Political Crisis in Thailand (updated 5/19/2010)

Since my son, Roy, and daughter-in-law, Jenn, have been living in Bangkok, Thailand for over a year now, we’ve been keeping a close watch on the deteriorating political situation there.  Normal life has been greatly affected.  Since tensions have reached a boiling point, Jenn’s offices have been closed for weeks and Roy has been able to go to work only sporadically.  Last weekend, after being unable or unwilling to accept the government’s offer of new elections in November, the Red shirts expanded the conflict zone.  Barricades sprang up and fires have been set outside of the central square-mile area they have occupied for the last six weeks.  The conflict zone has crept closer and closer to their neighborhood.  Late last week, a barricade appeared at the end of their street. Fearful of getting trapped, unable to get out to shop groceries or for emergencies services, Jenn and Roy decided to relocate temporarily to an unaffected part of the Bangkok.   Here’s Roy’s email telling us of their move.

We are safe, away from the action now.  We moved away from our apartment today and are in another side of Bangkok.

Didn't want to alarm you before, but here (just before the minute mark) is footage from my street, Soi Ngam Duphli, this weekend.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8684288.stm

We wanted to stick it out, but last night was the last straw.  Groups of thugs were not too far away erecting their stupid tire blockades, there were lots of blasts not to far away, and I was getting pretty agitated.  I went to bed with my clothes on and contacts in just in case I had to jump into action.  I was pretty jumpy and I hope Jenn forgives me for that!

This morning was quiet again, but we've had enough and the end is not visible yet.  Our apartment is safe, security-wise, but we don’t want to be in a situation where one of those tire blockades traps us indefinitely.  So we found a hotel that allows dogs, set the cat up for a few days to protect the apartment (we’ll rescue him if it goes longer then a few more days) and moved to the Thonglor area of Bangkok (Sukhumvit 55).  It’s well away from trouble.

The government might be moving into the main Red shirt camp today to clear the area.  Then again maybe they are just bluffing again.  The city is tired of the Red shirts, for the most part, and also tired of the government's constant missteps.  The army's actions haven't exactly contained the crisis, just set tensions ablaze and then have sat back as the reds went mad across the city.  Why haven't they called a curfew yet?  They planned one for yesterday but then said it might disrupt peoples’ lives.  That has got to be the line of year.

Indeed!  Of course, the news we get about the situation there comes mostly from the NY Times, NPR, the PBS News Hour, and emails other friends send us.  Our friends, Tom and Bev, spend five months of the year in Chang Mai in the north and have lots of Thai friends, so we get emails that their friends send us.  So, compared with most Americans (99.5%?), we’re fairly well-informed about the situation there.   Nevertheless, the two emails below between Roy and me provide an interesting, and perhaps instructive, illustration of how perspectives can differ.  While the impressions I’ve gained aren’t completely wrong, the “back-story” Roy presents cuts a lot closer to what is really going on than anything I’ve read or heard here. 

On Sunday, May 17^th, I wrote this:

Whatever the merits of the red shirts grievances, they're fast losing public and international support.  Public opinion seems to have shifted dramatically in favor of the government and government action.  For all of us who wish for the peaceful resolution of conflicts like these, the reality is that options quickly diminish and you're left with only one response.  Violence.   A week ago, world opinion, and perhaps even Thai opinion, was evenly divided.  Most of us greeted the government offer to dissolve parliament and hold elections in November with a sigh of relief.  Of course, we thought, the Red shirts would accept that deal; it's what they have been demanding!   Or so they said.  But, being divided, they were unable to agree.  Distrustful and wary, they could not formulate a cohesive response.  Perhaps they thought they could leverage more concessions.  Then a Red shirt general is shot in the head while being interviewed by a Times reporter.  [He died Tuesday.]  Quickly, the justification for fighting becomes perverse and devolves into shorter and shorter grievance cycles until it’s "I'm fighting because the government just shot one of our leaders," and eventually "I'm fighting because someone just shot at me!"  Since the red shirts are a mix of people with disparate agendas without strong leadership that can exercise discipline and speak for everyone, collective emotions rather than clear thinking seem to be driving the outcome.

So, again, for all of us who wish for a peaceful outcome, the reality is you're left with only one response.  Violence.  Where are the think tanks devoted to resolution conflict?  Where is Jimmy Carter?  What would a Quaker do? 

