President Obama has said he is “very close to a decision” on whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Sadly, however, reducing the troop levels is off the table and not an option. The White House has leaked various numbers and strategies as they have deliberated this crucial decision. 30,000-40,000 is a likely number for the troop escalation. One good piece of news is that Obama want’s to ensure his plan has an exit strategy. Hopefully it will be a good one.

Today, November 19, the dubiously elected president Hamid Karzai will deliver his inaugural address. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived yesterday on a surprise visit to Afghanistan to pressure Karzai and ensure he says all the right things in his inaugural address. Whatever he says must be followed up by serious action to reduce corruption, and improve governance and security.

Whether Obama’s strategy is counterinsurgency or counterterrorism, we will need a reliable governing partner in Afghanistan. Transparency International just released their Corruption Perception Index which rated Afghanistan as second to last in the world (FYI, the US ranks 19th). This horribly low corruption index translates like this:

According to Reuters, “Senior officers and Interior Ministry officials are renowned for taking a cut of the salaries of policemen, who then exact bribes from the populace to make up their pay. Public confidence in the force is undermined and the Taliban gain support.”

The New York Times said “the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.” And that “Everything seems to be for sale: public offices, access to government services, even a person’s freedom.”

While the Afghan government dithers, the US military is slowly approaching 1,000 dead soldiers in the war in Afghanistan, a war which is the second longest war in US history at over 9 years. This war is costly! Now, more than ever, we need to be spending this money in American instead – as Thomas Friedman says, nation-building at home.

Afghanistan is officially called Operation Enduring Freedom. This operation’s area of responsibility encompasses fifteen nations: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay Naval Base), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, the Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

Two HUGE problems with the war in Afghanistan is that nobody has clearly defined “victory.” Worse still, even if we achieve victory in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda will merely relocate its operations to other failed states such as Yemen or Somalia. The government in Yemen is crumbling with secessionists in the South and ethnic rebels in the north. Meanwhile, the Al-Qaeda in Yemen are provoking these dissenters as the terrorists become increasingly more organized, having merged with those in Saudi Arabia to form AQAP – Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

A majority of Americans do not support the war in Afghanistan, and I’m one of them.

I applaud the House of Representatives for passing last week the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA). The bill will increase the annual Pell Grant maximum to $5,500 in 2010 and adjust it to inflation over time. SAFRA also commits to invest $40 billion in the program, allowing for hundreds of thousands more students to receive the Pell Grant, attend college, and gain the opportunities tied with a degree.

The bill now moves to the Senate for a much tougher fight –but before any action, Senators must understand the following points:

This added investment in the Pell Grant is long overdue and desperately needed. Education is the foundation for any competitive economy; and the U.S., once a worldwide leader in education, is quickly falling behind other industrialized nations in important education indicators. The U.S. now ranks tenth among industrialized nations in the percentage of 25-34 year olds with an associate’s degree or higher. The OECD also ranks the U.S. near the bottom of industrialized nations in the percentage of entering students that complete a degree program. Or to put it more simply, one in five American students pursuing a bachelor’s degree never finish.

Why does the U.S. underperform when it comes to education? Because college has become increasingly unaffordable for some of our nation’s brightest students. Since 2000, tuition adjusted for inflation has increased nearly 30 percent –but this is only an average. Meanwhile, it is estimated that between 1.4 million and 2.4 million bachelor’s degrees would be lost this decade among college-qualified high school graduates as a result of financial barriers.

The Pell Grant program, created in 1972, was originally intended to cover most of the costs of college. In 1977, the maximum Pell Grant covered 77% of total public college costs. Now, unfortunately, this number has dropped to 32%. That is why SAFRA’s additional funding is needed to restore the Pell Grant’s purchasing power to what it once was.

Many Republicans however oppose investing in Pell Grants. Among them, top ranking House Rep. John Kline (R-MN) warned that as more students attend school because of the economic downturn and more of them qualify for financial aid, the price tag for Pell Grants will be higher than expected, causing the deficit to increase. Rep. Kline’s position is both sad and ironic. Aiding students is exactly what Pell Grants are intended to do, particularly in tough times. Already over 6 million students rely on Pell, and with falling incomes and skyrocketing tuition, the number eligible will only increase. With regards to claims about the budget deficit, the CBO actually estimates that SAFRA will reduce the deficit by $10 billion dollars from the money saved by ending wasteful bank subsidies under the Federal Family Education Loan program. This aspect of SAFRA is explained more fully here.

