The Case Against a Strike on Iran

By: Chris Tubbs – ctubbs8 at gmail.com

As the end of the year approaches President Obama must make a decision concerning what to do with Iran and its nuclear enrichment program. The President has thus far kept Israel from taking any unilateral action against Iran by promising them that he would make a decision on what the U.S. will do by the end of the year. He has just made his first big foreign policy decision, to escalate in Afghanistan, and now he has another big decision to make – whether or not to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or pursue diplomacy indefinitely.

I would here like to make the case for the latter option, indefinite diplomacy. This is just an artful way of saying that we should do nothing. The single biggest problem with American foreign policy in the modern era has been the lack of recognition on the part of the foreign policy establishment, and especially among the American people, that oftentimes the most intelligent thing to do is nothing. If there is a foreign problem, no matter how serious it is, the American impulse is to root it out, destroy it. There seems to be little appreciation that the attempt at destroying the problem can create all sorts of smaller problems that, taken together, are worse than the original problem was. It is the better part of wisdom to realize that sometimes the wisest course is simply to manage the negative effects of a foreign problem as best you can.

Iran’s nuclear program is exactly this type of foreign problem. Israel, our irksome ally, wants us to “do something.” The American people always want us to “do something.” In this particular case the only thing there is to “do” is bomb Iran. So let’s do a quick cost-benefit analysis. What are the costs to us of bombing Iran? First, Iran controls a powerful Shiite militia in Lebanon that could completely destabilize that country. Hezbollah has been playing nice since the war with Israel. You can bet that should we bomb Iran, Hezbollah will sow chaos in Lebanon, a country with a promising multicultural future, not to mention an area where a decent amount of U.S. prestige has been invested. Iran also has considerable influence over the Sunni Islamist group Hamas in the West Bank through its ally Syria. Hamas will not take orders from Iran but if the U.S is getting beat up all over the Middle East by their proxies you can bet Hamas will jump on the bandwagon. Iran has the power to completely ruin us in Iraq, a war that we thought was winding down. It has the power to keep us from having any chance of stabilizing Afghanistan.

Add up all the negatives I have outlined above and you are forced to come to the conclusion that bombing Iran would have huge negative consequences. The interesting thing here though is that you come to that conclusion before I have even laid out what is arguably the biggest problem, long term, if we bomb. Currently, two-thirds of the Iranian population is aged 30 or younger. A young and restless population is widely considered to be a harbinger of internal “regime change” or “revolution” and we are seeing that dynamic in Iran now, embodied by the reform movement. Left to its own devices and given time the reform movement may be able to peacefully kick out the mullahs and generals in charge now. However, if we bomb Iran we lose the possibility of regime change for at least another generation. Iranians are a very nationalistic people, much like Americans, and bombing their country will create a rally-round-the-flag effect and tarnish the reformists as unpatriotic agitators. So to sum everything up so far, the negative consequences of bombing Iran could hardly be greater.

The next step in our cost-benefit analysis is deciding what the benefits of bombing would be. Bombing Iran’s nuclear structure would ensure that Iran would not become a nuclear weapons state for at least a few extra years. Thats it. In exchange for all the negative consequences outlined above we get a nuclear free Iran for a few more years, and after those few years we get to do the to-bomb-or-not-to-bomb dance all over again. I am incredibly underwhelmed. If a little shock-and-awe could stop a nasty regime like Iran’s from ever actually getting The Bomb it would be worth it even with all the negative consequences, but thats not what happens here. We would only delay them from getting it.

This whole situation reminds me of the Serenity Prayer used in AA meetings: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. America must wake up and realize that it simply does not have the power to have its way all of the time. This country trying to have its way, without the means or power to get it, is a recipe for disaster.

Obama on Job Creation

President Obama spoke live today, on the economy.  He restated his resentment of bailed-out-banks, car companies and the previous administration for causing the financial crisis. Can’t blame him for the last one, it sickens me listening to Dick Cheney’s musings on the state of the nation and I’m not even being personally insulted by the old crank.

