Victory for Democracy

This past Election Day, Americans sent a clear message to their representatives and senators: we will exercise our support of democratic principles by voting for the other guy rather than the incumbent. After all, the best way to ensure a stable, functioning government is to vote for someone whose positions are unknown to you. I mean, all that has been done by the previously Democratic senate and house has been health care reform, children’s health care, credit reforms, veteran’s relief, a tax cut for 90% of Americans, opened up avenues for stem cell research, appropriated an unprecedented amount of money for non-military scientific research, halted the CIA torture program, gave tax cuts to small businesses, student loan reforms, and they were attempting to end the Bush-era tax cuts, which gave tax cuts to the upper echelons of wage-earners. But, who really cares about that anyway?
The newest representatives, many of whom are conservative Republicans, want to cut the deficit and cut government spending. Great! Finally, a relief from the burgeoning debt and all those social services that poor people use, like social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, police departments, fire departments, libraries, and prisons. And who needs research on stem cells anyway?
I assume that in two years when the next election cycle comes around, each and every eligible voter will look at the accomplishments of the now-Republican house and their individual representatives and make a vote, not based on actual action, but rather on personal chagrin. Who needs to make an informed vote when we can just vote for the other guy?

That’s all for now,
Das Flüg

Why I Would Never Want to Be President

A lot of kids, especially young ones, have dreams of one day presiding over the highest office in the United States: the Presidency. I bet that if one were to go into a third grade class and take a straw poll of desired careers, "president" would be among the top, along with "astronaut," "fireman," "doctor," and "high school dropout." This isn't surprising, as the US educational system has inflated and pampered the holy image of the presidency as something sacred and integral to the very functions of the planet. I hate to burst that veritable bubble, but the seasons will continue to change, the years will continue to pass, and the circle of life will continue regardless of whether or not there is an American presidency. There will likely continue to be the high office, however, and it is one that I do not covet in the least. Why?

1. Public exposure: When one becomes president, the private life of the person ceases to be private. All affairs (both literal and sexual) become public knowledge, one's family becomes scrutinized and the unyielding eye of an ever-vigilant infotainment press will spread vitriol in order to produce whatever profit they can. Unfortunately, once one becomes a public figure in the US, suing for the right to privacy becomes an extraordinarily difficult process (as it was already). The privacy of one's home is forfeit.

2. Dealing with wingnuts: This is self-explanatory. As can be seen today, wingnuts with oddly large followings can spread falsehoods in order to create a disturbance in what could otherwise be called civilized debate. Especially in an age of increased partisanship where the leaders of opposition parties make it their duties to simply say "no" regardless of truth, a president would be unable to sway many with reasonable, rational arguments. Winguts also create a high degree of factionalism within the US, though not in the Madisonian sense; instead, the wingnut will seek to create strife and discord simply to promote his/her own political ambitions.

3. Influences: Money plays a very large role in US elections. Without money, one cannot promote oneself with sufficient exposure so as to garner votes. This is why the influence of money from others, especially outsider contributions, weighs so heavily on every candidate; if that candidate does not uphold his/her promise to his/her contributors, it is reasonable to assume that the person with the money can just as easily turn against the candidate. If you are going to run for public office of any kind, be sure to have plenty of funds to support yourself.

4. Stress: The overall level of stress for a president is extraordinary. Looking at any president over their terms, the amount of gray hair accrued and well-focused age lines become easily apparent.


5. Blame: Presidents take blame for things in and out of their control. The economy, bureaucratic failures, even the weather; the President is viewed as the arbiter of all. The President constantly has to defend himself and his party while at the same time deflecting blame onto those who rightly deserve it. Of course, perceptions of a president's culpability will never change for some, and constant scrutinizing and derision will always entail.

I'd rather be a wingnut.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Taxes, Tea Party, and Totalitarianism

Midterms aren't over yet, but I have a week-long interlude between exams and I figured that I should be faithful to my only reader (you) and write something. I know that you've been dying to read what I have to think; sadly, so have I.

Firstly, you may or may not have heard that President Obama plans on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of this year. You have probably also heard all the brouhaha on both sides, arguing whether or not to keep them. The gist of the whole thing is that taxes will be raised for those making over 250,000$ if the tax cuts expire. If they are allowed to continue, they will cost American taxpayers approximately 7 billion dollars. The rich can continue to whine about "class warfare" or "losing their money," but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, people making more than 250,000$ a year will still have enough money to send 4 kids to college and live well while doing so. Suck it up.

Secondly, the Tea Party. If you haven't noticed, they've presented some strange candidates in the last few months, the latest being Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. In one sentence, Paladino hates gay people and Christine O'Donnell doesn't know anything about recent Supreme Court cases.

Finally, Kim Jong-il named his successor as his youngest son, further alienating his lazy, overweight middle son who enjoys rap. It almost sounds like a bad sitcom.