House Republicans proposed an amendment in a last-ditch attempt to save their friends of the private student loan industry. The amendment, deceivingly titled “Extension of Ensuring Continued Access and Student Loans Act” would have undercut practically all of SAFRA’s achievements, with the government offering yet another big money giveaway to lenders.

Watch for these antics to unfold in the Senate the coming weeks, as Republicans and even some Democrats look to gut SAFRA and ignore logic. But I say let common sense prevail! End wasteful lender subsidies and help our students.

Add Rep. Jim Moran’s town hall Wednesday to the constantly growing list of incidence of violence by right-wing extremists. Last night a man wearing a Cato Institute t-shirt punched a supporter of the proposed health care reform. The victim of the attack, Jeremy, has written his account of the incident on Carrots and Sticks, a DC-based Action Think Tank.

The violence resulted when the Cato-clad man attempted to steal the “Health Care for America Now” signs from pro-reform activists. The man in the Cato shirt began crumpling the signs up and attempting to throw them away. Jeremy would not stand to be bullied in this way; so Jeremy followed him, grabbed his Cato shirt, and then suffered a forceful blow to his face. After the punch, the two were split apart, and the police escorted the attacker off the premises.

Cato Clad Man. Do you know this teabagger?

The man in the Cato shirt was not the only infuriated right-wing protester at Rep. Moran’s town hall. Below is a video of a crazy man screaming a young girl. About 10 seconds in, just after you see a young girl showing her support for the bill, the same angry man screams: “You and Pelsoi are going to hell! You suck!” According to activists in attendance, this man had been screaming at this young girl repeatedly. The wild man then continues to rant and shout at anyone who will listen. He then starts clenching his fists and getting in peoples faces until a friend comes over to restrain him. Watch:

Another video of this same man ranting and screaming can be found here.

People like the irate man in the video and the attacker in the Cato shirt are two of many using violence or intimidation rather than discussion and reason to voice their opinions at political events. Last Monday, at a speech President Obama gave in Phoenix, Arizona, a dozen men were seen with guns, some of which were assault rifles. This also happened in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and elsewhere.

Though these firearms are legally brought to the political rallies, it is tremendously scary. In April, the Department of Homeland Security released a report, originally commissioned by the Bush Administration, that found there is a growing resurgence of violent right-wing extremism in the United States. The DHS report explains that the economic recession and the election of the first African American president has caused a sharp increase in threats and recruitment. Similarly, one federal law enforcement official told the Southern Poverty Law Center that the current climate is ripe for domestic terrorism: “All it’s lacking is spark.” Frank Rich has been writing about this subject ever since anti-Obama folks shouted “Terrorist” and “Off with his head” at Sarah Palin rallies last fall.

Political discourse does not equal violence. This is a huge problem and something must be done.

I’ll let Jeremy, the victim of the Cato-clad attacker, have the final word:

It’s highly unfortunate that people like him feel the need to resort to violence to get their way… That is exactly what is wrong with the American political discourse; when one side feels okay using tactics of intimidation and physical aggression just to advance an agenda, it poisons the whole debate and good policy takes a backseat to who can yell the loudest. We can do better than that.

Yesterday marked the conclusion of the Administration’s Cash for Clunkers program; but as one rebate program winds down, another is preparing to begin. The new program will allocate $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for state-run rebate programs for consumer purchases of qualified home appliances.

This cash for refrigerators program – as many call it – will offer rebates from $50-$200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances which meet the Energy Star requirements established by the government in 1992.

The Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, said upon the program’s announcement:

Appliances consume a huge amount of our electricity, so there’s enormous potential to both save energy and save families money every month. These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Similar rebate programs already exist in over 25 states. The $300 million in federal funds, which come from the Stimulus Bill, will add money to the coffers of those programs, or will create entirely new programs in the other states.