Political shots notwithstanding, the focus of the president’s speech was to outline his plan to create jobs. The goal: help small businesses expand and hire new staff. The method: complete elimination of capital gains taxes for small business and work with Congress to help businesses add and keep employees. Sounds like Feingold’s job tax credit might be just what Obama is looking for.

How is the GOP going to attack this? Change their position on taxation? I’m watching Fox News now, trying to find out.

The president also spoke of bettering the countries education system, with the goal of leading the world in college graduates by 2020. As a college graduate distributing industrial supplies at the lowest level, I’m not so enthusiastic about that one. But selfishness aside…

President Obama spoke to remind the voting public he hasn’t forgotten about them. He took jabs at bailed-out-big-business while encouraging small business.  Job growth is generally the last step in economic recovery so since the economy began showing signs of improvement Republican’s favorite economic talking point is still-high unemployment. Republicans golden goose is big business. If Obama’s plan succeeds, creating jobs and economic recovery, the GOP won’t be able to claim an ounce of credit. Hopefully in time for the midterms, right?

Health Care Reform & Abortion, New Hate Crime Law & Gay Rights

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak has been making news with his proposal to block federal subsidies from going to any private insurance plans covering abortion. A law in place since 1976 prevents federal money from funding abortion. The health care reform bill currently under review does not contain the explicit prohibitions Stupak is looking for.

It seems to me subsidizing a plan covering abortion would be acceptable under current law, as federal money would not be directly funding abortion. A woman covered under a subsidized private insurance plan could, if she chose, terminate her pregnancy. The federal money pays for insurance, not the procedure itself.

Another point, how involved should the government be in dictating what a private insurer can and cannot cover? I’m not saying the government should stay out of what private insurers cover. If subsidies are paid to insurance companies, they should provide good policies. Since I do not trust the companies to do so, the government may have to step in to ensure the companies do. However, I am much more concerned about insurers not covering a procedure or condition than about covering one.

Stupak is a Democrat, but his conservative abortion views remind me of one of Rush Limbaugh’s arguments against the auto bailout — the government is going to tell the auto companies what kind of cars to build, when the auto companies know best. How different is it when the government tells insurance companies what not to cover. This discussion could ramble for pages, so I’ll leave it at that.

In other news the College Democrats of Wisconsin, with all their wisdom, praised President Obama’s signing of a hate crime bill covering gays and lesbians calling it “the first step toward equal civil rights for the LGBT community.” I’ve said it before, but this only serves to continue the perception that gay people are different, thats why we can’t let them get married.

I’ve heard (and said) that the motivation for a crime shouldn’t matter when determining the punishment. Then I realized our judicial system determines the degree of a murder charge based on intent (essentially motivation). I still think the hate crime law is a step backward for gay rights, but now I need to sharpen my argument. Thoughts?

Dear Obama, Your Gay Rights Record is Getting Worse

I know Mr. President, you have a lot on your plate with this health care reform thing. I also know your administration doesn’t want to hear from another blogger on this topic, but its important. You told the Human Rights Commission on Saturday you were working with Congress and the Pentagon to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but you didn’t say when. Mr. President, you are the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Issue an Executive Order allowing gays to openly serve, then work with Congress to pass a law mandating that policy.

What you shouldn’t do Mr. President? Don’t sign the bill passed by the House expanding the definition of hate crimes to include crimes committed based on the victim’s sexual orientation. That legislation only serves to further the notion that gay people are different and should be governed by different laws than straight citizens (like the one about marriage).

Like I said President Obama, I know you’re busy with health-care and Afghanistan and all, but ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” might prove a welcome distraction. The media focus will be off health care reform for a while. The right-wing lies will slow to a crawl. Use the distraction wisely though, as it won’t last long. Allowing gays in the military won’t be a big deal. When the initial shock wears off, everyone will be talking about health care and Afghanistan again.

Another upside? You can tell the pundits that say you haven’t accomplished anything to shove it.

