Forget the chilling, pre-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton campaign commercials forcing you to ask yourself if you believed that Barack Obama could be tough in a crisis. This is not about who you would trust to be President and Commander-in-chief at 3:00 in the morning. This is about security at the White House during a Presidential State Dinner. How did Tareq and Michaele Salahi gain entry to the White House and access to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama?
This is not an incident to brush away casually. Any number of books, TV shows and movies can described how even beautiful women can kill. Magnetometers will not pick up C-4 rolled into a tampon -- sufficient quantity to take out the President from 20 feet away. Along with his wife, possibly his children and who knows of how many others.
No, this is not an example of the 'openness' of the Obama administration, any attempt to spin it that way is destined to compound the scathing press regarding the incident. It happened in the White House, a building that should be as close to sacrosanct in terms of security as any building could possibly be.
Yes, Rush, sorry to pre-empt your shtick. I know. "If Obama can't protect himself and his family in the White House, how we can we trust him to protect us against Al-Qaeda, thousands of miles away in Afghanistan?" Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Congresswoman Bachman, Sarah Palin, et al, I can already hear your comments.
Can we continue to have faith in the Napolitano, Head of Homeland Security, and whoever heads the Secret Service?
Sadly, this is not a partisan issue. All sides are appalled by this transgression.
Congressman Peter King, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee probably best expressed what most Americans must be thinking.
"Obviously, somebody dropped the ball. I mean, you're talking about the president of the United States and the vice president and a powerful world leader, the prime minister of India.
The fact that they went through the magnometer is incidental. They could have had anthrax on them. They could have grabbed a knife from the dining room table."
The President must get out in front of this instantly and announce a top-to-bottom White House security review, concentrating specifically on Secret Service procedures. He should be outraged. President Obama should state that the review will be completed before Christmas and he personally will report back to the country on its findings. In this way, he stands a chance to own the story....instead of being smeared by it.
The efficacy or lack thereof of security at the White House could damage his possibilities for re-election as much as continued unemployment....because his opponents will spin it that he has been 'too busy' to focus on "really important things", and, worse, that he does not respect his own house...
Maybe we should consider expanding our working relationship with Israel and negotiate a deal with them where we would sub-contract the services of their Mossad to work jointly with our Secret Service to protect the President and the first family from possible terrorist attacks.
November 27, 2009
What We Can Learn From E. Wight Bakke
As part of the Roosevelt Institute's series on the Jobs Crisis, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog from Nov. 12-30, I was asked to reflect on what can be done to get Americans working again. Here's my take.
In 1940 Yale Professor of Economics and Director of Unemployment Studies E. Wight Bakke published a pair of volumes titled The Unemployed Worker and Citizens Without Work, reporting the results of a remarkable eight-year study of unemployed workers and their families in Depression era New Haven. Seventy years later, the study's analysis still resonates, and never more so than in light of this month's unemployment figures showing jobless rates in the double digits, where they are expected to stay for the next couple of years.
Bakke's study was based on a premise that would be greeted as anathema in most economics departments today: that understanding unemployment would require looking beyond what could be revealed in statistics and household survey data. It would require an exploration of the social and psychological as well as the economic meaning of work. It would also require spending real time in the working-class communities most affected by job loss. And it would require asking workers and their families what they thought, how they felt, and how they were coping, emotionally and materially, with what Bakke memorably called "the task of making a living without a job." Accordingly, Bakke and his field researchers joined the ranks of New Haven's unemployed workers from 1932-39, acting as interviewers and observers and social surveyors while the realities of mass and long-term unemployment hit home. New Haven's unemployed, Bakke learned, felt robbed of their livelihoods but also of their self-respect, their place in the community, their sense of having a future, and, for the men in particular, their authority as breadwinners in the family. Not all of these losses were entirely bad -- Bakke wrote about the subtle democratization of family life as husbands "adjusted" to the autonomy of their income-earning wives -- but his study left no doubt that putting people back to work was key to psychological as well as economic recovery.
Ultimately, the most striking of Bakke's insights were political. Like others studying the impact of mass unemployment at the time, he was well aware of the dangers it presented to democracy. But he had the more immediate politics of relief in mind. Taking aim at the still-favored mythology that aiding workers would make them dependent on the dole, he documented the extraordinary lengths they would go to first to avoid and then to minimize their reliance on public relief. He also wrote about a subtle shift in working-class attitudes and consciousness, from an individualistic to a more "collective" understanding of self reliance, and of the role of government in providing work and economic security for its citizenry. And here, in a way he could hardly have anticipated when he started the study in 1932, Bakke was picking up on what had become a keynote in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal: employment-centered economic recovery and reform.
From the start of his administration, FDR made putting people back to work a high and visible priority for economic recovery. In 1933, Congress established the Public Works Administration, a massive jobs-generating investment in the nation's public infrastructure that would come to employ millions in construction, engineering, and related industries. This came at the very time the administration was acting to restore confidence in the financial sector through measures such as the Glass-Steagall Banking Act and the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission -- all in 1933-34.
