Compassionate conservatism

This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. This is the nadir of the GOP’s response to the economic crisis thus far. Disgusting.

More on Afghanistan

Two concerns about the war in Afghanistan, and Obama’s recent doubling down of efforts there. First is a more general concern from Stephen Walt (preceded by a Winston Churchill quote):

“Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.”

George W. Bush kept a bust of Churchill in his office, but it seems patently obvious that he never took Churchill’s warning to heart. Barack Obama has had the bust removed, we’re told, but I’d like to think that somebody might tell him about Sir Winston’s advice.

The uncertainties that attend the use of force grow when war occurs on unfamiliar social and political terrain; that is, when we do not know very much about our adversaries or their motivations. They increase even more when success depends on what third parties decide to do — will they support us, remain neutral, pretend to help but do nothing, or join the other side?

To take an obvious example, increasing our commitment in Afghanistan and Pakistan is risky because we still do not understand these societies very well and because success requires that we get effective help from the ruling authorities in each country, and it is hard to be confident that we will. Moreover, the main tools at our disposal — Special Forces and air strikes against suspected militants — may be tactically effective but a strategic misstep, if they kill civilians along with bad guys and thereby generate greater opposition over time.

I agree – both in terms of broader strategy and tactical strategy, I’m concerned that Afghanistan is a losing battle. And this isn’t coming at the situation as an idealist – I think from a realist perspective, it’s tough to square the costs of remaining in Afghanistan with its chances of success (even before we get around to defining what exactly success in Afghanistan would look like). It would seem most Afghans feel pessimistic about the U.S. presence in Afghanistan as well, according to a recent ABC News poll (via Matt Yglesias). The results are sobering:

The effects [of the deterioration of Afghanistan’s security situation] are remarkable: With expectations for security and economic development unmet, the number of Afghans who say their country is headed in the right direction has dived from 77 percent in 2005 to 40 percent now – fewer than half for the first time in these polls.

In 2005, moreover, 83 percent of Afghans expressed a favorable opinion of the United States – unheard of in a Muslim nation. Today just 47 percent still hold that view, down 36 points, accelerating with an 18-point drop in U.S. favorability this year alone. For the first time slightly more Afghans now see the United States unfavorably than favorably.

The number who say the United States has performed well in Afghanistan has been more than halved, from 68 percent in 2005 to 32 percent now. Ratings of NATO/ISAF forces are no better. Just 37 percent of Afghans now say most people in their area support Western forces; it was 67 percent in 2006. And 25 percent now say attacks on U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces can be justified, double the level, 13 percent, in 2006.

Nor does the election of Barack Obama hold much promise in the eyes of the Afghan public: While two in 10 think he’ll make things better for their country, nearly as many think he’ll make things worse. The rest either expect no change, or are waiting to see.

Eek. Not good at all. Attempting to bring some sort of stability to Afghanistan, while reducing the presence of the Taliban and civilian casualties by both NATO and insurgents, would be tough enough with the support of the local population – I fail to see how it’s even possible without that support. Unless there is an immediate increase in Afghan views of the mission, the mission is almost certainly bound to fail. And while an increase in troops is probably a good thing in the short term – it means less air strikes and more security, generally speaking, which could lead to more optimistic views of the mission – I’m not sanguine about the long-term prospects of this mission.

Signs of reason

I haven’t really been covering this, more out of a general lack of time than anything else, but former diplomat Chas Freeman was appointed as chairman of the National Intelligence Council today. It’s an important, albeit low-profile job, but that’s not the interesting part of all of this – the interesting, and exciting part, is that this is the second time the Obama administration was willing to rebuke the powerful pro-Israel lobby in their dealings with the region (the first was the appointment of George Mitchell as the special envoy to the Middle East). Here’s The Cable on the controversy surrounding Freeman, who is more Arabist in his foreign policy outlook, and his appointment:

The Cable reported last week that former U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman was up for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. Since confirmed, the story has set off something of a media firestorm.

Reports from Politico and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, along with commentary and blog posts from The New Republic’s Marty Peretz, the Witherspoon Institute’s Gabriel Schoenfeld (in the Wall Street Journal), and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen have conveyed the charge that, in the judgment of some pro-Israel activists in the United States, Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is too sympathetic to Riyadh’s worldview and has frequently spoken outside the traditional Washington discourse on Israel.

In conversations with The Cable, some Washington foreign-policy types have argued that the controversy may be more about the president than about Freeman himself.

A source close to Freeman said that among the critics taking shots at the would-be appointee, several “opposed Obama on the spurious ground that he wanted to do in Israel. He doesn’t.” The source noted that some critics of Obama’s appointments had also targeted national security advisor James L. Jones, who previously served as a U.S. envoy charged with strengthening the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, as being too even-handed. “It seems to be the president these guys are after,” the source said.

