Afghanistan violence should be a clear lesson in the futility of nation-building

On Tuesday Marine Gen. John Allen, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, told the House Armed Services Committee that the mission in Afghanistan is on track. If he really believed that, I think he'd be delusional.

Last month, the accidental burning of Korans at Bagram Air Force Base set off massive rioting. The thing is, the Korans were confiscated (and subsequently thrown into an incinerator by accident) because Afghan prisoners were writing military messages in them. The Korans that were supposedly "desecrated" by US troops had already been desecrated by the Afghans. So I really doubt that the riots--which caused at least 41 deaths--were all about the Koran burning. I think it had more to do with the fact that US troops have been occupying their country for the past ten years, and that we continue to prop up a corrupt and unpopular president who blatantly stole the last election. A common chant among protesters was "Death to America, death to Obama, death to Karzai." The Koran burning, it seems, was just the latest reason for anger toward their foreign occupiers.

On March 1, an American staff sergeant, who had served honorably during multiple tours in Iraq, broke down in Afghanistan and murdered 16 civilians, including women and children. Retired Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters says we should be surprised that this hasn't happened sooner and more often. Because of stop-loss policies, our troops are often serving multiple tours of duty--and in an environment where the mission has become less and less clear. It is indeed remarkable that more of them haven't cracked under such prolonged and outrageous stress.

Finally, since Gen. Allen still thinks that our mission is on track, one might ask him what exactly our mission in Afghanistan is at this point. The original mission, taking out the Taliban government who was supporting Al-Qaeda, was pretty much accomplished back in 2003. And yet US troops have stayed in Afghanistan for nine years since then, trying to set up a stable democratic government--in other words, nation-building. In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush said that "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building...if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." Since then, thousands of US troops have been killed or maimed because Bush and Obama failed to listen to that advice.

In fact, the US record of success in nation-building missions over the last 100 years is fairly dismal. We have had two major successes, in Germany and Japan after World War II--but both those countries were fairly modern, industrialized, and had had a democratically elected legislature throughout most of the 1920's. But in Third World countries--Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, several South American countries, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan--nation building has been largely a catastrophic failure. The scars of these wars are numerous: tens of thousands of dead and wounded (both American soldiers and local civilians) and tens of billions of dollars in spending added to the debt. Yet we never seem to learn from the past.

GOP, conservatives need to get priorities straight

Going into the election year of 2012, major polls (see here and here) highlight two issues as most important to voters. One is the economy (which includes unemployment/jobs) and the other is the budget deficit. The wave of Republicans who came into Congress in 2010 attempted to address these issues by insisting on spending cuts to reduce the deficit, resisting tax increases for fear of further damaging the economy. A number of bitter deadlocks ensued as President Obama insisted on tax increases and repeatedly balked at cutting spending.

Now, Obama has finally come up with $500 billion in spending cuts--but rather than celebrate, the editors of conservative magazine National Review attack him viciously. The reason? Obama wants to cut the Pentagon budget. In attacking the cuts, National Review calls Obama's plan a "retreat" and pulls out all the usual neocon arguments. They scold Obama for trying to return troop levels to where they were at the end of the Clinton administration--which was not coincidentally the last time we had a balanced budget.

Here is one quote: "At its Cold War peak, U.S. military strategy called for the peacetime ability to simultaneously fight and win two major theater wars and a “brushfire” conflict. The years after the Soviet collapse saw that capability pared down in the name of the “peace dividend,” just in time for the 9/11 decade to deliver . . . two major theater wars and a series of “brushfire” conflicts... But the president draws precisely the wrong conclusion from the challenges of those conflicts. Faced with our struggle to fight up to our own standards, he has elected to lower the bar."

Well, if "lowering the bar" means that less Americans die fighting for dubious causes in wars like Vietnam or Iraq, and our deficit is reduced as well, then I'm all for it. It seems to me that Obama drew exactly the right conclusion: don't start a war without an imminent threat to America and don't engage in prolonged nation-building.

Conservatives really need to realize that we can't do it all. We can't balance the budget, keep taxes low, maintain our infrastructure, keep an acceptable safety net, and continue even a stabilized version of Social Security and Medicare while continuing to act as the world's lone policeman. Not only that, but unless Republicans are willing to cut their favored programs, it would be disingenuous to ask Democrats to do the same.

As a candidate, Obama opposed an individual health-care mandate

During the 2008 primaries, Obama actually came out against an individual health-care mandate with this very sensible argument:

"If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is they don't have the money. So our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available."

Unfortunately, he abandoned this belief once he was elected, and signed a health care bill with an individual mandate that has been declared unconstitutional by several appeals courts. Perhaps someone needed to remind him of this quote during the Obamacare debates.

Speaking of presidents who abandoned previously stated positions, with decidedly negative results:

"Somalia...started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
--Candidate George W. Bush

As president, of course, Bush led us into two very costly nation-building exercises on a scale not seen since the 1940's and which have dragged on for almost a decade. 9/11 may have justified the initial attack on the Taliban, but I don't understand why Bush changed his mind so dramatically on the wisdom of nation-building.

Ten years after 9/11, has anybody won the war on terror?

With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, it's safe to say that Al-Qaeda has lost the war on terror--after all, Bin Laden is dead and much of their leadership and global influence has all but disappeared. But the real question is, who won? New York magazine columnist Frank Rich argues that America is suffering from a number of problems today that can be traced directly to our government's response to 9/11. And if you can look past a few of Rich's more partisan comments, I feel that overall he makes a good point. It could be that the war on terror, like Vietnam and WWI before it, has been a conflict with no real winner.

