Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Should we be Pak-ing Heat in South Asia?

No.

This week, the Bush Administration announced it would clear the way for sales of F-16 fighters to Pakistan. The only rationale for this I can think of is that this is Mr. Bush making good on a past promise he made to Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf in exchange for Mr. Musharraf using his army to hunt the remnants of the Taliban along the Afghan-Pakistan border. While the missions of the Pakistani army have been very helpful in that area, I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t anything better we could have offered Mr. Musharraf in exchange for his help because supplying Pakistan with F-16’s has many drawbacks that far outweigh the interests of giving Mr. Musharraf this particular reward. Here are the main ones:

1) INDIA. What are we thinking even risking the alienation of the world’s biggest democracy, an emerging economic powerhouse, and a strategic regional counterbalance to China??? India is an amazing country which is a beacon for democratic and capitalistic values in the region, and likely the world. This is a country we should be embracing on par with members of NATO. We should not be antagonizing it by supplying its nuclear rival and neighbor with aircraft that could decimate its entire airforce. We should have the closest relations possible with this country, irrespective of any short-term cooperation we receive from Pakistan. After all, Pakistan was one of the main forces helping create and buttress the Taliban regime before 9/11/2001.

2) This is detrimental to fighting terrorism in the long run. There is a very disturbing trend in the Muslim world: most citizens of Muslim countries have the opposite opinion of America as the official stances of their governments. Let me illustrate- America has technically good diplomatic relations with most Muslim nations, yet the closer our governments are, the more the people on the street hate us- i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, PAKISTAN, Morocco, ect… Conversely, in the few nations we have hostile relations with, the people actually like America. See: Iran. The reason for this is because most governments in the Muslim world stink, and when we embrace them, their people hate us for it. Pakistan is certainly no exception, essentially a corrupt dictatorship that routinely violates human rights where most of the population lives in desperate poverty. Our embrace of Musharraf does not help our image in the Muslim world. It actually does serious damage.

3) Supplying Pakistan with F-16’s only makes these problems worse. Pakistan needs to return to civilian rule and the last thing it needs is a larger military apparatus. Instead of aircraft, how about expanding free trade between the countries? We’ve already liberalized trade with Pakistan’s textile industry to some extent to reward Musharraf for his help, and it has caused a boom in that sector of the economy. The only problem is that that is a sector where the wealth has been distributed disproportionally to the top of the economic ladder, doing little to alleviate the poverty that contributes at least partially to the potent extremism of many Pakistanis. Instead of F-16’s, how about a free trade agreement in agriculture and some development aid for education and public works (perhaps in exchange for some democratic reforms to boot)? That would make a far more serious dent in extremism in Central Asia than a couple of F-16’s would.

4) You can’t use F-16’s to fight terrorists! Pakistan already has a more than adequate army and air force to take on the Taliban near its border. Give them some predator drones- one might actually find bin Laden!- not F-16’s. There is only one reason F-16’s mean anything to Pervez Musharraf, and that reason is India (see point #1).

Again this is an example of Mr. Bush drawing the wrong inferences from the lessons of the Cold War. Here, supplying sketchy strategic allies with arms will not really help us (at least this type of arms- if we gave Pakistan some Predator drones and some technology for their intelligence services, it would be different). And Mr. Bush is not learning from what helped us and is currently helping us in the real fall of the iron curtain taking place right now (see Georgia, Ukrane, Kyrgyzstan, and maybe Belarus (keep your fingers crossed!)), which is LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is why Mr. Bush is truly weak on terror.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Is Radical Islam Caused by Poverty or Oppression? Yes.

It would be stating the obvious to say that the West has been unfortunately divided in its execution of the war on terror. But I am not talking about the obvious, the rift caused by the invasion of Iraq. What exists is a much deeper-rooted disagreement as to the causes of radical Islamic terrorism between the United States and Europe. America, at least during the Bush years, has taken the approach that people become terrorists because they live under oppressive regimes. Europe, by contrast, believes that poverty is the main root cause of terrorism; addressing the recent World Economic Forum in Switerland by phone, French President Jacques Chirac called on wealthy nations to funnel billions of dollars to the world's poorest areas as a way prevent "extremism." George Bush also advocates spending billions of dollars to fight terrorism, but in the form of funding the US military to spread democracy by force.

