President Thomas Jefferson's likeness has a place of honor on Mount Rushmore for his great contributions to the development of the United States and for writing the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, especially the sentence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Upon a motion by Richard Henry Lee, the Continental Congress had appointed a committee to write a resolution of independence. Committee members were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. The actual writing was entrusted to Jefferson; the revisions were made by Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, then by the entire Congress.
The document is based on the Theory of Natural Rights, developed by avant-garde philosophers John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Their rational and secular view of the world was based on general belief in human progress and the ultimate perfectibility of man acting rationally in harmony with the universe. The supreme importance of the individual in the rational organization of society was a major element in The Enlightenment, sometimes called The Age of Reason that transformed Western thought.
These ideas had already been used by the rebellious colonists. The Continental Congress declared in 1774, that “the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America are entitled to Life, Liberty and Property.” Note the word property as a basic right: the colonists were indeed worried about the danger that the British Crown might seize their property by eminent domain or confiscatory taxation.
Nevertheless, “property” was eliminated and “The pursuit of Happiness” substituted. Property was a specific and measurable asset. Happiness is a general term subject to individual interpretation, various levels of self-consciousness, unachieved desires, and limitless aspirations, more personal than the goals of society.
“Pursuit of Happiness” is not defined in the Declaration nor in the influential commentaries of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that explained and analyzed the U.S. Constitution as well as the Declaration to the American public. While 18th century thinkers, such as Adam Smith regularly used “moral statements” about the conditions of social classes in economic policies, happiness was not a category, but the Charles Dickens accounts of English poverty did affect policy. It is difficult to think of young Oliver Twist in pursuit of happiness.
Declaring “Property” a basic right put the union of the thirteen colonies in doubt. For the Northern colonies it meant ships and shops and farms, even if some of the ships transported slaves. But for the southern colonies, the prime assets were their slaves, millions of them, the very heart of their assets and wealth of the social organization that made their economic system intensely profitable and put the white plantation owners in absolute control.
We must remember that slavery was the norm during most of human history. The perennial institution of slavery was undermined in the 18th and 19th centuries by the moral attitudes fostered by the “Enlightenment” and by Adam Smith's argument that free labor made better products at lower cost than slave labor.
The “Pursuit of Happiness” was intended to solve the political problem of keeping the thirteen colonies united, to encourage Enlightenment tendencies while avoiding the national decision about slavery in the United States - another in the series of compromises that would continue until the Emancipation Proclamation.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Averting Nuclear Annihilation
President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn longtime Chair of Senate Armed Services Committee.
These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms.
1. No first use of nuclear weapons
2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals
3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes
4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes
5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials
6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium
7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures
8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating
Additional points about nuclear weapons
a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal
b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories
c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.
d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president
e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.
During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.
Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms.
1. No first use of nuclear weapons
2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals
3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes
4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes
5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials
6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium
7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures
8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating
Additional points about nuclear weapons
a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal
b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories
c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.
d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president
e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.
During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.
Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Over There, Over There
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama is sending 30,000 more American combat soldiers to Afghanistan to join the 68,000 now there. This formidable force is serviced by an equal number of support troops providing the fighters with the necessary food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical services, chaplains, intelligence, etc. These support troops are also at risk but were not listed in the president's speech so the public does not know the actual size of the risk and the commitment.
Not to worry about the number of fighting troops; 30,000 is merely a down payment. General Stanley McCrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan will surely be asking for more troops to meet Obama’s deadline for victory, July 2011, the date that Obama says he will begin to withdraw U.S. troops.
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has a different view. At a news conference with the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Karzai said, “For another 15 to 20 years, Afghanistan will not be able to sustain an adequate defensive force and will need to rely on the United States and other NATO countries for decades to come.”
And who is going to rule Afghanistan when the Taliban insurgents are crushed by US GI’s? The US puppet Karzai and his notoriously corrupt regime? Karzai’s brother, the big-time drug dealer and CIA agent? How many decades of US occupation before Afghanistan becomes a US protectorate?
