In July of 2011 Tom Owens Will be Leaving Afghanistan

While listening to Secretaries Clinton and Gates on the Sunday talk shows, one thought kept coming to mind. In July of 2011 Tom Owens will be coming home from Afghanistan. Tom Owens may be the only soldier coming home from Afghanistan in July of 2011, but Mr. Owens will definitely be coming home.

Basically, the message delivered by Secretaries Clinton and Gates was that President Obama’s supposed troop withdrawal date is a fiction. In reality, July of 2011 is nothing more than the date the administration hopes it will be able to begin bringing troops home from Afghanistan. If conditions on the ground do not warrant a withdrawal, according to the secretaries, no major withdrawal will occur.

Politically speaking, failing to draw down forces in Afghanistan in July of 2011 will be a nightmare for Obama with his base so the administration will make a very minimal troop reduction and proudly announce that the withdrawal has begun on schedule. So, it might be that in July of 2011 only Tom Owens comes home, but the administration will say it is fulfilling the schedule it put forth.

Personally, I am encouraged by this development, because I am totally opposed to publically announced timetables for beginning the end of a war. Having said that, I cannot figure out why President Obama continues making proclamations that he has only a hope of actually honoring. The best I can come up with is that Obama discussed the troop withdrawal as a way to buy 18 months with many in his party. If, in 18 months, conditions do not suggest that a troop withdrawal is the wise course of action Obama will simply go back on his word. Can anyone say Guantanamo Bay? It is easiest for a candidate, especially one who began with the popularity Obama once had, to consistently stab his base in the back. After all, they will have no other option in an election process driven by two parties.

Saudi Arabia Cannot be Allowed to Hold up Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Given Saudi Arabia’s total dependence on the sale of oil it comes as no surprise that the nation is committed to standing against efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions at next week’s climate-change conference in Copenhagen. But the dictatorship’s willingness to site the hacked E-mails of a few university scientists as proof climate change has not been impacted by the amount of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere by man is childish.

The rest of the world cannot allow nations that were too narrow-minded to diversify their economies to hold the talks in Copenhagen hostage. Whether Saudi Arabia likes it or not the rest of the world must move forward with plans to end our reliance on the toxic substances that Middle Eastern dictators sell to fund terrorism and oppress their citizens.

In Afghanistan NATO Still is not Doing Enough

In the wake of President Obama’s call for other NATO nations to send 10 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan more than 20 nations seem poised to increase their involvement. Unfortunately, these nations are only willing to contribute around 5 thousand more troops. A special thanks should go to Italy for its decision to commit and additional one thousand troops to the fight. This means that the other 19 nations combined have agreed to increase their numbers by 4 thousand.

It is nice to see NATO ending its years-long opposition to doing its fair share of the lifting in Afghanistan, but the alliances unwillingness to fully step up to the plate is disappointing. All of us wish the conflict in Afghanistan was over or at least that it would end as soon as possible. But how does NATO’s continued unwillingness to completely fulfill the role it is asked to play get us any closer to bringing the war to an end? Escalating involvement in Afghanistan is not popular anywhere, but sometimes leading means a willingness to do what is unpopular. If other NATO nations believe that an escalation in Afghanistan is the prudent choice then how can they refuse to give President Obama and NATO commanders the troops they have deemed necessary to finish the job?

Cowardly Muslims Attack Medical School

A Muslim extremist has killed 19 people at a medical school graduation in Somalia. Among the dead are nine students, three government ministers, and two doctors.

Nothing demonstrates the cowardice and stupidity of Muslims extremists as much as their constant willingness to destroy anything that resembles progress for the people they claim to care about. In a nation, like Somalia, where so many die from a serious lack of medical care attacking a medical school graduation is simply dumb. We can only hope that this outrageous attack convinces many Somalis to abandon their support for the gutless radicals who are more interested in grabbing power for themselves than are in contributing to a better future for the people of Somalia.

Obama is not as Transparent as he Says he is

Throughout the campaign Barack Obama promised that if elected his administration would be much more transparent than that of former President George W. Bush. Two days after being sworn in President Obama put his entire staff on notice that they would be expected to be accountable when things went wrong. Less than a year later President Obama has failed to keep that promise.

Yesterday, a House committee held a hearing into the crashing of last week’s state dinner. Congress asked Desiree Rogers, the White House’s social director who oversaw planning for the event, to testify. But when the hearing began Ms. Rogers was nowhere to be found. When asked to explain her lack of participation the White House simply stated that Rogers was asserting her constitutionally-protected rights.

The fact that the administration, which promised to be the most transparent in American history, is willing to assert constitutional protections to keep the social director from answering questions is absolutely ludicrous. At least when the Bush administration hid behind the Constitution it did so on matters as serious as whether or not politics played a part in the firing of US attorneys.