This is an excellent program because upgrading our country’s old appliances will save energy, money (for both the utility and the consumer), and also improve the environment. Indeed, the latest refrigerators cost about one third the money, and use only one third the energy of outdated refrigerators (those made before 1993) according to Energy Star’s savings calculator.

The Department of Energy expects most of the funds to be awarded by the end of November. In order to successfully stimulate the American economy, it is paramount that consumers only receive rebates for appliances manufactured in America. In this way, American jobs will be preserved or created, and more money will remain in the hands of American consumers, companies, and governments.

This program is another example of Stimulus money being spent wisely and productively. At once the initiative will spur domestic production, increase employment, and make our economy leaner and greener. The Obama Administration should be commended for this initiative, which addresses multiple policy objectives in an integrated manner. More programs like this must be implemented in order to continue making positive steps towards revitalizing the American economy.

The Republicans and their right-wing pundits spent July spreading misinformation or just blatantly lying about the health care legislation. You have heard their claims: Americans will be forced into a government-run plan, the bill is an “assault on seniors,” they will be locked up in “medical homes,” and instructed by their physician to commit suicide. All of these myths and others have been repeatedly debunked here.

Now their strategy for August is to continue the misinformation and ratchet up a new campaign that is equally appalling and un-democratic. They are mobilizing a small minority of radical extremists who use nefarious tactics to disrupt town hall meetings, an important forum in the American democratic process.

Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity are the two main national clearinghouse organizations that have been coordinating the malicious and hateful mobs who describe themselves as “tea baggers.” These two groups have been leading the “tea baggers” since the spring when their raucous crowds made headlines protesting on National Tax Day.

In order to incite these riotous and hateful mobs, Freedom Works et al. have been disseminating instructions such as “How to Organize Your Own Tea Party Protest,” and How to “Rock the Town Halls.” Freedom Works also distributes “Town Hall Recess Action Kits.” It is sickening to read these documents. The authors refer to themselves as a “team” hoping to sabotage the town hall meetings. Their stated goal is to make the Representative “feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.” The “Rock the Town Halls” guide explicitly instructs its brainwashed followers to, “watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses –call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out.” Think Progress has more on this here. Their goal is clear: to destroy the town hall as a medium for discussion and actual analysis of the health care legislation.

The Right-wing has attempted to classify these outrageous obstructionist tactics as natural and spontaneous occurrences from angry Americans. However, like most statements from the Right these days, this is blatantly false. Think Progress(link) has done a fantastic job documenting the methods Freedom Works et al. use in order to engineer and coordinate the town hall disturbances. Their organizational tactics include: the “how-to” documents mentioned above, ideas for signs, sample press releases, actual press releases, astroturfing, and ballot initiatives to codify their radical reforms into law.

So what exactly are the obstructionist tactics the conservative extremists are employing to sabotage nearly all constructive dialogue at the town halls? They are shouting and screaming, booing and hissing, interrupting their Reps., and generally disrupting the American democratic process. At a hateful rally in Setauket, NY, police were forced to intervene in order to keep Rep. Tim Bishop safe by escorting him to his car. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that a group of malicious protesters lynched Rep. Frank Kratvoli in effigy. Rachel Maddow may have put it best when she said: “This is orchestrated, mob mentality intimidation. This is called hooliganism.”

One consistent theme throughout all of the town hall’s fanatic crowds has been a chant of “Just Say NO!” Just one example is Lloyd Doggett’s (failed) attempt to talk with his constituency in Austin, Texas earlier this week (See Below). Riotous shots of “Just Say NO!” drowned out Rep. Doggett as well as any constituents who had legitimate questions or comments to raise with their congressman. These unruly fanatics represent the Party of No, the Republican Party. Just as chants of “Just Say NO!” prevented grass roots, democratic dialogue from occurring in Austin, the same mindset is obstructing the comprehensive reform that will benefit all Americans in both the short and long-term (for more specific reference of what that reform looks like see HCAN principals…link). The Republican Party has become the Party of No! They are the obstructionist party preventing legislation that will provide quality, affordable health care for all!