Stumbling Through Afghanistan

The LA Times is reporting President Obama’s Afghanistrategy looks to be, contrary to the principle of change he campaigned on, the status quo;

Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday that he does not plan to dramatically reduce the American troop level or switch to a strictly counter-terrorism mission.

I appreciate Obama keeping options open, and looking at the issue from all sides;

“The president reiterated that we need this debate to be honest and dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,” one senior administration official said after the meeting ended.

At least the war is getting an open-minded examination, more than the previous administration would have ever given.

Taliban officials claimed Monday they are only a threat to the West when Western nations are occupying Afghanistan. I don’t completely buy this, but the statement is useful when examining the Obama administration allowing the question “Does a return of the Taliban necessarily mean a return of Al-Qaeda?” I don’t want to sound like Hardball or The Ed Show, but the Bush administration would not have considered that line of questioning.

An increase in American troops is not what Afghanistan needs. It will lead to more casualties among our soldiers, without any increase in stability. I’m afraid more soldiers only means more targets for the enemy. We do not want that.

When Democrats Piss Me Off

Almost a month ago Sen. Russ Feingold issued a press release containing a letter to President Obama, regarding Feingold’s apprehension over the so-called “czars” in the President’s administration. I thought the letter smacked of Glenn Beck then promptly forgot about it. Until this morning when MSNBC ran a segment on Feingold and Sen. Diane Feinstein, apparently joining forces in quest to hassle the President over his advisors.

I understand the Senators concerns, part of their function in the legislative branch is to provide a check on the executive. However at this moment, lack of party unity could prove to be the undoing of health-care reform. Petty issues like this are best left to the Glenn Beck’s of the world, we have more important things to do. Come back to the “czar” issue in a year, you’ll realize its irrelevant.

President Obama is making another token gesture to the gay-rights crowd, speaking before the Human Rights Campaign this weekend. He will charm them into complacency for another few months, while he fails to make any progress (or take any action) in the realm of gay rights.

The President could overturn “Don’t ask, don’t tell” with an executive order today, making a few Republicans scramble, and temporarily forget to propagate lies about health-care reform, a win-win! At least the Justice Department is half-assing its defense of DOMA.

Finally, the public discussion of military strategy is making the President look weak. Personally, I like the information and opinions being out in the public domain, but its not doing any good for the adminstration. Leaks and top officials like McChrystal and Gates publicly speaking their opinion when it may be at odds with the decision the President makes in a week is all fodder for the right-wing talk show hosts who latch onto anything to attck the Obama administration. A team of rivals is good, all options should be explored. Just not like this.

Michelle Malkin Cannot Speak of Obama Without Insults or Lies

Michelle Malkin, in a recent column at conservative pile of garbage CNSNews.com trashed President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to advocate for Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. She begins making generalizations that the Olympics are a losing proposition for taxpayers of the host city. The 1984 Los Angeles games and the 1996 Atlanta games turned profits of $250 million and$10 million, respectively. The 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City generated $56 million in profits. Montreal lost A LOT of money hosting the 1976 Summer games but I’m sure Ms. Malkin would be the first to remind us that the U.S. is not Canada. All the modern Olympics held in the United States have made money, first point refuted.

Malkin goes on to worry about the fate of poor people who could be displaced by Olympic construction, quoting:

Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community group that seeks to help tenants stay in the same neighborhoods

Ginsberg-Jaeckle sounds like a community organizer. During the presidential campaign of 2008 Malkin slammed Barack Obama’s career as a community organizer based on an affiliation with ACORN. When Obama graduated from college he spent three years organizing for the Developing Communities Project, funded by Catholic churches, not ACORN. Obama did work for ACORN for a while, but not nearly as long as he spent with the DCP. Malkin neglects this fact, presumably because it is inconvenient to her argument.

The rest of the article points out supposed conflicts of interest which may be relevant if all parties involved stood to profit from a Chicago Olympics in 2016. A few may, although I don’t see how Valerie Jarrett, a former member of Chicago’s Olympic bid committee will benefit by meeting with the committee in her new role within the Obama administration.

