Where are we in Afghanistan?

I have never been a fan of our going to war in Afghanistan -- or Iraq either for that matter. As I've said before on here, my initial thought right after 9/11 was: why don't, instead of bombs, we fly over and drop humanitarian aid -- at far less cost in money and lives. The idea was to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Instead, we have mainly made more enemies and driven the bad guys into Pakistan, or at least the almost unreachable border area.

A Huffington Post blog today by Daniel Froomkin is worth reading. Here's how it begins:

As Gen. David Petraeus kicks off an extended media blitz intended to make Americans feel better about the war in Afghanistan -- or at least give him some more time to fight it -- he faces a foe more implacable than al Qaeda, or even the Taliban: Reality.

That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan -- and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.

U.S. taxpayers are spending vast amounts of money on the war -- over $200 million a day for military operations alone. Our troops work tirelessly, fight and die to protect and build up the people and institutions of Afghanistan.

But how that turns into success remains wildly unclear. And even more importantly, the relationship between what we're doing on a day to day basis and our ostensible goal -- keeping America safe from al Qaeda -- seems increasingly tenuous.

He goes on to examine the options open to Obama, as Petraeus tries to make the case to Congress and the American people, and as Obama convenes a high level conference on Afghanistan later this fall. One compelling point he made on the other side is that, suppose we pull out, or reduce our operations to training and reconstruction efforts, and suppose we have another 9/11 type attack in this country that originated in the al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan -- Obama would be blamed for not keeping out country safe, whether that had any bearing on it or not. That kind of blame does not travel on fact and reason.

And then there is the idea of our "abandoning" the Afghan people and the politically suicidal move of "giving up" and being "unwilling to fight," all of which the noisey right will be sure to exploit.

There really aren't any good options, I'm afraid. But Obama did a good thing in putting Petraeus in charge. I think the right would have a hard time saying Obama didn't know what he was doing, as long as Petraeus is involved and supports the decisions.

What to do doesn't yet have the clarity that we came to about Viet Nam, but we're getting there.

Ralph

"Islam is not the enemy, al Qaida is."

One of the editorial columnists that I most love to disagree with is Charles Krauthammer. Today, in the AJC he jumped on the bandwagon (along with Newt) of outrage that Muslims would build a multimillion dollar mosque and Islamic center in lower Manhattan. They say that Ground Zero is hallowed ground. Build it anywhere else in Manhattan, they say, but it would be just too painful for the families of the dead and too much of an affront to the sacred space that this now has become -- thereby perpetuating the myth that it was Islam that did it, rather than radicalized extremists.

Krauthammer waxes, for him, almost poetic in saying that it is the sacrifice of the victims that turns this into a place that should be held sacred, a place to contemplate and (he almost seemed to say: "to worship") -- like Auschwitz or Gettysburg.

He has a point . . . up to a point. If all of lower Manhattan had been set aside and dedicated to a memorial to those who died, I would join their opposition to building a mosque and Islamic center within that site -- just as I would any other sectarian religious edifices.

But Ground Zero will have its memorials and its space. Where the muslims want to build is some blocks away from there -- in the midst of private, commercial buildings and bustling traffic. If they do not build on this site, it's likely that someone will build an office building or a bank or -- who knows -- an army recruiting center.

As reported on MSNBC online:

President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed plans for a Muslim mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, declaring that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

Speaking at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said all Americans have the right to worship as they choose.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances, Obama said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable." . . .

Obama acknowledged the fiery emotions the planned mosque and cultural center have stoked.

"Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground," the president said.

"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

Obama said Islam is not the enemy, al-Qaida is.

I agree. Mayor Blumberg and Governor Cuomo also support the right of the Muslims to build there. What could better show respect for those who died on 9/11 than a house of worship and a center dedicated to sharing Islamic culture and educating us about the positive aspects of Islam? I think the Anti-Defamation League, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and all the fear-mongers have got it wrong -- fear-mongering, that's what it is.

Ralph

Glenn Beck finally says something sensible

From the Huffington Post:

Why doesn't Glenn Beck cover gay marriage? Because he doesn't believe it's a threat to the nation.

In a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on why he avoids culture war issues, Beck admitted that he doesn't think marriage should be a political issue.

"Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry," Beck said. "You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want. The country is burning down...I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with...that is a religious right."

"Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" O'Reilly asked.

"A threat to the country? No, I don't," Beck said, laughing, adding mockingly, "Will the gays come and get us?"

Beck quoted Thomas Jefferson: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

This of course is shaping up as a big difference between the "mainstream" of the Tea Party crowd (if there is anything such as a mainstream to it) and the fringes that are part of the older "culture wars," right-wing crowd. For all their deplorable tactics and misstatements of fact, they are focused on things that do matter more than the culture-war crowd: questions about the nature of government, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom.