Pressured to do more amid 25%-plus unemployment rates, the administration soon instituted a series of more direct federal jobs programs, which by 1943 had created jobs for more than 8.5 million people and extended public employment to the nation's social and cultural as well as its civic infrastructure. Employment was also the centerpiece of major economic reforms launched in the Social Security and Wagner Acts of 1935, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - which among them instituted old-age retirement, unemployment insurance, child welfare, wage and hours standards, and rights to collective bargaining that would come to anchor the promise of economic security. These and other New Deal measures were deeply flawed by the racial and gender exclusions they perpetuated. But their lasting legacy can be found in the thousands of schools, parks, bridges, roads, airports, and post offices constructed by public workers; in the extraordinary art, music, theatre, and literary creations federally-employed workers contributed to our cultural heritage; and, as Bakke no doubt appreciated, in the recognition that having citizens with meaningful, well-paid work was a sign of a fully functioning political economy.
This, then, is why Bakke and the workers he wrote about still speak to us, all these decades after The Unemployed Worker and Citizens Without Work first appeared and amidst the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Their thoughts and feelings about the meaning of work are echoed by millions of individuals, families, and communities facing the prospect of a future without it, and by the scores of others taking wage and hours cuts instead. Their resourcefulness in coping with economic hardship was admirable but had its limits, as do the resources of those caught up in the spiraling effects of today's Great Recession.
Their experience, like that of their contemporary counterparts, told them what no dry and detached compilation of economic indicators could: that recovery without jobs is no recovery at all. And their plea, soon crystallized into an organized political demand, was for an economy that would support rather than undermine the needs and aspirations of the people who make it work.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
In 1940 Yale Professor of Economics and Director of Unemployment Studies E. Wight Bakke published a pair of volumes titled The Unemployed Worker and Citizens Without Work, reporting the results of a remarkable eight-year study of unemployed workers and their families in Depression era New Haven. Seventy years later, the study's analysis still resonates, and never more so than in light of this month's unemployment figures showing jobless rates in the double digits, where they are expected to stay for the next couple of years.
Bakke's study was based on a premise that would be greeted as anathema in most economics departments today: that understanding unemployment would require looking beyond what could be revealed in statistics and household survey data. It would require an exploration of the social and psychological as well as the economic meaning of work. It would also require spending real time in the working-class communities most affected by job loss. And it would require asking workers and their families what they thought, how they felt, and how they were coping, emotionally and materially, with what Bakke memorably called "the task of making a living without a job." Accordingly, Bakke and his field researchers joined the ranks of New Haven's unemployed workers from 1932-39, acting as interviewers and observers and social surveyors while the realities of mass and long-term unemployment hit home. New Haven's unemployed, Bakke learned, felt robbed of their livelihoods but also of their self-respect, their place in the community, their sense of having a future, and, for the men in particular, their authority as breadwinners in the family. Not all of these losses were entirely bad -- Bakke wrote about the subtle democratization of family life as husbands "adjusted" to the autonomy of their income-earning wives -- but his study left no doubt that putting people back to work was key to psychological as well as economic recovery.
Ultimately, the most striking of Bakke's insights were political. Like others studying the impact of mass unemployment at the time, he was well aware of the dangers it presented to democracy. But he had the more immediate politics of relief in mind. Taking aim at the still-favored mythology that aiding workers would make them dependent on the dole, he documented the extraordinary lengths they would go to first to avoid and then to minimize their reliance on public relief. He also wrote about a subtle shift in working-class attitudes and consciousness, from an individualistic to a more "collective" understanding of self reliance, and of the role of government in providing work and economic security for its citizenry. And here, in a way he could hardly have anticipated when he started the study in 1932, Bakke was picking up on what had become a keynote in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal: employment-centered economic recovery and reform.
From the start of his administration, FDR made putting people back to work a high and visible priority for economic recovery. In 1933, Congress established the Public Works Administration, a massive jobs-generating investment in the nation's public infrastructure that would come to employ millions in construction, engineering, and related industries. This came at the very time the administration was acting to restore confidence in the financial sector through measures such as the Glass-Steagall Banking Act and the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission -- all in 1933-34.
Pressured to do more amid 25%-plus unemployment rates, the administration soon instituted a series of more direct federal jobs programs, which by 1943 had created jobs for more than 8.5 million people and extended public employment to the nation's social and cultural as well as its civic infrastructure. Employment was also the centerpiece of major economic reforms launched in the Social Security and Wagner Acts of 1935, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - which among them instituted old-age retirement, unemployment insurance, child welfare, wage and hours standards, and rights to collective bargaining that would come to anchor the promise of economic security. These and other New Deal measures were deeply flawed by the racial and gender exclusions they perpetuated. But their lasting legacy can be found in the thousands of schools, parks, bridges, roads, airports, and post offices constructed by public workers; in the extraordinary art, music, theatre, and literary creations federally-employed workers contributed to our cultural heritage; and, as Bakke no doubt appreciated, in the recognition that having citizens with meaningful, well-paid work was a sign of a fully functioning political economy.
This, then, is why Bakke and the workers he wrote about still speak to us, all these decades after The Unemployed Worker and Citizens Without Work first appeared and amidst the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Their thoughts and feelings about the meaning of work are echoed by millions of individuals, families, and communities facing the prospect of a future without it, and by the scores of others taking wage and hours cuts instead. Their resourcefulness in coping with economic hardship was admirable but had its limits, as do the resources of those caught up in the spiraling effects of today's Great Recession.
