Getting your arms politically and militarily around an ongoing international crisis is no easy task for a President. Libya and President Obama are no exception. Throughout the high speed events in the Arab world since the Tunisian revolution, Obama has had to nuance and adjust his position as events unfolded. It was so with Egypt when the message changed frequently to reflect the ongoing events--support political reform generally, pressure Egyptian President Mubarak on such reform, to finally Mubarak must go with back and forth ambiguities on the message of the day.
The major U.S. dilemma was the bad fit between our rhetoric on political reform and our long time support of Mubarak and some other autocrats in the region determined to preserve their control. Like Egypt, that bad fit also applied to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia who has now distanced himself from Washington because of what is seen as an American propensity to desert its autocratic friends if the occasion demands.
Thus it was with the Obama speech on Libya. On the humanitarian need for intervention he was unequivocal in defending the American commitment to avoid "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." I used the term "commitment" and therein lies the rub. What are we committed to beyond the humanitarian goal which set in motion the creation of a no-fly zone, authority to attack Libyan ground forces seen as threatening the humanitarian goal, and an arms embargo? We want Gaddafi out but how far do we go to achieve this? And given our decade long experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, how can we be sure we are not stepping into another sticky mess? These are questions for which, at this point, there can only be ambiguity because no one has the answers. So what we can expect at least in the near term are nuanced refinements on where we stand on a given day about such things as Gaddafi's ouster, and insistence that the U.S. has taken a secondary role in the military intervention and thus can do it on the cheap. Which leads me to a further note on Libya.
0-0-0-0-0
In at least two previous postings, I presented the view that the U.S. must step back throughout the region and let Muslim Turkey take the lead in seeking to restore stability in the Arab world. Given the increasing instability and the lack of trust/confidence in the U.S. in the region, it seems like a good idea to give the Turks a try. Despite the anti-Turkish arrogance of French President Sarkozy , Muslim Turkey has stepped up to the plate with its varying forms of support for the NATO intervention in Libya.
One of its biggest contributions was supporting NATO to take the command role in the military involvement. To do what NATO agreed to do, all 28 members of the alliance had to vote "yes". Turkey, the only predominantly Muslim member of NATO supported the alliance taking the command role while at the same time thwarting Sarkozy's efforts for French leadership, presumably part of his image burnishing for the next French presidential election. The unanimity in approving the basic NATO involvement did not include unanimity on what are the end goals of the intervention.
This doesn't mean that Turkey is okay with the military intervention in Libya. It isn't. Turkey simply does not support such military intervention. It will participate in maintaining the no-fly zone but not any attacks on Gaddafi's ground forces. It has agreed to provide some ships to support the arms embargo, and it will take over the operation of the Benghazi airport to facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid to Libya.
Beyond Libya, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has called Syrian President Assad on several occasions urging the Syrian leader to take a positive role on political reform. Syria may be considering some steps in that direction. If so, these have been overshadowed by Assad's stern repression of protesters. The point here is not to measure the success or failure of Erdogan's efforts in Syria by Assad's actions but simply to illustrate his willingness as the leader of a major Muslim nation in the region to try his hand at resolving a growing problem of Syrian instability. It would certainly seem to advance U.S. interests if political reform or regime change drove a wedge between Syria and the U.S.'s greatest headache in the region, Iran who has been closely allied with Assad on many crucial issues such as support of Hezbollah. What Erdogan has avoided and seems determined to show is that Turkey is acting as a free agent and not a spear carrier for the U.S.
The Arab world is in sufficient shambles, along with U.S. policy there, that we should at least realize that there has got to be another way to achieve political reform and restore regional political stability. The first step should be a diminished U.S. and European (primarily Britain and France) political presence and make way for Muslim-led efforts through Turkey. The question is: Can the U.S., France, and Britain accept such a role? France and Britain have long grown accustomed to waning influence in the Arab world, while always looking for new opportunities to bring back their glory days when they dominated much of north Africa and the Middle East. For the U.S., the world's military superpower, waning influence may not be easily accepted.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
RAINING ON THE TEA PARTY PARADE, NEAR AND LONG TERM
The tea party (TP) and its fellow traveling (FT) organizations started as a protest movement and remains a protest movement. Given that their central concerns are spending, deficits, debt, and growth of government, they should have a long life ahead. For the TP/FT, whatever is achieved will never be enough. As I said in a previous post, they purvey a new political puritanism, if you don't agree with us on everything, we will get you at the next election. So this could be a good week for the TP/FT.
One of the umbrella TP organizations, the TP Patriots is organizing a protest in Washington on Thursday to hold the feet to the fire of establishment GOP lawmakers, and Speaker Boehner in particular. Their message: House Republicans must insist on a $61 billion cut in federal spending for the current fiscal year which ends on September 30. This is hardly a new demand but it comes just as the current short-term spending resolution is set to expire on April 8. The $61 billion figure was set weeks ago, but, unable to get that and in order to keep the government running, House Republicans have had to settle for a series of short-term funding resolutions. Now the TP/FT is saying, "if you can't get the $61 billion cut, shut down the government."
That too would hardly seem new but there seems to be a feeling among both GOP House leaders and Democratic leaders in the Senate that getting another short-term spending resolution, say for another 3-4 weeks,won't happen. Reportedly, the Democratic Senators are willing to go $20 billion in cuts which in any final agreement would probably reach $30+ billion. To those of us who have watched this mess for months, it's time for Congress to do something that will close out the budget battles for fiscal 2011, if for no other reason than to clear the field for resuming combat over fiscal 2012. The first skirmishes should come soon as the GOP presents its alternative to Obama's 2012 budget plan. With the seeming ability of Congress to exploit every legislative rule in the books, it is not clear why it's not possible to do something to get us beyond April 8. Congress should feel particularly pressed to end the budget war now, since, just back from a one week recess, it has to prepare for another two week recess for Easter.
And this is where the Thursday TP/FT protest gathering in Washington is aimed. They are adamant about the $61 billion. Here is where Boehner is caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If he opens himself up to a lower compromise number, he may lose a good share of the 87 new House members, many who ran openly as TP candidates with others being hardline conservatives equally adamant on spending, deficit issues. The April 8 resolution passed the House with substantial Democratic backing, a clear embarrassment to Boehner who has been red faced on several earlier occasions when TP/FT lawmakers deserted him.
We left of center people always hold out the hope that the TP will overplay its extremist hand and backfire in favor of the Democrats. In the short term, we can hope for a downpour on Thursday. I'll close out this posting with two long-term downside trends for the TP/FT.
First is a study based on census data showing an increasing number of African-Americans are moving out of northern urban areas and heading for cities and communities, large and small, in the south the original population heartland of African-Americans a century ago. The TP/FT is alive and well throughout the nation, but the south with its concentrations of TP/FT, plus evangelicals/fundamentalists is seen as its heartland. Demographics don't change quickly but for those far right enthusiasts thinking ahead, a new wave of African-American residents is not exactly what the male, white dominated movement wants to see. Further, apparently the African -Americans moving south are choosing places with small black population, presumably diluting white control.
Of no less concern must be the Census report that Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. The TP movement, along with its fellow travelers, share that anti-immigration, nativist feeling that the desired white, protestant culture is threatened to be swallowed up by the brown, Catholic Hispanics who live among us. The new group now represents 16.3 percent of the population, up hugely from the 12.5 percent in 2000. Further, as the fastest growing ethnic group, Hispanics will see the obvious political advantages accruing to them.
I won't be around as these long-term demographic trends and policies play out, but in the near term, I am hoping for heavy rain in Washington on Thursday.
