A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman
On May 22, President Barack Obama addressed the graduating class of United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. He drew cheers when he proclaimed, " As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy and the well defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done."
Bravo. But I wish he had applied those sentiments to the United States invasion of Afghanistan. The President has dramatically increased the number of U. S. military forces there, has promised even more next year, and has warned of a multi-year commitment to a war already almost 8 years in duration.
• Is this war “absolutely necessary?”
• Do we have a “strategy” for fighting it?
• Do we have “well defined” goals?
• Do we have an exit strategy?
As recently as May 10, Hamad Karzai, the elected head the Afghan government, said, "Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan." When this was relayed to General David Petraeus, the American and NATO military Commander, he replied," I would agree with that." Obama's National Security Advisor Jim Jones said," I am not sure if Osama bin Laden is alive or dead." Prime Minister of Pakistan Zardari:, stated flatly," Osama is dead." On May 17, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Katie Couric of CBS that it will take at least two to four years before Afghan forces begin to take the lead in fighting, leaving unsaid when U.S. troops will leave.
Moreover, Karzai and Zardari have complained bitterly about U.S. military tactics, especially the use of air power resulting in the unnecessary killing of civilians and the consequent increase in anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
What is victory in Afghanistan? Will it prevent another brutal tragedy like September 11? We should remember that this attack was made by 19 people, not one of them Afghans, armed with credit cards and box cutters. It is difficult to understand how the conquest of Afghanistan could prevent another group of nineteen from performing a similar criminal act. Defense of the U.S. mainland begins at home with effective police and immigration procedures.
U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, even Pakistan, coupled with our all-out support for Israel, might motivate some Muslims and citizens of those countries to irrational revenge, what the CIA calls “Blowback”, the unintended consequences of military action and especially of foreign military occupation.
President Obama, give us the answers to our questions. If you don't have them, at least separate yourself from the Afghan policies of George W. Bush and give us an exit strategy so that we can help these nations change their policies through diplomacy, economic help and our soft power while saving American lives and resources.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Why the Soviet Union Gave Up in Afghanistan
Why the Soviet Union Gave Up in Afghanistan
This document is reprinted from Harper’s Magazine, June 2009
From a May 10, 1988, letter from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to all Party members. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan began on May 15 and was completed February 15, 1989. The letter is among documents related to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan published in February by the National Security Archive. Translated from the Russian by Svetlana Savranskaya.
The decision to invade was made when there was a lot of uncertainty in the balance of forces within Afghan society. Our picture of the real social and economic situation in the country was also insufficiently clear. We do not want to say it, but we should: at that time, we did not even have a correct assessment of the unique geographical features of that hard-to-enter country. This was reflected in the operations of our troops against small, highly mobile units, where very little could be accomplished with the help of modern military technology.
In addition, we completely disregarded the most important national and historical factors, above all the fact that the appearance of armed foreigners in Afghanistan has always been met with arms in the hands of the population. This is how it was in the past, and this is how it happened when our troops entered Afghanistan, even though they came there with honest and noble goals.
Babrak Karmal became head of the Afghan government at the time. His first steps in that capacity gave us grounds to hope that he would be able to solve the problems facing his country. Nothing new emerged, however, in his policies that could have changed for the better the attitude of a significant portion of the Afghan population toward the new regime. Moreover, the intensity of the internal Afghan conflict continued to grow, and our military presence was associated with forceful imposition of customs alien to the national characteristics and feelings of the Afghan people. Our approach did not take into account the country’s multiple forms of economic life and other characteristics, such as tribal and religious customs.
One has to admit that we essentially put our bets on the military solution, on suppressing the counterrevolution with force. We did not even make full use of the existing opportunities to neutralize the hostile attitudes of the local population toward us. Often our people, acting out of their best intentions, tried to transplant the approach to which we are accustomed onto Afghan soil, and encouraged the Afghans to copy our ways. All this did not help our cause; it bred feelings of dependency on the part of the Afghan leaders in regard to the Soviet Union, both in the sphere of military operations and in the economic sphere.
Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan continued, and our troops were getting engaged in extensive combat actions. Finding any way out became more and more difficult as time passed. Combat action is combat action. Our losses in dead and wounded—and the Central Committee believes it has no right to hide this—were growing heavier and heavier. Altogether, by the beginning of this month, we had lost 13,310 dead in Afghanistan; 35,478 Soviet officers and soldiers were wounded, many of whom became disabled; 301 people are missing in action. There is a reason people say that each person is a unique world, and when a person dies that world disappears forever. The loss of every individual is very hard and irreparable. It is hard and sacred if one died carrying out one’s duty.
The Afghan losses, naturally, were much heavier than ours, including the losses among the civilian population.