The level of hypocrisy being displayed by the Obama administration in this case is unacceptable. By failing to live up to his own words Obama is once again demonstrating the large gulf that exists between the actions promised by his rhetoric and those delivered by his actions. Risking a loss of political capital and support on something this silly simply does not make sense.
We all know the Secret Service deserves most of the blame for what happened. The White House should just let Republicans grill Ms. Rogers for an hour and put this regrettable incident behind them. By stalling they are going to allow Republicans to make an issue of her lack of participation that will dwarf whatever nuggets she would have provided them by testifying in the first place.

Morons you are Never Going to Pay the Death Tax

Republicans are once again firing up the base about the estate tax (known as the death tax by right-wing morons). Under current law, only individual estates worth at least 3.5 million dollars or marital estates worth seven million dollars are subject to the tax. In 2009, only 0.23 percent of estates will have to pay up under the estate tax. But Republicans, who specialize in getting the uninformed to do the wealthy’s bidding, have somehow managed to convince millions to care about a policy that requires roughly 55 hundred to pay.

In an effort to hide some of the irresponsibility of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 Republicans passed a law that terminated the estate tax in 2010, but reinstated it in 2011. Under the Republican plan, the threshold for escaping tax liability would be reduced from 3.5 million dollars to one million dollars beginning in 2011. The tax rate on estates subject to the tax would increase from 45 to 55 percent.

In response to Republican efforts to rally the base to oppose a law Republicans enacted Democrats have once again decided to capitulate. In a plan working its way through Congress Democrats would reinstate the estate tax for 2010, but they would keep the exemption level and the tax rate at their current levels. The Democrat’s change to the Republican-passed law will add 234 billion dollars to our nation’s debt over the next ten years.

I understand the desire of those who want to be able to transfer their wealth to their children, but is there really something wrong with limiting the amount of one’s tax-free inheritance to one million dollars. I could even be convinced to support a higher taxable amount for families that own a small business—if that small business is responsible for a large percentage of the estate’s value. What I will never understand is why so many, who will never be covered by the estate tax, are so willing to campaign for laws that will enable the very wealthy to avoid tax liability at a time when our nation is so deep in debt?

Lastly, the next time a Republican starts whining about the estate tax can someone please ask them to explain their willingness to lower both the exemptible limit and raise the tax rate on estates? This kind of political gimmickry is exactly why America can never balance its budget. A party that would vote against a law it created several years earlier is a party with no shame.

NATO is not Doing its Share in Afghanistan

Several times during his latest speech on Afghanistan President Obama highlighted the multi-national coalition that is joining us in the fight for a freer Afghanistan. Each time he discussed the participation of other nations Obama stressed that more than 40 nations are involved in the battle. While that claim is true it is also very misleading.

Currently, there are 70 thousand American troops in Afghanistan. All other nations combined have a total of 37 thousand troops serving in Afghanistan. Nine of the more than 40 participating nations are currently contributing ten troops or less. Three countries are contributing two troops or less. The United Kingdom has provided nine thousand of the 37 thousand troops supplied by other nations. The page linked to lists only the troops serving under NATO command. There are 36 thousand additional American troops serving in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom.

As you can see, NATO is doing precious little to assist the United States in our efforts to repel the Taliban and assist the people of Afghanistan. I know President Obama needs to kiss the asses of other NATO nations if he has any hope of getting any additional forces from them, but these other nations should be embarrassed by their unwillingness to help. Whenever Europe has been in trouble America has stood with her. If Europe was ever in trouble America would stand with her. But when America was attacked other NATO nations used the unpopularity of President Bush to refuse to send their fair share of troops. Now that President Obama, who has done his best to reach out to Europe, is asking for NATO’s assistance let’s see if other nations will do more to help. Europe’s time for excuse making is done.

Planning an Exit Strategy is Smart: Announcing its Details is Stupid

Sadly, but not surprisingly, Obama’s speech about the future of Afghanistan was long on flowery rhetoric and short on details. But more disappointing than that was the speech’s obvious focus on
political concerns. When deciding issues as critical as war it would be nice if the president’s focus was more on setting a productive course than in attempting to allay concerns of politicians on both
sides of the aisle. In issues as important as war –when a nation is as divided as America currently is– finding a centrist position is not only near impossible, but counterproductive. If a president wants to
lead they must be willing to commit to winning or announce that doing
so is not really worth what winning will cost. By announcing a timetable for withdrawal Obama has attempted to find a centrist position, but he has only succeeded in making both sides angry and
made winning more difficult.

I am amazed that Obama has not yet learned the problems associated with promising more than you
can be guaranteed to deliver. Whether it be his promise to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of this
year or his suggestion that unemployment would not go above 8.1 percent Obama has a history of
attempting to mollify people’s concerns in the short term only to wind up angering them when events do not prove his rhetoric to be as predictive of future circumstances as it was flowery in style at the time of its delivery. Once again, Obama, because of his need to limit political disagreement, has promised more than he will be able to deliver.
In short, by announcing his planned timetable for
withdrawal Obama has once again shown that he fails to understand one of politics most basic
tenets. Once you are elected it is far better to under promise and over deliver than it is to over promise and under deliver.