Roy’s well-reasoned response was this:

Well, to be honest, the story-line of the outside media about the Red-shirts has been very different then the one told here in Bangkok.  It was sort of odd to see international outlets fall for the Red-shirt propaganda about democracy.  It put them into a time-tested story line that didn't take much effort for whichever journalist they parachuted in to take up.  Meanwhile, people living here know the back-story.  They hear stories about how the Red-shirts have been training an 'army' and have raided army bases for weapons.  Thais know that [the Red-shirt] leaders are as corrupt as any element in Thailand.  They know the damage the Red-shirts have already done to the future of the country.  Do the Red-shirts have legitimate grievances, sure, but they have been strongly manipulated to the point of madness.  

Thaksin Shinawatra was a rich, corrupt, man, just like the leaders the Red-shirts are raging about now.  But, he was also introduced something unheard of in Thai politics: populism.  This wasn't bad in itself, but when his corruption got him into hot water, he has used this populism extremely cynically.  I don't think he realized everything that would happen, but he ignited a flame that is going to be hard to put out.  The Red-shirt leaders make a lot of promises and hand out a lot of money to their supporters.  They also poisoned the well of the current political system, creating saints and [demons].  In the end, I don't think the Red-shirts really want democracy, they want to overthrow the government -- they want the power they were promised [by Thaksin].

The elite, meanwhile, mostly in Bangkok, talk eloquently about the house that has been built here, built by the father (the king).  It’s a strong house, built for all Thais, they say.  The reds want to destroy this beautiful house.  But, in the end, it’s always been a house built for the elites to live on top, no matter how generous they thought they were being.  They are not blameless in this matter.  Thailand has to change; it has to make room for the rural areas to be able to speak out for their needs without violence.

I think the chance of a final confrontation at this point is about 50/50.  This is not China, that’s for sure.  The army is not in any rush to bring in the tanks against their own people.  They want to wait and hope the reds give up.  They are letting the Red-shirts rage on.  To me, that’s riskier –fires are being set, engulfing buildings, lawlessness is spreading, and people are caught in the crossfire.  It just delays the inevitable.  I hate to say it, but I find myself wishing the crackdown will finally come, and soon.  It’s not my country though, it’s not yours.  It isn’t our country that will have to heal after the bloodshed.  So they wait, I guess, until they absolutely have to.

So there you have it.  Events unfold hourly.  By the time this is posted, a settlement may have been reached, or the Army finally will have attacked, or, most likely, nothing will have changed, except the chaos will have spread and Roy and Jenn will have to move again.  And Americans will still have missed the story behind the story.  As news budgets continue to shrink, a dearth of reliable news will only increase.  We have no direct role in events unfolding in Thailand, so news there is only reported sporadically, if at all.  However, in those places we do play a role, the lesson is this:  Inevitably, we’ll get it wrong.  Inevitably, our involvement will just make it worse.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Since this was posted, the Thai military has moved in and many of the Red-shirts have disbursed, but fighting has continued. Whether the conflicts spreads and becomes into a gorilla war, or takes another form remains to be seen. 



Update 2, May 19, 2010
For those who would like to delve further into the "back-story", here is a link to an excellent article about the political situation in Thailand.  It brilliant piece of political analysis and terrific writing too.  Thai article>>

TIME TO CLIP … The Hairs that Wag the Tail that Wags the Dog

President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali, stuffs ballot boxes so his brother can retain power; profits from opium sales; plays US forces off against the Taliban; buys up land that the US will need to stage operations, then rents it to us; profiting at every turn. Increasingly, President Karzai has convinced himself that the US wants to occupy Afghanistan permanently, but resists any talk of our leaving. Unhappy that the Electoral Complaints Commission found wide irregularities in the August election, throwing out a third of the ballots, Karzai decided to appoint all five members of the commission himself.

Angered by signs of corruption impossible to ignore, Obama uninvited Karzai to Washington. (If you’re going to be corrupt, don’t be so obvious!) To show his pique, Karzai invites Iran’s President Ahmadinejad to Afghanistan, who then proceeds to deliver a virulently anti-American speech, with a smiling Karzai looking on.

Now, President Karzai bitterly blame the UN monitors for electoral irregularities!  Is this an elaborate dance or has is he just losing it?

Meanwhile, Americans are dying in Helmand province while Afghan troops bring up the rear. And that’s just a warm up for things to come, as US and Afghan forces prepare to take Kandihar.

Lyricist Tyron Wells said it best - “… What are we fighting for?”

