Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Historical Lessons for Iraq


We study history to take a glimpse into our past, to gain knowledge as to what motivated people, what mistakes they made, and how we may build upon their experience so that each generation becomes greater than that that preceded it.

The Bush administration is making an interesting claim to support their war on terror; when asked about what lessons he has drawn from Vietnam, he answered “we’ll succeed unless we quit”. The Bush lesson being, had Nixon not called for total withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, and we pressed on, the American intervention would have been victorious. Had we pressed on, America would have been forced to answer the question, what is victory? Would victory have been the complete obliteration of South Vietnam, ending the north-south “civil war”, or perhaps maybe it would be the reformation of South Vietnam into a democratic entity. Who knows, however, because that question was left unanswered in our past, the question has risen again.

Another historical lesson we may draw on to better understand Iraq can be seen in a statement made by Dick Cheney recently.

CHENEY: Remember with me what happened after in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supported the effort against the Soviets. The mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created this safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan -- because we walked away and ignored it -- we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Once again, the presiding wisdom of the Bush administration is that, if we do not leave, then we will win. By most accounts, the US mission in Afghanistan that had taken place during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush (41) was a resounding success. The mission was to halt the spread of Russia and communism into Afghanistan following the removal of the Shah. The United States funded, trained, and armed the mujahideen for many years until the Russians withdrew in 1989. Victory!... or not? The question however is, did we walk away? We accomplished our mission and did not have the foresight to anticipate the rise of the Taliban; at the time there really was no impetus to stay any longer than the mission at hand required. We left the country in tatters; they experienced nearly a decade in guerilla warfare against communist rule leaving their infrastructure broken, the best and the brightest of the country had left out of fear, leaving Afghanistan with no leadership outside of the mujahideen factions; we left an awful situation. This is leaps and bounds different from both Iraq and Vietnam. We did not leave because we were in many ways “losing”. We had won. It was just a shortsighted victory.

Today, if is somewhat the fault of the United States that Islamic terrorism persists with the strength we are currently witnessing. The Mujahideen are by definition very similar to the extremist jihadists. They were fighting the specter of atheist communism and promoting the strength of armed and political Islam. We raised them to power.

What was the United States to do in the 1980s? Were US troops to remain in Afghanistan until democracy was spread from border to border; were we to depose the theocratic state that we funded in exchange for secular leadership? Such a campaign is on par if not more daunting than the current Iraq situation. Never would it have been as obvious that the United States was using political puppets to serve its own worldly interests.

The only lessons we can learn from Vietnam and Afghanistan are that if we remove ourselves from regional struggles, regardless if we began them or not, the United States can retreat to a semblance of isolationism and peace for a short while. The lesson is not that if we remain, that victory is immanent. Such a conclusion is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible to the men and women that volunteer for our armed forces. To achieve “victory” in Iraq, we will most likely be in Iraq for an untold number of years, more than a few of those years will be devoted to figuring out what victory is in the first place. If we learn anything from Afghanistan it is this: even if we achieve victory, how long will it be until we discover that our victory was short lived and our conditions for victory short sighted? What other regional conflicts are we not foreseeing by our actions and what new enemies are we creating?

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Disney's new ad campaign

Disney's new ad campaign is the best one I have seen in a long time. They have been looking for ways to reignite interest in the Disney themeparks and this was a pretty brilliant and glamorous idea; I can't believe they didn't think of it earlier. They have hired Annie Leibovitz to do a series of photos, the first installment of which features Scarlett Johansson as Cinderella, David Beckham as Prince Charming, Lyle Lovett as the March Hare, Oliver Platt as the Mad Hatter, and Beyonce as Alice in Wonderland. Apparently Annie is setting up for the second installment that will have A-list folks dressing up as the Little Mermaid, Snow White, and Peter Pan. Let's hope they don't ask Michael Jackson to be Pan.




Tuesday, January 23, 2007

state of the union!

Tonight, George W. Bush discussed Health care reform. It's about time. Energy policy reform. Long due. Immigration reform. Glad it's being addressed. Global Warming. I told you so, but it's already too little too late. Fuel efficiency. Fiiiinally. The semblance of bipartisan discussion and open exchange of ideas. I sure hope so.