One should not disregard the economic factor either. If the enemy in Afghanistan received weapons and ammunition worth hundreds of millions and later even billions of dollars, the Soviet-Afghan side also had to shoulder adequate expenditures. The war in Afghanistan has cost us 5 billion rubles a year.
This document is reprinted from Harper’s Magazine, June 2009
From a May 10, 1988, letter from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to all Party members. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan began on May 15 and was completed February 15, 1989. The letter is among documents related to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan published in February by the National Security Archive. Translated from the Russian by Svetlana Savranskaya.
The decision to invade was made when there was a lot of uncertainty in the balance of forces within Afghan society. Our picture of the real social and economic situation in the country was also insufficiently clear. We do not want to say it, but we should: at that time, we did not even have a correct assessment of the unique geographical features of that hard-to-enter country. This was reflected in the operations of our troops against small, highly mobile units, where very little could be accomplished with the help of modern military technology.
In addition, we completely disregarded the most important national and historical factors, above all the fact that the appearance of armed foreigners in Afghanistan has always been met with arms in the hands of the population. This is how it was in the past, and this is how it happened when our troops entered Afghanistan, even though they came there with honest and noble goals.
Babrak Karmal became head of the Afghan government at the time. His first steps in that capacity gave us grounds to hope that he would be able to solve the problems facing his country. Nothing new emerged, however, in his policies that could have changed for the better the attitude of a significant portion of the Afghan population toward the new regime. Moreover, the intensity of the internal Afghan conflict continued to grow, and our military presence was associated with forceful imposition of customs alien to the national characteristics and feelings of the Afghan people. Our approach did not take into account the country’s multiple forms of economic life and other characteristics, such as tribal and religious customs.
One has to admit that we essentially put our bets on the military solution, on suppressing the counterrevolution with force. We did not even make full use of the existing opportunities to neutralize the hostile attitudes of the local population toward us. Often our people, acting out of their best intentions, tried to transplant the approach to which we are accustomed onto Afghan soil, and encouraged the Afghans to copy our ways. All this did not help our cause; it bred feelings of dependency on the part of the Afghan leaders in regard to the Soviet Union, both in the sphere of military operations and in the economic sphere.
Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan continued, and our troops were getting engaged in extensive combat actions. Finding any way out became more and more difficult as time passed. Combat action is combat action. Our losses in dead and wounded—and the Central Committee believes it has no right to hide this—were growing heavier and heavier. Altogether, by the beginning of this month, we had lost 13,310 dead in Afghanistan; 35,478 Soviet officers and soldiers were wounded, many of whom became disabled; 301 people are missing in action. There is a reason people say that each person is a unique world, and when a person dies that world disappears forever. The loss of every individual is very hard and irreparable. It is hard and sacred if one died carrying out one’s duty.
The Afghan losses, naturally, were much heavier than ours, including the losses among the civilian population.
One should not disregard the economic factor either. If the enemy in Afghanistan received weapons and ammunition worth hundreds of millions and later even billions of dollars, the Soviet-Afghan side also had to shoulder adequate expenditures. The war in Afghanistan has cost us 5 billion rubles a year.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Netanyahu's New Strategy for Israel
Netanyahu's New Strategy for Israel
By Jerome Grossman
As I write this blog, the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just left his meeting with Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, on his way to confer with King Abdullah of Jordan. On Netanyahu's schedule are additional meetings with leaders of the other authoritarian Arab leaders, all clients of the United States: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates.
Netanyahu has an important message for them, as original as President Richard Nixon's recognition of Communist China or Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The message goes something like this. The critical struggle is not between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. The critical struggle is between the current regimes aligned with the United States on one side and Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. The Iran group seeks regime change in the American clients, the overthrow of their governments and the installation of religious insurgent governments or Shi'ite leaders.
Netanyahu would continue: Israel, on the other hand, has no such ambitions. Israel, also an ally of the United States, has no interest in the thousand year battle between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Israel has no desire to change the leadership in the Sunni countries. Furthermore, in response to Arab suggestions, Israel is prepared to ease the condition of the Palestinians on a triple track:
1. Political: To renew peace negotiations with the Fatah Palestinians
2. Security: To strengthen Palestinian police with training and authority
3. Economic: To increase the number of jobs in Israel for qualified Palestinians
Please note that there is no mention of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state which the Arab dictatorships and the Obama Administration support and which Netanyahu strongly opposes.