Then there’s Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu thumbs his nose at America, his strongest ally, by announcing new settlements in East Jerusalem just as VP Biden is there to reaffirm America’s eternal commitment to Israel. Then, arriving in Washington days later, Netanyahu makes a combative speech at AIPAC, the powerful American Israeli Lobby, reaffirming Israel intention to build and expand settlements, even though, as any one outside of Israel can see, peace talks, even “proximity” talks, will never happen as long as settlement activity continues.

These developments clearly annoyed Preident Obama. So, the President dines along, leaving Netanyahu to cool his heals. Upon arriving home, an indignant Israeli press and the prime minister himself complains about the chilly reception Netanyahu got at the White House.

Then Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, unhappy with election results, bitterly contests the election by conspiring to disqualify backers of his opponent, former Prime Minister Ayad Alawi. It turns out that, behind the scenes, our “old buddy”, Ahmed Chalabi, the very Chalabi who misled us into the Iraq war in 2003, controls the election commission and, it turns out, is closely aligned with the Iranians. Now the Iranians are playing the role of powerbroker in Iraq.

“… What are we fighting for?”

Are we propping up Iraq and Afghanistan long enough for them to walk on their own, only to have them run to Iran for succor? Should we just start packing our bags, pass out “mission accomplished!” stickers, and, like the affluent parents of ungrateful prodigy, pretend to feel good that they are advocating for themselves.

As long as we’re building roads, schools, hospitals, providing security and propping up their economies, we’re tolerated – but don’t mistake it for love.

I think we’ll just have to accept that they’re adults now. Let them pick their own friends. Time to start withholding child support. (We’re stretched too thin; we need to think about retirement – of our national debt.) It’s for their own good. But don’t expect them write home any time soon.

Maybe the best exit strategy is to get thrown out by the nascent regimes of both countries, and stop worrying about who they call friend afterwards. After all, it’s not as if we don’t need to attend to a few domestic priorities. As the passage of the healthcare bill demonstrates, getting a few bills passed at home goes a long way towards improving our image abroad.

American will have a hard time coming to terms with our diminished influence in the world. But joining the international bread line as a third rate power might prove the greatest humiliation of all.

Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin

 When this book first hit the stores, I was inclined to ignore it as just another tell-all book designed to earn a quick buck and embarrass a few politicians and their handlers. This first impression was reinforced by Harry Reid’s hasty apologies for his now well-publicized “light skinned, African American with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” comment and for a bevy of well-timed interviews of various political operators. Not a good start. But two things happened. To my surprise, my “this is a worthy book” filter, Joan, bought the book, read it and, yes, said, “this is a worthy book.” This arrangement works well, since she devours three or four times as many books as I do and filters the read-worthy from the pile we try to sell back to the bookstore for pennies on the dollar. The second thing that happened was that there was surprisingly little noise from the various campaigns disavowing Heilemann and Halperin’s attributions, and a deafening silence about the events they describe. Whether the players made a strategic decision to remain silent, in the hopes that it would all be washed away in the next news cycle – a safe enough bet – or that any refutation would be read as confirmation – another safe bet – it struck me that this was a book worth reading. I’m glad I did.

I’ll be brief (for a change.) The book is a narrative of the Democratic and Republican primaries and the subsequent 2008 Presidential election and, although it is 436 pages, which I consider short given the breadth of material they covered – after all, this campaign cycle was longer than any that came before it – it does a terrific job bringing the reader into the tent or, in some cases, slipping your nose under the tent. You become immersed in the high-stress game of politics at its highest level. Having lived through the events (especially here in NH), and having observed the candidates up close and personal, it is fascinating to compare that experience, still fresh in my mind, with what was going on behind the scenes. That a candidate could be raging in their campaign bus one minute, and then serene and on message as the doors swings open, is a marvel. Do you have to be crazy to put yourself and your family through this? Or is it a manifestation of the ultimate human challenge that few who found themselves in that positions could resist?

Oh! Another reason that there was so few complaints from the campaigns just might have been because the book was so well sourced and, hence, credible, that the candidates probably concluded that whatever counter narrative they put out would be contradicted by the public record and by the very people who knew the facts, their own campaign staffs. One indelible fact is that once a campaign is over, it’s every man and woman for himself. Hired guns work for themselves.