Dikembe Mutombo. You've got to be kidding me.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

minimum wage increase good?

The business community (at least part of it) is dreading the new federal minimum wage increase. In the majority of the articles I've read, small business owners have overwhelmingly stated that they think that the sizable increase to minimum wage is a moral obligation. At the same time, they fear that an increase in minimum wage is going to hurt their business; either they will have to cut jobs or increase prices, either way they are predicting a loss in their own yearly income.

Not being an economist, I couldn't tell you what I think is going to happen, nor do I think a model is necessarily going to accurately tell you how businesses will react and their bottom line along with it.

This morning I read an article in the NYTimes about Washington State. For about a decade, each year they have increased the wages of the lowest paid workers. Washington state did not crash and burn, losing all of its jobs to Idaho. Washington added 90,000 jobs in 2006, the interviewed business owners say they are doing more business than ever (maybe they got lucky), border residents have streamed to Washington for employment, and even the Association of Washington Business stopped fighting the minimum wage law.

To be fair, the percent of small businesses in Washington State's overall scheme is 2.4%. Can it be used as an accurate prediction for what is to come after all states adopt the new higher minimum wage? We'll all wait and see, but in my opinion, an increase in minimum wage has been a long time coming. It's about time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11minimum.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=bf304392cdc5baf4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Gator Nation

Gator Nation is proud. The school I almost went to, the school my dad decided to continue his education at, the school my brother turned down Duke for: the University of Florida, the mighty gators, National Champions. It's great to be a part of Gator Nation.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

so global warming IS partly our fault

“It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.”

<3 Exxon Mobil


Wow. Can you believe that? This statement arriving just after news that Exxon Mobil had manufactured and supported op-eds and studies that created uncertainty towards human contribution to global warming. Well actually, first they released that the news of their propaganda campaign was an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”, then they thought... no no no, the truth will come out and we will get kicked in the balls like Enron; Courageously they told the truth, hopefully it wasn't just a press snippet. Don't Republicans look silly now, and now it may be too late for Al Gore to save us! Can we label those folks "global warming deniers" and point and laugh at them?

Saturday, January 06, 2007

smackdown

You may disagree with the content of Keith Olbermann's commentary, but it is refreshing to see someone other than FOX News brewing up a pot of righteous indignation. This video comes in just a week before President Bush is slated to address the nation and deliver us his plan for future prospects in Iraq. I would have to agree with NPR, that it is likely that Bush's message is going to look exactly like the plan for Iraq just released by The American Enterprise Institute (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp).
I mean... almost everything he does mirrors AEI.

Already the Democrats have issued a statement to President Bush asking him to reconsider what they (and basically everyone else) anticipate his Iraq plan to be, the increase of troops. Troop increase, I can't imagine that this is a good idea, how could it be? We are not fighting a war in Iraq, at least not in the traditional sense, where there are distinct forces on each side of a conflict. In a traditional war, numbers matter, strategy matters, and perseverance matters. How are the tactics of traditional warfare going to help, are we to increase our troop levels by ~20% and knock on every Iraqi door and ask if they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? We are fighting people who are defending their crumpled status quo and who really don't like the United States. The only way to "win" militarily would be to kill every last terrorist and detain/kill every single person that we think might one day become a terrorist. I think at that point we would be teetering on a cloaked form of genocide. We are attacking symptoms and not causes, and by not focusing on the cause, things have been escalating out of control.

What are the causes? Historical relations between Sunnis and Shi'a, the former Baathist party, and the inability of countries such as Lebanon and Iran to provide better social services and political strength to its people outside of terror sponsoring organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Is it a surprise that there are so many that support Hezbollah and Hamas? Given that they have extensive social programs including education, health care, etc. and national unity, how can we be surprised? President Bush and his cabinet have shown little effort in factoring these elements into US-Middle East policy and as we all know (or at least will eventually come to realize) it has been disastrous.

As a side note, Americans should observe Hezbollah and Hamas. They provide everything that a government should provide to its people, but their foreign policies are also driven by the religious convictions of their leaders; foreign policies that have dragged them into war with Israel, with no end in sight. We should take note of this as our politicians suggest and promote that the United States be a Christian nation.