As of this writing, four states have made their Democratic Presidential candidate preferences known; and for most voters the choices seem to be coming down to Obama or Clinton.
Which has not been so good for the John Edwards campaign.
While it is theoretically possible that he might yet surprise us all and garner the nomination, for the purposes of today’s discussion I’m going to assume that he won’t.
If that’s true, and the nomination is out, what might Edwards have in mind going forward?
I can’t say for certain...but that won’t keep me from guessing...which is what this discussion is all about.
The first place to start seems to be to identify what possibilities are open to Edwards, walk through each of those scenarios in turn, and see if we can’t gain some knowledge through the process.
So other than winning the whole thing, what might his options be?
I see five possibilities:
He could seek a deal to advance his personal or political interests, or to advance a particular cause.
He could remain in the contest, not with the intent of winning, but with the intent of denying victory to another.
He could seek another office. For example, he might run against Elizabeth Dole for Senator from North Carolina.
He could seek an Al Gore-like status in the political community by seeking to create a movement that outlasts this electoral cycle...essentially making him a “transelectional” political figure. (Another variant on this theme would leave Edwards as a sort of “public lobbyist” leading a “Two Americas” PAC.)
He could withdraw from the election into private sector employment, or some version of retirement.
Now let’s examine each of these scenarios in detail:
--First, the potential for dealmaking. When considering the possibilities here we have to ask two questions: who, from the Edwards point of view, has the most to offer in a potential deal; and which of the other candidates has the most to gain from an alliance with Edwards?
While the most likely choice for Edwards from a philosophical perspective would be Obama, I would suggest that ship has probably sailed (although there are rumors that suggest otherwise). South Carolina’s results suggest Obama has little to gain from Edwards except support among white males—but Obama was more successful at attracting white males than the Clintons.
If a backlash develops against the Clinton campaign tactics on February 5th, the advantage would likely continue to be Obama’s among most groups except possibly Hillary’s older white female base, with the biggest question being whether Obama can sustain his levels of younger voter turnout.
If Edwards remains in the campaign, and he were to retain the white male voter advantage as he did in South Carolina, this would suggest Obama can win without a deal with Edwards—assuming the manner of delegate distribution is somewhat similar to the vote counts. In this scenario I assume Superdelegates are primarily committed between Obama and Clinton, leaving Edwards little influence in how they are distributed.
If all of the above is true, that leads me to believe that the candidate with the most to gain from an alliance with Edwards might actually be Hillary. Consider that such a match would align older white females with white males. There is also the potential for the Clintons to access Hispanic and Asian votes (California and New York...) that are not currently aligned with Obama, potentially creating a 50% + 1 victory. The Clinton campaign could certainly combine their current message with the Edwards message in synergistic ways.
What might Edwards gain from such a deal? The most likely result would be a commitment to advance the “Two Americas” brand and program in a Clinton Administration. He could presumably negotiate a Cabinet position...especially in these days before February 5th as the Clintons do whatever they must to try to “lock out” Obama from the nomination.
Would he be willing to make such a deal? I have no idea...but I’ll bet the Clintons would.
--Would Edwards remain in the race to deny victory to another? I am not in a position to give a certain answer, but we can offer a flight of imagination to examine: if Edwards tried to make a deal with Obama, but such a deal could not be concluded, or if Edwards was unwilling to make a deal with any candidate...then the South Carolina results suggest Edwards could continue to siphon off enough voters (and delegates) to keep Hillary off the podium at the Convention.
Could Edwards, just by hanging around, deny Obama the nomination? Statistical probability suggests Obama cannot count on the support of younger voters to the extent he has up to this point. There will be smaller percentages of Black voters in future primaries than there were in South Carolina. With this in mind, such a possibility is certainly not beyond contemplation.
In order for all this to be successful, Edwards would need to retain his current level of support or improve upon it in the immediate future.
As I say, I can’t offer an opinion as to the probability of this set of explanations, but the potential for such actions is there.
--Might Edwards decide at this point to run for another office? Dennis Kucinich has left the race for the Presidency to concentrate on gaining re-election to Congress, and it is possible that Edwards might choose such a path for himself as well.
His very own North Carolina would be the perfect place for such a move—Senator Elizabeth Dole is a weak re-election candidate in this cycle with no “star” Democrat having yet emerged in opposition. If Edwards were to withdraw and place the bulk of his current resources into a Senatorial race he would be far better financed than Dole, with equal or better name recognition and a better record for this cycle...not to mention that Dole has no real weapon to use against Elizabeth Edwards, should the two of them choose to run against Dole.
--Does Edwards find his future as a transelectional figure? There is evidence to support the proposition that he could. Here’s what we know: First, there is today an organization called One Corps that is operated in parallel with the Edwards campaign; and it is dedicated to providing a place for volunteer activists to gather in an effort to alleviate some of the disparities addressed by the “Two Americas” discussion.
It is not difficult to imagine Edwards travelling around the nation addressing One Corps events and giving a “Two Americas” presentation that over time has an effect similar to Al Gore’s not-so-quixotic journey giving the “Inconvenient Truth” lectures...and it’s not so tough to picture Edwards linking up with Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, Bono, and others, to take the whole thing international—essentially creating an worldwide “People’s PAC” that could influence policy here and abroad around the growing “Two Worlds” question.
--Might Edwards simply leave the race as other Democrats have done? As of today the Edwards camp seems determined to continue the journey, presumably seeking a role to play either in this phase of the campaign, in the runup to the convention, or at the convention itself.
If this continues to be true, it suggests that Edwards is more likely to remain than to withdraw, as long as he has access to resources...and as long as neither Clinton nor Obama do something so odious as to make Edwards feel he can no longer deny the other his support.
And with all that said, it’s probably time to sum it up:
--It is entirely possible that either Edwards or one of the other candidates might be seeking a deal.
--It is also possible that Edwards will not be making any deals, but is remaining in the contest to deny another the nomination.
--Edwards might seek another elective office, and opportunity exists today in North Carolina.
--He might choose to advance causes he finds important beyond this electoral cycle by enlarging the One Corps structure or something similar.
--He might simply withdraw into retirement or private sector employment. My own “guesstimation” is that he will be unlikely to do so when the option of One Corps already exists--and offers an excellent “fallback” position for a potential ’10 or ‘12 campaign cycle candidate with no particular contest yet identified.
All of this is contingent on Elizabeth Edwards’ health status, I suspect; and an unfortunate change in her current relatively good health could alter all of these calculations dramatically.
And I think, for the moment, that’s where we stand: at a currently unknown point in the Edwards endgame that may become far more clear after the February 5th delegates are counted...or it may become far more muddied, to the delight of every political pundit in the country.
In about eight days, we’ll find out.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
On Drugs, Or, Through The Looking Glass
As so often happens, I was getting my daily coffee and doing the blah-blah with my friendly baristas, and in the course of the conversation we discussed how the choices we make about drugs are so strange.
My basic point was that crack is a crime...while coffee is a growth industry...but fundamentally, the two are not all that different.
Then the conversation got really strange: I began to speculate what the world might look like if the reality had been reversed.
The next thing I knew, I was writing this story.
Follow along and we’ll see what happens.
And a small warning: there’s satire ahead, so be careful.
For starters, long-haul trucking might not really change that much; except that truck stops would no longer sell those “energy” pills you so often see near the cash register today, and the diner would be real popular.
I’m old enough that I can remember some of the “vintage” ads—and my favorite would likely feature a wife out for dinner at the neighbor’s house...dessert is being served...and a muted voiced that represents her thoughts says: “He never has a second hit of crack at home...”. The camera then pulls away to reveal the neighbor uses Smaxwell House crack...the smoother, never bitter, more robust crack that really satisfies.
Companies like Folgers and Nestlé would have major operations in Columbia (sound familiar?)—and it’s reasonable to presume that mountainous, tropical countries around the world would also have coca plantations...meaning players we know today in Africa, Indonesia and Asia would likely be involved in the crack business as well.
The restaurant business would be similar but different—some would gather at the all-night diner for a late night pick-me-up (art would be affected as well...imagine what Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks” might look like), breakfast would feature Flo down at the Denny’s serving “hits of Joe”; and it’s unlikely refills would be free.
Dunkin’ Doughnuts (and certain Tim Horton’s) would look a lot different...except between 1:00 and 6:00 AM, where things would hardly be any different than they are today.
Just like everything else in America, somebody would come along to “kick it up a notch”; and there’s no reason not to believe a Starbuck’s-equivalent company wouldn’t emerge. Those who are familiar with the arc of corporate history might be able to envision the result: the rise of Crackbuck’s from a single store serving dozens of “hits” a day to a giant chain spreading its unique brand of ambiance so far and wide that eventually you could, as I can today in my own home town, stand in front of a Crackbuck’s, turn around, and see another Crackbuck’s across the parking lot.
Eventually trash cans across the world would be filled with “to go” pipes emblazoned with the Crackbuck’s logo...the words “Venti”, “Grande”, and “Doppio” will likely remain in the lexicon...and it’s not that hard to imagine the migration of the Crackbuck’s brand into “lifestyle” products such as logoed non-spill “commuter pipes”, music, and maybe even movies—“Akeelah and the Buzz” being the first title in the series, and if that’s successful, maybe more.
But just like fine wines, and handcrafted beer, competition would eventually come along.
That’s where I told my baristas they would be in this scenario: the ones with extra skill hand-crafting hits for each individual customer; as opposed to the Crackbuck’s business model of automated crack machines and volume, volume, volume. They would probably be among the group of companies trying to bring more of the crack dollar to the farmer by supporting some kind of an organization like “Pipe of Excellence”.
The ones who aren’t just a “to go” operation; but instead the kind of place where customers sit by the fireplace and linger for a while.
What about offices? For those workers, the endless cubicle hours might well just fly by, and managers could actually find their employees anxious to return the next day. Some may actually look forward to Monday morning gossip, doughnuts, and the office crack dispenser.
Personalized pipes at work would replace the coffee mug; which would itself be an object of suspicion, and the sort of thing you would have to hide if you had one at home and your parents were coming over for dinner.
Mormons would spend less on dental care than other Americans; but due to the enormous volume involved heart valve replacements in this country would be no more expensive than Lasix...and everyone would have their favorite heart valve brand.
Imagine what it would be like for law enforcement: smugglers trying to get coffee into the US hidden in kilos of cocaine, coffee-sniffing dogs deployed at the airports...and along I-95 sheriffs and “Coffee Task Forces” would be constantly seizing the vehicles of those who try to move their illegal beans up the East Coast.
Presumably the jails would be so full of the bean-addicted that alternative means of detention would be studied...which would mean coffee would also be a growth industry, in a “we can charge for home detention” kind of way.
Coffee filters and little tiny baggies will be sold in special stores; and they will be “not intended for illegal purposes”, the owner will tell you, but instead intended for some industrial use—or perhaps, for tea. Melitta products would be something you have mail-ordered into the country in a plain wrapper from Amsterdam.
So what’s the point of all this musing?
How about this: everything I’ve been describing sounds ridiculous on its face...but in contrast, so does the current reality of drug enforcement in this country. Coffee is OK, those “energy” drinks are OK, the pills at the truck stop are OK...and until the beginning of the 20th Century so were the very drugs we’re locking people up for today.