Netanyahu's strategy is to exploit the Arab fear of Iran’s military power and its subsidization of the insurgency movement against the Arab dictatorships. Complicating the future of the region is the agreement that the U. S. move its military from Iraq by the end of 2011. If and when that happens, the two biggest military forces in the area will be Iran and Iraq, both ruled by Shi'ites. The Sunni regimes will be vulnerable and may be forced to seek a better relationship with Israel, a dominant military power and the one backed by the U.S. as far as the eye can see.
The Saudi 2002 peace plan promulgated by Saudi King Abdullah remains an intriguing possible basis for U. S. - Saudi cooperation on the Israeli - Palestinian issue. Abdullah's proposal was endorsed by the entire Arab League at its 2002 summit. Israeli President Shimon Peres and then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have referred to it favorably, and Barack Obama praised Abdullah for making the peace proposal.
Netanyahu has strongly opposed the Saudi plan. His diplomatic offensive may be designed to prevent the U.S. and the Arab states from implementing the Saudi initiative in whole or in part
By Jerome Grossman
As I write this blog, the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just left his meeting with Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, on his way to confer with King Abdullah of Jordan. On Netanyahu's schedule are additional meetings with leaders of the other authoritarian Arab leaders, all clients of the United States: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates.
Netanyahu has an important message for them, as original as President Richard Nixon's recognition of Communist China or Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The message goes something like this. The critical struggle is not between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. The critical struggle is between the current regimes aligned with the United States on one side and Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. The Iran group seeks regime change in the American clients, the overthrow of their governments and the installation of religious insurgent governments or Shi'ite leaders.
Netanyahu would continue: Israel, on the other hand, has no such ambitions. Israel, also an ally of the United States, has no interest in the thousand year battle between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Israel has no desire to change the leadership in the Sunni countries. Furthermore, in response to Arab suggestions, Israel is prepared to ease the condition of the Palestinians on a triple track:
1. Political: To renew peace negotiations with the Fatah Palestinians
2. Security: To strengthen Palestinian police with training and authority
3. Economic: To increase the number of jobs in Israel for qualified Palestinians
Please note that there is no mention of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state which the Arab dictatorships and the Obama Administration support and which Netanyahu strongly opposes.
Netanyahu's strategy is to exploit the Arab fear of Iran’s military power and its subsidization of the insurgency movement against the Arab dictatorships. Complicating the future of the region is the agreement that the U. S. move its military from Iraq by the end of 2011. If and when that happens, the two biggest military forces in the area will be Iran and Iraq, both ruled by Shi'ites. The Sunni regimes will be vulnerable and may be forced to seek a better relationship with Israel, a dominant military power and the one backed by the U.S. as far as the eye can see.
The Saudi 2002 peace plan promulgated by Saudi King Abdullah remains an intriguing possible basis for U. S. - Saudi cooperation on the Israeli - Palestinian issue. Abdullah's proposal was endorsed by the entire Arab League at its 2002 summit. Israeli President Shimon Peres and then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have referred to it favorably, and Barack Obama praised Abdullah for making the peace proposal.
Netanyahu has strongly opposed the Saudi plan. His diplomatic offensive may be designed to prevent the U.S. and the Arab states from implementing the Saudi initiative in whole or in part
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Is Jon Stewart Just for Laughs?
Is Jon Stewart Just for Laughs?
By Jerome Grossman
Peter Orszag is President Obama's Director the Office of Management and Budget. Only 40 years old, he is the youngest member of the Obama Cabinet assigned the responsibility of developing and promoting the president's budget. In the rescue of the U.S. financial system, Orszag, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, are the most influential in determining policy. Of the three, Orszag may have the most liberal sensitivity.
Orszag recently appeared on "The Daily Show", the television program that offers the public Jon Stewart's version of raucous commentary, invoking laughter by skewering public figures and public policy, albeit in a non-confrontational style.In the warm-up Green Room before the program, Stewart, feigning innocence and ignorance of detail, asked Orszag, according to the New Yorker magazine: "This has nothing to do with the budget - it's this thing that I can't get out of my head. With all that bailout stuff, why are they bailing out the banks? Why not the borrowers? These mortgages went bad, and then they were securitized and blah, blah, blah. So why not fix the mortgages, not the securities?" When Stewart asked Orszag why the government didn't just bailout borrowers who have defaulted, Orszag replied, "The problem is, if you just focused on the people who defaulted you create this huge incentive to default.” Stewart looked at Orszag in astonishment, pointing out that the government is creating an equally huge incentive to default by bailing out the financial firms.
Behind all the complexities was a very simple fact. Monthly mortgage payments by millions of homeowners were what provided the money for the banks and financial institutions that bought mortgages from the banks and the Wall Street firms that created sophisticated securities based on these mortgages. Bailing out those who took out the mortgages would save millions of families from being foreclosed, would save entire neighborhoods, would eliminate the need for the bank bailout money, would revive the credit of the banks, would save the big bonuses paid to bankers, etc..