So that is what is happening all across our country. What should the progressives, the Democrats, the supporters of health care reform, and even the supporters of plain, old respectful political discussion do? First off, people with comments or questions at the town halls should be residents of the district. No compensated activist, as many of these people are, should be allowed to move from district to district ruining the town hall conversations. (Evidence suggesting this is exactly what is occurring can be found here and here). Rules must be laid out, security should be in attendance, and disrespectful attendees must be kicked out immediately. The Democratic Alliance of Northwest Indiana held a successful town hall meeting, and they have explained their strategies for success.

The Left needs to out-mobilize the Right. Our opinions and solutions, which by the way are a majority, must be more widespread and visible than a small group of fanatical Right-wing extremists using nefarious tactics to disrupt town halls, which are a key medium in the American democratic process. The majority of Americans support the public option; the Congressmen and women in the House and Senate should reflect the American people’s wishes, and vote to pass comprehensive health care reform with a robust public option.

Here’s a clear and informative piece. This type of information is insufficiently understood and known; thus I re-post it here. (And because my previous health care “update” is laughably outdated)….

****

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act: Implementation Timeline

The latest news from Heath Care for America Now:

A health care House tri-committee bill will pass by the end of the month. They are asking the progressive community to keep producing positive stories on a public health care plan since the Senate version may not/is not likely to pass before the Summer Recess on August 1st. And Republicans will most likely come out strongly against a public plan during August. After the House passes their bill, the August recession will be spent arguing over the specifics of the bill. “Moderate” or “Centrist” Democrats will be the target whom both sides will be trying to influence. Read more about this here.

The Senate HELP committee has produced a pretty solid bill. Though, not quite as good as the House tri-committee bill, but it does have a public option. Details of that bill can be found in Krugman’s article today http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06krugman.html

Once the two legislative bodies pass their respective bills, a joint Conference Committee is formed to reconcile the two bills. The Conference committee produces a new bill which is then approved or disapproved of by each legislative body. Then the President must sign it. Obama has demanded the Conference committee’s bill on his desk by Oct. 15, a demand which is looking increasingly difficult to achieve.

A solid health care bill passed behind schedule is way superior than rushing a bad one into law.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former US military analyst employed by the Rand Corporation who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and other newspapers.

He wrote an very interesting article for the Harvard International Review in 2002. It’s interesting from a historical perspective, governance perspective and more, and he proposes a solution that’s hard to disagree with.

Secrecy oaths: A License To Lie?

Harvard International Review – June 22, 2004

Daniel Ellsberg

Between 1968 and 1971, I repeatedly broke a solemn, formal promise that I had made in good faith: not to reveal to any “unauthorized persons” information that I received through certain channels and under certain safeguards, collectively known as the “classification” system.

I have never doubted that, under the circumstances facing me, I did the right thing when I revealed the contents of the top-secret Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War to the US Senate and the press. Although it involved breaking the promises I had made to various government agencies and the Rand Corporation, it was the only way to inform the US Congress and the US public of information that was being wrongfully withheld from them; I had considered many other options and tried most of them. The information was vital to Constitutional processes of decision-making on an ongoing war in which tens of thousands of US citizens and many more Vietnamese had been–in effect–lied to death.

Moreover, this had occurred with the complicity of a generation of officials–myself among them–who had placed loyalty to their oaths of secrecy (and to their bosses and careers) above their loyalty to the US Constitution and to their opportunity to avert or end an unnecessary, wrongful, hopeless, and vastly destructive war. By 1971, it was clear to me that it was my earlier complicity with the secrecy system that was mistaken and censurable, not my later choice to tell the truth.

I signed many secrecy “oaths,” or contractual agreements, over the years: as a US Marine officer, as an employee of the Rand Corporation, as a consultant to the offices of the US Secretary of Defense, the US Department of State, and the White House, and later as an employee of the US Department of Defense and the US Department of State. All of them were blanket promises that I would never give any information that was identified as safeguarded, “secret,” or “classified,” to a person who had not been otherwise authorized to receive it by the person or agency that gave me the information.