But today, crack is a crime, and coffee is a growth industry.
It’s all very strange, isn’t it?
My basic point was that crack is a crime...while coffee is a growth industry...but fundamentally, the two are not all that different.
Then the conversation got really strange: I began to speculate what the world might look like if the reality had been reversed.
The next thing I knew, I was writing this story.
Follow along and we’ll see what happens.
And a small warning: there’s satire ahead, so be careful.
For starters, long-haul trucking might not really change that much; except that truck stops would no longer sell those “energy” pills you so often see near the cash register today, and the diner would be real popular.
I’m old enough that I can remember some of the “vintage” ads—and my favorite would likely feature a wife out for dinner at the neighbor’s house...dessert is being served...and a muted voiced that represents her thoughts says: “He never has a second hit of crack at home...”. The camera then pulls away to reveal the neighbor uses Smaxwell House crack...the smoother, never bitter, more robust crack that really satisfies.
Companies like Folgers and Nestlé would have major operations in Columbia (sound familiar?)—and it’s reasonable to presume that mountainous, tropical countries around the world would also have coca plantations...meaning players we know today in Africa, Indonesia and Asia would likely be involved in the crack business as well.
The restaurant business would be similar but different—some would gather at the all-night diner for a late night pick-me-up (art would be affected as well...imagine what Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks” might look like), breakfast would feature Flo down at the Denny’s serving “hits of Joe”; and it’s unlikely refills would be free.
Dunkin’ Doughnuts (and certain Tim Horton’s) would look a lot different...except between 1:00 and 6:00 AM, where things would hardly be any different than they are today.
Just like everything else in America, somebody would come along to “kick it up a notch”; and there’s no reason not to believe a Starbuck’s-equivalent company wouldn’t emerge. Those who are familiar with the arc of corporate history might be able to envision the result: the rise of Crackbuck’s from a single store serving dozens of “hits” a day to a giant chain spreading its unique brand of ambiance so far and wide that eventually you could, as I can today in my own home town, stand in front of a Crackbuck’s, turn around, and see another Crackbuck’s across the parking lot.
Eventually trash cans across the world would be filled with “to go” pipes emblazoned with the Crackbuck’s logo...the words “Venti”, “Grande”, and “Doppio” will likely remain in the lexicon...and it’s not that hard to imagine the migration of the Crackbuck’s brand into “lifestyle” products such as logoed non-spill “commuter pipes”, music, and maybe even movies—“Akeelah and the Buzz” being the first title in the series, and if that’s successful, maybe more.
But just like fine wines, and handcrafted beer, competition would eventually come along.
That’s where I told my baristas they would be in this scenario: the ones with extra skill hand-crafting hits for each individual customer; as opposed to the Crackbuck’s business model of automated crack machines and volume, volume, volume. They would probably be among the group of companies trying to bring more of the crack dollar to the farmer by supporting some kind of an organization like “Pipe of Excellence”.
The ones who aren’t just a “to go” operation; but instead the kind of place where customers sit by the fireplace and linger for a while.
What about offices? For those workers, the endless cubicle hours might well just fly by, and managers could actually find their employees anxious to return the next day. Some may actually look forward to Monday morning gossip, doughnuts, and the office crack dispenser.
Personalized pipes at work would replace the coffee mug; which would itself be an object of suspicion, and the sort of thing you would have to hide if you had one at home and your parents were coming over for dinner.
Mormons would spend less on dental care than other Americans; but due to the enormous volume involved heart valve replacements in this country would be no more expensive than Lasix...and everyone would have their favorite heart valve brand.
Imagine what it would be like for law enforcement: smugglers trying to get coffee into the US hidden in kilos of cocaine, coffee-sniffing dogs deployed at the airports...and along I-95 sheriffs and “Coffee Task Forces” would be constantly seizing the vehicles of those who try to move their illegal beans up the East Coast.
Presumably the jails would be so full of the bean-addicted that alternative means of detention would be studied...which would mean coffee would also be a growth industry, in a “we can charge for home detention” kind of way.
Coffee filters and little tiny baggies will be sold in special stores; and they will be “not intended for illegal purposes”, the owner will tell you, but instead intended for some industrial use—or perhaps, for tea. Melitta products would be something you have mail-ordered into the country in a plain wrapper from Amsterdam.
So what’s the point of all this musing?
How about this: everything I’ve been describing sounds ridiculous on its face...but in contrast, so does the current reality of drug enforcement in this country. Coffee is OK, those “energy” drinks are OK, the pills at the truck stop are OK...and until the beginning of the 20th Century so were the very drugs we’re locking people up for today.
But today, crack is a crime, and coffee is a growth industry.
It’s all very strange, isn’t it?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
On Things Odd, Or, What I Think About While Shoveling Snow
It’s been snowing again, which means I have to get the accursed stuff out of the driveway before it freezes into the crust of slipping and sliding that can make that first step such a doozy in the morning.
Of course that leaves me a fair bit of time to think…with all its attendant consequences…and as a result I have not one, but three topics that will be brought to the table. Each is, on it’s own, insufficient for an entire story, but together, they paint an odd pattern of what we see as a people…and what we don’t.
And with that, our first story:
It is early January, and as a result the narrow window is open for that most bizarre of movie marketing rituals: the claim that the title being advertised is “the funniest movie of the year”…which has expanded, not unlike the Academy Awards, to include new categories of recognition: “most terrifying”, “most heartwarming”, and “best family movie” being just a few examples.
And every time I’m exposed to one of these ads-particularly as they get closer to January 1st-I find myself thinking not so much about the first person who ran one of these ads (although that would have been a moment of epiphany worth witnessing), but more about the rest—the person who looked at that first ad and said: “I am so gonna steal that next year”, and of course, all the others who have felt the same way.
There have to be summer marketing lunch meetings (at only the most trendy of LA restaurants, naturally) where high-powered “managers of genius” gather to plan the ad buys for the movies that are scheduled for those release dates; and I suspect at every one there is a subset of that group who gathers--and laughs and laughs and laughs at our odd ability to be swayed by the ads they’re planning to buy.
But that’s an easy one…let’s move on:
Greenpeace is certainly a group that seeks to perform noble work, and at the moment they are on a quest to engage the Japanese whaling fleet in the waters of the Antarctic. And I applaud them for that noble work. But as you’ll see, there’s a twist to the story we’re about to tell that makes this particular noble work seem very odd indeed.
What is going on is that the Greenpeace ship has been searching the ocean for the fleet; which consists of a “processor” or “factory” vessel and numerous smaller vessels which actually catch the whale and bring it to the larger ship.
In the past few days the vessels have been located, and the strategy now is to remain in close contact with the factory vessel. The thinking is that with the Greenpeace ship in close enough range to film the activities on board the Japanese ship there will be a reluctance to process any whales; and at the moment they are correct.
But the Japanese have a plan.
The factory ship has turned away from the support fleet, and they are at the moment headed to an unknown destination with the Greenpeace crew following…but here’s the rub: the Japanese have the ability to be refueled at sea using refueling tenders, and there is no such facility available for the Greenpeacers.
Which leaves Greenpeace in an odd situation: as long as they can continue to burn fuel, which is damaging to the Earth, they can continue their work to save the Earth.
Which brings us to our final odd story of the day:
The Governor of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire (famous for her amazingly close multi-recount victory in 2004), in an effort to save the reported 200 lives lost to drunk driving, is proposing that the State reintroduce “sobriety checkpoints” as an enforcement tool.
The checkpoints are not in use today because the Washington State Supreme Court found the idea to be constitutionally unacceptable under the State Constitution’s personal privacy protection (see Article 1, Section 7), is more specific than the United States Constitution’s.
There will be many arguments for and against: as examples, supporters might point to the savings of life (“whatever we can do to save even one innocent life is worth it…” seems to be an argument that will be adopted), some might even argue that the privilege of driving overrides any expectation of privacy, and others will presumably argue that by limiting the application of the checkpoints we can limit the damage to civil liberties.
Opponents can be expected to argue that the presence of checkpoints does not create a causal link to savings of life, that perfect correlation of checkpoints and life savings is impossible, therefore some number of lives lower than 200 might be saved, and that the burden of stopping large numbers of the innocent overrides the government’s compelling interest in trying to prevent the loss of life using this tool.
As a cynic, I would also have questions about where these checkpoints might be located. For example, I would be surprised if checkpoints were set up around the hotels where political fundraisers are conducted…or around the stadiums following any professional sporting event. I would not be surprised if minority communities eventually came to perceive them as unfairly targeting their neighborhoods…or if certain (wealthy) communities set them up more or less full time as a way of “guarding the border”. But I digress.
The odd thing about all of this is that even though I vehemently disagree with the Governor’s position, I appreciate the difficulty she faces in trying to balance the two competing -but fundamental-interests involved. The first, her sworn duty to the citizens to protect and defend the State’s Constitution—including its protection of personal privacy; balanced against the second…the duty to protect life and property interests that has led her to offer this proposal.
Which brings me to my final, most odd thought for the day—a defense of politics: despite what we might say about them, the people we might oppose are often decent of heart and well intentioned; and sometimes their perception is that they are forced to choose between more than one “right” answer, as our last example so clearly shows.
This electoral cycle, if we hope to advance causes that matter to us, let’s remember that we will need to unite with those we might not always agree with (remember the purple voters?)…which is why we should consider adopting a Tip O’Neill tactic: the ability to sit down with the other side over a nice dinner…or a game of poker…or a Saturday afternoon BBQ…and come away from the thing with a sense that, despite the disagreements, we can all respect-and even enjoy-our connections as people, and as Americans, and as people seeking to get many of the same things done.
Not only is it a great way to win elections…and a great way to actually govern…it makes for a better country—and if we take the concept offshore, it’s a great way to make a better world.
And that’s what I think about when I shovel snow.
Odd, isn’t it?
Of course that leaves me a fair bit of time to think…with all its attendant consequences…and as a result I have not one, but three topics that will be brought to the table. Each is, on it’s own, insufficient for an entire story, but together, they paint an odd pattern of what we see as a people…and what we don’t.
And with that, our first story:
It is early January, and as a result the narrow window is open for that most bizarre of movie marketing rituals: the claim that the title being advertised is “the funniest movie of the year”…which has expanded, not unlike the Academy Awards, to include new categories of recognition: “most terrifying”, “most heartwarming”, and “best family movie” being just a few examples.
And every time I’m exposed to one of these ads-particularly as they get closer to January 1st-I find myself thinking not so much about the first person who ran one of these ads (although that would have been a moment of epiphany worth witnessing), but more about the rest—the person who looked at that first ad and said: “I am so gonna steal that next year”, and of course, all the others who have felt the same way.
There have to be summer marketing lunch meetings (at only the most trendy of LA restaurants, naturally) where high-powered “managers of genius” gather to plan the ad buys for the movies that are scheduled for those release dates; and I suspect at every one there is a subset of that group who gathers--and laughs and laughs and laughs at our odd ability to be swayed by the ads they’re planning to buy.