What both Europe and the Bush Administration unfortunately forget are some of the most important lessons of history, that either poverty or oppression alone are each sufficient to lead a populace to extremism. The only way to guarantee extremism does not take root is to ensure that both are eradicated. Freedom alone does not prevent extremism- exhibit A, the Weimar Republic. Nor does wealth alone- Exhibit B, Iran under the Shah. It is tragic that the US an Europe are split on this issue, when working together their strategies cover all bases- the US spares no expense creating and maintaining the most awesome military might the world has ever known, and Europe is much less adverse to spending large sums on development aid to the developing world. Working in concert, these two pillars of democracy and prosperity could ensure that no potential terroism breeding grounds are ever again created in our time. But this potential is not being fulfilled, and the future of the world cannot wait forever for this rift to heal.

What I propose is a global project of NATO based loosly on the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) currently working with success in Afghanistan. Generally, NATO is building pseudo-bases in the remote areas of Afghanistan, which allow for the deployment of troops to hunt the reminants of the Taliban. But the operations are not military only. The ISAF takes on a number of civillian projects, namely helping rural villages rebuild infrastructure and schools, and helping the Afghan government build a functioning system of justice. This approach is decimating the root causes of terrorism so well in the Afghan countryside, that Taliban remnants are taking advantage of an amnesty program to return to civil society because they have so little remaining popular and logistical support to continue their activities. And this is being accomplished with truly half-assed monetary and troop commitments by the US. Imagine what something like this could do on a global scale when given a significant portion of the NATO countries' financial and military resources.

Every day this is not undertaken is another lost opportunity to rid this earth from the cancer of terrorism.

by Rich Boatti

Monday, March 21, 2005

Not Putting Their Money Where Terri Schiavo's Mouth Is

With last night's hasty congressional vote accompanied by President Bush's interrupting his vacation (SPRING BREAK CRAWFORD!!!- since when did presidents get a spring vacation anyway?) to sign a law that would bring the Terri Schiavo case into federal court, Terri Schiavo has become the official cause celebre for the right-to-life movement. Although the thought of starving someone in a vegetative state to death is shocking and gruesome, this is basically what the so-called pro-life agenda's party, the GOP, is advocating on a much broader scale. While Christian conservatives keep round-the-clock vigils outside Ms. Schiavo's hospice and twist congressional arms to do whatever possible to re-insert her feeding tube, including passing a law that is an unprecedented federal intrusion into the rights of states, it seems as if no one has noticed where the money to pay for Ms. Schiavo's intravenous substinance is coming from. Well, I'll tell you. Terri Schiavo's medicine for the past two years has been paid for that lynchpin of the US welfare state, Medicaid. For those who aren't aware, Medicaid has been in the crosshairs of the Bush Administration for the past two years, and Bush's proposed cuts would come cause 1.2 million cildren to lose Medicaid coverage over the next five years if aproved by congress (as reported in the Christian Science Monitor). The rest of Ms. Schiavo's medical expenses are covered by the Hospice (which provides free service) and two malpractice lawsuits Ms. Schiavo won in 1990 totaling arond $1 million. Again, the irony cannot be more tragic. The Bush administration has also been pushing to limit medical liability lawsuit recoveries for people just like Ms. Schiavo, who have been permanently damaged by bad doctors. In the typical twisted-but-brilliant political manuvering of the Republican party, again the Democrats have turned out looking like heartless death-mongerers, while the Republicans have been portrayed as compassionate souls defending a sick woman, while in reality if the republicans have their way, thousands of Terri Schiavos will starve to death in the hospices, hospitals, and streets of America for years to come.

Friday, March 18, 2005

US Slips in Technology Rankings

A few days ago, I read a disturbing article on CNN:

The United States is no longer No. 1 in making the best use of information and communications technologies (ICT), a
new study says. It dropped to fifth place this year and Singapore is now on top.

Singapore's ranking in the so-called "Networked Readiness Index" was based on several factors, including quality of
math and science education and low prices for telephone and Internet services, said the World Economic Forum report.

"Singapore's remarkable performance is a consequence of the government's consistent and continuous efforts" to foster
the technology, the report said...

The United States' drop from first place last year "is less due to actual erosion in performance" than to the
improvement of other countries, the report said.