One of the umbrella TP organizations, the TP Patriots is organizing a protest in Washington on Thursday to hold the feet to the fire of establishment GOP lawmakers, and Speaker Boehner in particular. Their message: House Republicans must insist on a $61 billion cut in federal spending for the current fiscal year which ends on September 30. This is hardly a new demand but it comes just as the current short-term spending resolution is set to expire on April 8. The $61 billion figure was set weeks ago, but, unable to get that and in order to keep the government running, House Republicans have had to settle for a series of short-term funding resolutions. Now the TP/FT is saying, "if you can't get the $61 billion cut, shut down the government."
That too would hardly seem new but there seems to be a feeling among both GOP House leaders and Democratic leaders in the Senate that getting another short-term spending resolution, say for another 3-4 weeks,won't happen. Reportedly, the Democratic Senators are willing to go $20 billion in cuts which in any final agreement would probably reach $30+ billion. To those of us who have watched this mess for months, it's time for Congress to do something that will close out the budget battles for fiscal 2011, if for no other reason than to clear the field for resuming combat over fiscal 2012. The first skirmishes should come soon as the GOP presents its alternative to Obama's 2012 budget plan. With the seeming ability of Congress to exploit every legislative rule in the books, it is not clear why it's not possible to do something to get us beyond April 8. Congress should feel particularly pressed to end the budget war now, since, just back from a one week recess, it has to prepare for another two week recess for Easter.
And this is where the Thursday TP/FT protest gathering in Washington is aimed. They are adamant about the $61 billion. Here is where Boehner is caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If he opens himself up to a lower compromise number, he may lose a good share of the 87 new House members, many who ran openly as TP candidates with others being hardline conservatives equally adamant on spending, deficit issues. The April 8 resolution passed the House with substantial Democratic backing, a clear embarrassment to Boehner who has been red faced on several earlier occasions when TP/FT lawmakers deserted him.
We left of center people always hold out the hope that the TP will overplay its extremist hand and backfire in favor of the Democrats. In the short term, we can hope for a downpour on Thursday. I'll close out this posting with two long-term downside trends for the TP/FT.
First is a study based on census data showing an increasing number of African-Americans are moving out of northern urban areas and heading for cities and communities, large and small, in the south the original population heartland of African-Americans a century ago. The TP/FT is alive and well throughout the nation, but the south with its concentrations of TP/FT, plus evangelicals/fundamentalists is seen as its heartland. Demographics don't change quickly but for those far right enthusiasts thinking ahead, a new wave of African-American residents is not exactly what the male, white dominated movement wants to see. Further, apparently the African -Americans moving south are choosing places with small black population, presumably diluting white control.
Of no less concern must be the Census report that Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. The TP movement, along with its fellow travelers, share that anti-immigration, nativist feeling that the desired white, protestant culture is threatened to be swallowed up by the brown, Catholic Hispanics who live among us. The new group now represents 16.3 percent of the population, up hugely from the 12.5 percent in 2000. Further, as the fastest growing ethnic group, Hispanics will see the obvious political advantages accruing to them.
I won't be around as these long-term demographic trends and policies play out, but in the near term, I am hoping for heavy rain in Washington on Thursday.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
THE BUDGET CIRCUS; NOTE ON LIBYA
Congress is in recess again. It reconvenes next week in time for taking up still another short term funding plan to avoid a government shutdown. I've lost track of how many short-term funding bills have been passed so far; the current one runs out on April 8. While the amount of money proposed to be cut is a significant issue, it doesn't seem to be the major sticking point between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate.
What is the great stumbling block is insistence by the tea party (TP) members and their fellow travelers that the funding legislation go beyond dollar amounts and include non-budgetary policies which are part of the right wing agenda. They include banning funds for Planned Parenthood, a gift to the anti-abortion activists, cutting out funding to implement health care reform, and banning new environmental regulations to get at smokestack emissions. Anyone of these considered alone would tie up the Congress, but when you include all of them in a short-term funding bill, it is hardly any wonder they get to the Senate DOA--dead on arrival.
Right now it looks like there will be another two months of the same, but we are approaching the real showdown. That will be when Congress has to consider a bill to raise the national debt level above $14.3 trillion, That is when the TP and supporters will try to draw a line in the sand. "If you want to raise the debt ceiling, then you must make deep cuts in spending." And here is where Speaker Boehner will have his work cut out for him. Boehner himself is a legislative realist (believe that's the nicest thing I've ever said about him.) who sees the need to raise the debt ceiling. His big task will be to avoid having the TP and supporters opposing him as a bloc and forcing Boehner to rely on Democrats to provide the needed votes. He had something of that same experience with the last short term spending bill but would hate having a re-run on the more visible issue of the debt ceiling.
This brings me to President Obama who has been criticized by some for not showing more leadership on the running series of short term spending bills.In my view, he would have to be nuts to involve himself in these skirmishes. Those scripts are pretty well written and hardly require a part for the President. Raising the debt ceiling is another matter. Raising the debt ceiling is needed to avoid a declaration of national bankruptcy and thus is a headline issue which he won't want to duck. A bipartisan group of 64 senators, 32 from each party, recently wrote Obama about sitting down with Congress to start work on a longterm blueprint for resolving the nation's growing fiscal dilemma. Such a blueprint would include perhaps major changes in the tax code, and figuring out a way to deal with the big ticket items that account for so much of the budget--social security, medicare, and medicaid. He is likely to agree with the senators, timed to the debt ceiling issue, to show his serious concern with the entitlement issues, but without committing to any specific approaches for doing so.
0-0-0-0
It will be interesting to see how long some of the players in the Libyan crisis hang in there. The Arab League which was a major factor in the U.S. decision to get involved sounds like it is backing away. Several Arab countries had also committed military support to the maintenance of the no-fly zone. So far, I have only heard reports that Qatar will be sending a small number of planes this weekend. Whether they will drop any bombs, fire any missiles, or just patrol, we don't know. Arab participation was sought to give cover to the U.S. and NATO so it wouldn't appear to be still another western attack on a Muslim country. Arab participation worked for the first President Bush in the first Gulf war but that was aided greatly by the fact that one Arab country (Iraq) had invaded another Arab country (Kuwait). In Libya we intervened in a civil war. The real test of Arab perseverence will come if Qaddafi hold on to control of some part of Libya. It seems like a good idea for us to get below the radar before that test comes.
It is not clear yet who will be taking over the no-fly zone responsibility. Having reluctantly (I hope) been sucked into that adventure, there's a good chance we will exit quickly. But in the Arab world, the U.S. will continue to be viewed as the leader of the band and even turning over responsibility to someone else is not likely to free us of an anti-Muslim image burnished by our wars and continuing presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At home and abroad, spring has gotten off to a painful start.
What is the great stumbling block is insistence by the tea party (TP) members and their fellow travelers that the funding legislation go beyond dollar amounts and include non-budgetary policies which are part of the right wing agenda. They include banning funds for Planned Parenthood, a gift to the anti-abortion activists, cutting out funding to implement health care reform, and banning new environmental regulations to get at smokestack emissions. Anyone of these considered alone would tie up the Congress, but when you include all of them in a short-term funding bill, it is hardly any wonder they get to the Senate DOA--dead on arrival.
Right now it looks like there will be another two months of the same, but we are approaching the real showdown. That will be when Congress has to consider a bill to raise the national debt level above $14.3 trillion, That is when the TP and supporters will try to draw a line in the sand. "If you want to raise the debt ceiling, then you must make deep cuts in spending." And here is where Speaker Boehner will have his work cut out for him. Boehner himself is a legislative realist (believe that's the nicest thing I've ever said about him.) who sees the need to raise the debt ceiling. His big task will be to avoid having the TP and supporters opposing him as a bloc and forcing Boehner to rely on Democrats to provide the needed votes. He had something of that same experience with the last short term spending bill but would hate having a re-run on the more visible issue of the debt ceiling.