Why wasn’t this approach seriously considered? Politically and morally one would expect the Democratic Party officeholders to help the masses ahead of Wall Street. Are bailouts the special province of big business, highly paid executives, major donors to politicians and political parties? Is Jon Stewart right or is he just for laughs?
By Jerome Grossman
Peter Orszag is President Obama's Director the Office of Management and Budget. Only 40 years old, he is the youngest member of the Obama Cabinet assigned the responsibility of developing and promoting the president's budget. In the rescue of the U.S. financial system, Orszag, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, are the most influential in determining policy. Of the three, Orszag may have the most liberal sensitivity.
Orszag recently appeared on "The Daily Show", the television program that offers the public Jon Stewart's version of raucous commentary, invoking laughter by skewering public figures and public policy, albeit in a non-confrontational style.In the warm-up Green Room before the program, Stewart, feigning innocence and ignorance of detail, asked Orszag, according to the New Yorker magazine: "This has nothing to do with the budget - it's this thing that I can't get out of my head. With all that bailout stuff, why are they bailing out the banks? Why not the borrowers? These mortgages went bad, and then they were securitized and blah, blah, blah. So why not fix the mortgages, not the securities?" When Stewart asked Orszag why the government didn't just bailout borrowers who have defaulted, Orszag replied, "The problem is, if you just focused on the people who defaulted you create this huge incentive to default.” Stewart looked at Orszag in astonishment, pointing out that the government is creating an equally huge incentive to default by bailing out the financial firms.
Behind all the complexities was a very simple fact. Monthly mortgage payments by millions of homeowners were what provided the money for the banks and financial institutions that bought mortgages from the banks and the Wall Street firms that created sophisticated securities based on these mortgages. Bailing out those who took out the mortgages would save millions of families from being foreclosed, would save entire neighborhoods, would eliminate the need for the bank bailout money, would revive the credit of the banks, would save the big bonuses paid to bankers, etc..
Why wasn’t this approach seriously considered? Politically and morally one would expect the Democratic Party officeholders to help the masses ahead of Wall Street. Are bailouts the special province of big business, highly paid executives, major donors to politicians and political parties? Is Jon Stewart right or is he just for laughs?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
So What If Texas Secedes?
So What If Texas Secedes?
By Jerome Grossman
Most politicians, analysts, and media are giving President Barack Obama good grades for his first one hundred days in office. With the general public Obama seems more popular than ever as measured by his standing in the opinion polls. And, in spite of the deepening recession, more than 50% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.
A notable exception is Governor Rick Perry of Texas who objects to Obama's policies so deeply that he has suggested that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own. Perry insists on the right of Texas to secede from the Union, violating the core principle of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So far Perry has not fired on Fort Sumter or any U.S. military installation in Texas but we should be prepared. His primary objection to federal policy is the stimulus package designed to energize the economy but it appears that he will still take the money for his state. At the same time, Perry is trying to persuade other Republican governors to talk of secession as a political tactic to rally the depressed conservative base.
So what if Texas actually secedes? We would still visit there, of course, and would be friendly, not as friendly as with Canada, but somewhat warmer than with Cuba and Venezuela. Would independent Texas give up NASA and the next voyage to the moon? In what league would the Dallas Cowboys play? Would they still be “America's team?” Governor Perry points out that Texas has the right to split into five separate states, each with its own president, enough for every member of the Bush family. And the two Bush ex-presidents of U.S.A. could cap their careers by running for president of an independent Texas. Then each could build second presidential libraries, at least one of them featuring mementos of torture.
Texas as an independent country would give the U.S. several tempting options. We could build a fence on the border to discourage immigration from Texas. We could invade Texas for oil or to change the regime there. And George W. Bush would be the last Texan to be president of the United States.
By Jerome Grossman
Most politicians, analysts, and media are giving President Barack Obama good grades for his first one hundred days in office. With the general public Obama seems more popular than ever as measured by his standing in the opinion polls. And, in spite of the deepening recession, more than 50% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.
A notable exception is Governor Rick Perry of Texas who objects to Obama's policies so deeply that he has suggested that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own. Perry insists on the right of Texas to secede from the Union, violating the core principle of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So far Perry has not fired on Fort Sumter or any U.S. military installation in Texas but we should be prepared. His primary objection to federal policy is the stimulus package designed to energize the economy but it appears that he will still take the money for his state. At the same time, Perry is trying to persuade other Republican governors to talk of secession as a political tactic to rally the depressed conservative base.