That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Afghan War, Part III: Return of the Jedi

Now that my midterm week is over and I have some time to relax, I thought it prudent to update my blog with the final part of my analysis of the war in Afghanistan. This part will be my opinion of a viable improvement to the current strategy.

The strategy:
2010 is becoming a bloody year for troop deaths in Afghanistan. There have been 74 American deaths (icasualties.org) in the first 3 months of combat which, if figures continue in the current trend, leads to approximately 230 American troops killed in the 2010 year (accounting for 12 months of full combat). The troop surge enacted by the president may kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban, but it certainly won't end the war.
There are several key components to winning a war against a non-state actor; one of the ingredients is the use of combat troops on the ground, but the largest fight should be for the support of the Afghani people as a whole and the creation of a stable Afghanistan. I'll dole this out in bullet form:

• Reduce the number of troops to below 100,000; for the strategy I will propose, this number is more than sufficient.
• Industrialize the nation- Afghanistan suffers from an inordinately high unemployment rate of 40% (according to CIA World Factbook). That 40% is extremely attractive to al Qaeda and the Taliban, as both can promise that those who fight will be well compensated for their actions and their families will be taken care of. A possible solution to reducing the unemployment rate would be to offer incentives to companies that can build factories and offer other types of low-training jobs in the less affluent regions of Afghanistan. Reducing the number of available soldiers for the insurgent groups is a key component to success. Also, troops should be divided into even contingents to protect the new workforce, as these new industries will be a tempting target.
• Public works- This is both a source of employment and a necessity to Afghanistan. The Taliban left the country in shambles after many years of rule, and many parts of the country lack the simple amenities that most countries in the first world take for granted. The beautification of the country not only improves standard of living, but also improves morale and raises the pride of the average citizen. If, suddenly, a building is attacked by the Taliban which had been built by 50 native Afghanis, then the public would turn against the Taliban overwhelmingly.
• Schools- Schools are of the utmost importance to success in Afghanistan and building them should be one of the top priorities for the US strategy. Building schools and hiring teachers and faculty would not only bolster employment, but would allow for a new generation of Afghanis to spurn the Taliban and al Qaeda. The current literacy rate, as reported by UNICEF, is 28%, which is well below any current standard. Teaching children at least the basics of society, mathematics, and literature would make them more informed and educated. Children are typically targets for indoctrination by militants, and educating them would be the best solution. The issue of books for these schools can be solved simply by having schools in industrialized nations across the world donate their old (but not outdated) textbooks. I know from personal experience that many schools put old textbooks in storage; they might as well be used.
• Hospitals- This might seem obvious, but Afghanistan is in dire need of hospitals and doctors. Doctors in Doctors Without Borders are always willing to insert themselves in dangerous situations and help those in need.
  
• Farms-The opium trade in Afghanistan is ghastly. It is extremely profitable, but it deters from American progress in the country. This is possibly the one of the more haphazard problems, as almost no farmers are willing to give up their opium crop. Somewhat luckily (for farmers, not for those in need), food prices are continually rising, especially in the wakes of the recent earthquakes in Chile, Haiti, Taiwan and Turkey. With some convincing, supplying of resources and lessons in horticulture, farmers in Afghanistan could instead grow food staples. This would also enliven Afghanistan's economy.
• Military action- Continue pushing al Qaeda and the Taliban towards Pakistan, and with increased Pakistani support, military operations would be more effective. The military must also be cognizant of the insurgent groups hiding among villages of civilians, lest they be reckless and culpable for the deaths of non-combatants. The insurgents are the perceived enemy by all, and that perception must stick.
• Tribes- Don't pay them to fight the war. The US might end up funding another al Qaeda by providing weapons to tribes which have no accountability under the Afghan government.
• The Afghan army- Training a new army and police force is tedious but necessary. The recruits need to be educated, or else the army will suffer from a severe case of abandonment.
  

• Pakistan- One of the larger pieces to the puzzle is Pakistan. They have recently arrested Taliban leaders, likely holding them until the United States removes its troops. Pakistan wants to utilize the Taliban, according to numerous reports, as a resource to use against India. This is why the constant influx of funding from the United States into Pakistan should come with a catch: Islamabad will only receive funding if troops are diverted from the Indian border to the Afghan border. This would serve to hopefully ease tensions between India and Pakistan, whose relationship has been less than genial. Doing this would likely convey the message that Pakistan does not plan to attack India in any way; hopefully the Indian government will accept this message and could be a first step towards a more amiable relationship between the two. Either way, both countries have nuclear weapons, so a war is somewhat unlikely (though not impossible). Diverting troops would also make military action against the Taliban and al Qaeda more efficient and effective.

These solutions act to build the country from the ground-up. The country will likely become more efficacious, more unified, and relatively free of a corrupt government. With an educated and overwhelmingly employed populace, the insurgent groups will likely become less able to recruit new soldiers. Over time, the groups will likely evaporate completely. This is a strategy that will unfold over time, since no winning formula can be achieved in the short-term. Let's just hope that someone is listening.

