Okay.  So there are obviously some problems here.  The basic premise of the Afghanistan War is, in this writer’s opinion, indisputably “good.”  It was to remove a brutal theocratic regime that was housing and protecting the terrorists who murdered 3,000 of our number on September 11.  Removing that regime from power is a “good” thing on its face.  Hell, removing Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party from power was a “good” thing at its face, but the truth about these wars is that we are very good at setting a philosophical basis for the wars, but we suck at the execution.

I say this because analysts are starting to suspect that victory may not be possible in Afghanistan.  On NPR the other day, an interviewer asked an analyst what was at stake if we pulled out, and he simply said, “If we can’t win the war, why ask that question anyway?”

What’s upsetting here is to see Afghanistan turn into another Vietnam.  The basis of the war in Vietnam was far more suspect, but they seem to be ending the same way.  It’s like we didn’t learn our lesson.  It’s like we didn’t look to the British or the Soviets history in Afghanistan and say, what are we going to do differently?

What’s worse, the less legitimate (and, by International law standards the illegal) war in Iraq seems to be… succeeding.  To succeed where we’re wrong and fail where we’re right!  America as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

We are already experiencing a discontent public with war in Afghanistan, and the Taliban have explicitly said they are playing a waiting game.  The perennial ethical dilemma is, do we stay there if we’re not going to actually fix the problem?  Is it abandoning a people we promised (perhaps wrongly) to save?

Probably, yes.  There is no doubt that the war was handled negligently during the Bush years, and our overtures of “nation-building” were, if not disingenuous, ultimately doomed.

The ethical dilemmas here are unbelievably deep.  A war justified from the start, a GOOD war (if there can be such thing), mishandled and mismanaged.  A people we should have been rescuing left and abandoned.  And now, with a new, significantly more responsible President trying to “end” the war, but cynically declaring a draw-down and pull-out immediately prior to his re-election.  This isn’t a new story, the common people being screwed by the higher ups.  But it never gets easier to watch.

So we’ll spend more time in Afghanistan, but because there is no credible central government, because Pakistan is supporting the insurgency while declaring themselves an ally of the United States, because we still haven’t figured out the Vietnamese problem of fighting a guerrilla enemy indistinguishable from the innocents, we’ll probably lose.  And if Afghanistan falls, what happens will be infinitely more horrific but no less painful than our helplessness at being unable to stop it.

Anyway, I know you are going to dismiss the show because Dwight from The Office likes it, and hey, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your stupid opinion.  The reason that this is showing up here is because the show is the smartest show to have ever been on TV in terms of understanding the complexity of politics.  When is a government justified in killing?  When is revolt okay, when is it not?  Is terrorism ever justified?  What defines our concept of who is human and who is not?

And that’s how I’m going to tie it to this, a political blog.  The topic for this entry is the massive leak of materials to WikiLeaks.  You’ve undoubtedly heard of the leak:  There are about 91,000 documents that were leaked to the site, designed as a middle-man between the public and the whistle-blowers, and the documents, entitled the “Afghan War Diary” essentially describe how the ISAF forces are worried about interference in operations and possible collusion with the Taliban coming from Pakistan and Iran, the upsurge in recent Taliban attacks, and a long listing of civilian casualties that were previously unreported.

At its core, it’s particularly disturbing, because this information is mostly classified as “secret,” which is not a high level designation, unlike, for example the Pentagon Papers, which were significantly more revelatory about the war efforts.

What exactly is one morally obligated to do when they have access to this material and don’t believe in what is being done?  To what extent does this material “endanger American operations” and servicemen?  Wouldn’t any bad publicity about a war technically endanger the operations?  Wouldn’t that lead to total government control of the situation?  Isn’t that in itself far too dangerous?

The suspected leaker is Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst for the Army, who is also suspected of leaking the recent video to the press that showed the killings of a number of civilians and reporters in Iraq.   He apparently had been becoming disillusioned with American foreign policy and made the mistake of transferring information to a grey hat hacker/journalist known as Adrian Lamo, who breached confidentiality and gave his name to the authorities.