The notion that the US homeland can be protected by occupying Afghanistan is flawed. None of the 19 criminals who perpetrated September 11 were Afghans. The plot was hatched in Germany and the weapons used were box cutters (to enter the pilot cabin) and credit cards (to pay for flight instruction at American airfields). Let me repeat, the 19 criminals were trained in America and were known by the FBI and CIA to be bad guys. The next attack on the US could originate anywhere, but our improved protection system will be our prime defense. And it has worked since September 11.
President Obama doesn't know how to end the war in Afghanistan so he is trying to pacify his main critics: the troop surge is for the military lobby and the civilian hawks who always find a reason to get into every fight, sometimes to spread US influence, sometimes to support US allies, sometimes to exercise US hegemony, sometimes just to show who is the boss.
The 19 month so-called exit strategy is also a political statement intended to pacify the Democrats who thought they were electing a peace candidate. But Obama says that war can be the road to peace, contrary to the views of his idols, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Obama has gained the support of John McCain and Karl Rove as well as a host of Republicans for his Afghanistan policy while losing many of those who regarded him as a modern-day prophet.
George M. Cohan, singer, dancer, playwright and American jingoist, understood this American tendency toward expansion made stronger by our enormous military power just as it affected previous super-powers. In 1917, he wrote the theme song for World War I, “Over There”, which might well apply to the US military effort in Afghanistan
Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere
So prepare,
Say a Prayer
Send the word,
Send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's over over there!
President Obama is sending 30,000 more American combat soldiers to Afghanistan to join the 68,000 now there. This formidable force is serviced by an equal number of support troops providing the fighters with the necessary food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical services, chaplains, intelligence, etc. These support troops are also at risk but were not listed in the president's speech so the public does not know the actual size of the risk and the commitment.
Not to worry about the number of fighting troops; 30,000 is merely a down payment. General Stanley McCrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan will surely be asking for more troops to meet Obama’s deadline for victory, July 2011, the date that Obama says he will begin to withdraw U.S. troops.
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has a different view. At a news conference with the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Karzai said, “For another 15 to 20 years, Afghanistan will not be able to sustain an adequate defensive force and will need to rely on the United States and other NATO countries for decades to come.”
And who is going to rule Afghanistan when the Taliban insurgents are crushed by US GI’s? The US puppet Karzai and his notoriously corrupt regime? Karzai’s brother, the big-time drug dealer and CIA agent? How many decades of US occupation before Afghanistan becomes a US protectorate?
The notion that the US homeland can be protected by occupying Afghanistan is flawed. None of the 19 criminals who perpetrated September 11 were Afghans. The plot was hatched in Germany and the weapons used were box cutters (to enter the pilot cabin) and credit cards (to pay for flight instruction at American airfields). Let me repeat, the 19 criminals were trained in America and were known by the FBI and CIA to be bad guys. The next attack on the US could originate anywhere, but our improved protection system will be our prime defense. And it has worked since September 11.
President Obama doesn't know how to end the war in Afghanistan so he is trying to pacify his main critics: the troop surge is for the military lobby and the civilian hawks who always find a reason to get into every fight, sometimes to spread US influence, sometimes to support US allies, sometimes to exercise US hegemony, sometimes just to show who is the boss.
The 19 month so-called exit strategy is also a political statement intended to pacify the Democrats who thought they were electing a peace candidate. But Obama says that war can be the road to peace, contrary to the views of his idols, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Obama has gained the support of John McCain and Karl Rove as well as a host of Republicans for his Afghanistan policy while losing many of those who regarded him as a modern-day prophet.
George M. Cohan, singer, dancer, playwright and American jingoist, understood this American tendency toward expansion made stronger by our enormous military power just as it affected previous super-powers. In 1917, he wrote the theme song for World War I, “Over There”, which might well apply to the US military effort in Afghanistan
Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere
So prepare,
Say a Prayer
Send the word,
Send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's over over there!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Razzle Dazzle on Afghanistan
When President Obama told the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he indicated that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices. Obama’s primary goal is the destruction of the Taliban insurgency against the corrupt Karzai government.
