Afghanistan Cont...

Today, the Washington Post is running the resignation letter of Matthew P. Hoh in an attempt to further the debate on how the US should approach Afghanistan. Mr. Hoh is/was the Senior Civilian Representative of the United States government in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. Prior to this position, he served as a Marine in Iraq.

The letter is worth reading in full (see here), but the reason for his resignation is because he believes the United States is creating more problems than our presence in Afghanistan can solve. Indeed, he writes, "The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency." Furthermore, he states:

The US and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages is as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

In short, the United States presence in Afghanistan is responsible for the creation of the insurgency groups. Can anyone tell me how an escalation in troops or commitment will cure this defect?

He also points out that our involvement in Afghanistan is almost equal to the time the Soviet Union spent in Afghanistan and we are just interfering with an ongoing civil war; but his closing is worth repeating. In closing he writes:

Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will heal or will only worsen with time. The dead only return in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. As such, I submit my resignation.

I'm trying to listen to the other side, but I can't find any convincing arguments. Can we really justify staying in Afghanistan for an indefinite period of time without any realistic prospect of victory? Can you justify it after reading this letter?

Obama's Version of "Compassionate Conservatism"

George W. Bush made the phrase "compassionate conservatism" nationally recognized during his 2000 campaign and now Pres. Obama has added his own version to Washington. I'm referring to his decision to ban the federal prosecution of medical marijuana users and suppliers. Here is a news report on the memo:

The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

I describe the decision as "compassionate conservatism" for two reasons. First, it is compassionate because patients with cancer, Aids, chronic pain etc...who receive actual medical benefits from smoking marijuana will no longer be arrested for treating their illness with a non-lethal, effective and safe drug. Forcing people to give up their treatments for various conditions because of paranoid and uninformed perceptions of marijuana is simply cruel. Second, Obama's decision to leave the matter of marijuana legalization to the states is very conservative because it supports the principle of federalism. This is in stark contrast to the marijuana policies of "conservative" President Bush and his decision to prosecute medical marijuana users under federal law even though it was legal under state law. It will be hard to argue that this decision is "socialist" or "fascist."


Here is Glenn Greenwald on the decision:

Criminalizing cancer and AIDS patients for using a substance that is (a) prescribed by their doctors and (b) legal under the laws of their state has always been abominable. The Obama administration deserves major credit not only for ceasing this practice, but for memorializing it formally in writing. Just as is true for Jim Webb's brave
crusade to radically revise the nation's criminal justice and drug laws, there is little political gain -- and some political risk -- in adopting a policy that can be depicted as "soft on drugs" or even "pro-marijuana." It's a change that has concrete benefits for many people who are sick and for those who provide them with treatments that benefit them. So credit where it's due to the Obama DOJ, for fulfilling a long-standing commitment on this issue.

Nick Gillespie writes, "it represents the most compassionate and sensible policy to come out of Washington in a very long time."

Let's keep the debate moving forward.

Is it Torture?

To those who who claim that the "interrogation methods" the Bush Administration used on suspected terrorist does not constitute torture - Do you consider cutting a suspected terrorist's penis with a scalpel torture?

Just wondering.

If you don't think the US government would allow such treatment, stay tuned to the British High Court's upcoming opinion in regards to Binyam Mohammed.

The Case Against Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan

In Joe Klein's Newsweek article entitled "Afghanistan Controversy: Less than meets the eye."

A few weeks ago, a well-known U.S. military expert gave a wise speech about the near impossibility of making a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy work in Afghanistan. He gave two examples. The first was digging a well: "How could you do anything wrong by digging a well to give people clean water?" Well, you could create new enemies by where you dug the well and who controlled it. You could lose a village by trying to help it. And then there was the matter of what he called COIN mathematics. If there are 10 Taliban and you kill two, how many do you have left? Eight, perhaps. Or there might be two, because six of the remaining eight decide it's just not worth fighting anymore. Or you might have 20 because the brothers and cousins of the two dead fighters decide to take vengeance. "When I am asked what approach we should take in Afghanistan," General Stanley McChrystal concluded, "I say humility."

Obama/Beltway Definition of "Transparency"

President Obama - January 21, 2009:
"Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

Fast Forward 9 months:
Now it appears that with Obama's support and urging, Congress will add an amendment to a bill that will exempt pictures of the United States (under the Bush Administration) torturing prisoners and suspected terrorists from being released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been one of the hallmarks of healthy democratic government because it forced governmental transparency and kept the government accountable for their actions. Now, a Democratic Congress, who under George W. Bush praised the FOIA, are set to render the Act null and void simply because their leader asked for it. Forget principles and any independence if you are a Democrat, they just subserviently bow down to the commands of the President.