This brings me to President Obama who has been criticized by some for not showing more leadership on the running series of short term spending bills.In my view, he would have to be nuts to involve himself in these skirmishes. Those scripts are pretty well written and hardly require a part for the President. Raising the debt ceiling is another matter. Raising the debt ceiling is needed to avoid a declaration of national bankruptcy and thus is a headline issue which he won't want to duck. A bipartisan group of 64 senators, 32 from each party, recently wrote Obama about sitting down with Congress to start work on a longterm blueprint for resolving the nation's growing fiscal dilemma. Such a blueprint would include perhaps major changes in the tax code, and figuring out a way to deal with the big ticket items that account for so much of the budget--social security, medicare, and medicaid. He is likely to agree with the senators, timed to the debt ceiling issue, to show his serious concern with the entitlement issues, but without committing to any specific approaches for doing so.
0-0-0-0
It will be interesting to see how long some of the players in the Libyan crisis hang in there. The Arab League which was a major factor in the U.S. decision to get involved sounds like it is backing away. Several Arab countries had also committed military support to the maintenance of the no-fly zone. So far, I have only heard reports that Qatar will be sending a small number of planes this weekend. Whether they will drop any bombs, fire any missiles, or just patrol, we don't know. Arab participation was sought to give cover to the U.S. and NATO so it wouldn't appear to be still another western attack on a Muslim country. Arab participation worked for the first President Bush in the first Gulf war but that was aided greatly by the fact that one Arab country (Iraq) had invaded another Arab country (Kuwait). In Libya we intervened in a civil war. The real test of Arab perseverence will come if Qaddafi hold on to control of some part of Libya. It seems like a good idea for us to get below the radar before that test comes.
It is not clear yet who will be taking over the no-fly zone responsibility. Having reluctantly (I hope) been sucked into that adventure, there's a good chance we will exit quickly. But in the Arab world, the U.S. will continue to be viewed as the leader of the band and even turning over responsibility to someone else is not likely to free us of an anti-Muslim image burnished by our wars and continuing presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At home and abroad, spring has gotten off to a painful start.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
AND NOW LIBYA
It is difficult to see any pluses for the U.S. coming from the multitude of dilemmas that we confront in the Arab world stretching from the Middle East across north Africa. And the Libyan intervention is too new to have a sense of how that will turn out. Perhaps there is one plus -- the U.S. may no longer act as policeman of the world, a reduced role supported by many in this country. From the U.N. sanctioned Korean war to military intervention to halt ethnic cleansing in what was Yugoslavia to the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, this country has taken that role upon itself; and there are many countries who welcomed our policeman role. Now we seem to be a war weary, financially challenged nation, still casting a long shadow in world events, but with reduced substance and public will.
Not to draw an analogy, but all of this makes me think about Great Britain after World Wars I and II. After World War I, Britain was broke; the war had depleted its treasury and the country was deeply in debt, primarily to the U.S. London was losing its position as the financial capital of the world. After World War II, Britain became a second rate power, no longer able to retain its colonial empire and standing in the shadow of the new world powers --U.S. and the Soviet Union. The final denouement came in l956 when Britain, along with Israel and France, invaded Egypt to topple President Nasser who had nationalized the Suez Canal, and to reassert control over that vital waterway, Britain's historic lifeline to what was left of its Asian empire and the key to retaining what left of its influence in the Middle East. Under pressure from U.S. President Eisenhower, they were forced to withdraw their forces, a humiliating event for the once world power.
From all readings we now appear to be a waning power in the same part of the world, waning in the sense that the Middle Eastern rulers whom we have long supported no longer trust us. That trust eroded seriously after what they see as our abandonment of long-time ally Egyptian President Mubarak, and our pressure for political reforms in other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain. They are now acting independently to protect their own primary self-interest, the continuation of their autocratic rule. Nothing illustrates this independent action more than the Saudi decision to militarily intervene in Bahrain to support a fellow monarch and to prevent the Shia majority from gaining control of the Bahraini government. The last thing the Sunni Muslim monarch in Saudi Arabia wants is to have Bahrain fall under control of the Shiites and thereby give a foothold to Shia Iran at the Saudi front door. The Saudi intervention was made easier by the world's attention to the disasters in Japan and Gaddafi's repressive defense of his regime in Libya.
There does not seem to be an easy way out of our dilemmas in the Arab world. Our calls for political reform and our measured support of the protesters run counter to what these rulers believe to be their vital self-preservation. The United Nations approval of a military response to Gaddafi's defense of his regime finds us taking a second position to Britain and France in that response. However, this is more a reflection of the political dilemmas we face in the region rather than an indicator of waning military power. The British and French got far ahead of us in promoting a no-fly zone so it seemed like a good idea to let them stay out front. Further, the Arab League and several Arab countries have backed military action or are expected to actively participate in the action. Given our two wars and continuing presence in Muslim Iraq and Muslim Afghanistan, it seems to be a good idea not to take the lead role in still another assault on a Muslim nation.
While this is not directly related to the point of waning U.S. influence in the Arab world, there is another relevant point to our support of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion. When the first Gulf War ended in l991, we created two no-fly zones in Iraq, one being the northern zone to protect the Kurds against any revenge by Saddam Hussein. Over the 10+ year duration of that zone, the Kurds had what was in effect a semi-autonomous region under U.S. protection. That semi-autonomous status has given the Kurds a distinct advantage today when it comes to settling various issues between the Kurds and the Arab parts of Iraq.
Now a no-fly zone has been created in northern Libya but the difference from the Kurdish zone in Iraq is that we don't really know whom we are protecting -- "good guys" because they are anti-Gaddafi, or potentially "bad guys" who may provide a haven for radical Islamic jihadists with a terrorism agenda? This isn't to argue against such protection, although there are reasonable contrarian views, but only to raise the point about future uncertainties if the protected area, or part of it, becomes the political and military base camp to plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya. Now back to the broader theme of waning U.S. power in the Arab world.
As said in previous postings, waning power doesn't equate with impotence. We are still the dominant military power in the region and thus we count for something, a lot actually, when it comes to guarding/controlling the vital oil shipping routes in the region. We are still seen as the dominant countervailing power to the rising influence of Iran, although the Saudis may become more assertive themselves in confronting Iran. But the remaining monarchs in the region are less likely to listen to us on such things as political reform and any potential role they may have in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. The Saudis who have been sideline players from time to time in offering a solution, are less likely to get involved now and risk a backlash at home at a time when defense of the regime is the single most important objective.
So right now the U.S. policy seems to be salvaging whatever influence it may have left in the Arab world. That in turn likely means an even more muted advocacy for political reform and greater acceptance, not openly expressed, of more repressive measures against protesters/revolutionaries.
Not to draw an analogy, but all of this makes me think about Great Britain after World Wars I and II. After World War I, Britain was broke; the war had depleted its treasury and the country was deeply in debt, primarily to the U.S. London was losing its position as the financial capital of the world. After World War II, Britain became a second rate power, no longer able to retain its colonial empire and standing in the shadow of the new world powers --U.S. and the Soviet Union. The final denouement came in l956 when Britain, along with Israel and France, invaded Egypt to topple President Nasser who had nationalized the Suez Canal, and to reassert control over that vital waterway, Britain's historic lifeline to what was left of its Asian empire and the key to retaining what left of its influence in the Middle East. Under pressure from U.S. President Eisenhower, they were forced to withdraw their forces, a humiliating event for the once world power.