Implicit in my promises not to reveal such information to “unauthorized” persons was that I would follow them no matter what this information might be: whether it revealed evidence of official lies, crimes, planning for wars in violation of ratified treaties or the US Constitution, violations or planned violations of laws made by the US Congress; whether the unauthorized persons or agencies were officials of the legislative and judicial branch who vitally needed the information to carry out their constitutional functions and had a legitimate right to learn the truth; whether an election, congressional investigation, or vote that decided issues of war and peace were affected by the silence and obedient lies about the government’s plans and actions; and whether countless people had died and were continuing to die because the information was being wrongfully withheld by my own colleagues and superiors under a policy of secrecy and deception.

That is how I was meant to understand those promises. And for many years, I followed the rules. Of course, they were not explicitly spelled out in the papers I signed, nor were they told to me in briefings. If they had been, they would have given me a good deal of pause, to say the least. I suspect this is the reason why they are not spelled out, since a contract so pervasive and perilous would make prospective employees much more hesitant to sign it.

Would I have signed those contracts regardless? Probably–at least in the beginning, which was in the mid- and late 1950s. Government secrets had been so well kept for a long time, that as a young citizen, I was unaware of ever having to handle such problematic information in the service of the government. I would not have believed that the circumstances or conflicts suggested were ever likely to arise. However, within a year after I first signed such an agreement in 1958, I knew better, though it was still a decade after that before I began copying secret information that had been wrongfully withheld and giving it to the US Congress and the press.

Had the obligation to keep silent about lies and crimes been made explicit during that period, it would have been more difficult for me to continue repeating these promises as I took new jobs, renewed old contracts, and received higher clearances. It would have been harder to conceal from myself that what I was being asked to sign was an agreement to participate in major governmental conspiracies and grave obstructions of justice by remaining silent, actively misleading or lying, or even committing perjury under oath. An oath so stated and interpreted would be in flagrant violation of my superseding oath to uphold the laws as consecrated in the US Constitution.

I should never have been asked to make such a promise, nor should any government official or citizen in a democracy be encouraged or obliged to make such a pledge in this form or under this interpretation, nor should they agree to make the promise if it is proposed. Yet the fact is that millions of patriotic citizens believe, in perfectly good conscience, that they have made just such a pledge, usually without realizing all that it entails. They see no constitutional problem in even being asked to give such an assurance as a condition of governmental employment. However, true popular sovereignty–in particular, democratic control of foreign and military policy–is simply impossible to achieve if official behavior reflecting this understanding is widespread, as it is now, and goes unchallenged.

The solution is not to make such an obligation to lie explicit in secrecy agreements (which may themselves be secret), but more drastic: to forbid agreements that encourage or permit such an interpretation of secrecy oaths. Every person should be made aware that an agreement or oath so interpreted is not legally or morally binding and is, in fact, wholly improper. There is no agreement that US citizens can sign that can require them lie to the US Congress or courts–or for that matter, to the electorate.

This is not to deny the necessity of discretion or even formal secrecy agreements in certain settings in a democratic republic. But if a democratic government is to survive and function in a meaningful sense, those secrecy agreements must be understood to be provisional and subordinate to higher loyalties and laws and obligations, and limited by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Very simply, every secrecy agreement should state explicitly: “I understand that nothing in this agreement obliges me or permits me to give false testimony to Congress or a court, or in particular to commit perjury under oath.” Such a statement would in itself bestow not a “right to disclose,” but rather a “right not to lie to Congress.” It would guarantee citizens the right not to be forced to commit perjury as a condition of employment involving classified information. It would deny that a security clearance or a non-disclosure agreement carries with it the right to lie under oath or that it constitutes legal protection against prosecution for perjury, which negates the right and duty of every citizen to tell the truth in sworn testimony.

The executive branch of the United States could not oppose such legislation with precisely the same constitutional and practical arguments it musters against congressional efforts to promote and protect disclosure. In fact, the executive branch would have a hard time opposing it at all (though it would do its best), since it is considerably more difficult to openly defend lying to the legislative branch than it is to defend the withholding of information, even though secrecy managers may feel with great conviction that one requires the other.