Here is Glenn Greenwald on the subject:

yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully inserted into the Homeland Security appropriations bill an amendment -- supported by the Obama White House -- to provide an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act's mandates by authorizing the Defense Secretary to suppress long-concealed photographs of detainee abuse. Two courts had ruled -- unanimously -- that the American people have the right to see these photographs under FOIA, a 40-year-old law championed by the Democrats in the LBJ era and long considered a crowning jewel in their legislative achievements. But this Lieberman amendment, which is now likely to pass, undermines all of that and -- as EBay founder Pierre Omidyar put it today -- its central purpose is to "legalize suppression" of evidence of American war crimes.

What made those detainee photographs so important from the start is that they depict brutal abuse well outside of the Abu Ghraib facility and thus reveal to Americans -- and the world -- that America's torture was not, as they've been constantly told, limited to rogue sadists at Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding of three bad guys. Instead, our torture regime was systematic, pervasive, brutal, fatal, and -- because it was the by-product of conscious policies set at the highest levels of government -- common across America's "War on Terror" detention regime. These photographs would have documented those vital facts; combated the false denials from torture apologists; fueled the momentum for accountability; and revealed, in graphic and unavoidable terms, what was truly done by America's government. But a Democrat-led Congress, at the urging of a Democratic President, is now taking
extraordinary steps -- including a new law which has no purpose other than to suppress evidence of America's war crimes -- to ensure that this evidence never
sees the light of day.

As a side-comment, isn't it sad that the ACLU is the one leading the charge on getting the photos released instead of the media? And they wonder why old-school media/journalism is on the brink of extinction. Maybe if they possessed courage, patriotism and journalistic integrity it would be a different story.

Finally, here is Adam Sewer writing about the hypocrisy of Sen. Joe Liberman and his "notion" of executive accountability and transparency:

The administration, perhaps sensing that they're not really on solid legal ground when it comes to arguing that the government should be able to hide evidence of its own wrongdoing under the rubric of national security, is getting a little cover from Congress. Yesterday, the conference summary of the current homeland security appropriations bill indicates that an amendment from Sen. Joe Lieberman that would exempt the photos from the FOIA Act has been adopted, which means that the government could legally withhold the pictures if the bill is passed. The same Sen. Lieberman, deeply concerned about the constitutionality of executive branch "czars," has inserted language into a bill allowing the government to conceal evidence of its own abuses.

March to War Against Iran

The media and many in both political parties will try to convince you that Iran is a serious threat to our national security and the security of our allies. Unsurprisingly, the media hasn't learned it's lesson from the Iraq war and are uncritically passing on incorrect and biased information that moves our country ever so closer toward military intervention with Iran. If the Iraq and Afghanistan war hasn't shown you the limits of waging war abroad, I don't know what can convince you otherwise.

As of right now, I'm completely opposed to any military action against Iran or even economic sanctions. Iran is close to an internal revolution and opposition leaders to Ahmadinejad state that sanctions will only create more hardships for those who are trying to change the regime in Tehran. Also, military action against another Middle East country will cement American hatred for a generation with the otherwise western-friendly population of Iran.

With that being said, journalist Juan Cole of Salon wrote an article on the "Top ten things you didn't know about Iran." The article separates the truth and misconceptions about Iran and the threat they pose.
Preview:

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war [in] modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

War with Iran would be another unjust war and create far more problems than refraining from action.

It's useful to keep in mind the warnings of the Founding Fathers as the media and politicians beat the drums of war against Iran.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give away to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free. - Federalist No. 8

Stay tuned.

Breath of Fresh Air in the GOP

I'm a registered Republican, yet I currently cannot stand the party. It seems like all the honest conservative intellectuals have been booted out of the tent in favor of those like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh who only care about identity politics and scoring cheap political points instead of actually governing. So long as that is their modus operandi, I'm not having any part.

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -also at this weeks First Draft of History conference hosted by The Atlantic - said the GOP needs to start calling out the fringe movements of their party as "crazy." Ah, It's about time.

First, he took aim at demagogue Glenn Beck.

Only in America can you make that much money crying. Glenn Beck is not aligned with any party. He is aligned with cynicism and there has always been a market for cynics. But we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers.

Next, he took aim at the "birther" movement (those that don't believe Pres. Obama was born in the USA and those who believe he is a Muslim.

I'm here to tell you that those who think the president was not born in Hawaii are crazy...He’s not a Muslim. He’s a good man. Now let’s knock this crap off and talk about the real differences we have.

Indeed. I know that kind of talk fires up the base, but it surely isn't going to garner the attention of independents. Keep it up Sen. Graham.

The Sarah Palin Fanclub Grows

Steve Schmidt, former McCain '08 campaign manager, gave a ringing endorsement of Sarah Palin at The Atlantic’s First Draft of History Conference, Schmidt said, “My honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for president and if she was the results would be ... catastrophic.”

Atleast he admitted his error. When will Bill Kristol follow up?