The president should have addressed the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid KarzaiHamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali KarzaiAhmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu JintaoHu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal? Does it have any connection with the continuing purchase of U.S. government bonds by China in spite of the decline in the value of the dollar?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely? Was Obama’s promise to leave Afghanistan merely a traditional Chicago-style Razzle Dazzle Act put together by his closest political advisers, Chicagoans David Axlerod and Rahm EmanuelEmanuel to deflect criticism with hocus pocus?
The president should have addressed the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid KarzaiHamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali KarzaiAhmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu JintaoHu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal? Does it have any connection with the continuing purchase of U.S. government bonds by China in spite of the decline in the value of the dollar?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely? Was Obama’s promise to leave Afghanistan merely a traditional Chicago-style Razzle Dazzle Act put together by his closest political advisers, Chicagoans David Axlerod and Rahm EmanuelEmanuel to deflect criticism with hocus pocus?
Monday, November 30, 2009
One Third of the Nation
One Third of the Nation
By Jerome Grossman
On January 20, 1937, in his Second Inaugural Address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
Roosevelt, the wealthy aristocrat, was defending the economic and social policies he had introduced in 1933 in relief of the dire condition of the American worker. His New Deal established the federal government's responsibility for protecting farmers, workers, and the unemployed while actively regulating the economy to prevent another crash.
To avert national collapse, Roosevelt introduced legislation that he had worked for as governor of New York: minimum wage to lift purchasing power for those with bottom incomes; laws strengthening workers right to unionize thus raising incomes; unemployment insurance to avoid starvation; Social Security providing minimum income for the aged; farm policy guaranteeing a fair return to family farmers.
In retrospect, the Great Depression is a staggeringly unique event. But today's economic numbers show today’s workers in similar distress with about the same percentage of the population hurting, their situation made barely tolerable only by the Roosevelt reforms and initiatives.
Today the official unemployment rate is 10.2%. However, the unofficial rate accepted by most economists is 17.5%, the difference composed of workers employed part time in their regular jobs, those employed below their level of experience and training, discouraged workers unemployed for such a long period that they are no longer looking for work, and those formerly employed by businesses that have collapsed or moved abroad, etc..
Based on the 17.5% unemployment rate, figuring only one worker to a family, the number of unemployed are about 27 million workers. Assuming that each unemployed worker is the breadwinner for a family of four, the number of people “ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished”, is approximately 100 million, about the same percentage of our current population of 300 million as the “One Third of the Nation” described by Roosevelt.
Roosevelt and the social workers around him who helped make policy, Frances Perkins, Harry Hopkins, Harold A. Ickes, farmer Henry Wallace, focused on relief for “The Forgotten Man.”. They saved the banks from bankruptcy while installing serious regulations but spent most of their energies and assets on the workers. Today President Obama says his $787 billion stimulus is working but where are all the jobs? Since taking office, his administration, in contrast to the Roosevelt administration, has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing private-sector employment or by creating new government paid jobs. There are programs in some states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies. Unemployed workers could be paid for going back to school to further their education and to learn new skills. The list of creative activities to support and improve the workforce is endless and requires only the will and orientation of the president’s advisers who seem to be more worried about Wall Street and banks “Too Big to Fail.”
Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the president’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers are not oriented in the same direction as Roosevelt’s Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and Relief Administrator Harry Hopkins, and that's a pity.
By Jerome Grossman
On January 20, 1937, in his Second Inaugural Address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
Roosevelt, the wealthy aristocrat, was defending the economic and social policies he had introduced in 1933 in relief of the dire condition of the American worker. His New Deal established the federal government's responsibility for protecting farmers, workers, and the unemployed while actively regulating the economy to prevent another crash.
To avert national collapse, Roosevelt introduced legislation that he had worked for as governor of New York: minimum wage to lift purchasing power for those with bottom incomes; laws strengthening workers right to unionize thus raising incomes; unemployment insurance to avoid starvation; Social Security providing minimum income for the aged; farm policy guaranteeing a fair return to family farmers.
