorism before and after 9/11. Clarke, in my opinion, hits the mark on two counts:
* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."
* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.
Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.
That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.
* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."
* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.
Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.
That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.
Friday, March 19, 2004
More tragedy in Kosovo - Clinton's Legacy
News reports this week suggest that Kosovar Albanians are now "ethnically cleansing" some Serbs in Kosovo in anticipation of an eventual political carve-up of the province. The unfortunate but all too predictable effects of failed U.S. policies in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration are still being felt.
In order to rid himself of the Bosnia "mess" before running for reelection, Clinton basically swept Bosnia under the carpet by forcing a partition agreement on the parties (well, Milosevic had actually designed the plan and Croatia's then-President Franjo Tudjman made out well, too! So in reality it was forced only on the Bosnians themselves...) and inserting U.S. troops to prevent further fighting and to implement the accord.
Among many others, a major flaw in the Dayton Peace Accords was that they rewarded genocide. Milosevic's allies in Bosnia got half the country - the half they had brutally "cleansed" of non-Serbs during the 3 1/2 year war. Bosnia was, in theory, still a whole country, but in practice the Serb Republic in Bosnia would function as a separate entity on a day-to-day basis. And U.S. troops were tasked with protecting and enforcing the gains of genocide.
Having seen that the U.S. and its European allies would not intervene to stop or punish genocide, he then launched another genocidal attack, this time in Kosovo, a formerly-autonomous province in Serbia. Milosevic's forces - the same ones who had committed the crimes against humnanity in Bosnia and, earlier, in Croatia - began to kill and force from their homes Kosovo's Albanian majority. Eventually, Clinton bowed to public pressure - and the threat of a wider Balkan-wide conflict - and launched a bombing campaign against Serbia. Milosevic capitulated and removed his troops. The disaster in Kosovo eventually contributed to Milosevic's ouster.
Now, the more radical elements of Kosovo's Albanian population are seeking to do what the U.S. allowed, encouraged and facilitated in Bosnia - the partitioning of the area along ethnic and religious lines through the forced removal of populations. Can we honestly be surprised that some in Kosovo would think this a logical and sensible course of action, given the framewrok we established through the Dayton Accords in Bosnia.
Clinton is almost four years removed from office, but his legacy - bloody as it is - endures...
In order to rid himself of the Bosnia "mess" before running for reelection, Clinton basically swept Bosnia under the carpet by forcing a partition agreement on the parties (well, Milosevic had actually designed the plan and Croatia's then-President Franjo Tudjman made out well, too! So in reality it was forced only on the Bosnians themselves...) and inserting U.S. troops to prevent further fighting and to implement the accord.
Among many others, a major flaw in the Dayton Peace Accords was that they rewarded genocide. Milosevic's allies in Bosnia got half the country - the half they had brutally "cleansed" of non-Serbs during the 3 1/2 year war. Bosnia was, in theory, still a whole country, but in practice the Serb Republic in Bosnia would function as a separate entity on a day-to-day basis. And U.S. troops were tasked with protecting and enforcing the gains of genocide.
Having seen that the U.S. and its European allies would not intervene to stop or punish genocide, he then launched another genocidal attack, this time in Kosovo, a formerly-autonomous province in Serbia. Milosevic's forces - the same ones who had committed the crimes against humnanity in Bosnia and, earlier, in Croatia - began to kill and force from their homes Kosovo's Albanian majority. Eventually, Clinton bowed to public pressure - and the threat of a wider Balkan-wide conflict - and launched a bombing campaign against Serbia. Milosevic capitulated and removed his troops. The disaster in Kosovo eventually contributed to Milosevic's ouster.
Now, the more radical elements of Kosovo's Albanian population are seeking to do what the U.S. allowed, encouraged and facilitated in Bosnia - the partitioning of the area along ethnic and religious lines through the forced removal of populations. Can we honestly be surprised that some in Kosovo would think this a logical and sensible course of action, given the framewrok we established through the Dayton Accords in Bosnia.
Clinton is almost four years removed from office, but his legacy - bloody as it is - endures...
Terror in Spain - Don't Appease the Terrorists!
Fareed Zakaria has another thought-provoking article in this week's Newsweek:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032204.html
In this article, Zakaria notes that, for many terrorist organizations, violence is an end in and of itself. This certainly has seemed to be true for some suicide bombers and their terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza in recent years. Zakaria argues that it is now true for al Qaeda and the Basque terrorists, ETA.