I guess Heilemann and Halperin had to leave something out, but I missed Joe the Plumber, whose name wasn’t even Joe. I remember one televised campaign stop when McCain called on Joe to take the stage, but Joe was nowhere to be found. I think that tells you all you need to know about how well managed the McCain campaign was. If you’ve seen the outrageously profane and funny comedy, In The Loop, that’s what I imagine the McCain campaign to have been like, especially after Joe the Plumber went missing. I can see McCain launching into scathing tirades of profanity and everyone around him blaming everyone else, with equally scathing tirades of profanity. As Obama said at one point to his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, when things weren’t going so well, “you know, this would really be interesting if we weren’t in the middle of it!”

My conclusion? We could have ended up with John Edwards as a candidate for Vice President. That would not have been good, making McGovern’s choice of Eagleton look brilliant in comparison. (Thankfully, Obama didn’t give it a moments thought, although Joe Biden has a few quirks of his own.)   We could have ended up with Sarah Palin as Vice President. That would have been even worse. (Why did McCain choose her? At one point, when asked that question in private, Palin could only think of one answer. “It must have been Gods will.” What else?) We could have ended up with John McCain as President. Whatever you say about John McCain, Mr. Shoot-from-the-hip Maverick McCain is not executive material. He may have been an affective legislator once (past tense intentional) but he would have made a real hash out of the Presidency.  Now he's just a bitter, angry, grumpy Senator.  On November 4th, 2008, I think the electorate got it right. Of course I would say that. What do you expect? I’m just another flaming ass-hole liberal – which describes pretty much everyone to the left of Sarah Palin.

The Bubba Bubble

When will the Bubba Bubble burst?

The response to global warming? Denial – and a well-financed campaign to obfuscate the difference between local weather and global climate. The response to the great recession? Less regulation, even though deregulation was to blame. The response to a healthcare crisis? Inaction, even in the face of spiraling costs and suffering. The response to deficits? Cut taxes, ‘starve the beast’; even after ten years of evidence to the contrary. And now a few deranged Tea Party-ers applaud a pilot who flies his airplane into an IRS building.

The Bubba response to serious attempts to solve America’s problems is 24-hr ridicule, denial, invective, threats and prayer. (What god would listen to such nonsense?)

To sober America up and burst this burgeoning Bubba Bubble, will it take Sarah Palin or Ron Paul becoming president, or is there a 12-step program designed to avert impending national calamities?

Republican "Healthcare"

Who needs death panels? People are dying of neglect.

Healthcare cost American’s two and a half trillion dollars a year. This is what 2.5 trillion dollars looks like: 2,500,000,000,000. That’s about $9,000 per American per year.

Have you noticed that just about every hospital in the country is expanding and hundreds of new “Medical Centers” are being built? One under construction just off of I-95 north of Trenton, NJ is being built at an estimated cost of $500 million, and another, less than 20 miles away near Princeton is being build with a similar price tag of $500 million. I liken these facilities to those inflatable sports arenas that depend on air compressors to keep them inflated – only in this case, we’ll be pumping in a constant stream of money. These facilities need to be staffed, cleaned, maintained, powered and heated forever. The more medical facilities we build, the higher the costs. Even in my small NH town, our local hospital has been expanding for over 10 years, with no end in sight. Clearly, the demand for services has grown – the question is, what’s driving the demand?

I used to think that healthcare was a finite resource, but given the unchecked growth in just one decade, I’m not so sure. I used to argue that, because it is a finite resource, decisions to spend money on, say, cosmetic surgery, would limit resources spent on more important medical care, like preventative care for children. But, as we spend more and more of our GDP on healthcare, and a growing part of that on boutique healthcare like “breast enhancement” – there’s actually a lobby demanding insurance coverage – I’ve become convinced that rational decision making has been overrun by a plethora of special interests. Of course, end-of-life care takes up the largest share of our healthcare dollar, but we’re a long way from dealing with that rationally, so I just as soon leave that subject for another day.
What has become clear is that our ability to fix problems, any problem, is hamstrung by competing interests in Washington. (Is this how civilizations fail; under the weight of competing, entrenched interests? Is this why China has been able to accomplish so much in such a short period of time – because they aren’t replacing anything, entrenched or otherwise; they’re building infrastructure from scratch?) Anyway, moving on…

Here are some suggestions that Republicans have made. A few are worth considering, with caveats.