In retrospect, the Great Depression is a staggeringly unique event. But today's economic numbers show today’s workers in similar distress with about the same percentage of the population hurting, their situation made barely tolerable only by the Roosevelt reforms and initiatives.
Today the official unemployment rate is 10.2%. However, the unofficial rate accepted by most economists is 17.5%, the difference composed of workers employed part time in their regular jobs, those employed below their level of experience and training, discouraged workers unemployed for such a long period that they are no longer looking for work, and those formerly employed by businesses that have collapsed or moved abroad, etc..
Based on the 17.5% unemployment rate, figuring only one worker to a family, the number of unemployed are about 27 million workers. Assuming that each unemployed worker is the breadwinner for a family of four, the number of people “ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished”, is approximately 100 million, about the same percentage of our current population of 300 million as the “One Third of the Nation” described by Roosevelt.
Roosevelt and the social workers around him who helped make policy, Frances Perkins, Harry Hopkins, Harold A. Ickes, farmer Henry Wallace, focused on relief for “The Forgotten Man.”. They saved the banks from bankruptcy while installing serious regulations but spent most of their energies and assets on the workers. Today President Obama says his $787 billion stimulus is working but where are all the jobs? Since taking office, his administration, in contrast to the Roosevelt administration, has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing private-sector employment or by creating new government paid jobs. There are programs in some states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies. Unemployed workers could be paid for going back to school to further their education and to learn new skills. The list of creative activities to support and improve the workforce is endless and requires only the will and orientation of the president’s advisers who seem to be more worried about Wall Street and banks “Too Big to Fail.”
Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the president’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers are not oriented in the same direction as Roosevelt’s Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and Relief Administrator Harry Hopkins, and that's a pity.
Friday, November 20, 2009
New Questions on Afghanistan
New Questions on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman
When President Obama tells the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he will surely indicate that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices.
The president should address the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?
By Jerome Grossman
When President Obama tells the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he will surely indicate that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices.
The president should address the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Is the Afghanistan War Part of Obama's Stimulus Program?
Is the Afghanistan War Part of Obama's Stimulus Program?
By Jerome Grossman
For eight long months President Obama has been wrestling with the request of his commanding general in Afghanistan for at least 40,000 more American troops to reinforce the 68,000 already there alongside the 50,000 NATO soldiers. Virtually the entire foreign-policy establishment has been tied up in a series of eight long meetings on Afghanistan; papers have been researched, written, and discussed in excruciating detail.
As the nation awaits the president's decision, it seems clear that the enormous investment of time and study presages much more than a decision on the number of troops. The president must offer a game-changing strategy: either the application of irresistible force for victory within a reasonable time or a prompt exit strategy. The irresistible force might be assembled quickly by transferring U.S. forces now in Iraq to Afghanistan. The exit might be blamed on the corruption, ineffectiveness and drug dealing of the hopeless Karzai government.
Why has it taken Obama so long to decide? We should keep in mind that the Afghan war is not his prime problem. His administration will succeed or fail primarily on the economic situation in the nation, the level of jobs and business activity. Is there a relationship between the economy and Afghanistan? Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a clue on November 12 as he commented on the president's many meetings on Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was talking to reporters on his plane en route to a Wisconsin factory that is churning out thousands of armored trucks for use by American troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was in Wisconsin to visit the Oshkosh Corp. which is making 6000 trucks to help protect troops from improvised explosive devices (IED), which account for the vast majority of American and NATO casualties in Afghanistan. “Obviously, if the president makes the decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan", Mr. Gates said, "We would look at this in terms of whether we needed to buy more".
Is the war in Afghanistan indirectly part of the Obama stimulus plan to increase economic activity and employment? An exit from Afghanistan and the planned withdrawal from Iraq would mean wholesale cancellations of military contracts, expenditures that the Congress supports and welcomes. Such cutbacks would exacerbate the difficult business and employment situation. Will this be a factor in the Obama's decision? As a student of American history, he knows that FDR finally overcame the Great Depression with an armament program beginning in 1938-39 that stimulated the economy and put millions of workers back on the payroll. Will that be a factor in Obama’s decision about continuing the wars in Southern Asia?