Malkin is grasping at any reason to impugn the president. It is inevitable that a man as powerful as Obama has connections that stand to profit from an Olympic games in his adopted home city, as inevitable it is a sitting president would advocate for the games to take place in that city. The final lines of Malkin’s critique of President Obama’s Olympic adventure;

It takes a crony-filled White House to raise a Chicago Olympic village. Daley and Obama will get the glory. America will get stuck with the bill.

Except that Olympics in America make money. How inconvenient Michelle.

Republican Party of Wisconsin has the Blinders on Again

The Republican Party of Wisconsin issued another less-than-factual press release. This one claims Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker (R) has kept taxes flat in his budget while Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) has increased taxes in his city (For non-Wisconsinites, both are likely candidates for governor).  As illustrated by Eye on Wisconsin it is clear that Walker has not held the line on taxes as RPW claims. Eye on Wisconsin does an excellent job exposing this so I do not feel the need to explain the authors work here. My point is that the Republican Party of Wisconsin is all to often just plain WRONG in their press releases.

Last week Sen. Feingold’s campaign sent out a fundraising email [screenshot here] stating “Russ has been outspent in every Senate race he’s ever run.” The RPW instantly shot back with a press release titled “Feingold’s Fundraising Fabrication.” Some of the falsehoods included by the RPW;

In 2004, Feingold spent over $9 million in his re-election effort, outspending his opponent by nearly $4 million. Nevertheless, Feingold issued an urgent plea this week for more money in an email filled with negative attacks and a misrepresentation of his campaign spending.

Feingold’s email clearly stated he was outspent by “oppenents” not a single “opponent.” Some of this money was primary spending by Republicans, but that money, in typical Republican fashion was used to attack Feingold and his record. Feingold response located here.

“Russ Feingold’s assertion that he’s been outspent by his opponents is laughable,” said Mark Jefferson, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. “Here’s a guy who spent nearly $3 million more in his last re-election effort than Herb Kohl.”

Feingold has never ran against Herb Kohl, and you are well aware of that Mr. Jefferson. This is a non-issue.

The RPW is also lying about health care reform. From a 9/23 press release;

We are contacting working families and seniors in the area to inform them of DEMOCRATS’ plans to dismantle Medicare…Tell DEMOCRATS to stop the crusade to eliminate Medicare benefits for future generations.

This is absolute crap, Republicans preying on the fears of the elderly in a political crusade against health care reform which will benefit all Americans. No one wants to take Medicare away, its a wonderful government-run health care program. Yet the RPW has no problem exploiting the fears of the elderly, scaring them into thinking health care reform will come at the cost of Medicare benefits.

Conservative group Citizens for Responsible Government pull these stunts as well, but as we all know; kids learn from their parents.

The Future of Afghanistan: Controlled by the Taliban?

By Chris Tubbs, Veteran US Army – Contact: ctubbs8 at gmail.com

Lt. General Stanley McChrystal is demanding 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan (and leaking this request to the press) or the war there will be lost. Vice President Joe Biden is arguing within the administration (and without through press leaks) that the mission to build democracy in Afghanistan is a failure and should be changed to a more simple counter-terrorism mission. Conservative commentator George Will is making a slightly more extreme version of VP Biden’s argument. Finally we are having a REAL discussion on America’s future in Afghanistan.

During the campaign there was only a caricature of a real discussion. Republicans wanted to stay in the war because Republicans always want to stay in a war, any war, at any cost, no matter what. Democrats wanted to stay in Afghanistan because it was “the right war,” the one America was perfectly correct in starting, as opposed to “the wrong war” in Iraq. Unfortunately, this argument is no better than the Republican argument – the fact that we were within our rights to start this war has nothing to do with whether it is wise to continue said war after eight miserable years.