People should pay.  One Republican proposal that has currency is this: if people had to pay for their own healthcare and had insurance only to cover catastrophic expenses, they would more likely know how much healthcare cost. This knowledge would be all that would be needed to hold down costs. People would, the argument goes, seek out less expensive services and demand that doctors charge less. The “commonsense” simplicity of this idea is its attraction. However, in recent years, as insurance premiums have grown, families have been saddled with higher and higher deductibles and less and less coverage. It’s not unusual for group plans to have $1500 or $2000 deductibles. Yet there’s little evidence of pushback by patients. Why? While some people may be bold enough to negotiate prices or challenge their doctor’s fees, most people are less inclined. It takes a confident, well-educated patient to challenge his/her doctor. Most people are intimidated by their physicians. It’s not in their nature to challenge a doctor’s fees, much less the fees assessed by their hospital or health center. The more likely response is that people will avoid seeing a doctor and, worse, avoid taking their children for checkups, until a problem is serious and they end up in the emergency room. In fact, the effect of higher deductible is twofold; it discourages families from utilizing services and it increases insurance company profits. (Note: even for plans that increased deductible limits, premiums increased. And, Anthem Blue Cross in California just announced a 40% increase!) Most plans require co-payments of anywhere from $15 to $25. While that may not seem like much, to someone who is struggling financially, it’s enough to discourage irresponsible over-utilization of services.

While I don’t reject the need for people to be aware of the cost of care or of having to bear some of the responsibility for their healthcare, these aren’t a solution to escalating costs. We need to employ other mechanisms. But what?

I find it ironic that while Republicans complain that the bills in Congress do nothing to hold down costs – a debatable point – they’ve resisted remedies like comparative effectiveness research, which can provide doctors with information about the most cost-effective remedies, and they resist Medicare cuts. That they vigorously fought the establishment of Medicare in the 60s and now fight attempts to reduce its costs 50 years later is a puzzle, but there you have it.

Selling insurance in any state. The argument is that insurance companies ought to be able to sell policies in any state; that the increase in competition, especially in states with only a few plans available, would lower costs. Here’s the objection: Consider the recent history of credit cards. What has happened to that industry since federal law pre-empted state regulation? State usury laws were overturned, interest rates and fees escalated, credit card promotions to individuals least able to pay exploded, and so on. (“Hey kid -- want a credit card”?) OK, so the health insurance industry wants the same freedom. As was the case with credit card companies, insurance companies want to be able to establish headquarters in states with the fewest restrictions and offer insurance to other states, overriding local state regulations. If this were just one feature of a comprehensive healthcare bill that specified a reasonable floor of coverage nationwide, it might be acceptable. But that’s not what the Republicans are promoting. If the credit card analogy holds, a piecemeal approach that overrides states’ ability to write rules for their own citizens would result in less coverage and higher costs.

Malpractice reform. When asked on the PBS NewsHour what he thought healthcare reform should consist of, former congressman Dick Armey’s only suggestion was “malpractice reform”. That from the former Republican Majority Leader and now chairman of FreedomWorks. Malpractice reform. It’s hard to take Republican proposals seriously when virtually all lead with “malpractice reform”, as if this would miraculously provide coverage to 50 million (or more) Americans. That said, I think that some sort of malpractice reform to tamp down the most egregious lawsuits is worth considering, even if for purely political reasons. But, what are the details of the Republican proposal? According to the NY Times (2/14/10), “Republicans … are bent on capping damages for pain and suffering at $250,000 and generally want punitive damages capped at $500,000.” The NY Times doesn’t mention compensatory damages, which covers direct economic affects of an injury including such things as medical cost and loss of income. Assuming that the legislation is mute on compensatory damages, it seems to me there should be room for compromise here. Several states already set limits for pain and suffering and punitive damages. The question is, how have these affected doctors premiums and medicals costs generally, and, most important, are injured patients being treated fairly? Are the caps on punitive damages sufficient to serve as a deterrent? (Note that punitive damages are rarely applied, since, according to the website law.freeadvice.com, you have to prove “willful, wanton or malicious” actions by a physician.) 

When contemplating award limits, several questions come to mind. 1) Do the limits only apply to doctors, or would they applied more broadly to medical facilities or drug and equipment manufacturers? 2) Wouldn’t a larger damage award be appropriate for these corporate entities? 3) Are there other ways to punish or fine a corporate entity for corporate malfeasants other than by rewarding the victim and his/her lawyer inordinately large amounts of money? 4) Instead, should larger punitive awards be applied to some kind of damage fund designed to improve healthcare generally? 5) Should limits be written with cost of living clauses? (Ans: Yes.)

