Bumper Stickers

Just today, I pulled up behind a car with Obama and Tim Kaine bumper stickers on it and I gave the driver a thumbs up.  I too have an Obama sticker on my car from 2008 and a new Obama-Biden sticker for this year (but no date on it).   But then I began to think how few bumper stickers you see these days.   I know that a lot of people don't want to mess up their bumpers, now that they are no longer made or chrome, and make up an integral design of the vehicle and the stickers are so hard to remove cleanly.    But it also seems that they have just gone out of style.  It is not cool to show your enthusiasm for politicians because by and large Americans are fed up with politics and politicians.  In fact,  it is also not cool to be enthusiastic about anything in the public sphere.

 Now bumper stickers can be useful.  I would hope that one could get a sense of popular support 's for a candidate by seeing how many stickers you see on the roads, but with the dearth of these stickers, you really can't and you wonder what is wrong with you for wearing your own heart on your sleeve.  Furthermore, bumper stickers have been maligned: if  it says something too short and trite, it is said to "make a bad bumper sticker."  It makes you wonder what is a good bumper sticker.

I for one think that bumper stickers are good, that we should be willing to express ourselves and tell the world what we stand for.   We talk so much about freedom of speech and expression but we hide behind a wall of anonymity.  We do not seek self expression but privacy.  This can only lead to a diminution of democracy.People are willing to contribute to campaigns  The Supreme Court says money is speech, but the people who give the most money want to remain anonymous.  Does that make any sense at all?     Let's all put our mouths where our money is and revive the use of bumper sticker.

Why President Obama will be Re-elected

As we are treated to a continuous show on the Republican side, first with unending debates, and now with unending primaries and caucuses, it is easy to forget that we haven't seen anything yet. Of course, there is no contest to the President on the Democratic side.  But the Republicans have not lost too many opportunities to run against him in their own campaign, when not being distracted by poll ups and downs, anti-Romneys up and down and the continuous intrusion of so-called "social issues." (I strongly prefer the term "cultural issues" since they are all about culture wars and not about class divisions.)  Republicans are being driven by the so-called base, including Tea Partyers and evangelicals, to address these issues.  Furthermore, they are a way to attack both President Obama and front-runner Romney at the same time.

 Romney wants to run on economic issues because, as he frequently says, he knows how to create jobs.  Interestingly, he has never really gone into any detail about how he would do this.  We are left to rely on his reputation as a successful businessman who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics as proof of his abilities.  He cannot even claim much credit for his stint as Massachusetts governor, because he governed as a moderate and, frankly, much of Republican strength is in the South, West and Mid West:  North easterners don't hold much weight in the current party.  After all, this is no longer the party of Nelson Rockefeller or Jacob Javits, and apparently not even Olympia Snowe.  Despite all this, Governor Romney's nomination victory appears to be a near inevitability according to all the pundits.

Actually, I hope so, because the other candidates all scare the hell out of me.  If a Republican were to win the Presidency, I would prefer that it be a well rounded centrist (even if he equivocated during the campaign) than a radical alternative.   Speaker Gingrich is a brilliant intellectual, but has been extreme in his criticism of the President, "liberals" and 'big government."  I would hope he is also just seeking to capture the Republican base, but there is no balance there.   Senator Santorum I find to have a pleasing, youthful personality with a good dose of sincerity, but he has gone off the charts with his remarks about cultural issues and criticism of the President as making "war on religion" and a "snob" for wanting every American to have the opportunity to go to college.  Ron Paul has a certain gentility to him but his libertarian extremism that would return us to the gold standard, eliminate the Federal Reserve and remove the country from its role as the greatest world power, seems dangerous.  It is inspiring to see how a very mature man like him inspires many college students and independents, but I suppose that they follow him for his rhetoric as opposed to his pragmatism.

So let's assume that Governor Romney wins the primary battle or a convention battle in Tampa. (I do not consider whether any of the other candidates--or even Sarah Palin--would win, because I believe they would not be a challenge to the President.  Once in the general election, the center becomes the "center of gravity" (to use a military term) of the elections.  Radicals will not appeal to the center, period.