But that’s an easy one…let’s move on:
Greenpeace is certainly a group that seeks to perform noble work, and at the moment they are on a quest to engage the Japanese whaling fleet in the waters of the Antarctic. And I applaud them for that noble work. But as you’ll see, there’s a twist to the story we’re about to tell that makes this particular noble work seem very odd indeed.
What is going on is that the Greenpeace ship has been searching the ocean for the fleet; which consists of a “processor” or “factory” vessel and numerous smaller vessels which actually catch the whale and bring it to the larger ship.
In the past few days the vessels have been located, and the strategy now is to remain in close contact with the factory vessel. The thinking is that with the Greenpeace ship in close enough range to film the activities on board the Japanese ship there will be a reluctance to process any whales; and at the moment they are correct.
But the Japanese have a plan.
The factory ship has turned away from the support fleet, and they are at the moment headed to an unknown destination with the Greenpeace crew following…but here’s the rub: the Japanese have the ability to be refueled at sea using refueling tenders, and there is no such facility available for the Greenpeacers.
Which leaves Greenpeace in an odd situation: as long as they can continue to burn fuel, which is damaging to the Earth, they can continue their work to save the Earth.
Which brings us to our final odd story of the day:
The Governor of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire (famous for her amazingly close multi-recount victory in 2004), in an effort to save the reported 200 lives lost to drunk driving, is proposing that the State reintroduce “sobriety checkpoints” as an enforcement tool.
The checkpoints are not in use today because the Washington State Supreme Court found the idea to be constitutionally unacceptable under the State Constitution’s personal privacy protection (see Article 1, Section 7), is more specific than the United States Constitution’s.
There will be many arguments for and against: as examples, supporters might point to the savings of life (“whatever we can do to save even one innocent life is worth it…” seems to be an argument that will be adopted), some might even argue that the privilege of driving overrides any expectation of privacy, and others will presumably argue that by limiting the application of the checkpoints we can limit the damage to civil liberties.
Opponents can be expected to argue that the presence of checkpoints does not create a causal link to savings of life, that perfect correlation of checkpoints and life savings is impossible, therefore some number of lives lower than 200 might be saved, and that the burden of stopping large numbers of the innocent overrides the government’s compelling interest in trying to prevent the loss of life using this tool.
As a cynic, I would also have questions about where these checkpoints might be located. For example, I would be surprised if checkpoints were set up around the hotels where political fundraisers are conducted…or around the stadiums following any professional sporting event. I would not be surprised if minority communities eventually came to perceive them as unfairly targeting their neighborhoods…or if certain (wealthy) communities set them up more or less full time as a way of “guarding the border”. But I digress.
The odd thing about all of this is that even though I vehemently disagree with the Governor’s position, I appreciate the difficulty she faces in trying to balance the two competing -but fundamental-interests involved. The first, her sworn duty to the citizens to protect and defend the State’s Constitution—including its protection of personal privacy; balanced against the second…the duty to protect life and property interests that has led her to offer this proposal.
Which brings me to my final, most odd thought for the day—a defense of politics: despite what we might say about them, the people we might oppose are often decent of heart and well intentioned; and sometimes their perception is that they are forced to choose between more than one “right” answer, as our last example so clearly shows.
This electoral cycle, if we hope to advance causes that matter to us, let’s remember that we will need to unite with those we might not always agree with (remember the purple voters?)…which is why we should consider adopting a Tip O’Neill tactic: the ability to sit down with the other side over a nice dinner…or a game of poker…or a Saturday afternoon BBQ…and come away from the thing with a sense that, despite the disagreements, we can all respect-and even enjoy-our connections as people, and as Americans, and as people seeking to get many of the same things done.
Not only is it a great way to win elections…and a great way to actually govern…it makes for a better country—and if we take the concept offshore, it’s a great way to make a better world.
And that’s what I think about when I shovel snow.
Odd, isn’t it?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
On Considering The Past Week, Or, It’s Time For A Difficult Conversation
There are many unknowns after the public spoke in Iowa and New Hampshire this past week; but one thing we do know is that you and I are just as good at predicting the outcome of these things as most of the experts.
To be honest, all the confusion is exactly why I’ve kept my mouth shut until now.
I still don’t think I can offer effective predictions...but that’s not my goal for today.
Instead, we need to have a talk about what may have made so many New Hampshire polls so wrong, and how that might affect the top three Democratic contenders...and maybe Richardson as well.
It’s not happy talk, and some of it takes us to very unpleasant places—but it’s a talk we need to have.
First of all: what exactly happened?
As far as we can tell, following the Iowa caucus results virtually all the official predictors were way off on the Obama/Clinton results in New Hampshire.
It is reported that even the campaigns misjudged the outcome; and as of Monday night the media had pretty much put Hillary on “circling the drain” watch, with the basic idea being that Obama would win in New Hampshire by double digits, then Nevada and South Carolina...potentially wrapping up the nomination before the February 5th primaries.
Even Bill Clinton told New Hampshire voters they had made a mistake placing their primary so close to the Iowa caucus—that they would be swayed by the emotion of it all and make a bad choice.
Voters behaved differently in New Hampshire than in the Iowa caucus process, however, and as a result Hillary garnered a higher percentage of female voters of all ages. Additionally, Obama failed to achieve the turnout of under-30 voters that he had in Iowa. Beyond that, the anticipated impact of independent voters choosing to vote in the Democratic primary did not materialize.
Edwards did not win in either state, and in fact his percentage of support declined from one locale to the other.
As of this writing it seems unlikely that Obama will have the contest wrapped up by February 4th.
Next: what caused so many in New Hampshire to misread the vote?
Many observers point to Hillary’s “softer side” coming out; but I have to ask two additional questions at this point:
--Did New Hampshire’s female voters come to perceive this as an “us against them” election—and can this perception be exploited to similar effect in other states?
--Has the increased potential of an Obama Administration created a racial backlash that was reflected in Tuesday’s vote...and can it be mitigated...and is this possibility going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to measure by polling?
As for the first question: it has been the pattern in this campaign for Hillary to develop the mythology of herself fighting against the “boy’s club” who’ve been ganging up on her for 35 years or so while also stressing the historic nature of this election—that she is the first “electable” woman on the Presidential campaign trail.
The problem with this tactic is that it can reinforce the “Hillary as victim” perception—which can create as many negative feelings about her as positive ones, divides rather than unites voters (not a good thing in a general election), and may also send purple voters toward the other candidate...particularly if Romney, McCain, or Giuliani (or Obama, in “open” primaries) can succeed in positioning themselves as “competent” and “strong” choices.
She has made an effort in recent days to present herself as the “change and experience” candidate...and this tactic may help to draw in the “historical” female voter with fewer potential negative side effects than the “victim” portrayal.
Which brings us to racism.
Not only was Obama projected to win in New Hampshire based on pre-election polling, exit polls were projecting Obama to win by 5 points or better. (For the foreign reader, exit polls essentially consist of hanging around polling stations and asking: “How did you vote?”)
Another significant fact: polling on Republican voters was reasonably accurate...suggesting that the same pollsters, in the same state, polling a similar universe of voters were perfectly capable of delivering accurate polling—if the Party in question is fielding all white male candidates.
As of this moment, there is no hard evidence to suggest that racism has played a role...and there are plenty of other potential explanations for the polling errors. Examples include a deliberate effort to deceive pollsters on the part of voters that is not racially motivated, poor methodology, misreporting by the pollsters, or a failure of analysis on the part of the experts.
However, there is no doubt that some number of voters might also have chosen to announce they voted for Obama even though they never intended to—and that for some of those voters Obama’s race did factor into that decision to some degree or another.
Can a “racism effect” be detected in polling?
To make an extremely long and scientifically arcane story short: kind of, sort of. There are techniques that can be used to create prediction models, but those models are not certain predictors—and it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between the possibility that voters chose to deceive for racial reasons and non-racial reasons; and to what extent racism plays a role in predicting any individual demographic’s future decisions. (Similar problems are faced by those seeking to predict the extent of marital infidelity, or college binge drinking, or any number of other social metrics in a population.)
What can be done to mitigate the potential effect of racism?
There are things that are within Obama’s control: he can continue to speak in the plural pronoun (“we can create change...we can move forward...”), he can continue to present a positive message, and he can continue to present the argument that “joining the movement” is as good for America as it is for Obama—that supporting his cause is in your own self-interest, and that of your family and community. (Some might also suggest efforts to drive turnout of younger voters is also a step in the right direction, but I have no evidence to suggest that those voters are more or less likely to factor race into their decision-making process.)
Of course, these arguments will also be helpful in a general election where the effort to retain purple voters and attract historically Republican-leaning voters is much more important.
He can also make efforts to increase his own perception of “inevitability”...and this is where the conversation turns tough.
John Edwards, it’s time for you to make a deal with Obama.
I say that because as things stand today you will either win the nomination...or you risk becoming the “Ralph Nader” figure that prevents Obama from doing so...and at this moment, the second seems more likely than the first.
My advice for you is to either make a deal with Obama that makes you some sort of “Two Americas” czar in an Obama Administration; or lock up the Vice Presidential job with the agreement that you are allowed to be an active member of an Executive partnership.
Time is short, and the current strategy is literally a roll of the dice that leaves you less and less power as time goes on. Consider that the Edwards strategy can now be summed up as: “win South Carolina, hope someone collapses...and it’s better for us if it’s Obama”.
On top of that, there was a dramatic decrease in support for the Edwards cause between Iowa and New Hampshire...and Obama may be very tough to beat in South Carolina. And now Nevada is slipping away...
Now, John, you have to understand that I’m coming to you here as a friend, but I think we missed the boat. The more primaries that go by that you haven’t won, the less ability you have to influence events. The effort since Iowa to moderate your attacks on Obama (‘Change won...”) is a step in the right direction; and if you throw your weight behind Obama now, you have the chance to be seen as the player who upended Hillary.
Plus your presence on the Obama platform is an implicit statement that this is an election that transcends race...and reinforces the issue of “Two Americas” by putting your voice in the harness with Obama’s.
Of course, the Obama campaign will seek to add other voices to the conversation—and Janet Napolitano’s endorsement suggests she might see herself as either an Obama cabinet member...or the “balancer” that would make a perfect VP nominee. Richardson has not, as of this moment, endorsed any candidate either—and he may be seeking his best deal between Clinton and Obama.
If your voice is joined to theirs too late, your influence will decrease proportionally—so the time is now...not after Nevada, and certainly not after a third place finish in South Carolina, should that occur (or both...).
There are those who will strongly disagree with this analysis, and I would expect them to say something along the lines of: “Edwards is the only candidate who is poised to offer real meaningful change...Obama will negotiate with players who will not allow reform, and only Edwards understands that there is no reason to even negotiate with those who will make every effort to block any real threats to the status quo.”
And I would not be inclined to argue with that analysis.
However, we now find ourselves in a situation where there is one Democratic candidate who is more inclined to represent the status quo than any other, and two who represent more progressive agendas. If the two progressive candidates are divided, the other will likely win. If the two progressive candidates join forces, they will likely win.
And in the end, it’s not the person leading the cause that’s the most important—it’s the cause.
Politics is the art of compromise, and this is the time for Edwards and Obama to make the big compromise. That may mean an Obama Administration does talk to players Edwards would rather not, but it could also mean a Vice President Edwards in charge of those talks.