But the Spanish electorate, and the socialist government it elected in the initial days after the horrific bombings in Madrid this month, would seem to reward the terrorists by threatening to remove Spain's troops from Iraq. Zakaria points out, however, that "other recent targets of Islamic militants have been Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, not one of which supported the war or sent troops into Iraq in the afterwar. Al Qaeda's declaration of jihad had, as its first demand, the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden does not seem to have noticed, but the troops are gone—yet the jihad continues. The reasons come and go, the violence endures."
If Spain does, however, withdraw its troops from Iraq as a result of the recent terrorism in Madrid, it would send a dangerous message to al Qaeda, ETA, and other terrorists: western governments and their policies can be changed through the use of terrorism. Terrorism will, once again, be seen as an effective tool for small groups of radicals to force political change. Terrorism will likely increase, especially in these "weak" and "fragile" democratic societies, terrorists will conclude.
For decades, "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" was a mantra for western and other governments. We all understood that once you give in to the demands of terrorists, you only encourage more terrorism. Spain's new leaders should remember this lesson. They may have legitimate gripes with Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq. But surely they can understand that, once emotions subside a bit, Spain's national interests lie with combating the terrorists and creating a stable political and economic climate in Iraq, not caving in to monsters who kill innocents.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032204.html
In this article, Zakaria notes that, for many terrorist organizations, violence is an end in and of itself. This certainly has seemed to be true for some suicide bombers and their terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza in recent years. Zakaria argues that it is now true for al Qaeda and the Basque terrorists, ETA.
But the Spanish electorate, and the socialist government it elected in the initial days after the horrific bombings in Madrid this month, would seem to reward the terrorists by threatening to remove Spain's troops from Iraq. Zakaria points out, however, that "other recent targets of Islamic militants have been Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, not one of which supported the war or sent troops into Iraq in the afterwar. Al Qaeda's declaration of jihad had, as its first demand, the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden does not seem to have noticed, but the troops are gone—yet the jihad continues. The reasons come and go, the violence endures."
If Spain does, however, withdraw its troops from Iraq as a result of the recent terrorism in Madrid, it would send a dangerous message to al Qaeda, ETA, and other terrorists: western governments and their policies can be changed through the use of terrorism. Terrorism will, once again, be seen as an effective tool for small groups of radicals to force political change. Terrorism will likely increase, especially in these "weak" and "fragile" democratic societies, terrorists will conclude.
For decades, "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" was a mantra for western and other governments. We all understood that once you give in to the demands of terrorists, you only encourage more terrorism. Spain's new leaders should remember this lesson. They may have legitimate gripes with Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq. But surely they can understand that, once emotions subside a bit, Spain's national interests lie with combating the terrorists and creating a stable political and economic climate in Iraq, not caving in to monsters who kill innocents.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Is the infrastructure crumbling?
Ralph Nader talked about the poor state of America's infrastructure on Meet the Press this morning. In an earlier post, I discussed the need for upgrading our nation's water infrastructure. Am I alone is also noticing that our roads seem to be in worse shape, too?
Construction projects have always taken a long time - when I was a kid, the Southeast Expressway in Boston was perpetually under construction. But working here in suburban NY - one of the most affluent areas in the country - I am struck by how ridiculously long roadwork can take and how limited funding forces some projects to be mothballed in the middle of the construction so that resoruces can be diverted to another project. More recently, I have been disgusted and shocked by the state of some local highways - most noticably the Saw Mill and Taconic Parkways. The potholes I encounter every day are deeper and more numerous than I can ever remember. And it would seem to be worse than can be reasonably expected even with a tough winter. I lived in Moscow for two years during the collapse of communism, and their roads were never as bad as these roads are.
What's going on?
Construction projects have always taken a long time - when I was a kid, the Southeast Expressway in Boston was perpetually under construction. But working here in suburban NY - one of the most affluent areas in the country - I am struck by how ridiculously long roadwork can take and how limited funding forces some projects to be mothballed in the middle of the construction so that resoruces can be diverted to another project. More recently, I have been disgusted and shocked by the state of some local highways - most noticably the Saw Mill and Taconic Parkways. The potholes I encounter every day are deeper and more numerous than I can ever remember. And it would seem to be worse than can be reasonably expected even with a tough winter. I lived in Moscow for two years during the collapse of communism, and their roads were never as bad as these roads are.