Their experience, like that of their contemporary counterparts, told them what no dry and detached compilation of economic indicators could: that recovery without jobs is no recovery at all. And their plea, soon crystallized into an organized political demand, was for an economy that would support rather than undermine the needs and aspirations of the people who make it work.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
Navigating the Jobs Crisis: Households Need a Bailout, Too
As part of the Roosevelt Institute's 10-part series on the Jobs Crisis, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog from Nov. 12-25, I was asked to reflect on what can be done to get Americans working again. Here's my take.
Support of financial institutions is justified because they are too big and interconnected to resolve. Yet, households -- in aggregate bigger and more interconnected -- are being allowed to fail. The main assets of an average household are a job and a house. The mirror image of the banks' toxic assets is in households' negative equity. More important is the collapse in value of households' main asset: human capital. With nearly 16 million workers unemployed and a further 12 million with impaired earning potential, there is an urgent need for equal protection of households facing insolvency. The income loss is in the range of a half-trillion dollars, or 3 percent of GDP.
But there has been no bailout of households. Since households' personal consumption expenditures are a large part of our national income, small changes in household expenditures have a significant impact on the earnings of private sector employers, on their profits, and on their desire to offer employment. If banks are too interconnected to fail, then the interconnection between households' income with the earnings of the private sector makes support of households' assets as important as that of banks.
How can government give equal protection to households? House prices could be supported by purchase of housing -- house buyer of last resort. Alternatively, a write-down of the value of outstanding mortgages or adjustment of the tenor or interest rates could reduce negative equity positions. But proposals along these lines have not been fully implemented. They have been too small relative to the problem and are ineffective if the household loses employment, which makes it impossible to meet the reduced burden. Thus, these measures can only be effective if there is also support for households' major earning asset -- labor.
Action to support household employment earnings has taken the form of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But this is an indirect, temporary remedy that cannot guarantee an increase in jobs. Direct support equivalent to that offered to banks is required.
Direct transfers, such as unlimited unemployment benefits, would provide direct support. But they are wasteful and inefficient. Indeed, any direct transfer is inefficient as long as there is productive potential not employed in the private sector. Such transfers are the equivalent of destroying value to solve the problem. Thus, the indirect incentive provided by the government stimulus plan to offer more employment should be replaced by a more direct method of direct government employment of labor. Just as the Fed acts as lender of last resort to prevent bank insolvency, the government should act as employer of last resort to provide anyone willing and able to work at just below the going minimum wage. This would be more efficient than other means of supporting households' balance sheet, because it would provide an increase in public goods. It would also provide a modicum of equal treatment for all citizens, and meet the commitment in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guaranteeing the right to work.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
Support of financial institutions is justified because they are too big and interconnected to resolve. Yet, households -- in aggregate bigger and more interconnected -- are being allowed to fail. The main assets of an average household are a job and a house. The mirror image of the banks' toxic assets is in households' negative equity. More important is the collapse in value of households' main asset: human capital. With nearly 16 million workers unemployed and a further 12 million with impaired earning potential, there is an urgent need for equal protection of households facing insolvency. The income loss is in the range of a half-trillion dollars, or 3 percent of GDP.
But there has been no bailout of households. Since households' personal consumption expenditures are a large part of our national income, small changes in household expenditures have a significant impact on the earnings of private sector employers, on their profits, and on their desire to offer employment. If banks are too interconnected to fail, then the interconnection between households' income with the earnings of the private sector makes support of households' assets as important as that of banks.
How can government give equal protection to households? House prices could be supported by purchase of housing -- house buyer of last resort. Alternatively, a write-down of the value of outstanding mortgages or adjustment of the tenor or interest rates could reduce negative equity positions. But proposals along these lines have not been fully implemented. They have been too small relative to the problem and are ineffective if the household loses employment, which makes it impossible to meet the reduced burden. Thus, these measures can only be effective if there is also support for households' major earning asset -- labor.
Action to support household employment earnings has taken the form of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But this is an indirect, temporary remedy that cannot guarantee an increase in jobs. Direct support equivalent to that offered to banks is required.
Direct transfers, such as unlimited unemployment benefits, would provide direct support. But they are wasteful and inefficient. Indeed, any direct transfer is inefficient as long as there is productive potential not employed in the private sector. Such transfers are the equivalent of destroying value to solve the problem. Thus, the indirect incentive provided by the government stimulus plan to offer more employment should be replaced by a more direct method of direct government employment of labor. Just as the Fed acts as lender of last resort to prevent bank insolvency, the government should act as employer of last resort to provide anyone willing and able to work at just below the going minimum wage. This would be more efficient than other means of supporting households' balance sheet, because it would provide an increase in public goods. It would also provide a modicum of equal treatment for all citizens, and meet the commitment in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guaranteeing the right to work.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
Invictus Translation: Obama Needs Rugby
During the opening moments of director Clint Eastwood's Invictus, when Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) is inaugurated as president of an after-apartheid South Africa, it dawned on me, it was a bigger twist of fate for Mandela to be president there than for Obama to be president here.
I wondered why there hasn't been more in the popular culture linking the two leaders and their transcendent personal histories. They both became their country's first black president after three centuries of white rule. They both rose to prominence from humble circumstances, and by following a path of education and activism. They both won the Nobel Peace Prize, largely for their efforts to restore diplomacy after periods of nationalistic isolation. And they're both leaders who practice a message of tolerance and forgiveness, despite whatever vitriol surrounds them. One faced the realities of post-apartheid; the other faces the myth of post-racism. (Some might posit they are both native-born Africans, but I digress...)