To sum all this up, there is a need for the progressive voices in this race to join together, the results in New Hampshire offer some hints that racism may have been a factor, there are positive steps that could be taken by Obama-and others-to prevent that discussion from gathering steam; and it is possible for all the progressive players in the race to join together and effectively garner the nomination.
And for those of us seeking to advance a more progressive agenda...it could be the best of both worlds: Obama and Edwards backed by Janet Napolitano (and potentially Richardson), presenting a progressive, experienced, nationally balanced, trans-racial image; with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards doing the same against any potential Republican “family values” opposition on a highly personal and emotional level.
What’s not to love?
To be honest, all the confusion is exactly why I’ve kept my mouth shut until now.
I still don’t think I can offer effective predictions...but that’s not my goal for today.
Instead, we need to have a talk about what may have made so many New Hampshire polls so wrong, and how that might affect the top three Democratic contenders...and maybe Richardson as well.
It’s not happy talk, and some of it takes us to very unpleasant places—but it’s a talk we need to have.
First of all: what exactly happened?
As far as we can tell, following the Iowa caucus results virtually all the official predictors were way off on the Obama/Clinton results in New Hampshire.
It is reported that even the campaigns misjudged the outcome; and as of Monday night the media had pretty much put Hillary on “circling the drain” watch, with the basic idea being that Obama would win in New Hampshire by double digits, then Nevada and South Carolina...potentially wrapping up the nomination before the February 5th primaries.
Even Bill Clinton told New Hampshire voters they had made a mistake placing their primary so close to the Iowa caucus—that they would be swayed by the emotion of it all and make a bad choice.
Voters behaved differently in New Hampshire than in the Iowa caucus process, however, and as a result Hillary garnered a higher percentage of female voters of all ages. Additionally, Obama failed to achieve the turnout of under-30 voters that he had in Iowa. Beyond that, the anticipated impact of independent voters choosing to vote in the Democratic primary did not materialize.
Edwards did not win in either state, and in fact his percentage of support declined from one locale to the other.
As of this writing it seems unlikely that Obama will have the contest wrapped up by February 4th.
Next: what caused so many in New Hampshire to misread the vote?
Many observers point to Hillary’s “softer side” coming out; but I have to ask two additional questions at this point:
--Did New Hampshire’s female voters come to perceive this as an “us against them” election—and can this perception be exploited to similar effect in other states?
--Has the increased potential of an Obama Administration created a racial backlash that was reflected in Tuesday’s vote...and can it be mitigated...and is this possibility going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to measure by polling?
As for the first question: it has been the pattern in this campaign for Hillary to develop the mythology of herself fighting against the “boy’s club” who’ve been ganging up on her for 35 years or so while also stressing the historic nature of this election—that she is the first “electable” woman on the Presidential campaign trail.
The problem with this tactic is that it can reinforce the “Hillary as victim” perception—which can create as many negative feelings about her as positive ones, divides rather than unites voters (not a good thing in a general election), and may also send purple voters toward the other candidate...particularly if Romney, McCain, or Giuliani (or Obama, in “open” primaries) can succeed in positioning themselves as “competent” and “strong” choices.
She has made an effort in recent days to present herself as the “change and experience” candidate...and this tactic may help to draw in the “historical” female voter with fewer potential negative side effects than the “victim” portrayal.
Which brings us to racism.
Not only was Obama projected to win in New Hampshire based on pre-election polling, exit polls were projecting Obama to win by 5 points or better. (For the foreign reader, exit polls essentially consist of hanging around polling stations and asking: “How did you vote?”)
Another significant fact: polling on Republican voters was reasonably accurate...suggesting that the same pollsters, in the same state, polling a similar universe of voters were perfectly capable of delivering accurate polling—if the Party in question is fielding all white male candidates.
As of this moment, there is no hard evidence to suggest that racism has played a role...and there are plenty of other potential explanations for the polling errors. Examples include a deliberate effort to deceive pollsters on the part of voters that is not racially motivated, poor methodology, misreporting by the pollsters, or a failure of analysis on the part of the experts.
However, there is no doubt that some number of voters might also have chosen to announce they voted for Obama even though they never intended to—and that for some of those voters Obama’s race did factor into that decision to some degree or another.
Can a “racism effect” be detected in polling?
To make an extremely long and scientifically arcane story short: kind of, sort of. There are techniques that can be used to create prediction models, but those models are not certain predictors—and it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between the possibility that voters chose to deceive for racial reasons and non-racial reasons; and to what extent racism plays a role in predicting any individual demographic’s future decisions. (Similar problems are faced by those seeking to predict the extent of marital infidelity, or college binge drinking, or any number of other social metrics in a population.)
What can be done to mitigate the potential effect of racism?
There are things that are within Obama’s control: he can continue to speak in the plural pronoun (“we can create change...we can move forward...”), he can continue to present a positive message, and he can continue to present the argument that “joining the movement” is as good for America as it is for Obama—that supporting his cause is in your own self-interest, and that of your family and community. (Some might also suggest efforts to drive turnout of younger voters is also a step in the right direction, but I have no evidence to suggest that those voters are more or less likely to factor race into their decision-making process.)
Of course, these arguments will also be helpful in a general election where the effort to retain purple voters and attract historically Republican-leaning voters is much more important.
He can also make efforts to increase his own perception of “inevitability”...and this is where the conversation turns tough.
John Edwards, it’s time for you to make a deal with Obama.
I say that because as things stand today you will either win the nomination...or you risk becoming the “Ralph Nader” figure that prevents Obama from doing so...and at this moment, the second seems more likely than the first.
My advice for you is to either make a deal with Obama that makes you some sort of “Two Americas” czar in an Obama Administration; or lock up the Vice Presidential job with the agreement that you are allowed to be an active member of an Executive partnership.
Time is short, and the current strategy is literally a roll of the dice that leaves you less and less power as time goes on. Consider that the Edwards strategy can now be summed up as: “win South Carolina, hope someone collapses...and it’s better for us if it’s Obama”.
On top of that, there was a dramatic decrease in support for the Edwards cause between Iowa and New Hampshire...and Obama may be very tough to beat in South Carolina. And now Nevada is slipping away...
Now, John, you have to understand that I’m coming to you here as a friend, but I think we missed the boat. The more primaries that go by that you haven’t won, the less ability you have to influence events. The effort since Iowa to moderate your attacks on Obama (‘Change won...”) is a step in the right direction; and if you throw your weight behind Obama now, you have the chance to be seen as the player who upended Hillary.
Plus your presence on the Obama platform is an implicit statement that this is an election that transcends race...and reinforces the issue of “Two Americas” by putting your voice in the harness with Obama’s.
Of course, the Obama campaign will seek to add other voices to the conversation—and Janet Napolitano’s endorsement suggests she might see herself as either an Obama cabinet member...or the “balancer” that would make a perfect VP nominee. Richardson has not, as of this moment, endorsed any candidate either—and he may be seeking his best deal between Clinton and Obama.
If your voice is joined to theirs too late, your influence will decrease proportionally—so the time is now...not after Nevada, and certainly not after a third place finish in South Carolina, should that occur (or both...).
There are those who will strongly disagree with this analysis, and I would expect them to say something along the lines of: “Edwards is the only candidate who is poised to offer real meaningful change...Obama will negotiate with players who will not allow reform, and only Edwards understands that there is no reason to even negotiate with those who will make every effort to block any real threats to the status quo.”
And I would not be inclined to argue with that analysis.
However, we now find ourselves in a situation where there is one Democratic candidate who is more inclined to represent the status quo than any other, and two who represent more progressive agendas. If the two progressive candidates are divided, the other will likely win. If the two progressive candidates join forces, they will likely win.
And in the end, it’s not the person leading the cause that’s the most important—it’s the cause.
Politics is the art of compromise, and this is the time for Edwards and Obama to make the big compromise. That may mean an Obama Administration does talk to players Edwards would rather not, but it could also mean a Vice President Edwards in charge of those talks.
To sum all this up, there is a need for the progressive voices in this race to join together, the results in New Hampshire offer some hints that racism may have been a factor, there are positive steps that could be taken by Obama-and others-to prevent that discussion from gathering steam; and it is possible for all the progressive players in the race to join together and effectively garner the nomination.
And for those of us seeking to advance a more progressive agenda...it could be the best of both worlds: Obama and Edwards backed by Janet Napolitano (and potentially Richardson), presenting a progressive, experienced, nationally balanced, trans-racial image; with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards doing the same against any potential Republican “family values” opposition on a highly personal and emotional level.
What’s not to love?
Friday, December 28, 2007
On Pakistan's Future, Or, Practical Ideas From Benazir
There are many who will eloquently eulogize and expertly analyze in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s death; and my suspicion is that you have already seen some of those who are far more capable than I weighing in on the event.
It’s my job to venture farther afield....to offer a view that you might not get by reading elsewhere, and that’s where we are headed today: into a conversation that offers practical, although sometimes controversial, advice from Mrs. Bhutto herself...and then suggests the events of the past 36 hours present an unexpected opportunity, if we can grab it.
Of course, this whole line of thought is extraordinarily risky—but with great risk can come great reward.
And with all that in mind, let’s get to work.
Benazir Bhutto announced her intent to return to Pakistan in September; and at that time she laid out specific ideas for her Government in a presentation at the Mideast Institute which will be central to our discussion.
But first, a geography and cultural primer:
The western portions of Pakistan (the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the Northwest Frontier Province, and Balochistan) are the sections of the country that today present the greatest security risk. The Pashtun tribes residing in this exceptionally mountainous area have forever travelled around the region; and in fact they have moved back and forth across what is today the de facto Afghanistan/Pakistan border for many, many generations before such a border ever existed.
Important in our short history is the story of how that border came to be...and then how it expired...and how there is legally no border even to this day.
Before there was a Pakistan there was British India; and at the midpoint of the 19th Century a security buffer was created between India’s Pashtun-dominated northwest border regions (and the regions of Afghanistan that lie beyond) and the Punjabi-dominated India to the south.
That 1849 arrangement was augmented by a border deal the British were able to broker between the (Pashtun) Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan and the Colonial Administration in India that created the Durand Line (named after Colonial India’s Foreign Secretary, Sir Mortimer Durand) in 1893. Two years of effort followed to actually delineate the Line.
The Afghan Pashtuns were guaranteed control of the region surrounding Kabul as a part of the deal; and the British (and the Pakistani Government, later) have made efforts to keep compliant leaders running Afghanistan. Each party also agreed not to “exercise interference” in the affairs of the Pashtuns inside the other’s borders. (A history of Pakistan “exercising interference” inside Afghanistan for a variety of reasons quickly followed.)
Of course, Turcoman tribes in the northern regions of Afghanistan (remember the Northern Alliance?), uncooperative Pashtuns to the south, and Persians to the west have all at various times resisted these efforts to impose outside control—and the legacy of those battles has continued to this day. (Hamid Karzai cannot currently expand his control beyond the Kabul region any more effectively than the Amir could...and neither could the Russians.)
All of this opposition meant that despite the efforts of the British and the Pakistanis there has never been an Afghan Government that officially certified the agreement—and since the 100-year term of the agreement ended in 1996, with no follow-on agreement in sight...this means there is today no legal border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In recent decades the Pakistani government had adopted a policy of allowing the Tribal Areas near-total autonomy, which lasted until 2001.