If enacted–over a probable presidential veto–this legislation would alert officials newly entering the secrecy system to the likely possibility that at some point they will be expected or asked by their superiors to give deceptive testimony or even lie under oath, and would inform them that this will be presented to them as justified by the need for secrecy and their signing the non-disclosure agreement. This clause would at least prepare them to question that construction.

Reading and signing this clause will not end all perjury or all deceptive testimony to US Congress and domestic judicial bodies. Superiors will be able to suggest very strong bureaucratic incentives and give persuasive rationales for giving misleading or false reports to those outside their own agency. But obliging employees to read and sign this clause will force them to recognize that in such a situation, they face a choice involving personal responsibility and accountability.

Such a change will act to deprive them of the belief, widely held and strongly encouraged by the bureaucracy, that they “have no choice” but to deceive or withhold the truth, simply by virtue of their having signed this agreement and by the bureaucracy’s decision to classify certain data. And it will warn them that this agreement will not protect them from the consequences of committing perjury.

In reality, at present these consequences are fairly mild and even hypothetical compared to the likely career consequences of defying one’s superiors. It is likely that no official has ever spent a day in jail for lying to the US Congress on a matter of “national security.” Still, quite apart from fear of prosecution or punishment, many officials have undoubtedly been influenced in their willingness to lie because they believed that they had made a promise in good faith to lie, if necessary, to keep officially designated secrets under the lid. Eliminating this belief would therefore be a significant step toward the solution. Though this false belief will continue to be instilled through verbal warnings and non-codified behavior in ways that could not be prevented by any legislation, such legislation would at least warn people that it is not the compelling justification that people such as Richard Helms (the only director of the US Central Intelligence Agency to be convicted of lying to the US Congress about undercover activities) and Elliott Abrams (indicted for giving false testimony about his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair) have put forth, perhaps with some sincerity, when their lies were exposed.

While the clause I propose seems obvious, as it merely states the signer’s pre-existing obligations under US law, I believe that such legislation would have a profound and positive effect on the democratic system. If this legislation were enacted and implemented, the effect will be a little more truth-telling and less deception in congressional testimonies and perhaps even to the public. There might even be marginally fewer policies adopted whose attractiveness depends on non-accountability and secrecy from the legislative and judicial branches and voters because of their criminal nature or their excessive costs and dangers.

For this very reason, it would almost surely be opposed fiercely by “national security” agencies and the government in general. But the very process of proposing and pressing for this legislation, to the extent that it can force this opposition into the open, will be politically educational as discussions over the nature, implications, and dangers of the secrecy system come to the forefront. Forcing advocates of the “secrecy community” to explicitly defend the questionable right to demand that their employees be ready to lie would be enlightening to many. It could contribute to a general willingness to re-examine the need for the entitlements of the secrecy system in the post-Cold War era, as well as the threat to rational policy-making and democracy.

If such a paragraph had been in plain print on the secrecy agreements that were presented to millions of US citizens every year during the Cold War, I believe that there would be fifty thousand less names on the US Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Tens of thousands fewer nuclear warheads would have been produced (even in the Soviet Union, despite the secrecy that was indeed central to its form of government), though the actual arsenals on both sides would still be dangerously excessive. Over a hundred thousand lives might have been saved in Guatemala and the rest of Central America. And the United States would be far more secure today than it is from prospects of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

This is not because no official would have ever lied to others, but because they would not have lied or concealed the truth under the genuine impression that they were obliged to do so by a promise they had made, or by loyalty to a boss or agency’s interpretation of national security needs that outweighed loyalty to higher laws such as the US Constitution.

Under these circumstances, many officials–enough of them to have made a crucial difference–would have chosen not to mislead. The catastrophic follies whose preparation and perpetuation essentially depended on deception would have been averted.

Finally, one further mandated addition to the secrecy oaths would serve these vital goals. Since these oaths are signed so frequently and taken so seriously, there is no better place to remind government employees of their true obligations as stated in the United States’ Code of Ethics for Government Service, passed by the US Congress on July 11, 1958: “Any person in government service should put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to the Country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.”

DANIEL ELLSBERG was Special Assistant to former Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton. While working as a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation, he publicly released in 1971 the top secret study of the Vietnam War, later known as the Pentagon Papers.