So, yes, I can accept that some limits (and perhaps a less confrontational tort system) might be helpful to ameliorate doctor’s malpractice premiums; everyone’s legal fees; and unnecessary defensive medical practices, but the mechanism must put the welfare of the patient first. And, consider this question. With or without threat of malpractice, do doctors have a financial incentive for ordering tests? Many unnecessary procedures performed today are due to the fact that many doctors have a vested interest in the equipment used such as MRI, CATscan or robotic surgical systems, or in the services provided by outside vendors in which doctors have a ownership stake. Too often doctors order tests to boost equipment utilization and their own profits. In this case, so-called defensive medicine plays a minor role. And, might doctors refer you to another doctors because of finder’s fees or for mutual financial benefit, rather than to address a medical need? (I’ve had this happen to me.)

The reality is that we don’t have the answers to the malpractice conundrum. That’s why the healthcare legislation in Congress offers funding for states to experiment. That, it seems to me, is the sensible way to approach this problem. Even if it were determined that the savings from malpractice reform had a minimal effect – such as the 1% the GAO predicts – that’s still $50 billion a year. Experimental state programs may confirm or improve on these predicted savings. One can only hope.

Don’t touch my Medicare! As for Medicare savings, I think there’s a lot that could be done to cut costs there without undermining quality. My father relates the story that when his wife lie dying in a hospital, doctors would stick there head into the room (literally), ask how she was doing and then send a bill. He received many bills from doctors he didn’t know, frequently months later, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. Medicare paid all of them. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but I’ve heard enough stories just like it to be reasonably certain this problem is epidemic. What better time to curb this kind of abuse then when expanding coverage? All of the physicians wandering around padding their bills will be needed to serve the millions of new healthcare customers. Here’s a chance to put them to work. A goal of $400 billion savings over 10 years when compared to the 50 trillion (do you want to see what that looks like? No?) is less than 1%! Why would Republicans object to provisions to curb Medicare abuse by 1% except to needlessly worry seniors and kill the bill? 

Returning to the question of escalating costs, one reasonable objection to the bills now in Congress is that neither does enough to slow medical costs. I agree. They’re not devoid of remedies, but nobody can claim they’re comprehensive. But, the healthcare bills do greatly expand insurance coverage and make it more affordable, and that’s a good first step. No one disagrees that the cost question – “bending the curve” – is a tough one. That’s why the healthcare bills address this by promoting experimentation by the states. Replacing fee for service with a system that rewards physicians for keeping people healthy sounds promising, but we need to see how such as system works on a smaller scale before adopting it nationally. Meanwhile, there are millions of people desperately in need of care who aren’t receiving any services, fee-based or otherwise. They should be our first priority.

Another cost-cutting remedy that has gotten too little press is medical information technology. The rollout of medical information systems, some financed by the stimulus package, is our best opportunity to improve quality of care and reduce costs. The only thing standing in the way is grey haired docs – and all doctors need to be pressed to make it happen. But is a topic that is best discussed in a separate paper.
As President Obama sits down with Republican to debate healthcare next week, it’s important that we all have a clear understanding of what is being proposed by both sides. It’s our responsibility to press for solid answers, not sound bites. One thing that Republicans need to explain is this: Why is it that in 1993 Republicans were in favor most of the provisions now in the healthcare bills, but now are against them? And we’re not talking about different legislators; were talking about people like Orin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. In fact, the only real difference in the bills they sponsored in 1993 and the one before them now is that it included provisions for malpractice reform. Mark Pauley, one of the authors of that 1993 bill, recently voiced regret that Republicans have shifted their position (NPR website, 2/15/2010.) President Obama needs to press these Senators, in particular, for answers as to when and why they’ve changed their positions. Sadly, today politics depends on short memories.