9/11 had the potential to unite us, and for a short while it did. But eventually, as Bush started using it as an excuse to invade Iraq, the unity died. Instead, one was either with the White House or with the terrorists. Many have accused the mainstream media of cheerleading the war and not providing a balanced analysis of the rationale for the invasion. People who criticized the president or the Iraq War were attacked as "unpatriotic." Instead of unifying us, the Iraq invasion and its aftermath seems to have ignited the bitter partisanship that now seems to pervade Washington. Before Iraq, Democrats and Republicans could actually work together. Now, any politicians who attempt to compromise are viewed by their base as "surrendering." Bashing the president was not nearly as popular in the media before 2003 as it has been in the past eight years, no matter which party has controlled the White House. Trust in government has plummeted to all-time lows.

Perhaps a bigger problem was, as Rich puts it, the war was fought by a "largely out-of-sight, out-of-mind" army and paid for by a "magic credit card." As support for the war waned, the military resorted to widespread dishonest recruiting and unprecedented use of stop-loss policies to keep up troop levels. Washington also thought that they could pay for the war almost entirely through deficit spending. Taken together, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement are responsible for the majority of our national debt at this point, and played a huge role in the S&P credit downgrade.

The war on terror has clearly been a defeat for Al-Qaeda. But with bitter partisan divisions, massive debts, and a seemingly endless conflict in Afghanistan--all a result of the war on terror--can we really say that we have won?

Bush and Obama: More similar than different

Obama is (deservedly, in my opinion) taking a lot of heat these days for the debt crisis and the down economy. One of the classic responses from left-wingers trying to defend Obama is "Well, would you prefer Bush?" In some ways, that is a good point. More fundamentally, however, I feel like it misses the point. If you look past the "R" and "D" labels, Bush's and Obama's presidencies are really more similar than different. Obama is not really a liberal, although he does lean left; nor was Bush really a conservative, although he leaned right. They are both statists, dramatically expanding the power and the role of government. And both their administrations were characterized by grossly irresponsible spending and heavy-handed policies that backfired.

During Bush's eight years in office, the national debt ballooned from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion--an increase of nearly $5 trillion. During Obama's 2.5 years in office, the national debt grew from $10.6 trillion to $14.5 trillion--an increase of nearly $4 trillion in about one-third of the time. However, Obama has done his borrowing in a historically bad economy, when some amount of deficit is acceptable or even advisable so as to allow for pro-growth tax cuts or spending. Bush's borrowing was mostly during good economic times, when deficits are much harder to justify. In addition, some of Obama's spending was the result of the two wars he inherited from Bush. Conclusion? Bush borrowed a lot when he should have been borrowing nothing. Obama is borrowing a ridiculous amount when he should only be borrowing a little.

Besides spending like drunken sailors, both presidents seemed to believe that more power from the U.S. government is a good thing. Bush attempted to expand American global influence with bombs and guns. He started two wars that turned into long, deadly occupations, while continuing to believe that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would somehow appreciate the American occupation and the heavy American influence on their new governments. Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe that he always knows better than the American people--whether it means forcing people to buy healthcare, preventing people from buying incandescent lamps, trying to tell companies that they can't open a factory in a certain state, or trying to prevent workers from having a secret-ballot vote on whether to unionize. Obama clearly does not see individual economic freedom as anything worth protecting.

So forget the "R" and "D" labels. We should not automatically associate all Democrats with Obama or all Republicans with Bush. The next president, regardless of party, needs to be someone who is as unlike either of them as possible.

Two views on balancing the budget

Esquire today presented a very interesting left-right juxtaposition: two articles by former senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) about balancing the federal budget. Here is Hart's article and here is Packwood's.

So who's right? Well, neither. Or both. Hart understandably decries the failure to regulate financial markets. Hart also correctly points out that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined with the Bush tax cuts were not good for the deficit. Given that both the wars and the tax cuts have continued for more than a decade, at this point they are responsible for a huge chunk of the federal debt.

Now, the Bush tax cuts, by themselves, were not a bad idea. Hart's biggest mistake is his refusal to acknowledge that tax cuts can stimulate the economy--a strategy that is part of Keynesian economics and worked undeniably well under both Reagan and JFK. The problem is, if you cut taxes you need to restrain spending, and Bush did exactly the opposite. Here's an idea: pass a law that requires a tax increase for any military operation that continues longer than 10 days. That will keep deficits down, and it might make the trigger-happy contingent of the GOP (which thankfully seems to be in decline) less likely to push for war.

Packwood's article discusses the worrisome increase in total federal spending, with a particular emphasis on entitlements. He is right on there: unless something is done to stop the runaway growth of entitlement spending, deficits will explode in the next few decades. However, by failing to discuss anything besides entitlements, Packwood exemplifies a certain conservative myopia. If the GOP focuses too much on slashing entitlements and leaves everything else alone, they will lose election after election. It would almost take a Vulcan to not see it as unfair for seniors and Medicaid patients to have to make all the sacrifices. While restraining entitlements are essential, fiscal conservatives need to be just as willing to consider things like dismantling the American empire, eliminating foreign aid, cutting federal payroll, closing tax loopholes, and probably--in a decade or two--raising taxes in some form.

Does the US military have a clear purpose?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0701/Does-the-US-military-have-a-clear-purpose

An important question to ask, at a time when we are mired in three conflicts, two of which have dragged on for over eight years and none of which have a clear end in sight. The US military budget is eight times the size of the next largest country and over the past decade that has been a major reason for the deficit explosion. And as the author says, what exactly are we defending ourselves against in Libya? At this point, what exactly are we defending ourselves against in Afghanistan, if Al-Qaeda can just move into other countries?

It's time to stop nation-building, as a presidential candidate by the name of George W. Bush ironically said in 2000. But few seem willing to say it.