From all readings we now appear to be a waning power in the same part of the world, waning in the sense that the Middle Eastern rulers whom we have long supported no longer trust us. That trust eroded seriously after what they see as our abandonment of long-time ally Egyptian President Mubarak, and our pressure for political reforms in other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain. They are now acting independently to protect their own primary self-interest, the continuation of their autocratic rule. Nothing illustrates this independent action more than the Saudi decision to militarily intervene in Bahrain to support a fellow monarch and to prevent the Shia majority from gaining control of the Bahraini government. The last thing the Sunni Muslim monarch in Saudi Arabia wants is to have Bahrain fall under control of the Shiites and thereby give a foothold to Shia Iran at the Saudi front door. The Saudi intervention was made easier by the world's attention to the disasters in Japan and Gaddafi's repressive defense of his regime in Libya.
There does not seem to be an easy way out of our dilemmas in the Arab world. Our calls for political reform and our measured support of the protesters run counter to what these rulers believe to be their vital self-preservation. The United Nations approval of a military response to Gaddafi's defense of his regime finds us taking a second position to Britain and France in that response. However, this is more a reflection of the political dilemmas we face in the region rather than an indicator of waning military power. The British and French got far ahead of us in promoting a no-fly zone so it seemed like a good idea to let them stay out front. Further, the Arab League and several Arab countries have backed military action or are expected to actively participate in the action. Given our two wars and continuing presence in Muslim Iraq and Muslim Afghanistan, it seems to be a good idea not to take the lead role in still another assault on a Muslim nation.
While this is not directly related to the point of waning U.S. influence in the Arab world, there is another relevant point to our support of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion. When the first Gulf War ended in l991, we created two no-fly zones in Iraq, one being the northern zone to protect the Kurds against any revenge by Saddam Hussein. Over the 10+ year duration of that zone, the Kurds had what was in effect a semi-autonomous region under U.S. protection. That semi-autonomous status has given the Kurds a distinct advantage today when it comes to settling various issues between the Kurds and the Arab parts of Iraq.
Now a no-fly zone has been created in northern Libya but the difference from the Kurdish zone in Iraq is that we don't really know whom we are protecting -- "good guys" because they are anti-Gaddafi, or potentially "bad guys" who may provide a haven for radical Islamic jihadists with a terrorism agenda? This isn't to argue against such protection, although there are reasonable contrarian views, but only to raise the point about future uncertainties if the protected area, or part of it, becomes the political and military base camp to plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya. Now back to the broader theme of waning U.S. power in the Arab world.
As said in previous postings, waning power doesn't equate with impotence. We are still the dominant military power in the region and thus we count for something, a lot actually, when it comes to guarding/controlling the vital oil shipping routes in the region. We are still seen as the dominant countervailing power to the rising influence of Iran, although the Saudis may become more assertive themselves in confronting Iran. But the remaining monarchs in the region are less likely to listen to us on such things as political reform and any potential role they may have in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. The Saudis who have been sideline players from time to time in offering a solution, are less likely to get involved now and risk a backlash at home at a time when defense of the regime is the single most important objective.
So right now the U.S. policy seems to be salvaging whatever influence it may have left in the Arab world. That in turn likely means an even more muted advocacy for political reform and greater acceptance, not openly expressed, of more repressive measures against protesters/revolutionaries.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
HISTORICAL TURNING POINT FOR THE ARAB WORLD?
Just before leaving for 2+ weeks of travel, I viewed an online video by foreign affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria. Like David Ignatius whom I cite from time to time, Zakaria is, in my opinion, one of the more insightful analysts on what's going on in the Arab world. Painting on the broadest canvas of historical perspective, Zakaria said that what is occurring now is the ending of the 1000 years of rule of Arabs by non-Arabs, from the Ottoman empire to the current ousting of autocrats leftover from more recent colonial rule. Arabs are taking control of their own affairs.
As to how this is a U.S. foreign policy problem, Zakaria said any backlash against the U.S. is not for its long standing pro-Israeli bias but rather from its pro-aristocracy stand. With the disappearance of rulers whom we have long supported, our power is waning in the region.
Although Zakaria didn't say it, presumably that waning refers to the anti-U.S. view held in many parts of the Muslim/Arab world. Our 63 years of pro-Israeli policy has long ago eroded our standing in the region. With our invasion of Iraq in 2003, the view of the U.S. as a colonialist, anti-Muslim power grew. Then there is the threat of nuclear-armed Iranian hegemony in the region, a prospect we enhanced by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iran's arch enemy. This, in turn, has led to the rise of a Shia-dominated Iraq more closely aligned with its Iranian co-religionists. Now going a bit beyond Zakaria to a future view.
In a few earlier postings, within a domestic political context, I talked about the "politics of irrelevance", a devastating form of politics when no one cares what you are saying. So, "are we becoming irrelevant in the Arab world?" Probably not but what we may say and do is likely to matter less, maybe a lot less, to the new Arab leaders who seem to be emerging and who view the U.S. as having been and continues to be a supporter of long time autocratic leaders in the region (although the numbers are dwindling). Our military presence in the region is still significant and certainly not irrelevant. But perhaps that presence is less significant to the new Arab leaders than to the Chinese and Indians who view the waterways of the region as major choke points, where the U.S. stands astride, of their vital energy supply lines. To stretch the canvas even further.
If Zakaria is correct about the Arab revolutions/uprisings and U.S. policy, meaning our pro-Israeli stand is unrelated to what's going on, then maybe another possibility presents itself. Perhaps the actors in another regional drama, the seemingly endless Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, can move quietly off stage and get some matters resolved without another round of headline grabbing, Washington-staged efforts to breathe new life into the so-called peace process. I never thought I would have an optimistic utterance on this issue, but maybe, just maybe, there is an opportunity to really deal with the square one issue of the problem as it now exists.
That starting point issue is not new Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, but rather the open schism between Hamas in Gaza and the western backed Palestinian authority (PA) under Mahmoud Abbas on the West Bank. Until these two come together peacefully, there can be no viable, credible bargaining partner to negotiate with Israel. A reconciliation won't be easy since Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel, while the PA has a history of seeking a deal with Israel to create an independent Palestinian state. This oversimplifies the square one problem, since there is a great division within the Israeli ruling coalition over the settlements issue to say nothing about Israel's far right opposition to the idea of even creating an independent Palestinian state and all the sticky complications attached to that U.S./western-backed goal. So while I have taken some liberties with Zakaria's basic thesis with my semi-Pollyana view of future possibilities, he did present a challenging perspective which invited further free-ranging speculation.
0-0-0-0-
I'll close on a personal note. We have left the sun and sand behind and returned to our digs in Tennessee. What we brought back with us is the memory of a mandatory evacuation to get away from the tsunami that was making its way from Japan to the Kona coast in Hawaii. We spent 12 hours with all of our luggage in our rental car, about 2/3rds of that time overnight in a Walmart parking lot. If you ever have to do this yourself, try to find a 24-hour Walmart on high ground, meaning we had invited access to their restrooms. This was no small thing. As it turned out, our part of Hawaii received considerable damage and was the last part of the state to have an all clear. There was severe damage to some homes, hotels, businesses, etc. But after reading about and seeing on television the death and destruction in Japan, we quickly came to realize how fortunate we were and how trivial any personal inconvenience.
As to how this is a U.S. foreign policy problem, Zakaria said any backlash against the U.S. is not for its long standing pro-Israeli bias but rather from its pro-aristocracy stand. With the disappearance of rulers whom we have long supported, our power is waning in the region.
Although Zakaria didn't say it, presumably that waning refers to the anti-U.S. view held in many parts of the Muslim/Arab world. Our 63 years of pro-Israeli policy has long ago eroded our standing in the region. With our invasion of Iraq in 2003, the view of the U.S. as a colonialist, anti-Muslim power grew. Then there is the threat of nuclear-armed Iranian hegemony in the region, a prospect we enhanced by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iran's arch enemy. This, in turn, has led to the rise of a Shia-dominated Iraq more closely aligned with its Iranian co-religionists. Now going a bit beyond Zakaria to a future view.