Meanwhile, here’s Politico’s Ben Smith on Freeman’s appointment:

The Obama administration has notified Congress that Chas Freeman has been appointed chairman of the National Intelligence Council, demonstrating a willingness to rebuff pro-Israel activists and an embrace of a more realist foreign policy line.

Freeman, who drew fire for defending the Chinese and Saudi governments, doesn’t represent the mainstream of the administration. He’s also a broadly knowledgeable, polyglot, experienced diplomat with many friends in foreign policy and intelligence circles, including Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair.

But his inclusion in an important, low-profile job represents, among other things, the vastly diminished sway of the neocons — long at odds with the professional intelligence community — who launched a concerted, public effort to torpedo the move.

While Freeman will likely have little to do with the administration’s approach to Israel, it’s refreshing to know that the administration won’t be automatically cowing to the absurd, counter-productive demands of the AIPAC (et al) and the neocons. It’s been a long time coming.

David Brooks hated Jindal’s response too…

Key quote – “I just think it’s insane.” Keep in mind, David Brooks is conservative. Ouch. Bobby Jindal loses, to everyone.

Bobby Jindal’s Epic Fail

They’re back at it again. Or more accurately, Bobby Jindal is picking up where John McCain and Sarah Palin left off – railing against financially insignificant, but useful science funding. McCain targeted bear DNA funding (which was useful), Palin picked on fruit fly research (also useful), and now Jindal is taking on volcano monitoring which, as Andrea Thompson notes, both produces jobs and is vital in attempting to avert massive national disasters (you know, like the one that slammed into Jindal’s home state a few years ago – I think it was called Audrina? Katrina, maybe? I dunno). Here’s Thompson:

The $140 million to which Jindal referred is actually for a number of projects conducted by the United States Geological Survey, including volcano monitoring. This monitoring is aimed at helping geologists understand the inner workings of volcanoes as well as providing warnings of impending eruptions, in the United States and in active areas around the world where U.S. military bases are located.

Most of the money from the stimulus bill earmarked for monitoring (only about a tenth of the total going to the USGS) will go to modernizing existing monitoring equipment, including switching from analog to digital and installing GPS networks that can measure ground movements, said John Eichelberger, program coordinator for the USGS’s Volcano Hazards Program. Much of the expense of this technology comes from the manpower required to make and install it, he added.

“Ultimately most of this creates jobs or saves jobs that would have been lost” to recent budget shortfalls Eichelberger told LiveScience.

When he heard Jindal’s remarks, Eichelberger said he “was frankly astonished” that the governor would use this particular example, given his own state’s recent brush with a catastrophic natural disaster.

Among the scenarios in which the USGS’s monitoring can assist – the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, which killed 57 people (including a geologist monitoring the mountain) and was the deadliest and costliest volcanic eruption in U.S. history ($2.74 billion in 2007 dollars). This event was preceded by thousands of earthquakes in the two months before the volcano blew its top; some of these prompted the governor of Washington to declare a state of emergency and many residents were evacuated from a designated danger zone.

“This is a hazard we can do something about,” Eichelberger said. “We can spend a modest amount of money and prevent a tragedy.”

And here’s more:

Volcano monitoring likely saved many lives – and significant money – in the case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (where the United States had military bases at the time), according to the USGS.

The cataclysmic eruption lasted more than 10 hours and sent a cloud of ash as high as 22 miles into the air that grew to more than 300 miles across.
The USGS spent less than $1.5 million monitoring the volcano and was able to warn of the impending eruption, which allowed authorities to evacuate residents, as well as aircraft and other equipment from U.S. bases there.
The USGS estimates that the efforts saved thousands of lives and prevented property losses of at least $250 million (considered a conservative figure).

I thought Bobby Jindal was supposed to be a fresh face for the party, but all I’m hearing is the same broken anti-science record that the GOP has been consistently spinning for years now. It’s tired. And Jindal has certainly picked up on the GOP’s infantile anti-spending rhetoric, which magically crops up every time there’s a Democrat in office, who – at least in the last two administrations – is busy cleaning up the economic disaster his predecessor has left behind. The GOP – where bad ideas go to procreate, and make worse ideas. They’re kind of like the Hilton family, only vastly more destructive.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke to the nation as if they were adults, and disseminated some adult ideas, about things that adults will need to deal with. The contrast couldn’t have been more stark.

Also: Jindal failed to note that a Republican administration was primarily responsible for the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, which was kind of funny. Also interesting – everyone thought Jindal sucked. He did.