Ultimately, this whole event has made it clear to the public that the operation in Iraq – McChrystal aside – is very much in danger of failing.  Obama’s commitment to the war – despite the fact that it is Bush’s war – may be a part of his potential political downfall, and the transparency promised during his campaign seems to be becoming increasingly tarnished.

I don’t really have anything else to say about this subject, but I’m actually going to request comments here:  is leaking ever justified?  Where should the line between right-to-know and security be drawn?  Is anything more awesome than Battlestar Galactica?

As we quickly approach the current Administration’s mid-term, an increase in focus on likely scenarios for the 2012 election pick up steam. With less than half of his term complete, President Obama’s team must already look ahead to 2012 and what it will take to hold on to the White House. The team would do well to channel the Clinton Administration’s “It’s the economy, stupid” mantra since nothing will have more impact on the mood of the voters than jobs and other economic issues.

While current conventional wisdom is that the economy overall is on the upswing, the attitude of the country is still largely pessimistic. Pockets that have been the hardest hit by the recession such as California, Florida, and the Rust Belt have yet to experience much of the job growth or housing market recovery that is often written about these days. Consumers are still fearful of overspending and the bankruptcy rate for the first six months of 2010 was up 14% over the same period last year. Clearly we are not out of the woods.

Regardless of gains made in passing Health Care Reform, Financial Industry Reform, or the war in Afghanistan, voters will likely cast their ballot in the 2012 election based on their feelings about the economy. The electorate has a short memory and despite the fact that it took years for the government to get the country in the financial mess it’s in, people want (actually need) quick action. It doesn’t matter which political party held office when the world financial collapse began, it is up to the Obama administration to convince the American people that they are not just the team to get us out of it but that we are already out of it.

It is impossible to predict whether or not measures such as the stimulus package will have done enough to create jobs and restore consumer confidence by the time the 2012 election kicks into high gear. Certainly every American hopes so.

Having said all that, even if the economy continues to sputter winning against an incumbent is no slam-dunk for the Republicans. This is particularly true since as of yet no leader has emerged that appears strong enough to unseat the sitting President. With just two years to go the GOP appears fragmented and unable to come to consensus on just what direction it wants to go — other than agreeing that it should block the Democrats. It will take a very strong leader to unite the party and create enough momentum to convince the eletorate that the Obama Administration has had enough time to finish the job.

While we can be certain that the 2012 election will be unable to match 2008 in terms of historical significance, it is possible that it could come close to matching in terms of drama. Nevertheless, both parties have a lot of work to do to prepare the country for another round of promises and campaign rhetoric. Unless we see considerable improvement in the economy overall between now and the 2012 election, voters may just decide that it’s time to throw them all out.

Will a Republican candidate that is strong enough to win emerge in time for the 2012 Presidential Election?

As citizens and pundits look forward to the 2012 Presidential election we can be certain of one thing–we will not experience the historic drama and significance witnessed in the 2008 election. Never before had a country held it collective breath in anticipation of such tide change. It can also be said that never before, or at least for a very long time, had the majority of Americans held out hope for greater change in the way our government operated.

Yes, indeed, the election of the first African American president was historic and game changing. For many voters, it was the dream of a lifetime, for others it was confirmation that the country was headed down the wrong path. For many, the promised change has been slow to come and the difficulties brought about due to the flagging economy drug on far too long. For some, the 2012 election can’t come soon enough and for others the hope for change remains. Whatever way you look at it, the 2012 Presidential election is like to be a referendum on the performance of the Obama administration.

It is widely assumed that Barak Obama will once again be the Democratic candidate. But can he win? It is clearly too soon to tell and it is certainly not a given. Many who hung their hope for change on the young president are voicing disappointment in the administration’s handling of the economy and the war in Afghanistan and the Democrats continue to face stiff competition in both the House and the Senate. Few would argue that the sweeping change that many anticipated has come despite significant new legislation regarding health reform and financial regulation.

Depending on the side of the aisle you stand on, Obama is an easy win or a sure loser for the 2012 Presidential election. But the real question is can the Republicans put for a candidate that is strong enough to beat an incumbent? As it stands right now there is no clear front runner to take the nomination. Electability will be a key consideration for any candidate as will the ability to fight what may be a country-wide desire to make a statement against all politicians. Mid term elections will offer some insight into the mood of the country in this regard. Should voters sweep out long term politicians wholesale, all bets will be off.