Planning an exit strategy in conjunction with an escalation strategy is not only responsible, but it is
the practical thing to do. Without an exit strategy that is built on well-constructed, consistent goals
no one will ever know what to expect. Announcing your planned exit strategy to the world, however, makes achieving those goals more difficult and opens you up to questioning when circumstances
force an adjustment to a strategy everyone thought was final. Simply put, keeping your exit strategy to
your inner circle keeps the enemy on its toes and allows you to alter your plans in response to conditions on the ground. By telegraphing his exit strategy Obama will, someday, have to choose between angering his base by reneging on his announced plan of withdrawal or leaving Afghanistan before conditions say such a move is wise. Since Obama really does care about getting things right he will, as he has done many times before, turn on his base.

Lastly, if you think I am being too cynical I would ask you to consider Obama’s proposed end date for
bringing all the troops home. In case you did not notice, all of the troops are scheduled to be home
by January of 2012; the year Obama will need to ask you to vote for him again.

Progressives Must not Allow Their Selfishness to Help Them Forget About Afghan Women

As we get set for President Obama’s latest Afghanistan-related speech I have to get one thing off my mind. Progressives and liberals, by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, are proving themselves to be selfish whiners. On most issues I agree with progressives, but when it comes to their willingness to betray the Afghan people and relent to the Taliban’s pressure I must oppose.

Let’s forget for a moment that the vast majority of Americans—including most progressives—supported going to war in Afghanistan in 2001. Even if we ignore that reality there are still a number of reasons why consistent progressives must support finishing the just—but poorly-planned war—that is ongoing in Afghanistan.

For starters, leaving Afghanistan before helping the nation establish some semblance of a government will reduce Afghan women and girls to living as property and guaranteeing them generations of brutal inequality. How can anyone who claims to be a supporter of human rights encourage that outcome? America has serious problems at home, but tossing away the futures of so many because we are angry about the inability of some Americans to find work is downright unconscionable. How can you call yourself a supporter of human rights and equality if you are willing to subject so many to a system of brutality when doing otherwise involves you making a personal sacrifice? Standing for something should involve the willingness to stand for it when doing so causes you some degree of peril—especially when the thing you are standing for is the difference between rape and/or death for so many.

Given what I have said progressives should not only be supporting Obama’s decision to attempt to finish the job in Afghanistan, but they should be encouraging him to undertake an aggressive program of nation building. The Taliban may have a near limitless supply of fighters and IEDs, but they do not have the resources or ability to build hospitals, schools, housing units, and to otherwise improve the lives of ordinary Afghans. Progressives are right when they say that there is no military solution to the problems of Afghanistan. But to pretend that the construction of a somewhat functional government is possible without security is absolutely foolish.

The war in Afghanistan has been mismanaged, but by refusing to stand for usual progressive causes like equality and women’s rights progressives are becoming a major reason why the war will continue being poorly run and why America will always face a serious threat from Afghanistan. Unless progressives remember their routes in time to become willing participants in developing a strategy designed to help the Afghans achieve a more prosperous future history will remember that the selfishness and cowardice of progressives was a major contributing factor to so many being oppressed and brutalized.

At its outset the war in Afghanistan was about punishing those who attacked us. The best way to make sure that we are not fighting another war of retribution in Afghanistan is to make sure this war ends with the Afghan people feeling like their future is a bright one and that America is a partner they can count on. If this war ends with any other outcome we will have spent trillions guaranteeing the necessary spending of future trillions on more conflicts in Afghanistan. In this case, the best way to achieve a victory that will improve our national security is by helping the Afghan people develop a more equal, educated society. How can a true progressive really oppose that?

Should Divorce be Outlawed to Protect Marriage?

John Marcotte, a California web designer, is proposing to ban divorce throughout the state. Marcotte has launched his petition in response to voter’s decision to prohibit same-sex marriages in the state.

Obviously, this initiative is unlikely to gain enough signatures to make it onto the ballot, but I like the idea. If conservative groups really want to protect marriage they would support efforts to prevent divorce. Of course, they do not support Marcotte’s petition because doing so is simply not practical. I guess religious tenets only matter when you can get a large number of people motivated by them. It is far easier to rally people behind something that does not directly impact their lives than it is to get them to support a change that might cause them problems.

I am going to sign Marcotte’s petition, because someone needs to do something to highlight both the absurdity of those who oppose same-sex marriage and the ridiculous proposition-form of voter participation that is contributing to the destruction of California. If Marcotte’s proposed amendment makes it onto the ballot in 2010 we can have a discussion of its merits, but until then let’s support this interesting idea that will go a long way to foster discussion.