The point is, there are many similarities between these two leaders, and this movie, with its simple portrayal of a remarkable man who sought to unite a deeply divided nation in support of a rugby team renewed my hope in President Obama. I thought to myself, I need to give him another chance, to see the glass as half full.
In the film, Mandela makes several statements about understanding one's enemy, and, like Obama, is committed to governing all the people, not just those who voted for him. I thought, Hmmm: bipartisanship. Mandela sees his opportunity in the Springboks, a team synonymous with the old separatist South Africa. Obama has been looking for his opportunity to unite this country behind healthcare, economic reform, and war. These issues, though of grave importance, do not unify a nation. They actually serve to divide us more deeply. We need something symbolic to remind us we are one "team." Now I feel even worse that Obama and Oprah couldn't get us the Olympics.
Invictus isn't a great movie but it's got great moments. Eastwood said during a Q&A at the Director's Guild he'd thought for awhile "Morgan should play Mandela," but it was Freeman who brought the script to Eastwood. It's not a biopic in the conventional sense, but it does provide glimpses into Mandela's life, most notably a trip to the actual cell where he spent 27 years of his life on Robben Island. Eastwood shot Invictus on location, with an almost exclusively-South African cast. Matt Damon looks great as the captain of the Springboks - solidly fit, with bleached hair and what sounds like a pretty good Afrikaner accent. Latin is missing from my life, so, until I googled it, I didn't know "invictus" meant "unconquered." The movie's got more rugby than I've ever seen, not just on film, but anywhere. I'm into now. Might see some in real life.
On a scale of one to 10, one being "don't see," and 10 being "go see, even if you have to hire a sitter," I'd say, Invictus is a six: add it to your Netflix queue or watch it on pay-per-view. Those lucky enough to be on a trans-Atlantic flight next year will probably have a chance to see Invictus on the plane, since its political theme and World Cup rugby depictions will undoubtedly make the film more popular abroad than it is here.
I wonder if President Obama will see it. If he does, he may take heart when the pundits grouse about Mandela after only one day, asking in the press, "Is he qualified for the job?" Mandela answers, "It's a fair question." And indeed it is. There and then, here and now.
Invictus will open in limited theatrical release on December 11, 2009.
I wondered why there hasn't been more in the popular culture linking the two leaders and their transcendent personal histories. They both became their country's first black president after three centuries of white rule. They both rose to prominence from humble circumstances, and by following a path of education and activism. They both won the Nobel Peace Prize, largely for their efforts to restore diplomacy after periods of nationalistic isolation. And they're both leaders who practice a message of tolerance and forgiveness, despite whatever vitriol surrounds them. One faced the realities of post-apartheid; the other faces the myth of post-racism. (Some might posit they are both native-born Africans, but I digress...)
The point is, there are many similarities between these two leaders, and this movie, with its simple portrayal of a remarkable man who sought to unite a deeply divided nation in support of a rugby team renewed my hope in President Obama. I thought to myself, I need to give him another chance, to see the glass as half full.
In the film, Mandela makes several statements about understanding one's enemy, and, like Obama, is committed to governing all the people, not just those who voted for him. I thought, Hmmm: bipartisanship. Mandela sees his opportunity in the Springboks, a team synonymous with the old separatist South Africa. Obama has been looking for his opportunity to unite this country behind healthcare, economic reform, and war. These issues, though of grave importance, do not unify a nation. They actually serve to divide us more deeply. We need something symbolic to remind us we are one "team." Now I feel even worse that Obama and Oprah couldn't get us the Olympics.
Invictus isn't a great movie but it's got great moments. Eastwood said during a Q&A at the Director's Guild he'd thought for awhile "Morgan should play Mandela," but it was Freeman who brought the script to Eastwood. It's not a biopic in the conventional sense, but it does provide glimpses into Mandela's life, most notably a trip to the actual cell where he spent 27 years of his life on Robben Island. Eastwood shot Invictus on location, with an almost exclusively-South African cast. Matt Damon looks great as the captain of the Springboks - solidly fit, with bleached hair and what sounds like a pretty good Afrikaner accent. Latin is missing from my life, so, until I googled it, I didn't know "invictus" meant "unconquered." The movie's got more rugby than I've ever seen, not just on film, but anywhere. I'm into now. Might see some in real life.
On a scale of one to 10, one being "don't see," and 10 being "go see, even if you have to hire a sitter," I'd say, Invictus is a six: add it to your Netflix queue or watch it on pay-per-view. Those lucky enough to be on a trans-Atlantic flight next year will probably have a chance to see Invictus on the plane, since its political theme and World Cup rugby depictions will undoubtedly make the film more popular abroad than it is here.
I wonder if President Obama will see it. If he does, he may take heart when the pundits grouse about Mandela after only one day, asking in the press, "Is he qualified for the job?" Mandela answers, "It's a fair question." And indeed it is. There and then, here and now.
Invictus will open in limited theatrical release on December 11, 2009.