So why would President Obama be able to beat Governor Romney?  Quite simply because the economy is going to continue to improve, including the job situation and will undercut the Republican's primary criticism of the President, that he has failed to successfully fix the economy following the Great Recession.    Not only that, the fact that this recovery will be gradual still, will cause the voting public to be even more cautious about switching captains of the ship of state at this fragile time.  The improvement in the jobs front, the saving of the automobile industry, the stabilization of the banking sector and a bullish stock market will give confidence that the country is on the right course.   Other issues, such as foreign policy, the issues that I find most interesting, will not be issues of the campaign.   Obama and Hillary have done a good job of managing our relations with the world.   He and Leon Panetta, and Robert Gates before him, have done a good job of extracting us from Iraq and laying a path to our withdrawal from Afghanistan.  At the same time, The President has shown himself to be an able Commander in Chief with the killing of Osama bin Laden and the reduction of the Al Queda threat.

This is not to say that President Obama is widely loved in the country,  From an inspiring campaigner, he became a cautious and careful Chief Executive.  He is still a great communicator, but somehow lacks the warmth and common touch of some of his great Democratic predecessors.  But he is still very Presidential in his manner and he is still probably one of the smartest people to occupy the White House.  The latter is an attribute that will be to his credit in the long run.  It is unfortunate that so much of the culture war rhetoric is designed to question his faith, his moderation, his nationality and birth origins--and behind it all, there is a troubling sense that race remains a factor in it.  Undoubtedly, politics and elections is not a kid gloves arena and ambitious politicians will always use the tools of their trade, including negative campaigning.  I would hope, following the election, we can get back to trying to resolve the real issues confronting this country and the world.

Syria: John McCain is Right

Although I did not vote for him for President, I have always admired Sen. John McCain's foreign policy and national security positions and respected his personal heroism.   We owe the Iraqi surge to him, without which we may have never attempted the surge in Afghanistan, which despite many difficulties, has changed the balance in that troubled country.   Sen. McCain wants us to bomb the Syrian military, which is indiscriminately killing its own citizens, and to set up a no-fly zone in addition to aiding the Free Syrian Army.  He is supported in this by Sen. Joe Lieberman as well.

I say yes, and as soon as possible.   Our country has normally been cautious about throwing itself into war, as it should be.  Wounded by Vietnam and the Somali Blackhawk Down debacle, we hesitated much too long to launch into Bosnia.   It was only when media attention to near genocide by the Serbians had built up to an intolerable level that we finally intervened.  Without Bosnia, it is doubtful we would have intervened in Haiti in 1994 or continued to help Kosovo.   Now we feel once again "burned" by Iraq and Afghanistan and uninterested in launching into another war in the Muslim world.   But we felt that way also about Libya, and finally changed our minds as a possible slaughter in Bengazi was confronting us.  (The shadow of Rwanda still hangs heavily over us.)   With leadership from NATO and a shift within the administration led by human rights activists, we took the plunge in Libya.

Now we say that Syria and Libya are different.   Gaddafi's regime was isolated and militarily weaker than Assad's.  After all Assad has the support of not only Iran but also the Russians, who mistakenly see this as an example of interference in an ally's internal affairs and a manifestation of Russia's new "independence" from the West, particularly the United States.  As the media points out, Putin's electoral victory is certainly pyrrich.  But he must feel threatened by the growing public dissatisfaction with a government that clings to power at all costs, and sees vibrations of the Arab Spring fueling the opposition, not dissimilar to what is happening in Syria.  To approve of foreign intervention in Syria, legitimizes foreign support for opposition to him.   Don't get me wrong, Putin is not Assad, and has not turned his army on his own people, nor would he.  More sophisticated tools are at his disposal to stave off an upheaval.  Furthermore, it would be wrong to think that he does not have broad support among working class Russians.   Unfortunately for him,  it is the middle class, the intelligentsia and the educated, info age youth--i.e., the constituency of the future--who are yearning for greater freedom.   What is happening today, driven by new media and unlimited information, is a major global revolution, not unlike those that swept forward in 1968 and 1990.   However, it is actually just the latest and most hopeful chapter in the long sweep of democratic change since the end of World War II.