This had had at least six effects:
--As a result of their regional autonomy and tribal system of government, local residents do not participate in local or national elections and do not have access to non-tribally administered courts, schools or other social services. There is also the attendant disconnection from the concept of their citizenship as Pakistanis.
--There has been virtually no economic or infrastructure development in the region (Mrs. Bhutto wanted us to know that 60% of Pakistanis live on less than $2 a day); which has kept well occupied the steady supply of unemployable males who have served as soldiers for the various Governments and the opposing tribalist, nationalist, or theocratic movements in the region.
--This lack of development and the artificial partitioning of “Pashtunistan” caused by the Durand Line has also created resentment on the part of the Pashtuns against the Punjabi elites that ruled first Punjabi India and now Pakistan—and the Pashtunis and Westerners that cooperate with them today in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--This resentment has found common ground with the resentment felt by Afghan Pashtuns who are the backbone of the Taliban...who support the establishment of “Pashtunistan” within newly drawn borders that include areas of Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan...which has allowed the Al Qaeda movement to gain sympathy among Pashtuns in Western Pakistan as well.
--Talibani and Al Qaeda interests have formed an “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” that has officially gained control of larger and larger portions of Western Pakistan...to the point where it is now questionable whether the Pakistani Army can regain control through the force of arms, even if it really wants to.
--As Pakistan’s Army has made efforts to reestablish control in the region since 2001 attacks on Pakistani Army troops by “Pashtunistani” forces have increased in number and ferocity. Mrs. Bhutto suggests this is because the Army is, on the one hand, upsetting the new “extremist” power structure; and on the other hand there is more and more a perception that the Army under Mr. Musharraf’s command represents Punjabi interests against the interests of Pashtuns.
We must also consider another issue before we can move to an action plan: who had the most to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death...and who might have done it?
Mr. Musharraf has much to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death...maybe.
--It is possible he could use the chaos following her death to further delay any election, either in January, or later, after opposition parties signal they are more willing to participate.
--It is also possible that he could make an arrangement with Army representatives that cements their role in the next Government and marginalizes the opposition further.
--It is also not impossible to conceive of a situation where Mr. Musharraf either tacitly or explicitly made a deal with the very same Pashtuns that are rising in Western Pakistan: eliminate an opposition rival in exchange for some period of freedom from Pashtuni/Punjabi civil war.
I tend to discount all three of these scenarios, however: there is extreme pressure on Mr. Musharraf to keep to the current election schedule (this may change with the decision by opposition parties to not participate in January), the Army seems less willing to continue to support Mr. Musharraf than they have been in the past; and making a deal with the Pashtuns would likely also lead to civil war...with the Army and most Punjabis on one side, and the Pashtuns and Mr. Musharraf’s remaining supporters on the other—a situation even worse for Mr. Musharraf than today’s.
Talaban and Al Qaeda forces have much to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death as well:
--Her death could help to create conditions that force the Pakistani Government to negotiate further with the Pashtunistanis...creating a better deal than the Durand Line partitioning ever was.
--The assassination will presumably cause the Pakistani Army and civil authorities to think twice before involving itself further in the “Emirate of Waziristan”; which is also a “prestige” issue for the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda movements.
--The added prestige improves recruiting and fundraising...inside Pakistan and worldwide. It also reinforces the “inevitability” issue.
--Continuing instability might lead to Government overreach in an effort to clamp down on civil rights in more onerous ways—which should, ironically, help the very forces attempting to clamp down on those same civil rights through the imposition of Shari‘a Law in the territories they control.
Finally, what about the Army?
Will they stick with Mr. Musharraf, seek to install another “civilian” leader—or stage another coup?
The Army has ruled the country for much of the past 40 years, but they seem unhappy with the state of government today...despite the fact that a General has been at the helm of the civil administration for the past 8 years.
The Army is also facing an internal crisis: some of its forces have “defected” to the Talibani forces; and some members of the Pakistani Army have questionable loyalties. The question of divided loyalty (the State or the Taliban?) is even greater in the ISI (the Internal Security Service of Pakistan)—and of course all of this relates to the ability of Pakistan to maintain “command and control” over their nuclear forces.
At this exact moment, these are all what Donald Rumsfeld would refer to as “known unknowns”...but we will offer some speculation as we go along.
Keeping all this in mind, let’s consider some of Mrs. Bhutto’s ideas from that September presentation:
--Mrs. Bhutto wanted Mr. Musharraf to leave office, turning power over to a temporary National Unity Government who would be empowered to hold an election to choose its replacement, but Mr. Musharraf was not willing to make that commitment.
--By one means or another, Mrs. Bhutto wanted the “outsted” Supreme Court Justices returned to the bench.
--She had suggested that Pakistan work on the “four E’s”: education, employment, environment, and energy. She again reminded us of the fact that most Pakistanis are still quite poor—60% living on less than $2 a day.
--The need to reestablish a professional, neutral military—which she suggested needs to start with de-politicizing the military forces.
--She felt that the border dispute needed to be resolved in such a way as to resolve the Pashtun concerns regarding arbitrary boundaries established for political reasons.
--Additionally, she recommended that the Tribal Areas be brought into the national infrastructure...which means creating hospitals, and secular schools, and jobs, and independent courts all outside of the tribal systems—and on an even more basic level, the creation of water resources, which Mrs. Bhutto reports is one of the greatest barriers to local economic development.
One source of jobs that you might not expect: cleaning up cities. Mrs. Bhutto pointed out that cities in her country are filled with mosquitoes and rats and trash; and that many of the unemployed could be put to work in a manner that would immediately improve the quality of life.
And now, at last, we get to the very out-of-the box part of the discussion: what can the United States do to influence events in a positive way?
Before I answer that question, a caveat: none of this will be a “quick fix”, all of it is intended for the long term; and some of it will require us to reconsider many of our thoughts regarding who we will or will not talk to as a nation—or as part of a community of nations.
--Pakistani history has been one of periods of military control followed by periods of...military control; suggesting we will need to remain engaged with the Pakistani military—and in fact all that military aid we have been providing might help open a door.
At the moment we are beginning to engage with leadership in the Pakistani Army other than the recently “retired” General Musharraf...and we ought to offer to increase our training relationships with the Pashtun and Punjabi members of the officer corps, then work our way down the chain of rank.
Rather than offering additional weapons as a first gesture, I propose we offer facilities such as barracks, hospitals and even family housing for the professional military throughout the entire country...along with some of the security enhancements that might be required to help protect the facilities against the Talibani attacks that will surely follow.
--Bill Richardson has suggested that we “pull the rug” from underneath Mr. Musharraf by withdrawing our support and trying to force his resignation; but instead why not just encourage the Army to form a temporary National Unity Government, leading to relatively free and fair elections...and in a gesture of goodwill, restore the Justices back to the Supreme Court? If it’s done publicly, we could offer Mr. Musharraf the chance to join the process and to look much better in the light of history...and if it’s done quietly, we might find a way to offer Mr. Musharraf a lovely home and future somewhere warm and wealthy.
All of this, if done well, could allow the Army to disengage from Mr. Musharraf without appearing to have done so under US influence. It could also allow the Army to be perceived as the defenders of democracy and the middle class...always a good thing. The best potential outcome would be elections supervised by the military but accepted as fairly run by Pakistanis and outsiders—because such an outcome might help to reduce the military’s image as a “corrupted” element of society.
--There are questions regarding Pakistani nuclear security. It is possible to secure storage facilities using US SOF and air assets to a fairly high degree, assuming the facilities are built in a manner that is defendable...and assuming the Pakistani forces on the site can be trusted. We can also seek the assistance of the IAEA and other UN and NATO assets, and the odds are fairly good that we will get the assistance we seek. All of this can be done in a fairly quiet and low-key manner if we have the cooperation of the Pakistani commanders. Rumors suggest such a process has been negotiated and may already be in place.
The same applies to the delivery systems—assuming we have accurate baseline numbers on erector/launchers, warheads, “loose” fissile material, and missiles currently deployed.
--We have to find a way to create some process of engagement between Islamist Pashtuns and those who support a secular government; and one way to do this might be to support efforts of the Pakistani military and civil administrations to create the infrastructure Mrs. Bhutto wanted to develop in Western Pakistan.
There are several reasons this makes sense: secular schools help us by reducing the role of Madrasa schools that are today teaching an anti-American message to kids, clinics and hospitals help us by teaching Pashtuns that America is not always the Great Satan, new jobs reduce the available supply of soldiers...and all of this helps to create a Pakistani association with the Pashtuns who until now have felt ignored by the central government...except when it comes time to “round up the usual suspects”.
An even more effective way to jump start the association with Pakistan: create local councils and allow local residents to elect their own leadership...and allow participation in national elections as well. Whatever we might do to help this process occur could reverberate to our advantage down the road.
And of course, all of this creates an opposing influence against Taliban and Al Qaeda interests, which is also potentially to our advantage...assuming that we don’t run the thing in such a way as to create even more resentment than exists at the moment.
Of course, all of this requires us to converse with those same Taliban leaders, which creates opportunities for intelligence gathering and the finding of common ground—or as we call it in the US, “networking”.
I’ll end today’s conversation with a theme I’ve presented many times: that the biggest threat to “Islamist extremism”...the thing that keeps Osama Bin Laden up late at night...is the idea of a reasonably content and prosperous middle class that feels they have more to gain by going to work then there is to gain by blowing up workplaces—and themselves.
And believe it or not, this most powerfully sad event might just be the catalyst that allows a variety of positive events to take hold that could leave Pakistan in a better place than it is today...and us as well.
It’s my job to venture farther afield....to offer a view that you might not get by reading elsewhere, and that’s where we are headed today: into a conversation that offers practical, although sometimes controversial, advice from Mrs. Bhutto herself...and then suggests the events of the past 36 hours present an unexpected opportunity, if we can grab it.
Of course, this whole line of thought is extraordinarily risky—but with great risk can come great reward.
And with all that in mind, let’s get to work.
Benazir Bhutto announced her intent to return to Pakistan in September; and at that time she laid out specific ideas for her Government in a presentation at the Mideast Institute which will be central to our discussion.
But first, a geography and cultural primer:
The western portions of Pakistan (the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the Northwest Frontier Province, and Balochistan) are the sections of the country that today present the greatest security risk. The Pashtun tribes residing in this exceptionally mountainous area have forever travelled around the region; and in fact they have moved back and forth across what is today the de facto Afghanistan/Pakistan border for many, many generations before such a border ever existed.
Important in our short history is the story of how that border came to be...and then how it expired...and how there is legally no border even to this day.
Before there was a Pakistan there was British India; and at the midpoint of the 19th Century a security buffer was created between India’s Pashtun-dominated northwest border regions (and the regions of Afghanistan that lie beyond) and the Punjabi-dominated India to the south.
That 1849 arrangement was augmented by a border deal the British were able to broker between the (Pashtun) Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan and the Colonial Administration in India that created the Durand Line (named after Colonial India’s Foreign Secretary, Sir Mortimer Durand) in 1893. Two years of effort followed to actually delineate the Line.