In a few earlier postings, within a domestic political context, I talked about the "politics of irrelevance", a devastating form of politics when no one cares what you are saying. So, "are we becoming irrelevant in the Arab world?" Probably not but what we may say and do is likely to matter less, maybe a lot less, to the new Arab leaders who seem to be emerging and who view the U.S. as having been and continues to be a supporter of long time autocratic leaders in the region (although the numbers are dwindling). Our military presence in the region is still significant and certainly not irrelevant. But perhaps that presence is less significant to the new Arab leaders than to the Chinese and Indians who view the waterways of the region as major choke points, where the U.S. stands astride, of their vital energy supply lines. To stretch the canvas even further.
If Zakaria is correct about the Arab revolutions/uprisings and U.S. policy, meaning our pro-Israeli stand is unrelated to what's going on, then maybe another possibility presents itself. Perhaps the actors in another regional drama, the seemingly endless Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, can move quietly off stage and get some matters resolved without another round of headline grabbing, Washington-staged efforts to breathe new life into the so-called peace process. I never thought I would have an optimistic utterance on this issue, but maybe, just maybe, there is an opportunity to really deal with the square one issue of the problem as it now exists.
That starting point issue is not new Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, but rather the open schism between Hamas in Gaza and the western backed Palestinian authority (PA) under Mahmoud Abbas on the West Bank. Until these two come together peacefully, there can be no viable, credible bargaining partner to negotiate with Israel. A reconciliation won't be easy since Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel, while the PA has a history of seeking a deal with Israel to create an independent Palestinian state. This oversimplifies the square one problem, since there is a great division within the Israeli ruling coalition over the settlements issue to say nothing about Israel's far right opposition to the idea of even creating an independent Palestinian state and all the sticky complications attached to that U.S./western-backed goal. So while I have taken some liberties with Zakaria's basic thesis with my semi-Pollyana view of future possibilities, he did present a challenging perspective which invited further free-ranging speculation.
0-0-0-0-
I'll close on a personal note. We have left the sun and sand behind and returned to our digs in Tennessee. What we brought back with us is the memory of a mandatory evacuation to get away from the tsunami that was making its way from Japan to the Kona coast in Hawaii. We spent 12 hours with all of our luggage in our rental car, about 2/3rds of that time overnight in a Walmart parking lot. If you ever have to do this yourself, try to find a 24-hour Walmart on high ground, meaning we had invited access to their restrooms. This was no small thing. As it turned out, our part of Hawaii received considerable damage and was the last part of the state to have an all clear. There was severe damage to some homes, hotels, businesses, etc. But after reading about and seeing on television the death and destruction in Japan, we quickly came to realize how fortunate we were and how trivial any personal inconvenience.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
FEDERAL BUDGETING AND THE USUAL GOP MISINFORMATION...
Readers and followers: Will soon be heading back home so replies to comments will become more regular.
-0-0-0-
There is nothing more irritating to me than a tea party backed Senator who makes cutting spending and balancing the budget sound easy, especially when the remedy includes glaring misinformation. But such was the case last Monday in an op-ed piece written by the new Republican Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, who proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Happily, amending the Constitution is a difficult process and similar efforts for balancing the budget in the past have crashed and burned. Lee claims that a bipartisan majority in the Senate and a large number of House members "recognized this urgent need and expressed support" for the proposal, whatever that phrasing means in actual legislative and voting support.
Lee's proposed amendment would hold federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product and require a two-thirds vote to increase taxes, raise the debt limit, or run a "specific deficit", whatever that term means. His plan is not exactly a groundbreaking idea. Similar constitutional amendments have been put forth in the past, but every new Senator (or Representative) with two months experience on the job wants his constituents back home to believe he has hit the ground running. One of his shop worn ideas is the usual GOP one of requiring a super majority to raise taxes but only a simple majority to cut spending.
Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have from time to time found it necessary to raise taxes and that reality may again have to be faced sooner rather than later. So to require a two-thirds majority for a tax increase may at some point become a major nonpartisan burden. Further, what taxes is he talking about -- all taxes, income, payroll, gasoline, inheritance, or what? Okay, so much for a freshman Senator trying to make a splash back home with borrowed ideas. But to me the real aggravation came with his statement that the vast majority of states "have constitutional or statutory mandates to balance their budgets each fiscal year." At best, this is only a half truth, one that is often trotted out by spending hawks.
In fact, most states are required to balance only a part of their budget and a few states don't even have to do that. If required as Lee asserts, those states only have to balance what is commonly called the general fund or operating budget part of a state's annual fiscal plan. That is the part that takes care of day-to-day operating expenses such as salaries and benefits of state employees, medicaid, education, public safety, and so on. And even these states often balance the general fund budget by not setting aside money for future retirement obligations, delaying tax refunds, or some other form of "smoke and mirrors" that kicks current spending needs down the road to the next year or some even more distant fiscal year.
But that is only part of Lee's misinformation about states balancing their budgets every year. States have a second budget -- the capital budget -- that is not included in any requirement for annual budget balancing. To the extent that the capital markets are willing, states borrow money for long-term capital investments such as new office buildings, land acquisition for whatever reason, and their share of road and bridge construction (a large share of the last item comes from the federal government), etc. Thus, contrary to Lee and the large host of other fiscal hawks, state spending is not balanced at all; it is significantly funded with borrowed money.
Compare that with federal budgeting which has a single, consolidated budget, although there is a long history of so-called "off budget" spending for such things as wars to reduce the bottom line on the annual deficit. Thus, whether the federal government is spending money for operating costs such as health care and education, or for long-term investments in combat ships and plans, or for rebuilding deteriorating barge locks on the nation's waterways, it all falls into one budget. Without the advantage that states have of a separate capital budget, the tea party and fellow spending hawks are free to beat the federal government over the head about out of control spending, deficits, and debt. I have no idea what it would mean for the bottom line if the federal government had a separate capital budget, but you can be assured that the annual deficits would be far lower than is now the case.
If people like Lee, and there are hordes of them, insist on misinforming the voter about federal spending, we first need to level the playing field when comparing federal-state budget rules so, to mix a metaphor, we can compare apples with apples.
-0-0-0-
There is nothing more irritating to me than a tea party backed Senator who makes cutting spending and balancing the budget sound easy, especially when the remedy includes glaring misinformation. But such was the case last Monday in an op-ed piece written by the new Republican Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, who proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Happily, amending the Constitution is a difficult process and similar efforts for balancing the budget in the past have crashed and burned. Lee claims that a bipartisan majority in the Senate and a large number of House members "recognized this urgent need and expressed support" for the proposal, whatever that phrasing means in actual legislative and voting support.
Lee's proposed amendment would hold federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product and require a two-thirds vote to increase taxes, raise the debt limit, or run a "specific deficit", whatever that term means. His plan is not exactly a groundbreaking idea. Similar constitutional amendments have been put forth in the past, but every new Senator (or Representative) with two months experience on the job wants his constituents back home to believe he has hit the ground running. One of his shop worn ideas is the usual GOP one of requiring a super majority to raise taxes but only a simple majority to cut spending.
Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have from time to time found it necessary to raise taxes and that reality may again have to be faced sooner rather than later. So to require a two-thirds majority for a tax increase may at some point become a major nonpartisan burden. Further, what taxes is he talking about -- all taxes, income, payroll, gasoline, inheritance, or what? Okay, so much for a freshman Senator trying to make a splash back home with borrowed ideas. But to me the real aggravation came with his statement that the vast majority of states "have constitutional or statutory mandates to balance their budgets each fiscal year." At best, this is only a half truth, one that is often trotted out by spending hawks.