What we hear from the Obama administration is that a military intervention could provoke greater violence than it resolves, feeding a civil war.   In truth, there is already a civil war, but it is terribly lopsided in arms on the part of the Assad regime.   What is most crucial, however, is that the case of Syria is clearly one of crimes against humanity of such a scale that they cannot be  tolerated.  The international community has an obligation to protect innocent--including peacefully protesting civilians-from mass slaughter by its government.   The days are over when we can simply look the other way or ring our hands in doubt.  How many thousands more innocent civilians must die?  Also, it is cowardly to wait until public opinion and the media build up enough pressure so that action is politically acceptable.  This is true even in an election year where the risks may seem greater.

We have also heard that the Syrian leadership is divided and we must understand who we are supporting before we engage.  The same dilemma obtained in Libya, but eventually we found our way to intervention.   Even if we do not know who to support right now, we should know who the enemy is:  Assad's military, its tanks, armored cars, artillery and command and control centers and large military formations and bases.  If we are so worried about Syrian anti-aircraft weapons and "putting our troops into harm's way,"  let us start out by using only stealth bombers.  This would have a huge psychological as well as strategic impact.   We also should provide enough weapons for the Syrian people and Free Syrian Army to defend themselves, including a good supply of hand held anti-armor weapons.  And we should help create a no-fly zone where the Syrian opposition can consider a safe haven.  Hopefully, other Muslim countries, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, would come to their assistance with a strong endorsement of the League of Arab States. 

We should not wait for the United Nations Security Council to approve of what we will do.   We might have to settle for a regional organization like the League of Arab States, to provide its own endorsement under the UN Charter.  Although article 52 of the Charter requires Security Council approval for use of force by regional organizations, this provision, though widely defended by legal scholars has often been challenged in practice.  

Most recently, the 1998 ECOWAS intervention in Sierra Leone was only approved by the Security Council after the fact and in muted terms.   There is a long tradition of humanitarian intervention in states and more recently the "responsibility to protect" doctrine (R2P-for more background seee http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-syria).  According to a study of the ECOWAS intervention, "Some commentators suggest that such unilateral actions should not  be judged in terms of the prohibition contained in the United Nations Charter because the Security Council deadlocked during the 1970s and did not reach any decision concerning humanitarian intervention. When the Security Council is unable to authorize intervention due to internal political squabbles, it is legitimate for a state to act unilaterally to end gross violation of human rights in another state, particularly when international peace is threatened." (The Use Of Force To Restore Democracy: International Legal Implications Of The Ecowas Intervention In Sierra Leone-1998).  We face a similar Security Council deadlock today.. 

So let's stop futzing around and help to save the Syrian people and enable them to overthrow a ruler and a regime which can only be considered a criminal enterprise in every sense of the term. He can not be trusted or negotiated with.  There can be no diplomatic solution to the Syrian Revolution.  We must answer their pleas for our help.

Sorry to be out of touch

I am not sure if anyone missed me, but I am sorry I have left my blog go so fallow for the past seven months.   Perhaps it was the impact of the major change going on where I work as a defense contractor.  During this period, US Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) was "disestablished" as one of the twelve major DoD so-called Unified Commands as an early budget reduction or "efficiencies" measure.  After closing down its superstructure of General Officers and most of its staff, only certain parts of the Command were allowed to remain and were each assigned to other DoD entities.   As it happens, I worked in the J7 or Training Directorate, which was continued,  and we are now under the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of the Joint Staff's J7.    So as some would say, I "survived" JFCOM's demise.  Some might even call it a promotion.  No doubt the dust still has not settled on JFCOM.   There is new leadership in the J7 and a restructuring, lots of moving of offices and new initiatives.  However, the fundamental work of the training arm, the only Joint Trainers in the US military, continues on in pretty much the same way as it did before.   Nobody who did make it through the "transition" feels totally secure in their position.   After all the state of the economy and high unemployment do not lend themselves for people to take their jobs for granted now, if they ever foolishly did.   People are working hard to demonstrate their value added to the new organization.   The big buzz word of the transition was that we would be an organization which functioned on a "demand signal."    In other words, the fate of the organization and everyone in it, especially contractors, would be based on how much of its services were requested by its "customers," in most cases referring to its regional Combatant Commands.  So far, the demand signal has been strong.  Nonetheless, any reorganization introduces a set of uncertainties, as old structures and functions are reassessed and evaluated for their contributions to the overall effort.  So, I would say, so far so good, and I do hope to write more frequently in my blog now that our work has become somewhat normalized.   See you soon!