The Afghan Pashtuns were guaranteed control of the region surrounding Kabul as a part of the deal; and the British (and the Pakistani Government, later) have made efforts to keep compliant leaders running Afghanistan. Each party also agreed not to “exercise interference” in the affairs of the Pashtuns inside the other’s borders. (A history of Pakistan “exercising interference” inside Afghanistan for a variety of reasons quickly followed.)
Of course, Turcoman tribes in the northern regions of Afghanistan (remember the Northern Alliance?), uncooperative Pashtuns to the south, and Persians to the west have all at various times resisted these efforts to impose outside control—and the legacy of those battles has continued to this day. (Hamid Karzai cannot currently expand his control beyond the Kabul region any more effectively than the Amir could...and neither could the Russians.)
All of this opposition meant that despite the efforts of the British and the Pakistanis there has never been an Afghan Government that officially certified the agreement—and since the 100-year term of the agreement ended in 1996, with no follow-on agreement in sight...this means there is today no legal border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In recent decades the Pakistani government had adopted a policy of allowing the Tribal Areas near-total autonomy, which lasted until 2001.
This had had at least six effects:
--As a result of their regional autonomy and tribal system of government, local residents do not participate in local or national elections and do not have access to non-tribally administered courts, schools or other social services. There is also the attendant disconnection from the concept of their citizenship as Pakistanis.
--There has been virtually no economic or infrastructure development in the region (Mrs. Bhutto wanted us to know that 60% of Pakistanis live on less than $2 a day); which has kept well occupied the steady supply of unemployable males who have served as soldiers for the various Governments and the opposing tribalist, nationalist, or theocratic movements in the region.
--This lack of development and the artificial partitioning of “Pashtunistan” caused by the Durand Line has also created resentment on the part of the Pashtuns against the Punjabi elites that ruled first Punjabi India and now Pakistan—and the Pashtunis and Westerners that cooperate with them today in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--This resentment has found common ground with the resentment felt by Afghan Pashtuns who are the backbone of the Taliban...who support the establishment of “Pashtunistan” within newly drawn borders that include areas of Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan...which has allowed the Al Qaeda movement to gain sympathy among Pashtuns in Western Pakistan as well.
--Talibani and Al Qaeda interests have formed an “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” that has officially gained control of larger and larger portions of Western Pakistan...to the point where it is now questionable whether the Pakistani Army can regain control through the force of arms, even if it really wants to.
--As Pakistan’s Army has made efforts to reestablish control in the region since 2001 attacks on Pakistani Army troops by “Pashtunistani” forces have increased in number and ferocity. Mrs. Bhutto suggests this is because the Army is, on the one hand, upsetting the new “extremist” power structure; and on the other hand there is more and more a perception that the Army under Mr. Musharraf’s command represents Punjabi interests against the interests of Pashtuns.
We must also consider another issue before we can move to an action plan: who had the most to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death...and who might have done it?
Mr. Musharraf has much to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death...maybe.
--It is possible he could use the chaos following her death to further delay any election, either in January, or later, after opposition parties signal they are more willing to participate.
--It is also possible that he could make an arrangement with Army representatives that cements their role in the next Government and marginalizes the opposition further.
--It is also not impossible to conceive of a situation where Mr. Musharraf either tacitly or explicitly made a deal with the very same Pashtuns that are rising in Western Pakistan: eliminate an opposition rival in exchange for some period of freedom from Pashtuni/Punjabi civil war.
I tend to discount all three of these scenarios, however: there is extreme pressure on Mr. Musharraf to keep to the current election schedule (this may change with the decision by opposition parties to not participate in January), the Army seems less willing to continue to support Mr. Musharraf than they have been in the past; and making a deal with the Pashtuns would likely also lead to civil war...with the Army and most Punjabis on one side, and the Pashtuns and Mr. Musharraf’s remaining supporters on the other—a situation even worse for Mr. Musharraf than today’s.
Talaban and Al Qaeda forces have much to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death as well:
--Her death could help to create conditions that force the Pakistani Government to negotiate further with the Pashtunistanis...creating a better deal than the Durand Line partitioning ever was.
--The assassination will presumably cause the Pakistani Army and civil authorities to think twice before involving itself further in the “Emirate of Waziristan”; which is also a “prestige” issue for the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda movements.
--The added prestige improves recruiting and fundraising...inside Pakistan and worldwide. It also reinforces the “inevitability” issue.
--Continuing instability might lead to Government overreach in an effort to clamp down on civil rights in more onerous ways—which should, ironically, help the very forces attempting to clamp down on those same civil rights through the imposition of Shari‘a Law in the territories they control.
Finally, what about the Army?
Will they stick with Mr. Musharraf, seek to install another “civilian” leader—or stage another coup?
The Army has ruled the country for much of the past 40 years, but they seem unhappy with the state of government today...despite the fact that a General has been at the helm of the civil administration for the past 8 years.
The Army is also facing an internal crisis: some of its forces have “defected” to the Talibani forces; and some members of the Pakistani Army have questionable loyalties. The question of divided loyalty (the State or the Taliban?) is even greater in the ISI (the Internal Security Service of Pakistan)—and of course all of this relates to the ability of Pakistan to maintain “command and control” over their nuclear forces.
At this exact moment, these are all what Donald Rumsfeld would refer to as “known unknowns”...but we will offer some speculation as we go along.
Keeping all this in mind, let’s consider some of Mrs. Bhutto’s ideas from that September presentation:
--Mrs. Bhutto wanted Mr. Musharraf to leave office, turning power over to a temporary National Unity Government who would be empowered to hold an election to choose its replacement, but Mr. Musharraf was not willing to make that commitment.
--By one means or another, Mrs. Bhutto wanted the “outsted” Supreme Court Justices returned to the bench.
--She had suggested that Pakistan work on the “four E’s”: education, employment, environment, and energy. She again reminded us of the fact that most Pakistanis are still quite poor—60% living on less than $2 a day.
--The need to reestablish a professional, neutral military—which she suggested needs to start with de-politicizing the military forces.
--She felt that the border dispute needed to be resolved in such a way as to resolve the Pashtun concerns regarding arbitrary boundaries established for political reasons.
--Additionally, she recommended that the Tribal Areas be brought into the national infrastructure...which means creating hospitals, and secular schools, and jobs, and independent courts all outside of the tribal systems—and on an even more basic level, the creation of water resources, which Mrs. Bhutto reports is one of the greatest barriers to local economic development.
One source of jobs that you might not expect: cleaning up cities. Mrs. Bhutto pointed out that cities in her country are filled with mosquitoes and rats and trash; and that many of the unemployed could be put to work in a manner that would immediately improve the quality of life.
And now, at last, we get to the very out-of-the box part of the discussion: what can the United States do to influence events in a positive way?
Before I answer that question, a caveat: none of this will be a “quick fix”, all of it is intended for the long term; and some of it will require us to reconsider many of our thoughts regarding who we will or will not talk to as a nation—or as part of a community of nations.
--Pakistani history has been one of periods of military control followed by periods of...military control; suggesting we will need to remain engaged with the Pakistani military—and in fact all that military aid we have been providing might help open a door.
At the moment we are beginning to engage with leadership in the Pakistani Army other than the recently “retired” General Musharraf...and we ought to offer to increase our training relationships with the Pashtun and Punjabi members of the officer corps, then work our way down the chain of rank.
Rather than offering additional weapons as a first gesture, I propose we offer facilities such as barracks, hospitals and even family housing for the professional military throughout the entire country...along with some of the security enhancements that might be required to help protect the facilities against the Talibani attacks that will surely follow.
--Bill Richardson has suggested that we “pull the rug” from underneath Mr. Musharraf by withdrawing our support and trying to force his resignation; but instead why not just encourage the Army to form a temporary National Unity Government, leading to relatively free and fair elections...and in a gesture of goodwill, restore the Justices back to the Supreme Court? If it’s done publicly, we could offer Mr. Musharraf the chance to join the process and to look much better in the light of history...and if it’s done quietly, we might find a way to offer Mr. Musharraf a lovely home and future somewhere warm and wealthy.
All of this, if done well, could allow the Army to disengage from Mr. Musharraf without appearing to have done so under US influence. It could also allow the Army to be perceived as the defenders of democracy and the middle class...always a good thing. The best potential outcome would be elections supervised by the military but accepted as fairly run by Pakistanis and outsiders—because such an outcome might help to reduce the military’s image as a “corrupted” element of society.
--There are questions regarding Pakistani nuclear security. It is possible to secure storage facilities using US SOF and air assets to a fairly high degree, assuming the facilities are built in a manner that is defendable...and assuming the Pakistani forces on the site can be trusted. We can also seek the assistance of the IAEA and other UN and NATO assets, and the odds are fairly good that we will get the assistance we seek. All of this can be done in a fairly quiet and low-key manner if we have the cooperation of the Pakistani commanders. Rumors suggest such a process has been negotiated and may already be in place.
The same applies to the delivery systems—assuming we have accurate baseline numbers on erector/launchers, warheads, “loose” fissile material, and missiles currently deployed.
--We have to find a way to create some process of engagement between Islamist Pashtuns and those who support a secular government; and one way to do this might be to support efforts of the Pakistani military and civil administrations to create the infrastructure Mrs. Bhutto wanted to develop in Western Pakistan.
There are several reasons this makes sense: secular schools help us by reducing the role of Madrasa schools that are today teaching an anti-American message to kids, clinics and hospitals help us by teaching Pashtuns that America is not always the Great Satan, new jobs reduce the available supply of soldiers...and all of this helps to create a Pakistani association with the Pashtuns who until now have felt ignored by the central government...except when it comes time to “round up the usual suspects”.
An even more effective way to jump start the association with Pakistan: create local councils and allow local residents to elect their own leadership...and allow participation in national elections as well. Whatever we might do to help this process occur could reverberate to our advantage down the road.
And of course, all of this creates an opposing influence against Taliban and Al Qaeda interests, which is also potentially to our advantage...assuming that we don’t run the thing in such a way as to create even more resentment than exists at the moment.
Of course, all of this requires us to converse with those same Taliban leaders, which creates opportunities for intelligence gathering and the finding of common ground—or as we call it in the US, “networking”.
I’ll end today’s conversation with a theme I’ve presented many times: that the biggest threat to “Islamist extremism”...the thing that keeps Osama Bin Laden up late at night...is the idea of a reasonably content and prosperous middle class that feels they have more to gain by going to work then there is to gain by blowing up workplaces—and themselves.
And believe it or not, this most powerfully sad event might just be the catalyst that allows a variety of positive events to take hold that could leave Pakistan in a better place than it is today...and us as well.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
On Christmas And Philosophy, Or, Who Would Jesus Torture?
Here we are in the depths of the Holidays and we have been offered Seasons Greetings by many of the candidates, Republican and Democratic.
Certain of our Republican friends have been particularly anxious to draw our attention to the close personal connections they share with Jesus Christ, their Lord and personal Savior—and the airwaves of Iowa were full of the reminders, at least until 12:01 AM December 26th.
Certain of our Republican friends are also most anxious to remind us that they would not hesitate to apply “enhanced interrogation” techniques to those who, in their minds, deserve this special attention.