By Jerome Grossman
For eight long months President Obama has been wrestling with the request of his commanding general in Afghanistan for at least 40,000 more American troops to reinforce the 68,000 already there alongside the 50,000 NATO soldiers. Virtually the entire foreign-policy establishment has been tied up in a series of eight long meetings on Afghanistan; papers have been researched, written, and discussed in excruciating detail.
As the nation awaits the president's decision, it seems clear that the enormous investment of time and study presages much more than a decision on the number of troops. The president must offer a game-changing strategy: either the application of irresistible force for victory within a reasonable time or a prompt exit strategy. The irresistible force might be assembled quickly by transferring U.S. forces now in Iraq to Afghanistan. The exit might be blamed on the corruption, ineffectiveness and drug dealing of the hopeless Karzai government.
Why has it taken Obama so long to decide? We should keep in mind that the Afghan war is not his prime problem. His administration will succeed or fail primarily on the economic situation in the nation, the level of jobs and business activity. Is there a relationship between the economy and Afghanistan? Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a clue on November 12 as he commented on the president's many meetings on Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was talking to reporters on his plane en route to a Wisconsin factory that is churning out thousands of armored trucks for use by American troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was in Wisconsin to visit the Oshkosh Corp. which is making 6000 trucks to help protect troops from improvised explosive devices (IED), which account for the vast majority of American and NATO casualties in Afghanistan. “Obviously, if the president makes the decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan", Mr. Gates said, "We would look at this in terms of whether we needed to buy more".
Is the war in Afghanistan indirectly part of the Obama stimulus plan to increase economic activity and employment? An exit from Afghanistan and the planned withdrawal from Iraq would mean wholesale cancellations of military contracts, expenditures that the Congress supports and welcomes. Such cutbacks would exacerbate the difficult business and employment situation. Will this be a factor in the Obama's decision? As a student of American history, he knows that FDR finally overcame the Great Depression with an armament program beginning in 1938-39 that stimulated the economy and put millions of workers back on the payroll. Will that be a factor in Obama’s decision about continuing the wars in Southern Asia?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Losing the Moral High Ground
Losing the Moral High Ground
By Jerome Grossman
Last week Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spent three days in Pakistan defending U.S. Policy before a variety of groups. Some of the audiences were blunt and combative, reflecting the dramatic decline in popularity of U. S. policy. The Pakistani criticisms include U.S. interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, U.S. failure to allow Pakistani textiles into American markets in desired quotas, and the growing U.S. relationship with India particularly on nuclear matters.
But the issue that drew the most attention and anger is the U.S. use of unmanned drone airplanes to kill people in Pakistan, a program guided offshore by civilians from as far away as western United States. Some Pakistanis told Clinton that the program amounted to “execution without trial”. Others asked Clinton if she viewed these drone attacks as terrorism. “No, I do not”, she replied, but refused to comment further.
This CIA program is aimed at terrorism suspects around the world including countries where U.S. troops are not based. The program was initiated in the Bush administration, continued by Obama, and is now one of the fastest-growing programs of the U.S. military. After September 11, Bush signed a secret memorandum of notification giving the CIA the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and confederates virtually anywhere in the world.
Targeted killing has become official U.S. policy although the U.S. has a law forbidding assassination. The CIA furnishes the intelligence and selection of victims. It depends on the quality of the intelligence and whether cash bounties to informers and personal revenge influence the execution decisions. Errors in targeting have led to civilian deaths of innocents especially members of families of the targeted.
The CIA keeps broadening categories of the condemned, from Al Qaeda to Taliban to insurgents. Opponents of the program say that it is more effective `to arrest suspects than to kill-in order to obtain intelligence from them. Dead men tell no tales.
The CIA has farmed out the killing to commercial contractors who hire and train civilians to make the life and death decisions under pressure, a system that makes many uneasy. Other critics point out that the drone is not a decisive weapon but its use is likely to inspire hatred of America and even create more enemies seeking revenge. And as Clinton found out in Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, the drone program could cause America to lose the moral high ground, from time immemorial an important asset in rallying the nation, attracting allies, and deterring rivals.