The Civil War Around Us

These days I am watching Ken Burns' "Civil  War" series on PBS and seeing Abraham Lincoln's picture on the front page of "Time" magazine.    OK, we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, an appropriate time to remember that important and horrible event in US history.   But there is another spectre hovering over this country.  "Time" asked if the Civil War is over.  That refers strictly to the matter of if Americans agree on the causes of the war, and the broad denial that race was its central or perhaps its only cause.

But is all this focus on the Civil War also a wake up call to our present dilemmas.   The country almost stopped last night until minutes before a government shutdown, an agreement was struck by reluctant Democrats and Republicans to keep the government going.  Underlying this near collapse of our government, were deep seated and building conflicts within the body politic of our nation which threaten even wider rifts and more severe consequences.     Are we on the brink of a new Civil War? 

I don't want to be cute or provocative.   I believe a case can be made that our country is entering a great divide.  The divisions are over: yes, race, class, regions, cultural beliefs, ignorance, immigration, globalization, economics and foreign policy goals.

Although we were mostly all proud that we had elected the first African American President (actually he is biracial and he did not come from slaves but the marriage of an African foreign student with an American woman), in truth, from the very beginning of his Presidency, he was under attack for being a secret Muslim, not born in the United States (incredibly even Donald Trump has now gotten on this issue) and for being a "community organizer," all of which could be considered code words for his race, as is the term "Obamacare."  

We have an unusual class divide buiding, not between the rich and the poor, but between the very rich who run corporate America (not all of them, certainly but enough of them, and certainly characterized by the Koch brothers) who are stoking the fires of attack on the President and his policies, and sectors of the white working and lower middle classes that are joined in opposing big government and in some cases  any government at all.   The solid middle and upper middle classes, organized workers, minorities and the intellectual, cultural and enlightened business elites are arrayed against them.

Unfortunately, we remain divided along lines similar to that of the original Civil War:  South against North, Coastal America against the hinterland;  we now call it Red and Blue States.  Demographic shifts have made these boundaries less precise and in some cases we now have swing states, that shift back and forth at least in electoral contests.  One of these is my own state of Virginia.   I only had to go down the street to the corner where we have a few village stores to find Johnny Reb tee shirts (actually that store was destroyed last year in a tornado.)  

We are deeply divided culturally.   Our constitution provides for a clear separation of church and state, yet there are those who wish to impose their own religious beliefs on others.  This applies primarily to women's reproductive rights and gay rights, but also to what is taught in the classroom about things like sex education, history and evolution.  Increasingly, the religious right is imposing its beliefs on the rest of the country.  They have become increasingly powerful, organized and media-savvy.    There is still a legacy of the 60s, which is reflected in many of the beliefs of the Baby Boomers, who lived through that period of cultural awakening and sexual and freedom.

The ignorance gap is something not often explored and I am not simply saying that there are people who are intelligent or stupid.   I am speaking more about people who rely on science versus those who depend solely in belief.  This applies particularly to the debates about evolution and stem cell research.   This is something that goes back to the days of the Scopes Trial and persists today.  Our capacity to survive on this planet is most linked to our ability to apply science to the problems that confront humanity, but efforts to hold back scientific discovery, knowledge and implementation will continue to make this effort difficult.