Which is how we get to our post-Christmas conversation: do Jesus Christ and the United States Army share similar values regarding torture—and do the Bush Administration and the Republican candidates share a set of opposite values?
And of course, the other question: which group might be right—and why?
So let’s start by reviewing the philosophical positions that the two sides seem to occupy:
The Bush Administration, as is well known, has taken the position that “enhanced interrogation” is a permissible practice. They have also accepted the proposition that “torture” is not permissible under US law.
They are at present unable to define certain methods of interrogation as “torture” or not torture. The Attorney General will be getting back to the President on this question just as soon as he is able, we are told.
Some Members of Congress have suggested these enhanced methods of interrogation are really no more than enhanced swimming lessons.
Some have also advanced the proposition that the President is allowed to offer the final determination regarding the legality of any action taken by the President.
It is further reported that certain tapes which no longer exist prove the efficacy of the certain methods that are not currently considered torture—at least in the minds of those who now offer their recollection of what was on those tapes.
The Republican candidates (with the notable exception of John McCain) have not only embraced the Administration’s positions on these issues, they’ve publicly suggested we build more Guantanamo-like facilities…and even bring in Jack Bauer, if at all possible.
As you might expect, Jesus Christ has a different perspective:
What you might not expect is that the United States Army shares the same philosophical real estate as the man Christians recognize as God’s only Son…and followers of Islam recognize as one of God’s Prophets.
30 retired Generals and Admirals also disagree with the Administration’s position:
The Administration tells us that they have had great success with their “enhanced” methods, but even General Petraeus disagrees with the Administration in that regard:
So now that we know how the two sides feel—what do we do?
The most persuasive arguments I have heard so far from the Administration and its acolytes for the new policies suggest:
--That we will be confronted by the specter of a nuclear bomb, or something similar; and the only way to quickly obtain the information that will save large numbers of Americans is to interrogate the captured terrorist in “enhanced” ways.
--That we allow enhanced interrogation methods to be used upon “terrorist” subjects that are already permitted in the criminal justice system. This argument considers that techniques such as “good cop, bad cop” are intended to be intimidating, which is banned behavior under the Army Field Manual guidelines. The extension of this argument is “if we allow intimidation for purse snatchers, why not for terrorists?”
Adherents of this position do not necessarily support waterboarding as an allowed practice, but might support methods such as sleep deprivation or the application of loud music for extended periods at high volumes.
The Army and Jesus offer their own arguments:
--The first is that there are benefits to occupying the moral high ground. In the case of Jesus, the decision to occupy the moral high ground has led an enormous number of people to follow His teachings—even in times when the Christian churches have not deployed military forces.
The Army feels occupying the high ground protects their own troops who might fall into enemy hands, just for starters.
--There is also a “force multiplier” effect when America rejects torture. Opposition troops who know they will be treated well are far more likely to surrender to US forces than those who know they will be subjected to torture. Less fighting means we have fewer troops exposed to combat, and more American troops live to fight another day—and there are fewer limbs lost in the bargain, as well.
--They also seem to feel that in a counter-insurgency war where the other forces use the news of American atrocities as a recruiting tool the fewer atrocities the better.
--There is also the question of efficiency. The Administration points to the example of the captured terrorist who knows where the bomb is hidden, but professional interrogators point to empathy and assimilation (and even bribery) as far more effective tools.
Part of that has to do with history.
Defectors have been a rich and highly valued source of information for military and civilian agencies for at least the past half-century, and they were an important factor in how we won the Cold War. Defectors are unlikely to be attracted to a nation perceived as willing to torture—and defectors are a gift that keeps on giving, as opposed to the terrorist you torture once and “throw away”.
The same goes for “flipping” insiders. The probability that someone will be willing to remain within an organization we want to penetrate and provide us information for months, or even years, is much higher if we are recognized as the nation that values human rights above all others.
Neither of these considerations factor into the “Jack Bauer” scenario; but the amount of information gained by occupying the higher ground is like a warehouse of treasure, compared to the possibility of obtaining that one truthful answer at the exact moment you need it that torture is alleged to provide.
(By the way, have we pointed out that none of the individuals suspected of having been interrogated in “special” ways is actually supposed to have known anything about any nuclear weapons?)
Part of it has to do with human response to pain.
The application of pain seems to be effective in getting people to give answers, but not necessarily the truth. John McCain tells us he gave the names of the starting lineup for the Green Bay Packers when the North Vietnamese were torturing him for the names of his shipmates.
Imagine breaking down the door after torturing the only person who can tell you where the bomb is, looking for the woman the terrorist swears can tell you all you need to know: Pascale Machaalani.
Imagine your surprise when you find out she’s no terrorist at all; but instead a singer with an album title that translates into English as “The Biggest Lie In My Life” (“Akbar Kidba Bi Hayati”). That she’s not even actually on the North American continent at the moment…and that your terrorist not only resisted your interrogation, but had a focused sense of irony.
The need for efficient intelligence collection is one of the things that have led us, time and time again, to reaffirm America’s commitment to that higher road—and it’s why the military is today trying to keep us on that path.
So that should be enough discussion to generate the kind of Christmas dinner conversation that makes a family gathering even better than it was before…and with that in mind, let’s sum it all up:
--The Administration and most of the Republican Presidential candidates support interrogation techniques that have not been previously authorized, the right of the other Branches to interfere in that decision-making process has been challenged, and the supporters allege that “enhanced interrogation” yields useable, actionable intelligence.
--The United States Army and Jesus Christ support a completely different approach: one in which torture is not only not allowed, but openly discredited for it’s lack of utility and morality…an approach that considers the respect of human dignity and the consideration of human rights as effective tools for developing the morality of those who might follow on a Savior’s path—and an effective tool for intelligence gathering, as well.
In this Christmas season, as snow falls outside, I’m with Jesus and the Army.
How about you?
Certain of our Republican friends have been particularly anxious to draw our attention to the close personal connections they share with Jesus Christ, their Lord and personal Savior—and the airwaves of Iowa were full of the reminders, at least until 12:01 AM December 26th.
Certain of our Republican friends are also most anxious to remind us that they would not hesitate to apply “enhanced interrogation” techniques to those who, in their minds, deserve this special attention.
Which is how we get to our post-Christmas conversation: do Jesus Christ and the United States Army share similar values regarding torture—and do the Bush Administration and the Republican candidates share a set of opposite values?
And of course, the other question: which group might be right—and why?
So let’s start by reviewing the philosophical positions that the two sides seem to occupy:
The Bush Administration, as is well known, has taken the position that “enhanced interrogation” is a permissible practice. They have also accepted the proposition that “torture” is not permissible under US law.
They are at present unable to define certain methods of interrogation as “torture” or not torture. The Attorney General will be getting back to the President on this question just as soon as he is able, we are told.
Some Members of Congress have suggested these enhanced methods of interrogation are really no more than enhanced swimming lessons.
Some have also advanced the proposition that the President is allowed to offer the final determination regarding the legality of any action taken by the President.
It is further reported that certain tapes which no longer exist prove the efficacy of the certain methods that are not currently considered torture—at least in the minds of those who now offer their recollection of what was on those tapes.
The Republican candidates (with the notable exception of John McCain) have not only embraced the Administration’s positions on these issues, they’ve publicly suggested we build more Guantanamo-like facilities…and even bring in Jack Bauer, if at all possible.
As you might expect, Jesus Christ has a different perspective:
…Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
--Jesus Christ, as recorded in the King James Bible (Matthew 25:40)
What you might not expect is that the United States Army shares the same philosophical real estate as the man Christians recognize as God’s only Son…and followers of Islam recognize as one of God’s Prophets.
5-54. Compliance with laws and regulations, including proper treatment of detainees, is a matter of command responsibility. Commanders have an affirmative duty to ensure their subordinates are not mistreating detainees or their property. HCT leaders must effectively supervise their subordinate collectors during all interrogation operations. Supervisors must ensure that each HUMINT collector has properly completed an interrogation plan and sound collection strategy, and fully understands the intelligence requirements he is seeking to satisfy prior to beginning an interrogation. NCOs and WOs should regularly participate in interrogations with their subordinates to ensure that the highest standards of conduct are maintained. Interrogation supervisors should also monitor interrogations by video, where video monitoring is available…
5-55. Non-DOD agencies may on occasion request permission to conduct interrogations in Army facilities. These requests must be approved by the JTF commander or, if there is no JTF commander, the theater commander or appropriate higher level official. The interrogation activity commander will assign a trained and certified interrogator to escort non-DOD interrogators to observe their interrogation operations. The non-DOD personnel will sign for any detainee they want to question from the MPs, following the same established procedures that DOD personnel must follow. In all instances, interrogations or debriefings conducted by non-DOD agencies will be observed by DOD personnel. In all instances, non-DOD agencies must observe the same standards for the conduct of interrogation operations and treatment of detainees as do Army personnel. All personnel who observe or become aware of violations of Army interrogation operation standards will report the infractions immediately to the commander. The personnel who become aware of mistreatment of detainees will report the infractions immediately and suspend the access of non-DOD personnel to the facility until the matter has been referred to higher headquarters. Non-DOD personnel conducting interrogation operations in an Army facility must sign a statement acknowledging receipt of these rules, and agree to follow them prior to conducting any interrogation operations. Non-DOD personnel working in DOD interrogation facilities have no authority over Army interrogators. Army interrogators (active duty, civilian, or contractor employees) will only use DOD-approved interrogation approaches and techniques.
--Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Operations (Pp. 90-91)
30 retired Generals and Admirals also disagree with the Administration’s position:
In this instance, the relevant rule-the law-has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise-or even to give credence to such a suggestion-represents an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation. (emphasis is from the original source)
--General's Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, November 2, 2007
The Administration tells us that they have had great success with their “enhanced” methods, but even General Petraeus disagrees with the Administration in that regard:
“Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows they are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action may make someone “talk;” however, what the individual says may be of questionable value…”
--Letter from General Petraeus to all personnel serving in Multi-National Force, Iraq, May 10, 2007
So now that we know how the two sides feel—what do we do?
The most persuasive arguments I have heard so far from the Administration and its acolytes for the new policies suggest:
--That we will be confronted by the specter of a nuclear bomb, or something similar; and the only way to quickly obtain the information that will save large numbers of Americans is to interrogate the captured terrorist in “enhanced” ways.
--That we allow enhanced interrogation methods to be used upon “terrorist” subjects that are already permitted in the criminal justice system. This argument considers that techniques such as “good cop, bad cop” are intended to be intimidating, which is banned behavior under the Army Field Manual guidelines. The extension of this argument is “if we allow intimidation for purse snatchers, why not for terrorists?”
Adherents of this position do not necessarily support waterboarding as an allowed practice, but might support methods such as sleep deprivation or the application of loud music for extended periods at high volumes.
The Army and Jesus offer their own arguments:
--The first is that there are benefits to occupying the moral high ground. In the case of Jesus, the decision to occupy the moral high ground has led an enormous number of people to follow His teachings—even in times when the Christian churches have not deployed military forces.
The Army feels occupying the high ground protects their own troops who might fall into enemy hands, just for starters.