So what if Texas actually secedes? We would still visit there, of course, and would be friendly, not as friendly as with Canada, but somewhat warmer than with Cuba and Venezuela. Would independent Texas give up NASA and the next voyage to the moon? In what league would the Dallas Cowboys play? Would they still be “America's team?” Governor Perry points out that Texas has the right to split into five separate states, each with its own president, enough for every member of the Bush family. And the two Bush ex-presidents of U.S.A. could cap their careers by running for president of an independent Texas. Then each could build second presidential libraries, at least one of them featuring mementos of torture.
Texas as an independent country would give the U.S. several tempting options. We could build a fence on the border to discourage immigration from Texas. We could invade Texas for oil or to change the regime there. And George W. Bush would be the last Texan to be president of the United States.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
How to Force Confession by Torture
How to Force Confession by Torture
By Jerome Grossman
After a closed-door trial, American journalist Roxana Saberi was found guilty in an Iranian court on charges of espionage. An Iranian-American, Saberi had been living in Iran and working as a reporter although the Iranian government claimed it had withdrawn her press credentials. She was sentenced to eight years in prison.
The harsh sentence handed down to this native of North Dakota has generated a global outcry. President Obama and other national leaders as well as a plethora of media outlets have called for the release of this lovely young woman, once a finalist in the Miss American contest.
The Iranian government has not released any evidence against Saberi. Clearly, she has become a pawn in Iran's relations with the United States. In the political maneuvering, Iran may wish to accuse the U. S. and Israel of planning an attack. A confession of a plot by this lovely American would fit the strategy of Iran. And it might even be true, but still no excuse for torture. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is absolute in its prohibition of torture: “No exceptional circumstances whatever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
How to force the confession? Simply follow the tortures used by the C.I.A. as described by the experts on the International Committee of the Red Cross from their 43 page report on the treatment of fourteen "high-value" detainees in C.I.A. custody, published February 2007 on www.nybooks.com for more gory detail.
• Suffocation by water
• Prolonged stress in standing position
• Beatings by use of a collar
• Prolonged beating, kicking, slapping
• Confinement in a box severely restricting movement
• Prolonged nudity
• Sleep deprivation
• Exposure to cold temperature
• Prolonged Shackling
• Threats of ill-treatment to family
• Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food
Questions: If Roxana Saberi confesses, will the world believe it was not forced? Do the confessions forced by the C.I.A. on the grounds of national security set a precedent and valid excuse for using the same methods on Saberi and perhaps other Americans? How reliable and credible would Saberi’s tortured answers be? Enough for the Iranians to be sure of the confessed information? And how would the use of torture diminish the reputation of the government of Iran as it has diminished the U.S. government?
By Jerome Grossman
After a closed-door trial, American journalist Roxana Saberi was found guilty in an Iranian court on charges of espionage. An Iranian-American, Saberi had been living in Iran and working as a reporter although the Iranian government claimed it had withdrawn her press credentials. She was sentenced to eight years in prison.
The harsh sentence handed down to this native of North Dakota has generated a global outcry. President Obama and other national leaders as well as a plethora of media outlets have called for the release of this lovely young woman, once a finalist in the Miss American contest.
The Iranian government has not released any evidence against Saberi. Clearly, she has become a pawn in Iran's relations with the United States. In the political maneuvering, Iran may wish to accuse the U. S. and Israel of planning an attack. A confession of a plot by this lovely American would fit the strategy of Iran. And it might even be true, but still no excuse for torture. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is absolute in its prohibition of torture: “No exceptional circumstances whatever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
How to force the confession? Simply follow the tortures used by the C.I.A. as described by the experts on the International Committee of the Red Cross from their 43 page report on the treatment of fourteen "high-value" detainees in C.I.A. custody, published February 2007 on www.nybooks.com for more gory detail.
• Suffocation by water
• Prolonged stress in standing position
• Beatings by use of a collar
• Prolonged beating, kicking, slapping
• Confinement in a box severely restricting movement
• Prolonged nudity
• Sleep deprivation
• Exposure to cold temperature
• Prolonged Shackling
• Threats of ill-treatment to family
• Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food
Questions: If Roxana Saberi confesses, will the world believe it was not forced? Do the confessions forced by the C.I.A. on the grounds of national security set a precedent and valid excuse for using the same methods on Saberi and perhaps other Americans? How reliable and credible would Saberi’s tortured answers be? Enough for the Iranians to be sure of the confessed information? And how would the use of torture diminish the reputation of the government of Iran as it has diminished the U.S. government?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Will the Obama Stimulus Work?
Will the Obama Stimulus Work?
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama won the battle over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (also known as the economic stimulus bill) passed by Congress in February. Obama’s supporters consider the passage of this legislation a great victory. That evaluation may be premature. The stimulus must actually work to get our economy out of the doldrums. Then Obama can be congratulated for his political and economic smarts. Of course, it is too early to appraise the result.