No JFK Moment For Obama On Afghanistan
The great hope was that President Obama would have the courage and political sense to do what JFK did forty six years ago. Kennedy told the generals 'no' to their demand for escalation in Vietnam. It wasn't easy. The Pentagon had drawn up plans for the massive military ramp up, had an active lobby on Congress and in the defense establishment, and had National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy pounding on Kennedy for escalation. To force Kennedy's hand, the generals dragged their feet, slowrolled, on implementing his directive for a contingency troop withdrawal plan. Despite the backdoor insubordination to an order from their commander-in-chief, Kennedy held firm on withdrawal.
But it took political craft to accomplish his goal. He quietly drew up a plan for withdrawal and then sent his two top military advisors Maxwell Taylor and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara on a fact-finding tour to publicly confirm that a massive escalation in American troops would be a resounding failure. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and unpopular, the resistance was well armed, fiercely ideological and battle tested after years of war against the French. The US would have to permanently garrison tens of thousands of troops, at a cost of billions, risking large scale casualties with little hope of victory.
Kennedy did not live long enough to thwart the generals. They got their war. It dragged on for years, cost thousands of American lives, killed and maimed thousands of civilians, reinforced the image of America as a global bully, created massive political chaos at home, and jaded a generation of young persons who now saw the US policymakers as liars and deceivers.
Obama knows this tragic history. He has read many of the books on the Vietnam catastrophe, which tell how the war ripped apart a nation, and totally discredited the once highly popular and promising presidency of LBJ. He's heard from the experts and seen all the polls that show the war is unpopular.
For a brief moment in September it appeared that Obama's 'dither' on Afghan troop escalation might be a JFK moment. The right elements were in place to turn his dither into a 'no' to the generals on escalation. Polls showed that Americans were opposed to escalation. The overwhelming majority of Democrats openly voiced opposition to war funding increases and escalation. A number of military and foreign policy experts said the war was un-winnable and told him why. With public worry and unease rising over the economy, and an unfinished health care reform battle, escalation seemed even more absurd.
During the campaign much was made of the Obama-JFK comparison. Both were young, dynamic, inspired hope, and once elected immediately faced a military and foreign policy crisis that forced Kennedy and now Obama to weigh pressure from the Pentagon to expand a war. In JFK's case the immediate crisis was the Cuban Missile episode. The story is well known. The generals pushed hard for a quick strike against Russian missiles, and a bellicose warning to the Soviet Union that if they responded, the USSR would be obliterated. Kennedy rejected both.
The U.S.-Soviet stand down was brokered through back channel talks initiated by Robert Kennedy with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. After they hammered out the bare details of the agreement Robert Kennedy and other senior advisors urged Kennedy to finally approve the deal. Kennedy choose diplomacy, embargo, containment of Cuba, beefed up military aid and assistance to Latin American governments, and counterinsurgency against guerrilla threats to counter communist backed insurgency in Latin America, over direct US military intervention.
Kennedy had one major advantage over Obama. He did not inherit a full blown war. When he took office, US military involvement in Vietnam was fleeting. There were less than 1000 military advisors in the country, and fewer than ten Americans had been killed in combat-related action. To most Americans, Vietnam then was merely a name on the map. The military and foreign policy issues involved in the prolonged fighting between the Vietnamese and French, and increasingly the Americans, were barely known, and even less understood.
The public was not asked to make a leap of faith that an untested president could handle a war crisis. But surprisingly Kennedy did. The situation Obama faces with Afghanistan is the opposite of what Kennedy faced. There's the depth of American military involvement, commitment, and the entrenched thinking that Afghanistan is the front line in the war on terrorism. Obama shares this thinking with the generals. This makes it even less likely that he would defy them and chart a course that relies solely on diplomacy, containment, partnerships with foreign allies, Afghan governmental reforms, and Afghan security training and overhaul, in place of troop escalation to attain his goals.
JFK opted to take this course to deal with Cuba and Vietnam. Obama should take the same course with Afghanistan. If he did it would be his JFK moment. But don't expect it.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010.
But it took political craft to accomplish his goal. He quietly drew up a plan for withdrawal and then sent his two top military advisors Maxwell Taylor and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara on a fact-finding tour to publicly confirm that a massive escalation in American troops would be a resounding failure. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and unpopular, the resistance was well armed, fiercely ideological and battle tested after years of war against the French. The US would have to permanently garrison tens of thousands of troops, at a cost of billions, risking large scale casualties with little hope of victory.
Kennedy did not live long enough to thwart the generals. They got their war. It dragged on for years, cost thousands of American lives, killed and maimed thousands of civilians, reinforced the image of America as a global bully, created massive political chaos at home, and jaded a generation of young persons who now saw the US policymakers as liars and deceivers.
Obama knows this tragic history. He has read many of the books on the Vietnam catastrophe, which tell how the war ripped apart a nation, and totally discredited the once highly popular and promising presidency of LBJ. He's heard from the experts and seen all the polls that show the war is unpopular.
For a brief moment in September it appeared that Obama's 'dither' on Afghan troop escalation might be a JFK moment. The right elements were in place to turn his dither into a 'no' to the generals on escalation. Polls showed that Americans were opposed to escalation. The overwhelming majority of Democrats openly voiced opposition to war funding increases and escalation. A number of military and foreign policy experts said the war was un-winnable and told him why. With public worry and unease rising over the economy, and an unfinished health care reform battle, escalation seemed even more absurd.