Most Americans have recoiled at the legislative process, complaining about deals and concessions. Get over it. That’s how democracy works! David Brooks (NY Times) recently suggested on the PBS NewsHour that our government has become too transparent and that if it were more opaque, it would be easier to get things done in Washington. There may be wisdom in this, but another way to look at it is that maybe, just maybe, the long-term benefit of this new openness is that Americans are being educated and eventually will come to understand and accept how the system really works. Hmm. As I write that, I recall the recent Pew Research Poll that found that only 25% of Americans know that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate and the just 27% knew that no Republicans voted for the healthcare bill. (Whatever happened to Olympia Snow?) When you add those finding to other measures of mass misconception (a.k.a. ignorance) – geography quiz anyone? – Well, maybe David’s right.
Printable version >> 

Money equals Free Speech; Corporations are people

Last Thursday (Jan 21st), the Supreme Court decided that money equals free speech and corporations are people. Those who believe this is a free speech victory are living in fantasyland. Quoting from Justice Steven’s dissent, “While American democracy is imperfect,” he wrote, “few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”  Now we’ll have government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations…

This has sent me in search of a silver lining. Look on the bright side…

• No more campaign fundraising calls at dinnertime… politicians will be able to get all the money they need from corporations. Cool!
• For judicial elections, corporations can spend all they want to buy, I mean, elect judges who will vote in their favor, freeing us from having to worry about that niggling issue of impartiality.
• The need of actually going to the trouble of voting will be unnecessary, since the outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
• Since corporate America will have unfettered funds to defeat Wall Street reforms, Congress can remove this time-consuming issue from its agenda – and most every other issue as well.
• And look! Government will be more efficient, since power now has shifted entirely from Capital Hill to K Street. Saves on heat!
• And, the Court has put to rest once and for all that slanderous myth that corporate money buys political favors. Nonsense!
• Best of all, corporate advertising will be so much more diverse and entertaining – no longer will they be limited to flogging their products; now they can flog politicians too! Can’t wait for the Super Bowl!

This is a victory for the “Strict Constructionists” on the Court.   Finally, the Court has affirmed the Free Speech rights of corporations … wait, wait, give me a minute, I’ll find the word “corporation” somewhere in the constitution… hold on… just give me a minute… hmmm.
Constitutional amendment anyone?

A Case for Withdrawal: Police, Not War

Wars are like swimming pools with very high sides and no ladder. It’s easy to jump in, but nearly impossible to climb out. People watch you flounder – some even enjoy the spectacle – but few are eager to come to your aid.

The author, Robert Olmstead[1] wrote this: “When men go to war, war wins.”

Which brings us to Afghanistan.

Our response to 9/11 was natural and characteristically American; simultaneously honorable, shortsighted, and hubristic; and certainly blind to the traps we were setting for ourselves. On the whole, our response felt right at the time. With our national pride bruised, and without much thought, we committed billions of dollars and thousands of lives … to do exactly what?

Belatedly, after eight frustrating years, that question is just starting to be addressed in earnest.

What brought us to Afghanistan was our pursuit of al Qaeda. With the rout of its hosts, the Taliban, the war quickly morphed into a permanent war against the Taliban with the justification to deny Al Qaeda safe haven.

Al Qaeda is not the Taliban. Al Qaeda is an amorphous organization born of powerlessness and resentment. Like the Whac-A-Mole game, it can pop up anywhere, anytime; and it has. They retreated from Afghanistan into the mountainous region of Pakistan in the early years of the war, leaving us behind to become mired in a war to which few of us gave much thought, shadowed as it was by our invasion of Iraq. In the meantime, inspired by Bin Laden’s dramatic successes, dozens of terrorist cells sprang up across the globe. Al Qaeda is not a state, it is a state-of-mind that has infected young radicals in the UK, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, and Indonesia, and finds especially fertile ground in failed states like Somalia. Our efforts have served to swell their ranks.

If Al Qaeda pulled up stakes and moved on, why did we remain behind? There are only two reasons; to save face and out of a sense of obligation. Consequently, we now “own” Afghanistan’s problems.

One can predict the arguments against withdrawal from Afghanistan. We’ve heard them all before. Soldiers’ lives ‘lost in vain’; we can’t let the (Afghan) people down, again; we can win if we just send more troops; if we fail, the Afghans will retreat back into tribalism and oppression; an emboldened Taliban, now with world ambitions, would return to power, and al Qaeda would return with them. And the opposition would quickly play the blame game – “Obama lost the Afghan war.”

The longer we stay the harder withdrawal becomes. Every day there are stories of millennium-old tribal practices that shock our western sensibilities. Women required to wear burqas and forced to remain in their homes; girls denied even a rudimentary education; young boys enslaved as dancers – or worse – for the pleasure of senior tribal leaders; acid thrown in the faces of schoolgirls and their teachers. Even its climate and poverty can seem like an affront. Brutal and distressing as these stories are, they only serve to strengthen our resolve to stay, reinforcing the illusion that we can actually affect a cultural transformation and cure Afghans of its poverty and these brutal practices. But, by introducing a perplexing moral dimension, these stories serve to make our retreat all the more difficult – even dishonorable in our own eyes. Hence, quagmire and confusion. In war, we end up taking ownership of conditions that have existed for centuries; conditions we could not have imagined beforehand.