In fact, most states are required to balance only a part of their budget and a few states don't even have to do that. If required as Lee asserts, those states only have to balance what is commonly called the general fund or operating budget part of a state's annual fiscal plan. That is the part that takes care of day-to-day operating expenses such as salaries and benefits of state employees, medicaid, education, public safety, and so on. And even these states often balance the general fund budget by not setting aside money for future retirement obligations, delaying tax refunds, or some other form of "smoke and mirrors" that kicks current spending needs down the road to the next year or some even more distant fiscal year.
But that is only part of Lee's misinformation about states balancing their budgets every year. States have a second budget -- the capital budget -- that is not included in any requirement for annual budget balancing. To the extent that the capital markets are willing, states borrow money for long-term capital investments such as new office buildings, land acquisition for whatever reason, and their share of road and bridge construction (a large share of the last item comes from the federal government), etc. Thus, contrary to Lee and the large host of other fiscal hawks, state spending is not balanced at all; it is significantly funded with borrowed money.
Compare that with federal budgeting which has a single, consolidated budget, although there is a long history of so-called "off budget" spending for such things as wars to reduce the bottom line on the annual deficit. Thus, whether the federal government is spending money for operating costs such as health care and education, or for long-term investments in combat ships and plans, or for rebuilding deteriorating barge locks on the nation's waterways, it all falls into one budget. Without the advantage that states have of a separate capital budget, the tea party and fellow spending hawks are free to beat the federal government over the head about out of control spending, deficits, and debt. I have no idea what it would mean for the bottom line if the federal government had a separate capital budget, but you can be assured that the annual deficits would be far lower than is now the case.
If people like Lee, and there are hordes of them, insist on misinforming the voter about federal spending, we first need to level the playing field when comparing federal-state budget rules so, to mix a metaphor, we can compare apples with apples.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE CROSSHAIRS
Reminder: Still on the road; returning next week.
-0-0-0-
From time to time it's a good idea to look at previous posts to see if what was said before is still current or needs to be updated. This time it's a lookback at the previous post, "A New Era of States Rights?"
The focus of that post was on the constitutional challenges being registered by the states on issues such as: 1) immigration and the power (or not) of a state to insert itself into legal territory that has been the exclusive domain of the federal government; 2)the right of a state to "nullify" an act of Congress by declaring that a federal law is inoperative in the nullifying state or states; and 3) state challenges to President Obama's signature piece of legislation, health care reform, and the right (or not) of the federal government to mandate that individuals carry health insurance. All of these issues are still active with 1) and 3) making their way through the court system. Number 2) is still alive, but is considered a right wing fringe idea which has yet to clear any state legislature.
What is new, if not new, at least far more prominent, is that what's going on at the state level mirrors the issue that still defies a final resolution in Washington--the budget. How to cut deficits by cutting spending and/or in some states raising revenues by new or higher taxes or boosting other revenue sources such as user fees. Wisconsin has captured the headlines on the budget issue by combining proposed state spending cuts through higher public worker contributions to their pension and health benefits with union busting by seeking to repeal for most public workers the bulk of their collective bargaining rights.
Other states such as California (Democratic governor) and Michigan (GOP governor) are also seeking to cut the cost of public employee benefits but have chosen to seek various concessions from the unions rather than try union busting. In Tennessee the target of that GOP-controlled government are the teachers who, under legislation being considered, would no longer have mandatory collective bargaining with local school boards. And in Ohio, the legislative aim is to allow collective bargaining, in altered form at the local level, but would bar strikes by public employees (police and fire are already prohibited from striking). A final note on this point is that some states do not have collective bargaining for public empoloyees.
One other rumbling, although less visible for now, at the state level is also focused on how to cut the costs for public employees. This involves states adopting the private sector's dominant retirement system--the 401(k). The 401(k) is what is called a defined contribution system; that is, the employee puts, for example, two to 10 percent of his or her pay into stocks/mutual fund purchases while the employer may or may not also contribute to the employee's retirement stock plan.
When the 401(k) plan originated, the private sector quickly abandoned the traditional defined benefits plan whereby the employer guaranteed a retiree X number of dollars based on the worker's earnings record and years of employment. But even where such a defined benefit plan existed, it wasn't necessarily guaranteed. For example, several years ago when United Airlines went into bankruptcy, it abandoned its retrement plan and turned the problem to the federal government which pays United retirees far less than they they were originally promised. Other companies have also dumped the problem on the federal government. In short, with the 401(k), the burden of putting aside retirement funds shifted from the employer to the employee, saving companies huge amounts of money.
Now the states are showing an interest in doing the same thing with their public workers. There are many obstacles in the way of making such a shift, particularly for some states, but it can be expected that as state budgets continue to show deficits in the future, some states may follow the private sector in shifting to the 401(k) solution. The idea has also been proposed that states should be allowed to declare bankruptcy as a means of dumping their retirement obligations. That idea has generally been squelched.
To conclude, as states seek to cut spending and reduce deficits, the public employees seem to be in the crosshairs. In some states the focus is on simply cutting the public cost of the workforce while in others this is combined with union busting.
-0-0-0-
From time to time it's a good idea to look at previous posts to see if what was said before is still current or needs to be updated. This time it's a lookback at the previous post, "A New Era of States Rights?"
The focus of that post was on the constitutional challenges being registered by the states on issues such as: 1) immigration and the power (or not) of a state to insert itself into legal territory that has been the exclusive domain of the federal government; 2)the right of a state to "nullify" an act of Congress by declaring that a federal law is inoperative in the nullifying state or states; and 3) state challenges to President Obama's signature piece of legislation, health care reform, and the right (or not) of the federal government to mandate that individuals carry health insurance. All of these issues are still active with 1) and 3) making their way through the court system. Number 2) is still alive, but is considered a right wing fringe idea which has yet to clear any state legislature.
What is new, if not new, at least far more prominent, is that what's going on at the state level mirrors the issue that still defies a final resolution in Washington--the budget. How to cut deficits by cutting spending and/or in some states raising revenues by new or higher taxes or boosting other revenue sources such as user fees. Wisconsin has captured the headlines on the budget issue by combining proposed state spending cuts through higher public worker contributions to their pension and health benefits with union busting by seeking to repeal for most public workers the bulk of their collective bargaining rights.
Other states such as California (Democratic governor) and Michigan (GOP governor) are also seeking to cut the cost of public employee benefits but have chosen to seek various concessions from the unions rather than try union busting. In Tennessee the target of that GOP-controlled government are the teachers who, under legislation being considered, would no longer have mandatory collective bargaining with local school boards. And in Ohio, the legislative aim is to allow collective bargaining, in altered form at the local level, but would bar strikes by public employees (police and fire are already prohibited from striking). A final note on this point is that some states do not have collective bargaining for public empoloyees.
One other rumbling, although less visible for now, at the state level is also focused on how to cut the costs for public employees. This involves states adopting the private sector's dominant retirement system--the 401(k). The 401(k) is what is called a defined contribution system; that is, the employee puts, for example, two to 10 percent of his or her pay into stocks/mutual fund purchases while the employer may or may not also contribute to the employee's retirement stock plan.
When the 401(k) plan originated, the private sector quickly abandoned the traditional defined benefits plan whereby the employer guaranteed a retiree X number of dollars based on the worker's earnings record and years of employment. But even where such a defined benefit plan existed, it wasn't necessarily guaranteed. For example, several years ago when United Airlines went into bankruptcy, it abandoned its retrement plan and turned the problem to the federal government which pays United retirees far less than they they were originally promised. Other companies have also dumped the problem on the federal government. In short, with the 401(k), the burden of putting aside retirement funds shifted from the employer to the employee, saving companies huge amounts of money.