We are an immigrant society, par excellence, yet we are divided over immigration.  We occupied a good part of Mexico.  We filled our cities with immigrants from Europe and more recently from the rest of the world.  We continue to depend on immigrants to do work that most American-born citizens would not care to do.    Yet there is a whole group of Americans who fear immigration.  Because of this, we have more, not less illegal immigration because our politicians cannot agree on a orderly immigration policy.   No matter what we try, we cannot stop immigration, only slow it down at a great cost.  People will lie on their visa applications, sneak in through, around and under our land borders.    But the false dichotomy of being for or against immigration or seeing it strictly as a law enforcement and not also an economic and social problem drives us to failure and conflict.  Most importantly, anti-immigrant sentiment is focused on flows from Latin America, mostly Mexico and Central America.   Of course, this concern is increased by the amount of crime taking place across the border as well as some spillover due to the nature of illegal trafficking both of narcotics and humans.  However, a lot of this anti-immigrant sentiment, in my opinion, is purely racism and nativism.  A fear of foreigners, their cultures their beliefs,their way of life and their poverty.  Of course, these attitudes are given justifications such as "they are taking jobs away from Americans," and "they are a burden to our social welfare policies."  But few immigrants take jobs on farms, on construction sites, in restaurants or in hotels that Americans really want, despite the depressed jobs market.  And in general, the immigrants who come here are hard working and conscientious, seeking a living for themselves and their families, many of whom are still back in their home towns down south.

Globalization and economics divides us. There are those who are better and worse prepared to confront the challenges of globalization, which are inevitable.  Those whose jobs are being displaced because employers, mostly industrial but also services, can no longer afford to pay people in this country 10-20 times the wages paid abroad.   There are many other challenges of globalization, such as the use of the social media tot divide us between those who use and those who do not use them or understand technology, which is the root cause of globalization.  Our counry has increasingly been creating a gap in income levels that has left a large number of people poor and undereducated, leading further to their economic marginalization.  The cost of education, the greatest tool for overcoming barriers to increasing income, has become prohibitive.

Finally, we are divided over the role of our country in the world.  This is not an easy issue on which to see a clear divide, because more than anything you find elites on both sides of the political party barrier  finding a common position, versus the opinions of many ordinary Americans.  Both parties support our current policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while most Americans are going along with Iraq because we are leaving but have problems with Afghanistan because we cannot leave fast enough for them.  In truth, our current policies are to stay as long as we have to, but no President can say this so starkly and neither can Republicans who are hard liners when it comes to fighting terrorism.    The delicate nature of the problem is our current polices with regard to Libya.  Everyone hates Qaddafi, but few Americans really want to see our country get deeply involved in a third war with "boots on the ground," or with hemorrhaging expenses.   This is an issue where Republicans are also divided so it is not a partisan issue at this time, but could become one.  At root here also, besides those issues of "blood and treasure" that always emerge with foreign involvements, are deep seated sentiments of isolationism vs. internationalism.  These are more deeply rooted in class than in differences among elites.  For the present, however, anti-war sentiment has not been a major issue in our political campaigns, although Iraq was the root of BarrackObama's 2008 campaign.

These differences are often referred to as "cleavages" by political scientists.  If enough of these overlap, they are the basis for a large conflict within a society.   Are we moving in this direction?  Have we already arrived?    I am not sure, but I am fearful.   We entered 2009 on a note of hope and unity.  We are far from that today.  Let us hope for leadership that can move us back in this direction.   I have not specifically mentioned the issue of debt or the Tea Party, but these are obviously large factors of division in the country.  The Democrats have largely thrown in the towel on the debt issue, acknowledging the need for drastic debt reduction.   But the Tea Pary wants more than Democrats are willing to give and they are also salting their demands increasingly with cultural issues that make coming together even more difficult that purely over fiscal matters.