During the campaign much was made of the Obama-JFK comparison. Both were young, dynamic, inspired hope, and once elected immediately faced a military and foreign policy crisis that forced Kennedy and now Obama to weigh pressure from the Pentagon to expand a war. In JFK's case the immediate crisis was the Cuban Missile episode. The story is well known. The generals pushed hard for a quick strike against Russian missiles, and a bellicose warning to the Soviet Union that if they responded, the USSR would be obliterated. Kennedy rejected both.
The U.S.-Soviet stand down was brokered through back channel talks initiated by Robert Kennedy with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. After they hammered out the bare details of the agreement Robert Kennedy and other senior advisors urged Kennedy to finally approve the deal. Kennedy choose diplomacy, embargo, containment of Cuba, beefed up military aid and assistance to Latin American governments, and counterinsurgency against guerrilla threats to counter communist backed insurgency in Latin America, over direct US military intervention.
Kennedy had one major advantage over Obama. He did not inherit a full blown war. When he took office, US military involvement in Vietnam was fleeting. There were less than 1000 military advisors in the country, and fewer than ten Americans had been killed in combat-related action. To most Americans, Vietnam then was merely a name on the map. The military and foreign policy issues involved in the prolonged fighting between the Vietnamese and French, and increasingly the Americans, were barely known, and even less understood.
The public was not asked to make a leap of faith that an untested president could handle a war crisis. But surprisingly Kennedy did. The situation Obama faces with Afghanistan is the opposite of what Kennedy faced. There's the depth of American military involvement, commitment, and the entrenched thinking that Afghanistan is the front line in the war on terrorism. Obama shares this thinking with the generals. This makes it even less likely that he would defy them and chart a course that relies solely on diplomacy, containment, partnerships with foreign allies, Afghan governmental reforms, and Afghan security training and overhaul, in place of troop escalation to attain his goals.
JFK opted to take this course to deal with Cuba and Vietnam. Obama should take the same course with Afghanistan. If he did it would be his JFK moment. But don't expect it.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010.
Polanski’s Release From Prison
The decision to free Roman Polanski is a wise decision. It honors the people who took it. It shows that the arguments developed by the movie director's partisans -- including those published on the French review's website of La Règle du Jeu -- have finally been fruitful. It shows that Polanski's French lawyers, Hervé Témime and Georges Kiejman, were right to remain tenacious. At this very moment, I am thinking about Emmanuelle, his wife. I am thinking about his two kids who saw their dad's name ignominiously dragged through the mud. I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski, who I don't know, but whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped pouring contempt upon him, hounding him through hatred and asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthy era all over again. At least the nightmare is about to end. At least the end of the hell is looming. And this, for the time being, is what does matter.
Iran’s Economic Vulnerabilities
Although there is sharp political division for and against Ahmadinejad in Iran, there is virtual unanimity among all political factions that Iran must have nuclear weapons in order to protect itself. Given this, even if President Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerics were to be removed from power in Iran, the leadership that would follow would almost certainly support the continuation of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
As a result of Iranian intransigence, sanctions appear to be inevitable, even though the West continues to hope for a meaningful outcome. Although Russia's previous position against sanctions seems to be softening, it remains to be seen whether Russia will ultimately support robust economic sanctions. The Chinese are in any event unlikely to participate in a sanctions regime for two primary reasons. First, China wants to underscore its belief in the inherent rights of sovereign nations, and their own belief in non-interference in 'domestic' affairs. Second, the Chinese believe that the U.S. ultimately desires regime change, which stands in opposition to their own desire to strengthen their economic ties with, and derive future economic benefits from, Iran. Regardless of the relative success of future sanctions, they will have a net impact on all of Iran's trading partners.
The orientation of Western pundits toward the impact of politics on Iran's negotiating position has drawn the discussion away from the rather serious economic situation Iran is currently experiencing. Given its over-reliance on oil and gas revenues, Iran's economy is already under moderate strain. Depending on the direction of future hydrocarbon prices, the economy could become severely strained.
In order to balance its budget, Iran needs oil prices to rise above $95 per barrel and stay there. Projected oil revenue shortfalls in the current fiscal year will shift the budget into a large deficit position. As a result of conflicting budgetary demands and clashing political forces, the Ahmadinejad government lacks the political capital required to offset lower hydrocarbon receipts by cutting expenditures and/or raising non-oil revenues. If Ahmadinejad's political troubles deepen and capital flight accelerates, his ability to finance the looming budget deficit will become more limited.
Hydrocarbon exports account for more than 80% of Iran's total exports of goods and services, highlighting the current account's vulnerability to lower oil prices. In addition to price concerns, the physical volume of oil and gas exports is likely to decline over the foreseeable future due to the continuing lack of investment in the hydrocarbon sector. Iran's flexibility to run a current account deficit is therefore limited given its lack of access to international financing as a result of existing sanctions.
Iran posted strong growth in FY 2006-08 in response to the government's loose fiscal and monetary policies. Non-oil and gas GDP has been the main driver of growth, as oil and gas GDP growth has declined in recent years. The pace of economic activity more than halved over the most recent fiscal year due to the impact of the global recession. Growth is likely to slow further in FY 2009/10.
Inflation has receded, but its rapid escalation during FY 2008/09 exacerbated social and political strains. Unemployment did not improve much even when non-oil growth was picking up. As the Iranian "youth bulge" enters the labor market, the economy will be hard-pressed to create the 600,000-800,000 jobs per year necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This can only strengthen opposition political forces and complicate Ahmadinejad's ability to govern.