Those are arguments that our country would do well to really engage in. It's at the foundation of the differences in the two major parties. Democrats generally believe that government can and should make people's lives better; Republicans -- especially the more libertarian they are -- generally believe that the less government, the better.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have serious Lincoln-Douglas type debates on these issues, instead of what we get?

Ralph

Short takes on policitians

1. Karen Handel conceded the Republican primary runoff for GA governor before all absentee and provisional ballots had been counted. With 100% of precincts reporting, she trailed by 2,479 votes out of 578,671. In her concession, she said she was trailing by "four tenths of a percentage point."

Oops, Karen. Check your math. That actually is 0.004 -- four one thousandths of a percentage point. Comes well within what would require an automatic recount -- if she asked for it. Which she has said she will not. But did she really think it was 0.4% rather than 0.004%? That's quite a difference.

How to feel about her losing? I thought she was the lesser of two evils. If I had a crystal ball and could know which would be easier for Roy Barnes to defeat, that would be my choice. But whatever, I find it beyond deplorable to think that Deal's despicable anti-gay smear -- even more his unconscionable smear of Youth Pride -- would have helped him win. Which means he will probably find a way to smear Roy Barnes as well with some kind of anti-gay bring-out-the-bigot vote.

2. Marianne Gingrich, Newt's wife #2 -- the one he married after telling #1 he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital being treated for breast cancer -- has given an interview to Esquire that should give pause to anyone who doesn't already react in horror at the thought of "President Gingrich."

A few months after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Marianne learned Newt was having an affair and confronted him. She asked him how he could go around the country giving speeches about family values while carrying on an affair, he said: "It doesn't matter what I do; people need to hear what I have to say."

Note to Mrs. Gingrich #3: Try not to get sick.

3. Dan Quayle's son, Ben, running for a congressional seat from Arizona, has an ad in which he says "Barack Obama is the worst president in history. And my generation will inherit a weakened country. . . . Somebody has to go to Washington and knock hell out of the place."

How profound. You'll got to Washington and "knock hell" out of the place. And then what, Ben?

4. Palin's score. Sarah Palin came to Atlanta the day before the runoff and made an appearance with Karen Handel -- who didn't win -- or maybe gave up too soon by not calling for a recount. This adds another high profile race in which Palin endorsed the one who lost. At least one Republican, Jack Kingston of GA, wants her to stay away and stop meddling in other state's elections. I say let her keep it up -- she doesn't seem to be doing much harm at this rate.

5. Tea Party Wins. Three Tea Party candidates are now on the ballot as Republican senatorial candidates for November: Rand Paul (TN), Sharron Angle (NV) and Ken Buck (CO). Is this good or bad? I'd like to believe the more extreme the Republican, the easier for a Democrat to win. But that remains to be seen.

Ralph

Democrat vs Democrat

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs let his frustration with the liberal left's criticism of Obama get to him, and he made some ridiculing comments in an interview published in The Hill. Today, he tried to walk it back, saying we can't afford to have Democrats battling Democrats. There's too much at stake.

This is parallel to the debate about Obama that Richard and I have repeatedly come to on here. While that has helped us hone our arguments, and while I like to concede that we both have valid points, I am also very much in agreement with Gibbs -- both yesterday and today -- when it comes to the national level leading up to the November elections.

To make his case for supporting Obama, Gibbs laid out a list of accomplishments, as follows:

So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way -- since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure. Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn't come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand.

But in 17 months, we have seen Wall Street reform, historic health care reform, fair pay for women, a recovery act that pulled us back from a depression and got our economy moving again, record investments in clean energy that are creating jobs, student loan reforms so families can afford college, a weapons system canceled that the Pentagon didn't want, reset our relationship with the world and negotiated a nuclear weapons treaty that gets us closer to a world without fear of these weapons, just to name a few. And at the end of this month, 90,000 troops will have left Iraq and our combat mission will come to an end. . . .

In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out.

So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now.

Did Obama miss some opportunities? Did he do some things that we outright disagree with on principle or policy? Did he fail to use the bully pulpit or the backroom arm-twist as effectively as he might?

Yes to all of those. But could anyone else have done better, overall, given all the obstacles to progress? I don't know. but until somebody comes along that convinces me he or she likely would be better, I continue to cast my lot with Barack Obama and the Democrats, flawed as the are.

Ralph

Prop 8 ruling - 8

Ted Olsen, conservative lawyer of the left-right duo that argued the Prop 8 case in federeal court, was on Fox News this morning. Chris Wallace pushed him to explain where in the Constitution there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Olsen replied that the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right -- and that the Constitution does not specifically mention interracial marriage either but the court eventually struck down laws that prohibited it because it was discriminatory.

Wallace pressed further about why the California people did not have the right to pass a law, as they did, in Proposition 8. Olsen countered that voters cannot deprive minority groups of their rights by majority rule. That is our system of government: majority rule along within constitutional protection for the basic rights of minorities.