Qaddafi Cannot Win

As we watch the situation in Libya ebb and flow, there is a sinking feeling that the rag tag rebel army is not doing well and is in retreat against the onslaught of Qaddafi's better armed, better trained, more disciplined forces.    The international coalition that is supporting UNSC Resolution 1973 is learning that the tools it decided on to stop Qaddafi's forces, a no fly zone and air attacks against his ground forces, is not enough to tip the balance in favor of the opposition forces.  The recent unintentional NATO attack against opposition armored vehicles only underscores the precarious nature of outside assistance.

Several escalations have been discussed.  First, arming and training the opposition forces.   Second, use of more sophisticated air power such as A-10 Worthogs and AC-130 gunships.   But if only air power is to be used, a better system of air control needs to be introduced.  There are already stories of CIA teams in Libya but no indication that they are directing air strikes as they did in Afghanistan in 2001.    Finally there is the possibility of "boots on the ground" of foreign troops.  The West would want these to be Arab troops, but that is unlikely at this time.   Most Western governments have ruled out use of their own troops in Libya. And the UN resolution specifically rejects any foreign intervention on the ground.  So where do we go from here?

The NATO led coalition needs to rethink the question of the use of ground power.  This would be very unpopular among most publics.  The US fears getting involved in a a third ground war.   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even said it would not happen "so long as I am the Secretary of Defense."  The implication there is that the option still exists with Gates' planned departure from DoD, athough his departure has not been specified.  Nonetheless, there is now serious talk about CIA Director Leon Pannetta taking over his job (and General Petreaus, taking Pannetta's.)    All of this is probably not intentionally linked to Libya, but it could facilitate a policy shift.   I know that nobody thinks we are going to dive into a ground war in Libya.  However, can anyone imagine that we would stand by while Qaddafi vanquishes the opposition forces in Benghazi?  I, for one, cannot.

What Ever Happened to Idealism?

As I view the current landscape I am struck by the absence of idealism.  Too bad, because I have long defined myself more as an idealist than any other character trait.   It was easy to be an idealist in the past.  I was an idealist about being an American in a world in which few countries offered both the standard of living and the liberties of the United States.  It was easy being an idealist in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement and the Peace movement and Youth movement.   It was easy to be an idealist as a liberal.   It was easy being an idealist during the Carter human rights era of the late 70s,  the return to democracy in Southern Europe and Latin America in the 80s and during the 90s when there was a flourishing recoginiton of the role of women and civil society.

9/11 killed idealism.  It threw us all into an abiss of fear and militarism.  I can't go through an airport screening process without thinking how naive we all were.   Where the hell did those guys come from.  We didn't have a clue that our entire society would be challenged by a bunch of guys living in the most backward parts of the globe, who responded to an 8th century creed.   

The electiion of Barack Obama seemed to represent a return to idealism.   He won an election through inspiration.   We for the most part believed him.  Imagine electing the first African American ever to the Presidency.   It seemed something that only happened in the movies.   But we barely realized that we had already been hit with a sledge hammer of recession.   And we were already struggling through two major wars that were legacies of 9/11.     If politics was for a moment inspiring, it no longer is.   Antibodies to the election of a liberal Black President immediately began to build and have developed into a poisonous mixture of nativism, reaction to the health care legislation, vituperatively labeled as "Obamacare" by all those who seek to denigrate the President and his accomplishments.    And while the President has successfully pulled us out of the recession, he has been continually attacked for the sluggish jobs recovery and now for the Federal deficit, neither of which were of his making.   

Ah, the Arab Spring!   It is truly inspiring, perhaps one of the most important developments of our time.  But it is being met with a high degree of cynicism and fear.   We think that these revolutions could well get out of control.  We fear that a certain stability we have enjoyed in the Arab world is now at risk.   And we hesitate to know how far to go to support the broad revolution taking place differently in each country in the region.  Meanwhile the cost of a gallon of gasoline keeps creeping up, and we can no longer trust our energy future to the power of the atom.   We once again fear nuclear annihillation.

So where are the idealists?  Where are the idealistic causes and what can we be idealistic about in the future?

I have questions, but at this moment no answers.  Maybe tomorrow or the next day.