--There is also a “force multiplier” effect when America rejects torture. Opposition troops who know they will be treated well are far more likely to surrender to US forces than those who know they will be subjected to torture. Less fighting means we have fewer troops exposed to combat, and more American troops live to fight another day—and there are fewer limbs lost in the bargain, as well.
--They also seem to feel that in a counter-insurgency war where the other forces use the news of American atrocities as a recruiting tool the fewer atrocities the better.
--There is also the question of efficiency. The Administration points to the example of the captured terrorist who knows where the bomb is hidden, but professional interrogators point to empathy and assimilation (and even bribery) as far more effective tools.
Part of that has to do with history.
Defectors have been a rich and highly valued source of information for military and civilian agencies for at least the past half-century, and they were an important factor in how we won the Cold War. Defectors are unlikely to be attracted to a nation perceived as willing to torture—and defectors are a gift that keeps on giving, as opposed to the terrorist you torture once and “throw away”.
The same goes for “flipping” insiders. The probability that someone will be willing to remain within an organization we want to penetrate and provide us information for months, or even years, is much higher if we are recognized as the nation that values human rights above all others.
Neither of these considerations factor into the “Jack Bauer” scenario; but the amount of information gained by occupying the higher ground is like a warehouse of treasure, compared to the possibility of obtaining that one truthful answer at the exact moment you need it that torture is alleged to provide.
(By the way, have we pointed out that none of the individuals suspected of having been interrogated in “special” ways is actually supposed to have known anything about any nuclear weapons?)
Part of it has to do with human response to pain.
The application of pain seems to be effective in getting people to give answers, but not necessarily the truth. John McCain tells us he gave the names of the starting lineup for the Green Bay Packers when the North Vietnamese were torturing him for the names of his shipmates.
Imagine breaking down the door after torturing the only person who can tell you where the bomb is, looking for the woman the terrorist swears can tell you all you need to know: Pascale Machaalani.
Imagine your surprise when you find out she’s no terrorist at all; but instead a singer with an album title that translates into English as “The Biggest Lie In My Life” (“Akbar Kidba Bi Hayati”). That she’s not even actually on the North American continent at the moment…and that your terrorist not only resisted your interrogation, but had a focused sense of irony.
The need for efficient intelligence collection is one of the things that have led us, time and time again, to reaffirm America’s commitment to that higher road—and it’s why the military is today trying to keep us on that path.
So that should be enough discussion to generate the kind of Christmas dinner conversation that makes a family gathering even better than it was before…and with that in mind, let’s sum it all up:
--The Administration and most of the Republican Presidential candidates support interrogation techniques that have not been previously authorized, the right of the other Branches to interfere in that decision-making process has been challenged, and the supporters allege that “enhanced interrogation” yields useable, actionable intelligence.
--The United States Army and Jesus Christ support a completely different approach: one in which torture is not only not allowed, but openly discredited for it’s lack of utility and morality…an approach that considers the respect of human dignity and the consideration of human rights as effective tools for developing the morality of those who might follow on a Savior’s path—and an effective tool for intelligence gathering, as well.
In this Christmas season, as snow falls outside, I’m with Jesus and the Army.
How about you?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
On Watching A Campaign Train Derail, Or, I Just Love Hillary’s Problems
As the Democrats have raced toward the first primary contests, I have to a great extent kept to other tasks in my writing. It has been my wont to let the events develop; and to a large extent there has been almost no editorial writing in this space regarding the Democratic nominees.
That ends here.
From the beginning I have distrusted Hillary, I don’t like how she’s running her campaign, and it’s my belief that she represents exactly what we shouldn’t be voting for.
And now, in what may be the best holiday present yet, everything I dislike about her is becoming part of the public record.
So what is it about the Senator that bothers me so much?
How about she seems incapable of giving a straight answer to any question?
How about she’ll say anything, no matter what, to gain the nomination?
How about she’ll do anything, no matter what, to gain the nomination?
How about in the recent personal attacks on Obama, she’s proving it?
For readers not keeping track, those close to Hillary want us to know that Obama "attended a Madrasa”, will be dogged by drug use issues, and my personal favorite, is an opportunist "Who began running for President as soon as he arrived in the United States Senate"…as opposed to Clinton, who, if I recall correctly, waited until her fourth or fifth term as a Senator to run.
The candidate herself has maintained an air of “plausible deniability”; choosing not to answer questions regarding the assertions made by those close friends.
Of course, there are those who would suggest that these actions emanating from her campaign are not valid criteria by which to measure her as a candidate—that these are personal attacks, not a discussion of “policy” issues; and therefore they remain beyond our examination.
A ridiculous argument, indeed.
At the heart of the American mindset is the idea that Government is not to be trusted--and those who seek high office, even less so; at least until they can prove they deserve our trust.
Recent events (and you can probably think of a few without my help) suggest that trust matters even more today than ever before.
With all due respect, the Clinton history does not inspire my trust:
--Tons of corporate PAC money (more than any candidate of either party) is flooding into her campaign.
--Millions more from undisclosed sources is going to support the Clinton Presidential library.
--In the face of this (with an Administration currently in power who has made reverence to donor interests a religion even bigger than…well, religion) we are told that there is no connection between library donations to the former President and this Presidential campaign, no reason to disclose the donor’s names—and no possibility that the effect of all these donations will be to sway this candidate into acting just like the current corporatist Administration.
--A candidate who tells us she will cover all Americans in her healthcare plan—by requiring the uninsured to purchase insurance…who tells us she will not negotiate...and she will negotiate with Iranian leaders without preconditions; and a candidate who believes Mr. Bush when he tells us voting to declare the Iranian Army a terrorist organization is not a precursor to war.
--A candidate who would apparently rather seek the assistance of President Bush the Elder than President Jimmy Carter in her efforts to promote world peace.
The agent of change, we’re told.
Over and over again she comes up wrong on so many issues—the Iraq war, the restoration of the Constitution, the need to change the Military Commissions Act, and on and on and on.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Hillary’s friends are concerned about the dirt Republicans might sling at Obama…try, if you can, to visualize a cloud of flying mud slightly larger than a spherical Gobi Desert and you might have a conception of how much will be flung at her by those same Republicans.
Now I will acknowledge that a candidate who is slipping in the polls, as Hillary is, must begin to confront her opponent…and you’ll notice that I did not fault Mr. Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s experience. Frankly, I disagree with elements of his statement; that said, I can easily see this as a reasonable argument to raise regarding an opponent.
But the Madrasa stuff, and all that goes with it…it really stinks of desperation; her unwillingness to attack personally makes a real statement about her own integrity; and the illogical nature of her denials regarding all that corporate money suggests a “politics as usual” attitude that we need to toss out--not re-elect.
There are those who will vehemently disagree with the tone and tenor of this discussion.
They will be quick to point out that the “politics of personal destruction” will damage all the candidates.
My response: sorry, folks, but the Hussein and cocaine train has already left the station; and those who sow shall reap.
I’d also tell them that a candidate who doesn’t respect her own opponents (or the power of her own ideas above the power of personal attack) is not likely to be the kind of President that will respect opposing nations who don’t support her views—and haven’t we had enough of that already?
With that in mind, I’m glad her campaign is “coming off the rails”…and I can’t wait to see what form of self-destruction her desperation leads her to next.
That ends here.
From the beginning I have distrusted Hillary, I don’t like how she’s running her campaign, and it’s my belief that she represents exactly what we shouldn’t be voting for.
And now, in what may be the best holiday present yet, everything I dislike about her is becoming part of the public record.
So what is it about the Senator that bothers me so much?
How about she seems incapable of giving a straight answer to any question?
How about she’ll say anything, no matter what, to gain the nomination?
How about she’ll do anything, no matter what, to gain the nomination?
How about in the recent personal attacks on Obama, she’s proving it?
"We need to put forth a positive agenda for America."
--Hillary Clinton, Novenber 16th, 2007.
For readers not keeping track, those close to Hillary want us to know that Obama "attended a Madrasa”, will be dogged by drug use issues, and my personal favorite, is an opportunist "Who began running for President as soon as he arrived in the United States Senate"…as opposed to Clinton, who, if I recall correctly, waited until her fourth or fifth term as a Senator to run.
The candidate herself has maintained an air of “plausible deniability”; choosing not to answer questions regarding the assertions made by those close friends.
Of course, there are those who would suggest that these actions emanating from her campaign are not valid criteria by which to measure her as a candidate—that these are personal attacks, not a discussion of “policy” issues; and therefore they remain beyond our examination.
A ridiculous argument, indeed.
At the heart of the American mindset is the idea that Government is not to be trusted--and those who seek high office, even less so; at least until they can prove they deserve our trust.
“Voters will have to judge us, and that’s what I welcome…”
--Hillary Clinton on the “Today Show”; December 17, 2007
Recent events (and you can probably think of a few without my help) suggest that trust matters even more today than ever before.
With all due respect, the Clinton history does not inspire my trust:
--Tons of corporate PAC money (more than any candidate of either party) is flooding into her campaign.
--Millions more from undisclosed sources is going to support the Clinton Presidential library.
--In the face of this (with an Administration currently in power who has made reverence to donor interests a religion even bigger than…well, religion) we are told that there is no connection between library donations to the former President and this Presidential campaign, no reason to disclose the donor’s names—and no possibility that the effect of all these donations will be to sway this candidate into acting just like the current corporatist Administration.
--A candidate who tells us she will cover all Americans in her healthcare plan—by requiring the uninsured to purchase insurance…who tells us she will not negotiate...and she will negotiate with Iranian leaders without preconditions; and a candidate who believes Mr. Bush when he tells us voting to declare the Iranian Army a terrorist organization is not a precursor to war.
--A candidate who would apparently rather seek the assistance of President Bush the Elder than President Jimmy Carter in her efforts to promote world peace.
The agent of change, we’re told.
Over and over again she comes up wrong on so many issues—the Iraq war, the restoration of the Constitution, the need to change the Military Commissions Act, and on and on and on.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Hillary’s friends are concerned about the dirt Republicans might sling at Obama…try, if you can, to visualize a cloud of flying mud slightly larger than a spherical Gobi Desert and you might have a conception of how much will be flung at her by those same Republicans.
Now I will acknowledge that a candidate who is slipping in the polls, as Hillary is, must begin to confront her opponent…and you’ll notice that I did not fault Mr. Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s experience. Frankly, I disagree with elements of his statement; that said, I can easily see this as a reasonable argument to raise regarding an opponent.
But the Madrasa stuff, and all that goes with it…it really stinks of desperation; her unwillingness to attack personally makes a real statement about her own integrity; and the illogical nature of her denials regarding all that corporate money suggests a “politics as usual” attitude that we need to toss out--not re-elect.
There are those who will vehemently disagree with the tone and tenor of this discussion.
They will be quick to point out that the “politics of personal destruction” will damage all the candidates.
My response: sorry, folks, but the Hussein and cocaine train has already left the station; and those who sow shall reap.
I’d also tell them that a candidate who doesn’t respect her own opponents (or the power of her own ideas above the power of personal attack) is not likely to be the kind of President that will respect opposing nations who don’t support her views—and haven’t we had enough of that already?
With that in mind, I’m glad her campaign is “coming off the rails”…and I can’t wait to see what form of self-destruction her desperation leads her to next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