The list of potential 2012 Presidential election Republican candidates is long. From familiar names such as John McCain and Mike Huckabee to newcomers like Scott Brown we find a wide range of potential candidates. Should Sarah Palin decide to run as many suspect she will; the fight for the nomination will be unpredictable. It is difficult to predict the impact the Tea Party will have and lesser players such as Bobby Jindal and Charlie Christ could step to the forefront to offer less traditional alternatives.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party it is fragmented and will likely to remain so for some time. Whether or not a candidate that is strong enough to win can come forward and take the 2012 Presidential election will depend for the large part on how quickly the economy recovers and whether the Obama administration can reverse the downward trend in the approval polls. For now, it is too soon to tell.

To many Americans it seems like only yesterday that they went to the ballot box to cast their vote in arguably the most historic presidential elections of all time. The current Administration’s term is not even halfway over yet. Nevertheless, a great deal has happened since the last election. Heath care reform was passed after a long and brutal political battle, the war on Afghanistan has continued to drag on, and significant financial reform legislation has been passed. The economic stimulus package rolled out to much fanfare and programs such as Cash for Clunkers were launched to try to stop the economic bleeding that has affected so many Americans.

One would think that with so many key initiatives put in place in such a short period of time would ensure that the incumbent president would retain the White House when it comes time for the 2012 election. Particularly since historically the incumbent has won the presidency 70% of the time. For the 2012 election, however, re-election is not a certainty. A lot can still happen before the 2012 election. In fact, the state of the economy is likely to determine whether or not the Obama Administration is able win the 2012 election.

Regardless of political party affiliation, most Americans will agree that the single most important issue that will impact the results of the next election is the economy. While many experts are insisting that the country has turned the corner and is on the move up again, many Americans have yet to see it. In fact, many are worse off than they were just a year ago. Even when they acknowledge that it takes time for a rebound to really kick in, voters are discouraged and pessimistic about the state of the economy.

President Obama’s approval ratings seem to be holding steady they have continued to decline. The crisis in the Gulf and concern over the war in Afghanistan are certainly contributing factors but the over riding issue on the minds of all American’s is the economy, jobs, and finances.

Despite the fact that job growth numbers have risen and availability of credit is improving, the country is skeptical that we are out of the woods. This creates a good deal of uncertainty for both the Democrats and the Republicans. But a dissatisfied populace does not necessarily mean the incumbent will lose his seat. It is up to the opposition party to come up with a candidate that is actually electable. There is little evidence at the moment that the Republicans will actually be able to accomplish this for the 2012 election.

There is no question there are plenty of Republicans who appear to be willing to take on the job. From old standbys like John McCain to new faces like Bobby Jindal the cast of characters is long. The disappointment and skepticism regarding the direction of the country is real and could lead to unexpected results come November 2012. The country is as disenchanted with its politicians as it has ever been and there is a widespread feeling that it doesn’t matter which party you support since neither side seems to be responding to the needs of the American people. It remains to be seen if the Republicans will be able to convince the American people that they can make enough of a difference to give them back the White House in the 2012 election.

And that goes for all news organizations, really.  Sure, it is probably the news consumer’s fault, but it is still kind of absurd how much stupid crap gets put out there.  Integrity has come second place to entertainment.

I’m especially annoyed about this Ground Zero issue.  There is a particular cowardice in the modern news to call out bigotry when they see it, and it is absolutely absurd that this is even an issue.  Guess what?  The hijackers were extremist.  Like 99% of the world’s 1 billion Muslims AREN’T.  And this is AMERICA, we don’t prevent certain groups from building a mosque just because we don’t like them.

There were some 60 Muslims in the towers or in the Pentagon who were killed by the terrorists as well, so please, don’t think that Anglo-Saxon Americans have a monopoly on what America is.  The fact that this IS an issue is, in fact despicable, and the fact that people such as Mrs. Palin would come speak out against it is absurd.  They aren’t building a mosque on top of the rubble, they are building it two blocks away.  What’s the distance all Muslims should stay away from Ground Zero to “be respectful”?