Despite the pressure being put on him by Lt. Gen. McChrystal and the Republicans, President Obama is taking his time to do a complete and very thorough review of the situation in Afghanistan, what the mission there should be, and how we get out. The danger here is that President Obama will do little more than “stay the course” because he is afraid of what will happen if he doesn’t. Harry Truman’s presidency was severely damaged by his supposedly “losing” China to the communists. Lyndon Johnson kept escalating the war in Vietnam largely because he did not want the same thing to happen to his presidency. The American people often have a hard time facing up to facts about the world that they do not like. Let there be no mistake here, if we switch to a counter-terrorism mission rather than the (so-far failed) nation-building mission we are pursuing now the Taliban will retake Afghanistan. President Obama has made no secret of the fact that his main concerns will be focused in the area of domestic reform. This is as it should be but if he changes the mission in Afghanistan and the Taliban retake the country his domestic reforms may be in quite a bit of trouble.

Despite this problem the President must change the mission in Afghanistan to counter-terrorism. First, the US simply does not have the troops available to get the job done. Lt. Gen. McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops but where are these troops going to come from? The vast majority of the troops in Iraq will still be needed there for some time to come. Additionally, in order to achieve Iraq-like results in Afghanistan we will need even more troops there than we used in Iraq because Afghanistan is a far more rural country. The Taliban have a perfect sanctuary in Pakistan and we have no real reason to believe that we can completely defeat them.

The American people have the mindset we are invincible so if we lose at something it must be because someone screwed up. We “lost” China because the State Department was riddled with commies. We lost in Vietnam because Democrats stabbed the country in the back just as we were on the verge of winning. It only follows that we lost in Afghanistan because Obama is a socialist weakling. This argument will weaken the President politically but so will a long drawn-out stalemate while public support for the war diminishes.

Despite the seeming indestructibility of the Taliban it might still be worth one last shot if it weren’t for Hamid Karzai. In his blatant election-rigging he has betrayed both America and the Afghan people. Apparently, he has forgotten that the only thing that stands between him and the Taliban is the US Army. If anyone on “our side” deserves a beheading it is him. The credibility of the government is the single biggest key to any successful counter-insurgency operation. President Obama knows this and it is why he is conducting the second Afghanistan review in the nine months since he took office.

Time and again the American people and their leaders have shown a great unwillingness to face up to unpleasant facts. Karzai has thrown away the already small chance there was of stabilizing Afghanistan. American forces must shift focus to a more humble mission of taking out Al-Qaeda leaders and training camps. Yes, this will mean the Taliban take Afghanistan back. We can only hope that President Obama has the guts, as his predecessors from other wars have not, to tell the American people the truth. Then maybe the American people will finally accept that America is not invincible.

Gay Marriage in Washington D.C.

David Catania of the Washington D.C. Council will soon be introducing the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” which would legalize gay marriage in Washington DC. The bill has ten co-sponsors (from a 13 member council) and seems guaranteed to pass.

This is bigger than any states legalization of gay marriage as the District is administered by Congress, so all laws passed by the Council are at the mercy of congressional review. If Congress decides not to step in and overturn the law that inaction denotes the biggest step toward gay marriage the legislative branch of the federal government has ever undertaken.

The federal government employs 27% of workers in D.C. but under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act they do not recognize same sex marriages. If the D.C. Council passes this law Congress and President Obama may be forced to reconsider DOMA as a matter of policy. The president has already stated his opposition to DOMA, but he does not support same sex marriage either. This could force him to make that push for gay rights we all expected after his campaign.

Of course the law faces challenges. The bills author, from a Washington Post article;

“I think it is very important for people to realize we are talking about a civil marriage, not a religious marriage,” Catania said.

Is it still necessary to convince people of this? Unfortunately the answer must be yes. Until people realize that legalizing same sex marriage does not mean the pope will have to marry Rosie and Ellen the fight for marriage equality will be harder than it needs to be. Conservatives from all over the country will get involved, conveniently forgetting their mantras of limited government and states (or districts) rights.

I don’t see a repeal of DOMA in the near future. Congress is way too busy with health care reform to bring up another divisive issue. Maybe all the D.C. law will accomplish is gay marriage in D.C., but for all the gay couples there that just want the same rights as everyone else, thats still a very good thing.