What's going on?
More on gay marriage...
The panel on Chris Matthews' show this morning did a good job on this issue. As Matthews and Andrew Sullivan both pointed out, politically there is no middle ground on this issue. Politicians who come out in favor of both a ban on gay marriage and provisions allowing for civil unions for gay couples alienate both sides of the debate. This is one issue where you need to pick one or the other: you're either for equality for gays or you're not. Trying to chart a middle course means angering both sides.
If I were a politician, I'd also see the growing support for gay marriage in various cities and states around the country (including some that are far more conservative than San Francisco and Massachusetts!) - and the apparent lack of a backlash in mainstream America - as a signal that this train may be leaving the station.
If I were a politician, I'd also see the growing support for gay marriage in various cities and states around the country (including some that are far more conservative than San Francisco and Massachusetts!) - and the apparent lack of a backlash in mainstream America - as a signal that this train may be leaving the station.
Social Security
My last post mentioned the coming Social Security crisis: we'll have lots more retirees with fewer people working and paying into the system. As a result, it is almost inevitable that the system will go bankrupt.
Here's an important reminder: Social Security is retirement insurance! It is not a savings account. People who don't need it shouldn't be collecting it. Just like I can't collect on my life insurance if I'm still alive. Or get a payment from my health insurance policy if I'm healthy. Social Security is a safety net to insure that poor senior citizens don't go hungry or end up homeless. We will not keep the system solvent if baby boomers with 401ks and healthy pensions and bank accounts collect just because they paid into the system. They were paying an insurance premium that covered the costs of retirees at that time. Someone needs to explain this to the American people. We'll understand.
Asking retirees with sufficient means to support themselves to accept the fact that they will not get Social Security benefits to pay for their green fees is the first step toward a solution. Then we should start talking about other options like pushing back the age of retirement and, possibly, increasing the payroll tax. I know - that's a tax increase. But we have to pay our bills somehow, don't we?
Here's an important reminder: Social Security is retirement insurance! It is not a savings account. People who don't need it shouldn't be collecting it. Just like I can't collect on my life insurance if I'm still alive. Or get a payment from my health insurance policy if I'm healthy. Social Security is a safety net to insure that poor senior citizens don't go hungry or end up homeless. We will not keep the system solvent if baby boomers with 401ks and healthy pensions and bank accounts collect just because they paid into the system. They were paying an insurance premium that covered the costs of retirees at that time. Someone needs to explain this to the American people. We'll understand.
Asking retirees with sufficient means to support themselves to accept the fact that they will not get Social Security benefits to pay for their green fees is the first step toward a solution. Then we should start talking about other options like pushing back the age of retirement and, possibly, increasing the payroll tax. I know - that's a tax increase. But we have to pay our bills somehow, don't we?
Kerry and Edwards on This Week... And here comes Nader
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised today with the relatively strong showing by John Kerry and the lackluster performance by John Edwards on This Week with George Stephanopolous this morning. Kerry seemed so well prepared and confident. Edwards, however, kept harping on his working class upbringing and protectionist trade policies. On other issues, he was vague, at best.
Then, on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced he would be running as an independent this year. Count me as someone who does believe that Nader's candidacy was one of the reasons why Gore "lost" in 2000, but I was impressed with Nader's vision of this country's problems and some of his general solutions. His rhetoric is a bit too strong to catch on with the mainstream, but his message is compelling. As one of my friends said today, "Could you imagine if Edwards had Nader's message?" Wow. That would be a powerful combination.
I want to hear someone talk about real issues surrounding education today - especially the gross inequality between some inner city schools and the more affluent suburban schools. I yearn for a candidate who can talk about ways to address the loss of American jobs overseas and our trade deficit without being a knee-jerk protectionist. I want someone who can talk about the federal debt and looming social security crisis in a way that helps us tackle it now with real solutions - including a tightening of the belt in Congress while asking wealthy Americans to pay more into social security and/or not take it when they retire. I want someone who can spark and engage in a debate over the conduct and course of American foreign policy in this new world we find ourselves living in.
I want real debate this year - not just electioneering. I know that's a lot to ask, but aren't we worth it?
Then, on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced he would be running as an independent this year. Count me as someone who does believe that Nader's candidacy was one of the reasons why Gore "lost" in 2000, but I was impressed with Nader's vision of this country's problems and some of his general solutions. His rhetoric is a bit too strong to catch on with the mainstream, but his message is compelling. As one of my friends said today, "Could you imagine if Edwards had Nader's message?" Wow. That would be a powerful combination.