I think I speak for pretty much anyone with a shred of moral fiber when I say, blow me, Sarah Palin.  And pretty much anyone else who is protesting this.  This is America, not Saudi Arabia, and what differentiates our society from a despotic one is that we allow foreigners and the minorities to live and thrive here in peace.  When they get that citizenship, they are just as American as we are.

Sarah Palin, as I said in earlier blogs, has absolutely no chance of winning in 2012, for a number of reasons.  First off, a recent poll found that Sarah Palin, while receiving a favorable rating among most Republicans and having the best name recognition, had much less support among the Republicans.

She seems to clearly be interested in the White House, and she doesn’t seem to get that her nomination as the Vice Presidential candidate sabotaged John McCain’s sizeable chance of winning in 2008.  She has maintained a solid public profile, and would be a decent bet for the Republican nomination in 2012, but moderates don’t like her, and Democrats despise her.  What’s more:  she’s SUCH an easy target.  Everyone remembers the borderline gibberish she spewed when asked basic questions by Katie Couric in ‘08, and how she then attacked Couric for “gotcha journalism,” despite Couric’s reputation as kind of being one of the easiest hosts to get interviewed by, and asking questions that any politician, let alone presidential candidates, should have been able to answer.

So what will happen with her?

She may win the Republican nomination off of her support in the party, and she may be able to propel herself through the primaries.  Then, I think we’ll be seeing a slaughter.  A presidential debate between hot-headed Palin and calm, intelligent Obama, would be like watching… okay, weird simile, but it would be like watching a cook bludgeon a fish to death with a mallet.  I don’t know why that’s the image that popped into my head.

But regardless, Palin is an easy one to fear monger over (and rightfully so, as her election would probably be the precursor to the apocalypse, and YES that’s supposed to be ironic.  Sort of. ), and though the Republicans have tried doing that with Obama, they have largely failed.  He is really good at parrying complaints.

And you need to bring over the moderates.  Moderates might not like Obama, but they sure as hell don’t like Palin, and Palin won’t win without moderates.

I see two scenarios:  One is the Republicans try and neutralize her by offering her the position as the party head, knocking out the inept Michael Steele, who is currently involved in like ten scandals.  They may also just sabotage her run.

Or they will embrace her.  If she gets into the primaries, she may beat out Huckabee or Romney, and if she does, Obama will trounce her so hard in the general election that the rest of us will all finally earn what we’ve wanted for two years now:  For Sarah Palin to just go away.

This seems to be a trend across the board.  I remember hearing SO many people say, “Well I hate Bush, and that’s really why I’m voting for Kerry.”  Or:  “I’m pretty uncomfortable putting Sarah Palin a step away from the Presidency, but I like McCain a lot better than Obama.”

The divide between Republicans and Democrats is not only getting wider, it’s absorbing the fringes.  Which isn’t necessarily a good thing.  We need fringes, because some fringes aren’t all that stupid.  Take the libertarians:  as revolting as Ayn Rand is, they keep our government efficient.  And take the communists:  as absurdly utopian as the ideas of Karl Marx may be, they take care of our workers and keep the government human.

Which ends up benefiting the overall political spectrum.  You’ve got sides fighting for freedom and humanity, but these sides don’t seem to fall as much into the cynically political Democrat or Republican camps (and I realize there are plenty of exceptions on both sides, I’m just referring to the parties as single political entities to make a point).

You’ve got the Democrats, who declare they are more compassionate, but they haven’t really succeeded in ending either of the wars or shutting down Gitmo, and then you’ve got the Republicans, who say they are fiscally more responsible but… well, they aren’t.

So what’s the fix?  One is systemic:  our legislative bodies could be converted to a parliamentary model.  You elect parties rather than personalities, so you are electing an ideology of governance rather than a single person based on how good they are at giving speeches.

The other fix, which is much more realistic, is that we all start voting like idealists.  If you vote for third party candidates that you actually agree with, and if EVERYONE does that, then we’ll all stop voting according to whether or not a candidate is better than George Bush.  Which is a weak standard to hold ourselves up to.