Wallace then argued: why not let the legislative process work its way state by state, as with changes in abortion laws. It seems to be working well for same-sex marriage with five states having approved it, he said.

OLSON: Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundamental constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

At the end of the interview, Wallace conceded that he had not been able to break Olsen's arguments, and he said, "And I gotta say, after your appearance today, I don’t understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir,”

We all owe Ted Olsen a huge thank you for going against the stereotype of the conservative lawyer and taking this on. It was his idea, and he enlisted his former adversary, liberal lawyer David Boies, to partner with him in the case. I think in the choice of these two attorneys and the luck of the draw in getting Judge Walker to hear the case, this is the best possible course of events . . . at least thus far.

Ralph

Prop 8 runing - 7: The other side squawks

They just cannot see their own bias. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and a spokesman for the American Family Association (to say nothing of Maggie Gallagher's NOW which has already squawked) are saying that Judge Walker should have recused himself from hearing the Prop 8 case because he is (supposedly) gay.

This is great !!! It forces the issue to be faced square on. All they can do is squawk and bleat about "compromise of judgment" by his own "sexual proclivities." As if they as (presumed) heterosexuals would not have a comparable "compromise of judgment" from their own "sexual proclivities." As someone suggested: we'd have to have eunuchs for judges if that were the requirement.

What it will of course come down to, in court anyway, is whether the opinion stands the test of findings of fact and findings of law. If it does, then the judge's sexuality is irrelevant. In the opinion of most legal scholars who have commented, it does. There may be some judges (maybe even four of the Supremes) who will say the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry.

That's ok. Walker's ruling makes it clear that plaintiffs are not asking for a "new right" but for equal treatment to marriage that others enjoy. He did not hang it on "right to marry" but on "right to equal treatment under the law." Simply asking to have their relationships recognized as what they are: marriage.

Perkins made a bizarre claim that I can't even unravel:

"Had this guy been ... an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case, so I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent."

Is he talking about Ted Haggard? A (possibly) closeted gay man who violated his church's moral code, created a scandal, and lost his position of leadership because of it? How is that comparable?

Judge Walker is a senior federal judge in a court of law, not a church. He breaks no law nor brings any dishonor to the court by being gay, which would be comparable to Haggard's breaking the church's moral code. Homosexuality is no longer against the law, nor is it a reason not to be a judge. There is no scandal involved or dishonor to the courts.

So they can only mean one thing: that he won't have the right kind of bias in making his decision. They want a judge who shares their own heterosexist bias.

I think the more they squawk and show their true lack of logic, the more people are going to see the clarity of Walker's decision. At least thinking people will and young people will. Too bad they don't make up a majority.

Ralph

Politics of "what might happen if . . . "

Amid all the furious issues swirling around in the news these days, the number of basic philosophical and constitutional issues they raise could make for extraordinary lessons in civics and ideas about governance 'of the people, by the people.'

Several examples come easily to mind: immigration, health care reform, gay marriage, financial reform, jobs and the economy. If only we would look at what basic values and policy issues underlie the furious spin and talking points, we might learn something.

The fraught question of Muslims building a $100 million dollar Mosque and Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan is another good example. Religious freedom and religious tolerance are vying with a sense of insult to 9/11 victims, xenophobia, and specific mistrust that any Islamic group would not harbor or foment terrorism.

Now a Duke University study has shown that building such a center is likely actually to reduce the turn to terrorism. Calmer heads point out that nothing could be more American in upholding our ideals of democracy than welcoming this center. This is another example of what Mickey Nardo, in a recent comment to my Aug 6 blog post, calls the "what might happen if . . . " argument that lets fear determine our policies and, to some extent, even our laws. It's a favorite tactic of bigots and fear-mongers.

Even the Anti-Defamation League has joined the crowd that wants to refuse permission to build the mosque in that place. Somewhere else in Manhattan, yes, but not there. Would it not be consistent with other decisions that limit who can build what, where -- zoning laws and building codes that, say, restrict porn stores near schools, people ask? But there needs to be a good rationale for those restrictions. And here it seems based on fear, prejudice, and "what might happen if . . . "

Can we trust them to be a force for good? In the best outcome, it would not only be a place of worship for Muslims, it is planned to become an educational and social services center, a demonstration of the noble values of Islam, and a gesture of good will that could help break down barriers of misunderstanding between "them" to "us." Then it would be a positive thing, as Mayor Blumberg says, exemplifying our highest ideals of democracy and tolerance. But suppose we're wrong, and it becomes a haven for terrorists? What might happen if . . . ?

Both sides are saying "what might happen if . . . " One is based on optimism, one on fear. Far better if our leaders would engage in a debate about the real issues.

Ralph