The economic stimulus bill will cost the grand total of $787 billion designed to make up for the 6% decline of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. However, $787 billion represents only 2% of GDP, but the administration expects that gap to be filled by the “multiplier” effect as the 2% is used and reused in the economy. Some economists think $787 billion is too small because 40% goes to tax cuts which have only a small multiplier effect and the expenditures on roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure etc. may take years to organize.
Then there are those who believe that no stimulus is necessary, that the economy is a self- stabilizing system, that in a downturn, even if nothing is done, normal employment and production will someday return, propelled by the fact that 70% of our economic activity is spent on domestic affairs, mostly food, clothing, shelter, transportation, the military and related services.
The difference between conservatives and liberals lies mostly in whether the stimulus policy can speed up the recovery significantly and whether the enormous expenditures will lead to inflation. Conservatives worry more about the deficit and taxes to pay for the stimulus as well as the inevitable waste in the rush to recovery.
The liberals believe that every month of recession inflicts pain and suffering on millions of people, a condition that must be avoided if possible. They worry less about the deficit and taxes on the grounds that the faster the economy recovers, the smaller the deficit and the higher the tax revenues. Liberals also point to the immediate relief offered by the stimulus’s extension of unemployment insurance benefits, more money for food stamps, etc.
Obama has won the first round. He has his stimulus package. Is it big enough to carry out liberal theory? Will it work in the multiplier effect? Will the economy suffer an additional collapse that will overcome this first rescue attempt? We are in unexplored territory. The lessons and stimulus of the Great Depression of the 1930s may no longer apply. Obama needs to win the second round within a reasonable time to justify his policy. The kind of recovery achieved will be decisive.
Will the Obama recovery be in the shape of V, an immediate bounce off the low point to normality, or U, a delayed recovery, or the dreaded L, an extended recession/depression with no end in sight?
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama won the battle over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (also known as the economic stimulus bill) passed by Congress in February. Obama’s supporters consider the passage of this legislation a great victory. That evaluation may be premature. The stimulus must actually work to get our economy out of the doldrums. Then Obama can be congratulated for his political and economic smarts. Of course, it is too early to appraise the result.
The economic stimulus bill will cost the grand total of $787 billion designed to make up for the 6% decline of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. However, $787 billion represents only 2% of GDP, but the administration expects that gap to be filled by the “multiplier” effect as the 2% is used and reused in the economy. Some economists think $787 billion is too small because 40% goes to tax cuts which have only a small multiplier effect and the expenditures on roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure etc. may take years to organize.
Then there are those who believe that no stimulus is necessary, that the economy is a self- stabilizing system, that in a downturn, even if nothing is done, normal employment and production will someday return, propelled by the fact that 70% of our economic activity is spent on domestic affairs, mostly food, clothing, shelter, transportation, the military and related services.
The difference between conservatives and liberals lies mostly in whether the stimulus policy can speed up the recovery significantly and whether the enormous expenditures will lead to inflation. Conservatives worry more about the deficit and taxes to pay for the stimulus as well as the inevitable waste in the rush to recovery.
The liberals believe that every month of recession inflicts pain and suffering on millions of people, a condition that must be avoided if possible. They worry less about the deficit and taxes on the grounds that the faster the economy recovers, the smaller the deficit and the higher the tax revenues. Liberals also point to the immediate relief offered by the stimulus’s extension of unemployment insurance benefits, more money for food stamps, etc.
Obama has won the first round. He has his stimulus package. Is it big enough to carry out liberal theory? Will it work in the multiplier effect? Will the economy suffer an additional collapse that will overcome this first rescue attempt? We are in unexplored territory. The lessons and stimulus of the Great Depression of the 1930s may no longer apply. Obama needs to win the second round within a reasonable time to justify his policy. The kind of recovery achieved will be decisive.
Will the Obama recovery be in the shape of V, an immediate bounce off the low point to normality, or U, a delayed recovery, or the dreaded L, an extended recession/depression with no end in sight?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Obama's New Approach to Iran
Obama's New Approach to Iran
By Jerome Grossman
The Obama administration will take part directly in international negotiations with Iran aimed at ending Teheran's nuclear program. It is the latest move in a shift in U. S. policy toward Iran, a very positive step toward direct engagement with Iran that President Obama promised during his campaign for president, a step that merits strong approval.