The question of course, is whether this effects the “normalization” or whatever to relationships with Russia.  Sure, the incident was probably poorly timed, what with Obama and Medvedev buddying up a little bit, for the leaders of the two countries, but in the end, I just don’t see how this will make any difference.  About anything.  Spying happens.

What is funny is how much attention this redhead is getting.  How is that news?  Attractive redhead is a spy!  No!  Attractive spies?  That flies in the face of all of our preconceived notions about spydom!

Maybe it’s because I’ve gotten obsessed with the show Archer lately, or maybe it’s that we haven’t been able to get anyone to kill bin Laden yet, but I’m starting to wonder how intelligent our intelligence is.  And Russia’s, for that matter.  Actually, I take that back.  I never wonder anything about Russia.  Our images of spies are ones of extreme competence, to the point where you’d think basic assassinations would not be all that difficult (seriously, we couldn’t kill Fidel?), and learning about our neighbors would always involve testicle-shrinking feats of bravery – planting microphones in the air vents of a chemical weapons depot – rather than it being, okay, hey, go to the United States, and pretend you are a legal immigrant.  And, you know, just chill.  Introduce yourself to some people, mmk?

This is all boring.  Spies should be awesome.  Our intelligence services should be totally awesome, and good and evil should be clear cut.  But now it seems like the military and intelligence services, despite getting a bigger budget than ANYONE (and I love how conservatives always talk about the military being the only branch who can spend money effectively), are run by thugs, politickers, or incompetents.

Really, all I’m saying is that I want to play Goldeneye when I get home.  And seriously.  If that’s all the spies are doing here, let them stay.  This country is going through a devastating borscht shortage, and we can use all the Russian immigrants we can get.

ISRAEL elected Benyamin Netanyahu, leader of the center-right Likud party, in the middle of last year.  Netanyahu then formed a coalition that leaned further to the right, though he had his choice between forming a more centrist government or a right-wing government.  This was probably the start of the problems with Obama.  Netanyahu has also been on the record as not really supporting a two state solution, which is part of the recently agreed upon Roadmap to Peace.   He is also a little bit wishy-washy about halting settlements in the West Bank, a major sticking point for the Palestinians.

GAZA is a shitstorm.  It is currently controlled by the extremist group Hamas (I say extremist not as any sort of judgment, but because they continue to fire the Qassam rockets and refuse to recognize Israel as a state, two things the more moderate PLO has stopped doing.  They are currently under a blockade from Israel, which has been widely criticized, particularly after Israeli forces boarded a Turkish flotilla bound for Gaza with aid materials, which – the facts are unclear about WHAT happened – resulted in the deaths of 9 Turks.  Israel, which has been blocking the entry of  construction materials, much needed after the 2008-2009 Israel invasion of Gaza, and random food items, has loosened the blockade in attempt to fix its PR.

The WEST BANK is a much more peaceful place, but the economy and life there is more or less crippled by tons of checkpoints a wall built to block out entering terrorists.  The wall has drastically reduced terrorist attacks, but it has crippled the local economy and has made lives spectacularly difficult for the Palestinians there.  Settlements are also a major issue, as they have not stopped growing, and the Netanyahu government seems intent on pushing forward on this front.

The UNITED STATES has had some issues with Netanyahu.  Obama has been in a tough place, and is clearly having trouble reconciling his desire to improve US standing in the Muslim world with the political and strategic necessity of protecting Israel.  Netanyahu snubbed VP Joe Biden by allowing an announcement of settlement expansions with Biden arrived for peace talks, and then Obama snubbed Netanyahu when he visited the US a few months ago.  The backlash was pretty bad for both.

Obama is accused of n0t being pro-Israel enough, though to be fair, no one is as pro-Israel as the unquestioning George W. Bush.  And Netanyahu is alienating everyone he possibly can, from the Turks to the Americans.  It’s a bad situation now, but the latest meeting between Obama and Netanyahu went well and the peace talks are set to resume by September.

The relevance to this blog is that Obama really needs to appear pro-Israel, even though from a strategic standpoint, he really needs to convert more Muslims.  Fixing this problem is huge for the security of the region, and to do so, both sides need to make concessions, but Obama, to get elected to another term, has to appear to still support Israel.  And the public perception is that he doesn’t.  We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out.