Now the states are showing an interest in doing the same thing with their public workers. There are many obstacles in the way of making such a shift, particularly for some states, but it can be expected that as state budgets continue to show deficits in the future, some states may follow the private sector in shifting to the 401(k) solution. The idea has also been proposed that states should be allowed to declare bankruptcy as a means of dumping their retirement obligations. That idea has generally been squelched.
To conclude, as states seek to cut spending and reduce deficits, the public employees seem to be in the crosshairs. In some states the focus is on simply cutting the public cost of the workforce while in others this is combined with union busting.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN, PART II
A REMINDER that we're on the road and postings and reply to comments may be erratic.
When last seen Garry Trudeau's Red Rascal super hero in the Doonesbury comic strip seemed to have reinvented himself. Red Rascal came on the scene last year as a fighter against the "evil doers" in Afghanistan. Eventually he withdrew in resignation and weariness from his battles with the Taliban evil doers and government corruption, battles which would certainly tire even the most intrepid super hero. Recently he re-emerged unmasked but, sadly, this time as the rescuer of evil doers fleeing from revolution somewhere in the Arab world. But a recent article in The New Yorker magazine (Feb. 28) suggests that it is time for the Red Rascal to return to his roots and resume his quest against Afghan evil doers -- whoever they may be.
According to the article, the U.S. has decided to enter into direct secret talks with Taliban leaders to find a political way of extricating ourselves from a long and costly war that defies a military solution. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, himself an aider and abettor of evil doing, would lead the talks with the U.S. playing a supporting role. Karzai has had previous, intermittent meetings with some Taliban leaders but it is not evident what they have produced, unless it is the new round of negotiations. A core problem is that there are too many moving parts to any settlement.
The Taliban itself is not a monolithic organization. It has its hardline, bitter anti-American element such as the Haqqani group based in Pakistan (see last year's post "Negotiating with the Taliban") and a supposedly more moderate faction, the Quetta Shura, also based in Pakistan. There are also Taliban insurgent groups within Afghanistan who appear to act independently. On the other side, the Karzai government and the territory it supposedly controls is made up of different ethnic tribes, some of whom are both anti-Taliban and anti-Karzai. Tribally, the Taliban has its support base in southern Afghanistan with the Sunni Pashtuns, the largest single ethnic group in the country. Karzai himself is a Pashtun but in the last parliamentary election he lost his Pashtun/Sunni majority to opposition Shia ethnic groups, the loss attributable at least in part to Taliban threats against Pashtun voters.
Then there are the international players. The U.S. is an obvious participant in any political negotiations. No less a key player is Pakistan where so much of the Taliban leadership has found santuary and which has a history of supporting the Taliban. Then there is neighboring Iran (Shia) which at one time was strongly anti-Taliban but which now supports it in various ways as part of Iran's overall anti-U.S. policy (see post "The 800 Pound Gorilla"). And of course there are other interested neighbors such as China which is always concerned about anything happening on its borders and is particularly concerned about Islamic fundamentalists within and outside its borders. Add to that Russia which historically has involved itself in that region, most recently its failed l980s occupation of Afghanistan.
Then there are the substantive questions of what would a political settlement look like. Again refer to the "Negotiating with the Taliban" post. To capsulize that posting, two immediate issues arise concerning how the Taliban would participate in any political settlement. One would be a settlement that legally recognizes the factual situation of Taliban control in various parts of the country, most notably the Pashtun areas of the south and east. The second, perhaps in combination with the first, would bring the Taliban into the national government in Kabul, something likely to be opposed by the anti-Taliban, anti-Pashtun ethnic groups that have already established themselves in the capital.
Another possibility is one that has been proposed by Robert D. Blackwill, President George W. Bush's ambassador to India and later a national security council advisor. In an Article in Foreign Affairs (Jan./Feb. 2011)Blackwill says a military solution is beyond achievement so it's time to consider Plan B -- partition. Such a partition, akin to the first in the previous paragraph, would accept Taliban control/governance of the south and east regions where it is already deeply embedded. The northern and western areas would be governed by what is currenly the Karzai government in Kabul, with nation-building support from the U.S., the U.N., and neighboring countries. And looking farther down the road, Blackwill says perhaps the Kabul government would become sufficiently strong to reconsolidate the two parts. What Blackwill doesn't seem to consider is that it may be the Taliban that may do the reconsolidating, a possibility that could solidify the opposition of the anti-Taliban and anti-Karzai groups to such a partition.
The bottom line is that our military commitment in Afghanistan is not likely to result in defeating the Taliban and a political settlement is required. But don't look for a quick fix. There are too many moving parts to the problem -- a factionalized Taliban, a corrupt so-called central government in Kabul, a long history of decentralized ethnic/tribal warlord control, and a number of international players with their own self-interests who are either actively engaged now or waiting for the right time to demand a seat at the bargaining table. So Red Rascal, pump yourself up to this challenge and get your own early seat at the negotiations. We could surely use another set of eyes on the evil doers.
When last seen Garry Trudeau's Red Rascal super hero in the Doonesbury comic strip seemed to have reinvented himself. Red Rascal came on the scene last year as a fighter against the "evil doers" in Afghanistan. Eventually he withdrew in resignation and weariness from his battles with the Taliban evil doers and government corruption, battles which would certainly tire even the most intrepid super hero. Recently he re-emerged unmasked but, sadly, this time as the rescuer of evil doers fleeing from revolution somewhere in the Arab world. But a recent article in The New Yorker magazine (Feb. 28) suggests that it is time for the Red Rascal to return to his roots and resume his quest against Afghan evil doers -- whoever they may be.
According to the article, the U.S. has decided to enter into direct secret talks with Taliban leaders to find a political way of extricating ourselves from a long and costly war that defies a military solution. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, himself an aider and abettor of evil doing, would lead the talks with the U.S. playing a supporting role. Karzai has had previous, intermittent meetings with some Taliban leaders but it is not evident what they have produced, unless it is the new round of negotiations. A core problem is that there are too many moving parts to any settlement.
The Taliban itself is not a monolithic organization. It has its hardline, bitter anti-American element such as the Haqqani group based in Pakistan (see last year's post "Negotiating with the Taliban") and a supposedly more moderate faction, the Quetta Shura, also based in Pakistan. There are also Taliban insurgent groups within Afghanistan who appear to act independently. On the other side, the Karzai government and the territory it supposedly controls is made up of different ethnic tribes, some of whom are both anti-Taliban and anti-Karzai. Tribally, the Taliban has its support base in southern Afghanistan with the Sunni Pashtuns, the largest single ethnic group in the country. Karzai himself is a Pashtun but in the last parliamentary election he lost his Pashtun/Sunni majority to opposition Shia ethnic groups, the loss attributable at least in part to Taliban threats against Pashtun voters.
Then there are the international players. The U.S. is an obvious participant in any political negotiations. No less a key player is Pakistan where so much of the Taliban leadership has found santuary and which has a history of supporting the Taliban. Then there is neighboring Iran (Shia) which at one time was strongly anti-Taliban but which now supports it in various ways as part of Iran's overall anti-U.S. policy (see post "The 800 Pound Gorilla"). And of course there are other interested neighbors such as China which is always concerned about anything happening on its borders and is particularly concerned about Islamic fundamentalists within and outside its borders. Add to that Russia which historically has involved itself in that region, most recently its failed l980s occupation of Afghanistan.
Then there are the substantive questions of what would a political settlement look like. Again refer to the "Negotiating with the Taliban" post. To capsulize that posting, two immediate issues arise concerning how the Taliban would participate in any political settlement. One would be a settlement that legally recognizes the factual situation of Taliban control in various parts of the country, most notably the Pashtun areas of the south and east. The second, perhaps in combination with the first, would bring the Taliban into the national government in Kabul, something likely to be opposed by the anti-Taliban, anti-Pashtun ethnic groups that have already established themselves in the capital.