This expression of conciliation contrasts sharply with U.S. policy since 1979 and especially with the belligerence of the Bush administration, a belligerence that has not inhibited Iran but has alienated U.S. allies in Europe. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "There is nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon". However, Iran has been suspected of developing the nuclear bomb for at least 20 years and has insisted that its centrifuges are enriching uranium only for peaceful use. As Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said at the United Nations in 2007: "The world does not need to prove to Iran that Iran is building an atomic bomb. Iran must persuade the world that it does not want the bomb." Yet, Mohammed El-Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors Iran's facilities, does not accuse Iran of bomb making capability.
The situation is complicated by widespread disapproval of Iranian human rights violations, its combination of religion and politics, as well as the insults directed at Israel, Jews and the West. The Iranians justify their conduct by reminding the world that the United States and its allies supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, 1980-1988, that cost Iran a million lives. On April 3, the London Times printed an article headlined, "Only Obama can save Iran from Israeli bombs", citing the hawkish Netanyahu government in Israel. When Netanyahu travels to Washington next month, Iran is expected to dominate the conversations. Israel will not attack Iran without tacit approval from America - we hope. But time is running out. This could become Obama's biggest challenge as he assumes the mantle of keeper of the peace
President Obama deserves credit for putting the U.S. on the diplomatic track with Iran. He may have been influenced by the financial crisis in the U.S... As David Wessel put it in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, "For 15 years, the American people have been told they could have it all: costly wars, expansion of Medicare to cover drugs, health insurance for those without, more money for schools-and tax cuts for most of them. They deserve to be told that they can't have it all in the future."
Apparently, Obama has ruled out another costly war and will concentrate on the desperately needed domestic programs. Two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two too many. Obama will avoid the third war, gaining his objectives by diplomacy and soft power.
By Jerome Grossman
The Obama administration will take part directly in international negotiations with Iran aimed at ending Teheran's nuclear program. It is the latest move in a shift in U. S. policy toward Iran, a very positive step toward direct engagement with Iran that President Obama promised during his campaign for president, a step that merits strong approval.
This expression of conciliation contrasts sharply with U.S. policy since 1979 and especially with the belligerence of the Bush administration, a belligerence that has not inhibited Iran but has alienated U.S. allies in Europe. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "There is nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon". However, Iran has been suspected of developing the nuclear bomb for at least 20 years and has insisted that its centrifuges are enriching uranium only for peaceful use. As Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said at the United Nations in 2007: "The world does not need to prove to Iran that Iran is building an atomic bomb. Iran must persuade the world that it does not want the bomb." Yet, Mohammed El-Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors Iran's facilities, does not accuse Iran of bomb making capability.
The situation is complicated by widespread disapproval of Iranian human rights violations, its combination of religion and politics, as well as the insults directed at Israel, Jews and the West. The Iranians justify their conduct by reminding the world that the United States and its allies supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, 1980-1988, that cost Iran a million lives. On April 3, the London Times printed an article headlined, "Only Obama can save Iran from Israeli bombs", citing the hawkish Netanyahu government in Israel. When Netanyahu travels to Washington next month, Iran is expected to dominate the conversations. Israel will not attack Iran without tacit approval from America - we hope. But time is running out. This could become Obama's biggest challenge as he assumes the mantle of keeper of the peace
President Obama deserves credit for putting the U.S. on the diplomatic track with Iran. He may have been influenced by the financial crisis in the U.S... As David Wessel put it in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, "For 15 years, the American people have been told they could have it all: costly wars, expansion of Medicare to cover drugs, health insurance for those without, more money for schools-and tax cuts for most of them. They deserve to be told that they can't have it all in the future."
Apparently, Obama has ruled out another costly war and will concentrate on the desperately needed domestic programs. Two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two too many. Obama will avoid the third war, gaining his objectives by diplomacy and soft power.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Barack Obama's War
Barack Obama's War
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama seems to be serious about a major effort to conquer Afghanistan even if it requires military operations in Pakistan without the permission of that ally. Must every U.S. president pursue a war to mark his time in office? Is it the required role of a superpower to fight all over the world? Iraq War number two was George W. Bush's war. Iraq number one belonged to his father. Bill Clinton's war was in Bosnia and Serbia. Lyndon Johnson's presidency will be marked forever by Vietnam. Was America in danger in any one of these wars?
Obama tells us that his war will be a long-term effort lasting at least five years, to root Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden out of Afghanistan although both are now hiding in the wilderness of Pakistan. 38,000 US troops are now in Afghanistan. 17,000 more are on the way, 4000 additional will arrive to train Afghan troops, and General David Petraeus has requested 10,000 more for next year. Some military experts think that 250,000 soldiers plus an equal number of civilian contractors will be necessary to pacify Afghanistan, a country 50% larger than Iraq, with forbidding mountainous terrain where guerillas hide.