Amid this backdrop, Bush is making budget cuts in Technology. Kos reports:

the Bush budget calls for drastically underfunding science and technology.  Bush's science and technology budget
would drop from an estimated $61.7 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $60.8 billion in 2006. The science and technology
budget includes programs such as space exploration, renewable energy, and agricultural research, as well as
technology-related research and development at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Things like this are just incomprehensible to me. Throughout human history, the dominant societies have always been the most technologically advanced. Yet Bush thinks that giving a tax cut to those who don't need it is more important than the US remaining at the top of the technological world, a fall that will, over the next few decades, will hurt our entire society, including those for whom bush is cutting taxes.

At a time like this, America needs a rural electrification-type program to bring high speed internet to every region of the country, a massive investment in high-speed rail, intracity rail, research, renewable energy and EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. By not doing this we are just inviting the decline and end of the American glory days and a global power vacumn that has a good chance of being filled by an authoritan government, AKA China. Is this a good long-term strategy for America? I don't think so.

Monday, March 14, 2005

How to be a Good Republican

Think that true patriots dodge drafts while America-haters serve in our Armed Forces

Think that cutting funding for police that takes 4,000 cops off of New York City streets to finance a tax cut for the wealthy is a good way to fight terrorism

Think that the president who presided over the greatest national security failure in American history is the best one to keep America safe

Think that the president who opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security before 9/11/01 is the best one to keep America safe

Violate federal law by trading with Nazi Germany during World War 2

Claim a foreign policy based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, for all countries, yet maintain good relations with countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Colombia, and Egypt

Pretend to believe in small government but increase discretionary spending by 4% annually every year and think that government needs to regulate what goes on in people’s bedrooms and women’s wombs.

Think that America getting half of its oil and 1/6 of its federal budget from abroad are good trends that should be encouraged and increased.

Think that taxpayers instead of polluters should pay to clean sites polluted by those polluters.

Think that work should be taxed more than wealth

Think having fewer soldiers hunting bin Laden than there are police officers in New York City is a winning formula for the war on terrorism

Believe that lying about personal sexual relations warrants a congressional investigation, but going to war on bad intelligence and giving no-bid contracts politically connected companies do not.

Blame the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 on feminists, secularists, and liberals.

Believe cutting funding from the Transportation Safety Administration is a good way to fight terrorism.

Claim to be a free-market capitalist but advocate downright socialism in the context of the drug industry, agriculture, airlines, automobiles, and defense contractors.

Think that trees cause more pollution than automobiles

Claim to be Christian but ignore 3,000 Bible verses on poverty

Believe that “compassionate conservatism” embodies cutting 300,000 kids out of after school programs

Believe that AIDS can be transmitted through sweat.

Think that the last glory days of America were in 1932.

Accuse democrats of being “gay,” while owning and posing nude on websites called Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com, and Militaryescortsm4m.com

Constantly rail against "Hollywood ELites", unless those elites are Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or John Wayne, and cut the "Hollywood Elites'" taxes in the process.

Believe that the military alliance that won World War 2 and the Cold War is irrelevant

Believe that 10 stories missing from the UN would make no difference, and then be nominated to be the ambassador to the same UN

Have your human rights record lead to your presidential endorsement by Iran's Chief of the Supreme National Security Council, Hasan Rowhani

Think the following is a good way to cut taxes:
The 257,000 taxpayers making fore than $1 million per year got a bigger cut than than the 85 million taxpayers at the bottom 60% of the population. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

Turn a $127 billion budget surplus into $450 billion budget deficit and talk about fiscal responsibility with a straight face

Nominate a judge who believes wives should be subordinate to their husbands and compares abotrion rights activists to Nazis to the federal bench

Veto hate-crime legislation after the brutal lynching of James Bird while you're Governor of Texas

Make SUV purchases up to $75,000 tax deductable for businesses

Say the presidential candidate who proposes adding 2 batallitons to the active forces, totaling 40 thousand additional soldiers, is weak on defense, then refuse to take any similar, necessary actions while America is fighting 2 wars

Allow the number of Americans living in poverty to increase by 3 million in 3 years, and then try to lock these people out of the free market by gutting a rule requiring banks to make loans in economically depressed areas, (the federal Community Reinvestment Act)

As an ex-Secretary of State, have your law firm represent the Saudi Royal Family in their defense against the lawsuit brought by families of the victims of Sept. 11


Please add anything I missed!

RB