By Jerome Grossman
Last week Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spent three days in Pakistan defending U.S. Policy before a variety of groups. Some of the audiences were blunt and combative, reflecting the dramatic decline in popularity of U. S. policy. The Pakistani criticisms include U.S. interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, U.S. failure to allow Pakistani textiles into American markets in desired quotas, and the growing U.S. relationship with India particularly on nuclear matters.
But the issue that drew the most attention and anger is the U.S. use of unmanned drone airplanes to kill people in Pakistan, a program guided offshore by civilians from as far away as western United States. Some Pakistanis told Clinton that the program amounted to “execution without trial”. Others asked Clinton if she viewed these drone attacks as terrorism. “No, I do not”, she replied, but refused to comment further.
This CIA program is aimed at terrorism suspects around the world including countries where U.S. troops are not based. The program was initiated in the Bush administration, continued by Obama, and is now one of the fastest-growing programs of the U.S. military. After September 11, Bush signed a secret memorandum of notification giving the CIA the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and confederates virtually anywhere in the world.
Targeted killing has become official U.S. policy although the U.S. has a law forbidding assassination. The CIA furnishes the intelligence and selection of victims. It depends on the quality of the intelligence and whether cash bounties to informers and personal revenge influence the execution decisions. Errors in targeting have led to civilian deaths of innocents especially members of families of the targeted.
The CIA keeps broadening categories of the condemned, from Al Qaeda to Taliban to insurgents. Opponents of the program say that it is more effective `to arrest suspects than to kill-in order to obtain intelligence from them. Dead men tell no tales.
The CIA has farmed out the killing to commercial contractors who hire and train civilians to make the life and death decisions under pressure, a system that makes many uneasy. Other critics point out that the drone is not a decisive weapon but its use is likely to inspire hatred of America and even create more enemies seeking revenge. And as Clinton found out in Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, the drone program could cause America to lose the moral high ground, from time immemorial an important asset in rallying the nation, attracting allies, and deterring rivals.
Friday, October 23, 2009
No Health Reform Until 2013
No Health Reform Until 2013
By Jerome Grossman
Most Americans are expecting big changes in our health-care system-and they want them fast. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll reported that 49% of the people responding expected people without insurance would get help in buying coverage this year or next. Twenty-five percent said three years, and 11% said “further in the future”.
Most of them will be disappointed. Even if Congress passes a bill this year, most changes are not scheduled to go into effect until at least 2013 or much later, according to the New York Times.
The lawmakers say change will take a long time, the process is complex, and delaying some changes will make the overhaul seemed less expensive and less upsetting. Remember: five-sixths of Americans now have health-care and some may not be eager to support the subsidies for the other one-sixth. In any case, the long and agonizing debate and the deferred 2013 target date certainly don’t indicate an emergency. But it is an emergency for millions of Americans.
The more likely reason for the delay is political. In the 2010 election, incumbent senators and representatives can run on their health care legislation, even though it will not be operational and therefore temporarily cost free. None of the inevitable errors and inconsistencies of the reforms will annoy the voters..
The delay in implementation will also please President Obama. When he runs for re-election in 2012 his historic achievement will still be cost free and complaint free. He will point out that he has accomplished what no other president could including Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. Mount Rushmore will be on the horizon to match the Nobel Peace Prize.
Health-care reform in the U.S., whether it turns out to be inadequate and marginal revisions or fundamental change overthrowing the insurance companies (a miracle) will have to wait at least two elections before implementation. In the meantime, many Americans will suffer from the acknowledged inadequacies of our unique system of care.
By Jerome Grossman
Most Americans are expecting big changes in our health-care system-and they want them fast. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll reported that 49% of the people responding expected people without insurance would get help in buying coverage this year or next. Twenty-five percent said three years, and 11% said “further in the future”.
Most of them will be disappointed. Even if Congress passes a bill this year, most changes are not scheduled to go into effect until at least 2013 or much later, according to the New York Times.