Foreign Direct Investment continues to suffer as political tensions with the West continue to rise. Of 17 oil and gas blocks put up for tender in February 2007, only three were awarded. And of the 12 oil and gas blocks put for tender in November 2008, none have been awarded. China and Russia continue to be the dominant source of Iran's international commercial relations. Russia's tentative support for future economic sanctions against Iran may change that. Economically, Iran has few friends in the world.
All this points to a rather challenging economic environment in which Ahmadinejad is now forced to operate. Even if hydrocarbon prices were to stabilize above the level necessary for Iran to balance its budget and current account next year, many of the inherent contradictions associated with the country's economic and political process will continue unabated. As the timeline for a decision on whether to impose stricter sanctions on Iran draws nearer, Ahamdinejad and the hard liners in the Iranian government will undoubtedly dig in their heels in a more pronounced fashion, placing the economy under even more strain.
The impact of Iran's economic plight on the nuclear negotiation process is likely to be severe. As the government reckons with its unfolding economic reality and the ongoing vocal opposition to Ahmadinejad's second term as President continues, its inclination will be to reject any meaningful oversight of Iran's low-enriched uranium, to continue to bide for more time to complete the nuclear production cycle, and to continue to justify its past actions.
The chance that there will be a sudden reversal in the government's approach to nuclear dialogue is close to zero. Iran is not bargaining from a position of strength, but weakness. The mismanagement of Iran's economy has only served to reduce the chance that further economic sanctions may be avoided.
As a result of Iranian intransigence, sanctions appear to be inevitable, even though the West continues to hope for a meaningful outcome. Although Russia's previous position against sanctions seems to be softening, it remains to be seen whether Russia will ultimately support robust economic sanctions. The Chinese are in any event unlikely to participate in a sanctions regime for two primary reasons. First, China wants to underscore its belief in the inherent rights of sovereign nations, and their own belief in non-interference in 'domestic' affairs. Second, the Chinese believe that the U.S. ultimately desires regime change, which stands in opposition to their own desire to strengthen their economic ties with, and derive future economic benefits from, Iran. Regardless of the relative success of future sanctions, they will have a net impact on all of Iran's trading partners.
The orientation of Western pundits toward the impact of politics on Iran's negotiating position has drawn the discussion away from the rather serious economic situation Iran is currently experiencing. Given its over-reliance on oil and gas revenues, Iran's economy is already under moderate strain. Depending on the direction of future hydrocarbon prices, the economy could become severely strained.
In order to balance its budget, Iran needs oil prices to rise above $95 per barrel and stay there. Projected oil revenue shortfalls in the current fiscal year will shift the budget into a large deficit position. As a result of conflicting budgetary demands and clashing political forces, the Ahmadinejad government lacks the political capital required to offset lower hydrocarbon receipts by cutting expenditures and/or raising non-oil revenues. If Ahmadinejad's political troubles deepen and capital flight accelerates, his ability to finance the looming budget deficit will become more limited.
Hydrocarbon exports account for more than 80% of Iran's total exports of goods and services, highlighting the current account's vulnerability to lower oil prices. In addition to price concerns, the physical volume of oil and gas exports is likely to decline over the foreseeable future due to the continuing lack of investment in the hydrocarbon sector. Iran's flexibility to run a current account deficit is therefore limited given its lack of access to international financing as a result of existing sanctions.
Iran posted strong growth in FY 2006-08 in response to the government's loose fiscal and monetary policies. Non-oil and gas GDP has been the main driver of growth, as oil and gas GDP growth has declined in recent years. The pace of economic activity more than halved over the most recent fiscal year due to the impact of the global recession. Growth is likely to slow further in FY 2009/10.
Inflation has receded, but its rapid escalation during FY 2008/09 exacerbated social and political strains. Unemployment did not improve much even when non-oil growth was picking up. As the Iranian "youth bulge" enters the labor market, the economy will be hard-pressed to create the 600,000-800,000 jobs per year necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This can only strengthen opposition political forces and complicate Ahmadinejad's ability to govern.
Foreign Direct Investment continues to suffer as political tensions with the West continue to rise. Of 17 oil and gas blocks put up for tender in February 2007, only three were awarded. And of the 12 oil and gas blocks put for tender in November 2008, none have been awarded. China and Russia continue to be the dominant source of Iran's international commercial relations. Russia's tentative support for future economic sanctions against Iran may change that. Economically, Iran has few friends in the world.
All this points to a rather challenging economic environment in which Ahmadinejad is now forced to operate. Even if hydrocarbon prices were to stabilize above the level necessary for Iran to balance its budget and current account next year, many of the inherent contradictions associated with the country's economic and political process will continue unabated. As the timeline for a decision on whether to impose stricter sanctions on Iran draws nearer, Ahamdinejad and the hard liners in the Iranian government will undoubtedly dig in their heels in a more pronounced fashion, placing the economy under even more strain.
The impact of Iran's economic plight on the nuclear negotiation process is likely to be severe. As the government reckons with its unfolding economic reality and the ongoing vocal opposition to Ahmadinejad's second term as President continues, its inclination will be to reject any meaningful oversight of Iran's low-enriched uranium, to continue to bide for more time to complete the nuclear production cycle, and to continue to justify its past actions.