U. S. forces are regularly attacking the Taliban and other insurgent Pakistanis with unmanned drone airplanes and secret Special Forces on the ground. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 1 that the air raids have stoked anger among ordinary Pakistanis many of whom are ambivalent about the U.S. fight against Islamic militants but see the strikes as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
The Pakistan Taliban chief goes much further, threatening an attack on the U.S. homeland in retaliation. “Soon we will launch an attack on Washington that will amaze everyone in the world." The CIA takes such threats seriously, the “blowback" effect carried out by a weak enemy incapable of matching strength on the battlefield but impelled to retaliate against the hated invader, the defiling infidel.
The U. S. military and diplomats are finding it difficult to obtain the necessary cooperation of the Pakistani government and military against the Taliban. Despite heavy subsidies from the U.S. government, Pakistan’s Islamic leaders worry more about India, their historic Hindu enemies against whom they have fought three wars since 1948. Right now the two nations are actually fighting another undeclared war in Kashmir. Crushing the Taliban would weaken Pakistani forces in the event of another Indian war, dividing the people of Pakistan even more than they are now.
With Al Qaeda dispersed and Bin Laden in hiding, it is difficult to see the American purpose in invading this land of poverty and banditry, a land that has not been subdued by previous superpowers. Does Obama believe that he cannot afford not to conquer Afghanistan, that the political fallout in America from a military withdrawal might endanger his presidency? I hope not. Afghanistan is unimportant, certainly not worth the lives and the money, not even from an imperial viewpoint. The U. S. is already the only superpower, no economic or military power can compete. The only danger is over extension, the unnecessary expenditure of people and resources, a characteristic of a wasteful empire.
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama seems to be serious about a major effort to conquer Afghanistan even if it requires military operations in Pakistan without the permission of that ally. Must every U.S. president pursue a war to mark his time in office? Is it the required role of a superpower to fight all over the world? Iraq War number two was George W. Bush's war. Iraq number one belonged to his father. Bill Clinton's war was in Bosnia and Serbia. Lyndon Johnson's presidency will be marked forever by Vietnam. Was America in danger in any one of these wars?
Obama tells us that his war will be a long-term effort lasting at least five years, to root Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden out of Afghanistan although both are now hiding in the wilderness of Pakistan. 38,000 US troops are now in Afghanistan. 17,000 more are on the way, 4000 additional will arrive to train Afghan troops, and General David Petraeus has requested 10,000 more for next year. Some military experts think that 250,000 soldiers plus an equal number of civilian contractors will be necessary to pacify Afghanistan, a country 50% larger than Iraq, with forbidding mountainous terrain where guerillas hide.
U. S. forces are regularly attacking the Taliban and other insurgent Pakistanis with unmanned drone airplanes and secret Special Forces on the ground. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 1 that the air raids have stoked anger among ordinary Pakistanis many of whom are ambivalent about the U.S. fight against Islamic militants but see the strikes as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
The Pakistan Taliban chief goes much further, threatening an attack on the U.S. homeland in retaliation. “Soon we will launch an attack on Washington that will amaze everyone in the world." The CIA takes such threats seriously, the “blowback" effect carried out by a weak enemy incapable of matching strength on the battlefield but impelled to retaliate against the hated invader, the defiling infidel.
The U. S. military and diplomats are finding it difficult to obtain the necessary cooperation of the Pakistani government and military against the Taliban. Despite heavy subsidies from the U.S. government, Pakistan’s Islamic leaders worry more about India, their historic Hindu enemies against whom they have fought three wars since 1948. Right now the two nations are actually fighting another undeclared war in Kashmir. Crushing the Taliban would weaken Pakistani forces in the event of another Indian war, dividing the people of Pakistan even more than they are now.
With Al Qaeda dispersed and Bin Laden in hiding, it is difficult to see the American purpose in invading this land of poverty and banditry, a land that has not been subdued by previous superpowers. Does Obama believe that he cannot afford not to conquer Afghanistan, that the political fallout in America from a military withdrawal might endanger his presidency? I hope not. Afghanistan is unimportant, certainly not worth the lives and the money, not even from an imperial viewpoint. The U. S. is already the only superpower, no economic or military power can compete. The only danger is over extension, the unnecessary expenditure of people and resources, a characteristic of a wasteful empire.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan
Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman
It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama’s “New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.
First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: “The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan….. In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it…. President Carter's purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention……….. to tie…….down the USSR.” Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?
Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc..
The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.
The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says “That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.
By Jerome Grossman
It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama’s “New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.
First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: “The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan….. In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it…. President Carter's purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention……….. to tie…….down the USSR.” Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?
Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc..
The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.
The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says “That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