What should our response to 9/11 have been? In my view, renewed, sustained vigilance –tighten our border, airports and ports; improve our internal police effectiveness and information sharing; foster international cooperation to hunt down and disrupt Al Qaeda cells; all with a careful eye to preserving our own liberties.

If our response had been ‘vigilance’, it could have been quietly tailored to adapt rapidly to changes in Al Qaeda’s tactics; with the mobility to follow the enemy wherever it went. There would have been the added advantage of not arousing international enmity, which only has served Al Qaeda’s interests, flooding them with willing recruits and suicide bombers from all over the globe. Remember the outpouring of international support we enjoyed after 9/11? Think about how much easier it would have been to attract and maintain international cooperation then, than it is now. We squandered that good will and the opportunity that went with it.

But it’s not too late. A highly adaptive, international police action is where our strategy needs to be redirected.

I have read General McChrystal's report. His analysis of conditions there is first-rate. But General McChrystal has been handed a limited writ; the war in Afghanistan. He has not been asked to solve the myriad problems beyond its boarders; just win the war in Afghanistan, whatever that means. So, of course, he will present a “new” strategy and ask for more troops. But what size force would he need, and for how long? 50, 100, 200 thousand? Some estimates put the number at over 420,000 for an indeterminate number of years. Clearly, even if we instituted a draft, that will never happen.

Ultimately, McCrystal’s capture-and-hold strategy, one whose primary objective is to protect the population, is not a military strategy; its goal is the political and cultural transformation of Afghanistan; in short, nation building. What would it take to capture the hearts and minds of a proud and ancient people; to win their trust and admiration; to achieve political and cultural transformation; and to transform Afghanistan into a stable democracy and reliable ally? That’s the goal to which such a strategy aspires. What are the odds that this strategy has any better chance of success than would a Taliban brigade plunked down in the heart of Texas?

If the enemy were the Taliban and our national security truly depended on its defeat – if that were possible – General McChrystal’s strategy might make sense, and we should give him everything he asks for, and more, including mobilizing the entire country.

But the enemy is al Qaeda, and they have left the field of battle.

As a nation, we need to think beyond Afghanistan’s borders, and, with the help of our allies, pursue Al Qaeda, wherever they pop up.

Where to go from here? If our initial response should have been, at its heart, an internationally coordinated police action, why isn’t that the right strategy now? (In fact, as we believe, al Qaeda is weakened to the point that even Muslim’s are starting to fight back against its excesses, wouldn’t it be easier now?) How do we get from where we are, quagmire, to where we need to be; renewed, sustained vigilance?

Of course, by their very nature, quagmires cannot be ignored. We’re stuck in this one and no one’s there to throw us a lifeline. However, if, as part of NATO, we declare our intention to extricate ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan and adopt a completely new strategy – and if we encouraged other nations to share equally in this decision – we could start to extricate ourselves tomorrow.

Yes, we need to train – and fund – Afghan police and armed forces. That will be the price of our folly. But those costs can be shared and, if adequately funded, successful. If the Taliban and its allies can spend what is estimated to be $300 a month to enlist an Afghan peasant to its side, why can’t we do better? At $500 dollars a month, we could fund a force of 600,000 Afghan police and armed forces for $3.6 billion a year. Considering what we’re spending now, that would be a bargain. Yes, there are other costs, but in time, the Afghans themselves should be able pick up the tab and keep al Qaeda at bay.

What do the Afghans need more, training or funding? They’ve already proven they know how to fight; they’re just fighting on the wrong side.

If we don’t adopt a new strategy soon, while the international and domestic climate is receptive, we will never be able to extricate ourselves; and that would be our ruin. In comparison, we will end up looking back fondly on Vietnam as “that quaint little war”.

Once we’re committed to war, there’s everything to learn and no easy way out. After eight long years, I hope the lesson is that we need to be sure we know why we’re there, and why we remain. President Obama needs the political will to ask tough questions and seek answers that run counter to those interests vested in the answer left to him by the Bush administration – an answer that was really no answer at all.

[1] The historical novel “Coal Black Horse”