The chance that there will be a sudden reversal in the government's approach to nuclear dialogue is close to zero. Iran is not bargaining from a position of strength, but weakness. The mismanagement of Iran's economy has only served to reduce the chance that further economic sanctions may be avoided.
Adorable Animal Families (PHOTOS)
Since many people will be spending time with families this weekend, we thought we highlight some photos of amazing animal families. Check out how families play, eat, travel, and snuggle. And don't forget to vote on your favorite!
Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!
Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!
Marriage Equality: Not Just For Today’s Adults
The other day, my friend Sandra and her daughter Maya were talking about growing up. Sandra told her daughter, "Honey, when you grow up, I know you'll find a nice boy to marry who will love you." Maya, who is eight years old, replied, "But Mom, I could marry a girl."
Sandra stood corrected. They live in Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over five years now, and the law has begun to affect the way children and adolescents are able to envision their domestic futures. Of course, Maya is not old enough to understand what the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality really mean. Whether or not she herself grows up to be gay, she already has a wider view of the world's possibilities than do many of the grown-ups around her.
When do kids become aware that they are gay or lesbian? Kids who grow up to be gay don't wake up one day at age 12 or 13 and say, "Hey, I'm gay!" Recognizing one's own sexuality is a long and often challenging process. When kids grow up in a world that assumes everyone will grow up to be heterosexual, those kids who grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual face extra developmental challenges. Kids taunt each other on the playground with the word "faggot" without fully understanding or thinking about what that word means. That affects a kid's self esteem when -- sometimes years later -- he connects that word, and the pain of being teased, with sexual or romantic feelings he or she has for someone of the same sex.
That point is underscored by a study published earlier this year in the medical journal Pediatrics, which helped to illustrate the relationship between lack of acceptance and harm to mental health. The research showed that lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents growing up in families who did not accept them as gay were nine times more likely to feel suicidal, five and a half times more likely to be depressed, and three and a half times more likely to use illegal drugs compared to kids whose families were more accepting.
Marriage equality can change society so that peers -- and parents -- can, if not embrace, accept homosexuality as part of the world in which we live. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire now allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage laws are on the table in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. Despite the recent loss in Maine, the issue continues to move forward.
To be sure, some people may cringe at the thought of kids growing up more accepting of homosexuality. Might this tolerance lead to more gay and lesbian adults in the future? Research does not support such ideas.
Numerous studies of children growing up with same-sex parents have concluded that these children are no more likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian than are children raised by heterosexual parents. What they are more likely to be is open and accepting of the possibility of homosexuality or bisexuality in themselves or others. And the recent study in Pediatrics suggests that this tolerance will be good for the mental health of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends and family members that these children will surely encounter.
Same-sex marriage laws will benefit not only adults in committed relationships today, but also kids who don't yet know what being gay, lesbian, or bisexual means. Kids who grow up to be gay adults will have the chance to grow up in a world that accepts them as full members, and their straight friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors will be more prepared to live in an ever-more diverse world.
Sandra stood corrected. They live in Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over five years now, and the law has begun to affect the way children and adolescents are able to envision their domestic futures. Of course, Maya is not old enough to understand what the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality really mean. Whether or not she herself grows up to be gay, she already has a wider view of the world's possibilities than do many of the grown-ups around her.
When do kids become aware that they are gay or lesbian? Kids who grow up to be gay don't wake up one day at age 12 or 13 and say, "Hey, I'm gay!" Recognizing one's own sexuality is a long and often challenging process. When kids grow up in a world that assumes everyone will grow up to be heterosexual, those kids who grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual face extra developmental challenges. Kids taunt each other on the playground with the word "faggot" without fully understanding or thinking about what that word means. That affects a kid's self esteem when -- sometimes years later -- he connects that word, and the pain of being teased, with sexual or romantic feelings he or she has for someone of the same sex.
That point is underscored by a study published earlier this year in the medical journal Pediatrics, which helped to illustrate the relationship between lack of acceptance and harm to mental health. The research showed that lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents growing up in families who did not accept them as gay were nine times more likely to feel suicidal, five and a half times more likely to be depressed, and three and a half times more likely to use illegal drugs compared to kids whose families were more accepting.
Marriage equality can change society so that peers -- and parents -- can, if not embrace, accept homosexuality as part of the world in which we live. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire now allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage laws are on the table in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. Despite the recent loss in Maine, the issue continues to move forward.
To be sure, some people may cringe at the thought of kids growing up more accepting of homosexuality. Might this tolerance lead to more gay and lesbian adults in the future? Research does not support such ideas.
Numerous studies of children growing up with same-sex parents have concluded that these children are no more likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian than are children raised by heterosexual parents. What they are more likely to be is open and accepting of the possibility of homosexuality or bisexuality in themselves or others. And the recent study in Pediatrics suggests that this tolerance will be good for the mental health of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends and family members that these children will surely encounter.
Same-sex marriage laws will benefit not only adults in committed relationships today, but also kids who don't yet know what being gay, lesbian, or bisexual means. Kids who grow up to be gay adults will have the chance to grow up in a world that accepts them as full members, and their straight friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors will be more prepared to live in an ever-more diverse world.