Since President Obama’s escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan in March, much discussion has ensued around the world and around this blog, especially in this post: Underestimating Our Afghan Summer

And many developments in Afghanistan have ensued. Here is what I do know:

- Since his inauguration, President Obama has authorized 21,000 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

- The president correctly believes that the troops deserve a straightforward answer to the question: “What is our purpose in Afghanistan?” And his response was this:

“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

- In relation to the increased troop levels, the number of “security incidents” has also increased sharply, rising over 1,000 for the first time in May, 2009. This is a 43% increase over the same period in 2008. The bottom line: it has been the most intense fighting season so far experienced, according to the UN Security Council. This has been an expected development.

- “The first major operation launched with the additional troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Obama is devised to clear Taliban havens across a strategic southern province — and then, in a marked departure from past practice, to leave clusters of Marines in small bases close to the villagers they were sent to guard and aid, according to senior military officers.” From this article.

- Today, the NYT reported that Russia has agreed to let American troops and weapons bound for Afghanistan fly over Russian territory. Though the New York Times considers this an “achievement,” it’s hard to know whether this development is good or bad; it may be good for US – Russian relations, but bad for US – Afghani relations, and certainly bad for the Afghans and Americans dying by our prolonged and heightened involvement there.

- On a similar note, Kyrgyzstan’s Parliament ratified an agreement recently to allow the US to maintain operations at an airport that has become a key support base and transit hub for the troops in Afghanistan. (Hard to tell if this is good or bad?)

- The Department of Defense has identified 707 American service members who have died as a part of the Afghan war and related operations. It confirmed the death of the following American on Tuesday: Terry J. Lynch, 22, Sgt., Army; Shepherd, Mont.; 10th Mountain Division. (FYI, 4,308 have died in Iraq.)

- Probably more than 20,000 Afghan civilians have died as a result of the war between the US and the Afghan insurgents. A good NYT article on this note…

- Afghanistan has an upcoming election on August 20th. Current president Hamid Karzai is likely to be reelected.

So that’s what I know. There is way more that I don’t know. And I have one question: At what point do US casualties like Terry Lynch, and increasingly frequent Afghan casualties, convince policy-makers that fighting a guerrilla-style war in Afghanistan’s Helmand province is not keeping the US and the world safer, but rather is resulting in greater insecurity?

Annnd, If you only follow one link in this blog post, it should be this one: http://www.cfr.org/publication/19738/security_council_meeting_on_complex_situation_in_afghanistan_june_2009.html

Whenever people say that Michael can’t compare to Elvis, just say: “But my hero fucked your hero’s daughter. Your move.” – Phonte

Update: One of my favorite rappers, Phonte from Little Brother, posted up this great essay on his website, capturing the feelings about Michael Jackson’s death better than I ever could have:

My Hero Ain’t Molest Them Bitch Ass Kids: Phonte’s teary-eyed tribute to The King

——

Older post:

Rest in peace to one of the greatest artists of all time, the King will be missed.  I grew up off his music, I remember it vividly throughout my childhood. There’s too many classics and accomplishments to recap, plus that doesn’t do justice to the legend he actually was.  I had always found it disappointing that his American fans turned their back on him after his numerous scandals, while the world continued to support and love his music. He did some crazy shit – no doubt about that one – but ever since five years old hes devoted his life to his fans and making his incredible music.

It always bothered me the way our society treated Michael Jackson.  Even twenty years after his ground-breaking albums, nobody in pop is really doing anything new musically (besides auto-tune) or dance wise (c’mon Ne-Yo? don’t even mention Chris Brown).  When he was in the peak of his career his music carried messages of love and unity.  Is there a single pop star today who carries any real message consistently?  I wanted to post a little reminder that when Michael Jackson was at the height of his career, he devoted much of his content and ambitions towards uniting his listeners and working together to “heal the world.”

Maybe my favorite music video intro of all time:

Remember, he was given FIVE primetime spots to debut THIS video:

]]> http://infinitesymposium.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/but-if-youre-thinkin-about-my-baby-it-dont-matter-if-youre-black-or-white/feed/ 0 thetruth31