Another possibility is one that has been proposed by Robert D. Blackwill, President George W. Bush's ambassador to India and later a national security council advisor. In an Article in Foreign Affairs (Jan./Feb. 2011)Blackwill says a military solution is beyond achievement so it's time to consider Plan B -- partition. Such a partition, akin to the first in the previous paragraph, would accept Taliban control/governance of the south and east regions where it is already deeply embedded. The northern and western areas would be governed by what is currenly the Karzai government in Kabul, with nation-building support from the U.S., the U.N., and neighboring countries. And looking farther down the road, Blackwill says perhaps the Kabul government would become sufficiently strong to reconsolidate the two parts. What Blackwill doesn't seem to consider is that it may be the Taliban that may do the reconsolidating, a possibility that could solidify the opposition of the anti-Taliban and anti-Karzai groups to such a partition.
The bottom line is that our military commitment in Afghanistan is not likely to result in defeating the Taliban and a political settlement is required. But don't look for a quick fix. There are too many moving parts to the problem -- a factionalized Taliban, a corrupt so-called central government in Kabul, a long history of decentralized ethnic/tribal warlord control, and a number of international players with their own self-interests who are either actively engaged now or waiting for the right time to demand a seat at the bargaining table. So Red Rascal, pump yourself up to this challenge and get your own early seat at the negotiations. We could surely use another set of eyes on the evil doers.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
MORE ANTI-MUSLIM FEAR MONGERING ON THE WAY
NOTE TO READERS AND COMMENTERS: We'll be on the road for the next few weeks so postings may get off schedule and replies to comments may be a bit erratic. Thanks for your tolerance.
-0-0-0-0-
While attention is focused on Friday's deadline for funding or shutting down the federal government, there are other things going on. Next week a House committee will hold hearings on what its chairman sees as the growing radicalization of American Muslims. Representative Peter King of New York said his Homeland Security Committee will also look at what he asserts is non-cooperation by U.S. Muslims with law enforcement and counterintelligence investigations. While these are King's assertions, the most immediate outcome from the hearings is likely to be another wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric and stereotyping.
In a previous posting, "Clash of Civilizations," the case was made that the anti-Muslim attitudes that have sprung up in this country and several western European countries are manifestations of a fundamental clash between the western and Islamic civilizations. The clash was the thesis of a l996 book by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington. To capsulize that thesis, Huntington said that cultural and religious identification would replace the ideological and economic differences of the Cold War as the root cause of world conflict. He said there were seven distinct civilizations in the world, of which the western and Islamic were two. The most evident form of this conflict has been the multitude of Muslim terrorist attacks around the world. Some have been in western countries such as Spain, Britain, and the United States. Muslim terrorists have also struck in Muslim countries such as Indonesia where the attack was on a night club filled with western tourists.
In the United States, the "us vs. Muslims" took firm root with the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center which was planned and carried out by Arab Muslims. Since then the word "Muslim" has become synonymous in the minds of many Americans with terrorism and/or repressive Islamic religious law. In the case of terrorism, King seeks to show that a big threat comes from the radicalization of U.S. Muslims and their becoming a source of home grown terrorism. That concern was also expressed last month by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in another hearing before King's committee. For those focused on the Taliban/Iranian models, anti-Muslim rhetoric and action takes the form of opposing the construction of mosques, a fight that extends from California to New York City, and places in between. Or, as in Oklahoma, an effort to write into the state constitution a provision that Islamic Sharia Law could not be used as a basis for judicial decisions in state courts. That effort was struck down by a federal court, but the attempt reflected how "Muslim" has come to be equated with a modern day bogeyman and evil.
No less troubling than this American-based anti-Muslim mind set is when the heads of government in Germany and Britain repackage it by declaring that "multiculturalism" has been an utter or total failure in their countries. "Failure of multiculturalism" is basically a euphemism for anti-Muslim sentiment, also found in France and some other countries of western Europe.
As suggested above, just the term "Muslim" sets off alarms in the minds of many as evident in the recent revolution in Egypt. As the street protests continued, a lot of media attention and right wing talk shows focused on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Egypt and the possibility of it coming to power and bringing with it fundamentalist Islamic law and anti-western policies. Some of the early concern dissipated, at least in the media, as the media took a closer look at the MB and found it did not represent a majority of Egyptians and its religious agenda was more moderate and less threatening than initially presented. Nevertheless, the "M" in MB stands for Muslim and thus remains for many in the United States and elsewhere a movement/organization to be feared or at least not trusted.
The concluding point is that next week's hearings in King's committee, regardless of his way of characterizing them, are also seen as a witchhunt likely to feed the anti-Muslim attitudes that already exist in this country. We hardly need more of that.
-0-0-0-0-
While attention is focused on Friday's deadline for funding or shutting down the federal government, there are other things going on. Next week a House committee will hold hearings on what its chairman sees as the growing radicalization of American Muslims. Representative Peter King of New York said his Homeland Security Committee will also look at what he asserts is non-cooperation by U.S. Muslims with law enforcement and counterintelligence investigations. While these are King's assertions, the most immediate outcome from the hearings is likely to be another wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric and stereotyping.
In a previous posting, "Clash of Civilizations," the case was made that the anti-Muslim attitudes that have sprung up in this country and several western European countries are manifestations of a fundamental clash between the western and Islamic civilizations. The clash was the thesis of a l996 book by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington. To capsulize that thesis, Huntington said that cultural and religious identification would replace the ideological and economic differences of the Cold War as the root cause of world conflict. He said there were seven distinct civilizations in the world, of which the western and Islamic were two. The most evident form of this conflict has been the multitude of Muslim terrorist attacks around the world. Some have been in western countries such as Spain, Britain, and the United States. Muslim terrorists have also struck in Muslim countries such as Indonesia where the attack was on a night club filled with western tourists.
In the United States, the "us vs. Muslims" took firm root with the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center which was planned and carried out by Arab Muslims. Since then the word "Muslim" has become synonymous in the minds of many Americans with terrorism and/or repressive Islamic religious law. In the case of terrorism, King seeks to show that a big threat comes from the radicalization of U.S. Muslims and their becoming a source of home grown terrorism. That concern was also expressed last month by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in another hearing before King's committee. For those focused on the Taliban/Iranian models, anti-Muslim rhetoric and action takes the form of opposing the construction of mosques, a fight that extends from California to New York City, and places in between. Or, as in Oklahoma, an effort to write into the state constitution a provision that Islamic Sharia Law could not be used as a basis for judicial decisions in state courts. That effort was struck down by a federal court, but the attempt reflected how "Muslim" has come to be equated with a modern day bogeyman and evil.
No less troubling than this American-based anti-Muslim mind set is when the heads of government in Germany and Britain repackage it by declaring that "multiculturalism" has been an utter or total failure in their countries. "Failure of multiculturalism" is basically a euphemism for anti-Muslim sentiment, also found in France and some other countries of western Europe.
As suggested above, just the term "Muslim" sets off alarms in the minds of many as evident in the recent revolution in Egypt. As the street protests continued, a lot of media attention and right wing talk shows focused on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Egypt and the possibility of it coming to power and bringing with it fundamentalist Islamic law and anti-western policies. Some of the early concern dissipated, at least in the media, as the media took a closer look at the MB and found it did not represent a majority of Egyptians and its religious agenda was more moderate and less threatening than initially presented. Nevertheless, the "M" in MB stands for Muslim and thus remains for many in the United States and elsewhere a movement/organization to be feared or at least not trusted.
The concluding point is that next week's hearings in King's committee, regardless of his way of characterizing them, are also seen as a witchhunt likely to feed the anti-Muslim attitudes that already exist in this country. We hardly need more of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)