The lawmakers say change will take a long time, the process is complex, and delaying some changes will make the overhaul seemed less expensive and less upsetting. Remember: five-sixths of Americans now have health-care and some may not be eager to support the subsidies for the other one-sixth. In any case, the long and agonizing debate and the deferred 2013 target date certainly don’t indicate an emergency. But it is an emergency for millions of Americans.
The more likely reason for the delay is political. In the 2010 election, incumbent senators and representatives can run on their health care legislation, even though it will not be operational and therefore temporarily cost free. None of the inevitable errors and inconsistencies of the reforms will annoy the voters..
The delay in implementation will also please President Obama. When he runs for re-election in 2012 his historic achievement will still be cost free and complaint free. He will point out that he has accomplished what no other president could including Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. Mount Rushmore will be on the horizon to match the Nobel Peace Prize.
Health-care reform in the U.S., whether it turns out to be inadequate and marginal revisions or fundamental change overthrowing the insurance companies (a miracle) will have to wait at least two elections before implementation. In the meantime, many Americans will suffer from the acknowledged inadequacies of our unique system of care.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obama Needs to Deliver Change
Obama Needs to Deliver Change
By Jerome Grossman
Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.
Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.
Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn't changed the “don't ask, don't tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country.
The New Statesman, an authoritative British publication lists the problems that Obama has not solved. The whole world is watching.
1. He continued the Bush policy on narrow definition of “state secrets”, keeping information from the public unnecessarily.
2. He has retreated on a government-run health insurance plan.
3. He has failed to persuade Congress to take a substantive action on the emissions that affect climate change.
4. He has continued the Bush trillion dollar bank bailouts.
5. He failed to control bonuses for the executives of banks.
6. He made permanent the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
7. He has been unable to close the prison at Guantánamo; force-feeding operations have continued.
8. He has refused to release photographs of Bush administration “advanced interrogation” techniques and backed immunity for Bush officials involved in torture.
9. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan and extended operations into Pakistan.
10. He has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass provisions of pills enacted into law.
11. Obama has failed to deliver to organized labor the changes in law promised for a generation.
Obama’s own supporters worry that he is not living up to his specific campaign promises and that when he tries to do so he does not seem to know how to use his power. Obama is a very popular leader of a party that won a landslide election in 2008. He has a team of centrist advisors headed by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an experienced team that knows the political ropes and the pressures necessary to get things done in Washington. While they understand political hardball, they seem to be unwilling to use it to energize the serious change that Obama inspired in his sensational campaign. The alternative strategy would involve the development of a mass grass roots movement to promote very specific goals for peace and economic justice.
By Jerome Grossman
Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.
Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.
Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn't changed the “don't ask, don't tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country.
The New Statesman, an authoritative British publication lists the problems that Obama has not solved. The whole world is watching.
1. He continued the Bush policy on narrow definition of “state secrets”, keeping information from the public unnecessarily.
2. He has retreated on a government-run health insurance plan.
3. He has failed to persuade Congress to take a substantive action on the emissions that affect climate change.
4. He has continued the Bush trillion dollar bank bailouts.
5. He failed to control bonuses for the executives of banks.
6. He made permanent the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
7. He has been unable to close the prison at Guantánamo; force-feeding operations have continued.
8. He has refused to release photographs of Bush administration “advanced interrogation” techniques and backed immunity for Bush officials involved in torture.
9. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan and extended operations into Pakistan.
10. He has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass provisions of pills enacted into law.
11. Obama has failed to deliver to organized labor the changes in law promised for a generation.
Obama’s own supporters worry that he is not living up to his specific campaign promises and that when he tries to do so he does not seem to know how to use his power. Obama is a very popular leader of a party that won a landslide election in 2008. He has a team of centrist advisors headed by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an experienced team that knows the political ropes and the pressures necessary to get things done in Washington. While they understand political hardball, they seem to be unwilling to use it to energize the serious change that Obama inspired in his sensational campaign. The alternative strategy would involve the development of a mass grass roots movement to promote very specific goals for peace and economic justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