I want to hear someone talk about real issues surrounding education today - especially the gross inequality between some inner city schools and the more affluent suburban schools. I yearn for a candidate who can talk about ways to address the loss of American jobs overseas and our trade deficit without being a knee-jerk protectionist. I want someone who can talk about the federal debt and looming social security crisis in a way that helps us tackle it now with real solutions - including a tightening of the belt in Congress while asking wealthy Americans to pay more into social security and/or not take it when they retire. I want someone who can spark and engage in a debate over the conduct and course of American foreign policy in this new world we find ourselves living in.
I want real debate this year - not just electioneering. I know that's a lot to ask, but aren't we worth it?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Gay Marriage
This issue has been raising my blood pressure all year, for two primary reasons:
1. I have had a lot of gay friends in my life, and they have all been amazing people I have been proud to count as friends. Some of the gay couples I have known have been incredible role models for happy, healthy, successful marriages. In fact, most of the long-term gay relationships I have known have been a lot more impressive than most of the straight marriages I have known. So it really burns me that anyone would suggest that gays are less worthy than straight couples when it comes to enjoying the rights and priviledges of marriage. I hate the fact that friends of mine - or anyone for that matter - are being discriminated against for something that harms no one else and is at the core of their own pursuit of happiness.
2. The talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - or, as the President and his allies put it, "protecting" marriage - is blasphemy to someone who cherishes this country, our values as a nation, and the Constitution as the most amazing political document in history. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times - ten right away with the Bill of Rights. Of the 17 that came after the Bill of Rights, only one set out to limit citizens' rights rather than protect and defend them. That one instance of limiting rights - Prohibition - was a dismal failure that was eventually rendered moot by a subsequent amendment. Are we seriously going to even consider an amendment that would turn the Constitution into a document that limits freedoms for its citizens rather than protects them?
Others have wisely pointed out that there are other "threats" to the institution of marriage that seem more relevant to the status of the institution in American society: Las Vegas "drive-thru" marriages like Britney Spears' latest PR stunt and a divorce rate where more than half of American marriages will end in divorce come to mind. And is gay marriage a bigger threat to American society than the poverty gap, failing schools in our cities, an impending Social Security solvency crisis, and a federal debt that now exceeds $7 trillion dollars?
Talk of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is an outrage. I just hope our politicians realize it before the debate goes too far. And let's hope they start talking about real issues and real solutions to our problems. While we're at it, can we also ask for some positive vision about where American can and should be headed in the 21st century?
1. I have had a lot of gay friends in my life, and they have all been amazing people I have been proud to count as friends. Some of the gay couples I have known have been incredible role models for happy, healthy, successful marriages. In fact, most of the long-term gay relationships I have known have been a lot more impressive than most of the straight marriages I have known. So it really burns me that anyone would suggest that gays are less worthy than straight couples when it comes to enjoying the rights and priviledges of marriage. I hate the fact that friends of mine - or anyone for that matter - are being discriminated against for something that harms no one else and is at the core of their own pursuit of happiness.
2. The talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - or, as the President and his allies put it, "protecting" marriage - is blasphemy to someone who cherishes this country, our values as a nation, and the Constitution as the most amazing political document in history. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times - ten right away with the Bill of Rights. Of the 17 that came after the Bill of Rights, only one set out to limit citizens' rights rather than protect and defend them. That one instance of limiting rights - Prohibition - was a dismal failure that was eventually rendered moot by a subsequent amendment. Are we seriously going to even consider an amendment that would turn the Constitution into a document that limits freedoms for its citizens rather than protects them?
Others have wisely pointed out that there are other "threats" to the institution of marriage that seem more relevant to the status of the institution in American society: Las Vegas "drive-thru" marriages like Britney Spears' latest PR stunt and a divorce rate where more than half of American marriages will end in divorce come to mind. And is gay marriage a bigger threat to American society than the poverty gap, failing schools in our cities, an impending Social Security solvency crisis, and a federal debt that now exceeds $7 trillion dollars?
Talk of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is an outrage. I just hope our politicians realize it before the debate goes too far. And let's hope they start talking about real issues and real solutions to our problems. While we're at it, can we also ask for some positive vision about where American can and should be headed in the 21st century?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)