I am willing to hear any comments/questions/criticisms to my opinion. Ask away!

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Afghani War, Part II: The Empire Strikes Back

^Good one, eh?

Part II:
Current US strategy (a general overview)
This comes directly from the White Paper released by the White House (from whitehouse.gov):
"• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.

• Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that
serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal
security, with limited international support.

• Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.

• Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.

• Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN."

These goals seem ideal, but are untenable at the moment. I will go through these point by point:

• Terrorist networks: Al Qaeda operatives are extraordinarily elusive, and the Taliban insurgency has gained in strength and size since 2008. Currently, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, is pursuing negotiations with the Taliban for a greater protection of Afghanistan from Al Qaeda insurgents. The U.S. has not engaged in these negotiations, as these negotiations would seem to be both self-destructive and murky in their possible results. The United States government does not trust the Taliban, as they are a non-state actor and are not accountable under any laws.
• Government in Afghanistan: This is a contentious and confusing issue, as the U.S. continually berates the Karzai government with accusations of corruption (which may be well-founded; see the August 2009 elections) and negligence. The U.S. has also supported tribal militias, often paying them upwards of 1$ million for their assistance in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. This is a multi-faceted problem: each tribe has its own interest in Afghanistan and not every tribe is sympathetic towards the Karzai government. Along with that is the fact that many civilians view the tribes unfavorably, as the tribes often have very little sympathy for accident casualties of war. Arming them now may mean an unstable, war-plagued Afghanistan after the U.S. leaves.
• Afghan security forces: The U.S. wants to build-up the Afghan Army and police up to 134,000 and 82,000 in the next year, which is an extremely unrealistic number. The current number of combat-ready servicemen stands at 60,000 with turnover at only 25%. Also, this is an uphill struggle ideologically: al Qaeda and the Taliban purport to defend the highest Muslim ethics and are often more lucrative enterprises than joining the armed forces.
• Government in Pakistan: This is a troubling issue; though the United States does require Pakistan's help with Afghanistan, intervening too much in Pakistan may cast the United States with the visage of puppeteer. With current President Zardari's approval numbers sinking faster than the Titanic, any U.S. intervention that is intended to change the political sphere in Pakistan would turn whatever support there is against the United States. Pakistanis are a highly proud people, as they showed during the vehement protests against former President Musharraf. The U.S. should allow the citizens of Pakistan to change their government democratically, without any outside assistance.
• International community: Afghanistan is a terribly difficult area for any international access aside from military. With its multiple tribal militias, rampant corruption, an extremely low education level and a growing anti-occupational mindset, other international assistance is difficult to garner.

Part III will have my opinion on what strategy the U.S. should execute in Afghanistan. It might be long enough to split into two parts; if it is, don't worry. I won't name the last part "Attack of the Clones."

Das Flüg

A matter of sternness

It has been a decently long time since I last posted anything related to politics, so I suppose I'll get back on track with that and keep myself in practice. This will be about military strategy in Afghanistan.

I won't be presumptuous and say that this is the best strategy for the United States to follow, but it is the one that would likely foster the most ideal results.

Part 1 (of however many parts)
Current predicaments:
Currently in Afghanistan, the United States is fielding near 70,000 troops on the ground. As of recently, they have been working to isolate the Taliban (and subsequently, al Qaeda) to the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan and have been waging successful campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northern Pakistan. The United States fields the vast majority of troops in Afghanistan, with Canada fielding around 3,000 and Germany around 1,000. Recently, Pakistani intelligence (ISI) has captured two top-tier Taliban leaders; however, there are several problems that go along with this.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the ISI have been working with a tenuous relationship to further secure Afghanistan. The two agencies are distrustful of each other, as many in the American government have the view that Pakistan wants to keep some of the Taliban tangible in order to exert a greater influence in Afghanistan after American forces leave. There has also been suspicion on the side of the ISI that several anti-Pakistani militants who have been killed of late (according to the ISI) may have been American spies. Along with this is the ever-prevalent Pakistani fear that the Americans are secretly working with the Indian government to somehow undermine Pakistan. At this time, the relationship is professional and far from intimate.
This war is also relatively unpopular at home, as with its counterpart war in Iraq. As of January 12th, according to a CBS poll, only 46% of respondents approved of his handling of Afghanistan, opposed to upwards of 60% in the late summer of 2009. This is typical in any war, however, as popular opinion for a war typically wanes with an increase in troop deaths. Obama's announcement of a troop surge did not help his poll numbers, as is typical with an engagement of this length. Many people attribute the two wars as having some part in the current economic downturn (though the current proposed budget has $159.3 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq out of a total $3.8 trillion).
This war (both wars, in my opinion) has been poorly handled since former president Bush authorized military operations in Afghanistan. There are a plethora of different, less-lethal strategies that the United States could have pursued and could still pursue, many of which would reduce the number of American and Afghani deaths and foster cooperation and give a positive view of America in the Muslim world. I will go in-depth into one of these strategies in my next segment, Part II.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg