Ablogistan

A Moderate Approach to Health Care Reform

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:53:54 -0500

Over at The Moderate Voice, I try to explain why, even if the health care reform debate took hyperpartisan politics to a new level, the actual policy that emerged was about as centrist and moderate as you can get while still reforming the system:

It completely retains the market-based insurance system and expands coverage by simply beefing up an already-existing program (Medicaid) and helping families with tax credits. There is no new government-run insurance program or even an entirely new entitlement, and it even will reduce the deficit over the long haul. The most radical change in the legislation--the mandate to purchase health insurance--is a Republican idea from the 1990s. In fact, the current legislation is almost identical to the Health Equity and Access Reform Act of 1993, a Republican bill proposed as an alternative to Bill Clinton's reform plan.

The right direction

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:56:22 -0500

From Passport:

Percentage of Afghans who believe their country is going in the right direction: 70
Percentage of Americans who believe their country is going in the right direction: 36.6

A new decade

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:50:30 -0500

When the finalists for the "most influential person of the decade" are George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden, you know it was a bad decade. I'm not the only one who thinks so. About half of the country has a negative impression of the last 10 years, which makes it the worst decade in 50 years, in terms of public opinion.

Recessions, wars, terrorism, George W. Bush, reality television, hyper-partisanship, Katrina... we didn't start the fire. On the other hand, we elected Barack Obama and got some amazing new gadgets.

The sins of the past

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:47:40 -0500

Andrew Sprung is drilling down into the specifics of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan circa 1989, using Robert Gates' comments about feeling responsible for abandoning Afghanistan as a springboard. Sprung argues that the abandonment narrative is actually a myth, that the truth is far more guilt-inducing. We didn't just neglect Afghanistan, but continued to fight a proxy war and foment unrest:

After the Soviets did withdraw in early 1989, some U.S. officials felt Washington's geostrategic aims had been achieved and a move toward peace was in order. There also was concern about the Afghan mujahedeen, especially their tendencies toward brutality, heroin trafficking and fundamentalist religious policies.
Yet, the new administration of George H.W. Bush - with Gates having moved from the CIA to the White House as deputy national security adviser - chose to continue U.S. covert support for the mujahedeen, funneled primarily through Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI.

However, instead of a fast collapse, Najibullah's regime used its Soviet weapons and advisers to beat back a mujahedeen offensive in 1990. Najibullah hung on - and the war, the violence and the disorder continued...[snip]

"Najibullah would remain in power for another three years [after the Soviet pull-out], as the United States and the USSR continued to aid their respective sides," Gates wrote in his memoir. "On Dec. 11, 1991, both Moscow and Washington cut off all assistance, and Najibullah's government fell four months later. He had outlasted both Gorbachev and the Soviet Union itself."

The farther you look back in history, the more unanswerable "what ifs" you will find. But a big one in the latter half of the 20th century has to be, "What if the United States and international community had followed through on promises of aid and stability in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew?"

Would the Taliban have ever taken hold? Would Al Qaeda have just found another staging ground, or would it have always had to operate as the dispersed and shadowy network that it is today? And most troubling question of all: Would the attacks of September 11 have happened? Stabilizing Afghanistan wouldn't have prevented Al Qaeda from plotting and carrying out attacks. But if Afghanistan had been a different place in the 1990s, I don't think it's a stretch to argue that the chain of events wouldn't have unfolded the way it did.

Americans tend to have short and myopic memories when it comes to international issues—we distinguish foreign policy approaches in four- or eight-year increments, or maybe more if a war happens to overlap administrations. But that's not how foreign policy works. The pieces of any given decision tend to keep falling into place for decades. In our short-sighted Cold War indifference and aggressiveness yesterday we created the enemies of today. Al Qaeda and the Taliban grew strong on U.S. fat and then feasted on the chaos and vulnerability of Afghanistan.

That's why I can't support pulling out right now. The arguments for diverting the money we're spending on Afghanistan to domestic programs or letting go of the sunk costs are too short-sighted. What happens in 10 or 20 years if the United States leaves Afghanistan in worse shape than when it invaded in 2001? I can't predict the future, but I have a pretty good example from not that long ago to guess a worst-case scenario. I still believe that it's in the United States' long-term security interests to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan.

Plus, we owe it to the Afghans. The U.S. chessmasters created a monster to take down the Soviet Union, merging Afghan ruggedness with imported religious extremism and CIA training and funding. At the time we called them freedom fighters instead of monsters, but we knew soon enough what they were. And after it worked, after 10 years and an estimated 1,000,000 or more Afghan civilian deaths, we walked away.

Overthrowing the Taliban in 2001 alone wasn't enough for redemption. Especially if we make the same mistake again.

The octopus who loved Mr. Potato Head

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:32:44 -0500

From the Metro:

The 1.8m-wide (6ft) creature is so attached to Mr Potato Head that he turns aggressive when aquarium staff try to remove it from his tank. The giant Pacific octopus was given the toy for Christmas and has even learned to dig out food hidden in a secret box at the back of it.
'He's fascinated by it,' said Matt Slater, of the Blue Reef Aquarium in Newquay, Cornwall. 'He attacks the net we use to fish the toy out every time we try to take it away.'

I really don't go digging for weird octopus news. It just seems to find me.

Message from America

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:07:14 -0500

I'm trying to stay away from writing about politics these days because the climate has become pretty unbearable. But when I saw this I couldn't help but imagine what would have happened if a Democrat had pulled a similar stunt when President Bush was traveling internationally. The hot air generated from Republicans' simultaneous accusations of treason would be enough to speed up the global warming process by a decade.

Newt Gingrich's group American Solutions has taken out an full-page ad in a special climate conference edition the Copenhagen Post that relays a "Message from America" to the American delegates, and all others in attendance, depicting the first words of the preamble to the Constitution and the statement that "In America, Mesdames and Messieurs, We the People Govern"--a reminder that no international agreement on emissions reductions is binding in America, unless passed as legislation or ratified as treaty by the U.S. Congress.

If I'm wrong, if there was a similar ad when Bush was in charge, then please send it along. Here's the ad. It pretty much reinforces every stereotype of Americans as self-important, pushy jerks.

Coconut-carrying octopus

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:36:47 -0500

Scientists have observed an octopus collecting coconut shells to use as tools. From Science Daily:

"There is a fundamental difference between picking up a nearby object and putting it over your head as protection versus collecting, arranging, transporting (awkwardly), and assembling portable armor as required," said Mark Norman of the Museum Victoria in Australia.
Julian Finn, also of the Museum Victoria, said the initial discovery was completely serendipitous. "While I have observed and videoed octopuses hiding in shells many times, I never expected to find an octopus that stacks multiple coconut shells and jogs across the seafloor carrying them," he said.

In recalling the first time that he saw this behavior, Finn added, "I could tell that the octopus, busy manipulating coconut shells, was up to something, but I never expected it would pick up the stacked shells and run away. It was an extremely comical sight -- I have never laughed so hard underwater."

These things are so weird. BBC has the video.

By the numbers: Troops in Afghanistan

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:42:25 -0500

From the Guardian, a visual representation of the war in Afghanistan. Two things stood out: 1) There are a lot of private contractors in Afghanistan, and 2) there really aren't that many Taliban in comparison to the combined Afghan and coalition forces.

Black-and-white vs. grayscale

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:54:23 -0500

Correlation does not equal causation, and all that, but this is a pretty interesting graph.

This comes from an in-the-works book about authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Here's the explanation from one of the authors:

In states with lower percentages of people that endorse spanking and washing kids' mouths out with soap, which is the case in New England and much of the Middle Atlantic, Obama did very well. In states with higher percentages, like Wyoming, Idaho, and Alabama, McCain won big. Even the states that fall somewhat far from the trend line are usually easy to explain. For example, Hawaii, Illinois, and Alaska are all favorite son or daughter states. Several states that are below the line, like Nevada, Indiana, and Ohio, are states that have usually voted Republican in the past.
Of course, we don't think that spanking kids causes people to vote Republican. We do, however, show in the book that those who view the world in hierarchical terms, a worldview consistent with using physical means to discipline children, are now much more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, those who view the world in more horizontal terms favor Democratic candidates. The psychological terms that match these colliding worldviews are authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism, which we measure by asking people about their child rearing preferences. Those who favor obedience over self-reliance and respect for elders over independence score high in authoritarianism. Those who favor the reverse are the nonauthoritarians.

I'm not sure that spanking is the best variable for measuring authoritarian views, which the authors say "captures, at its core, a person's need for order, including a strong preference for cognitive certitude." But I think the point about certitude—do you prefer black-and-white or grayscale?—aligning with political preference is pretty spot on.

And by that I mean it seems fairly accurate given my own personal experience and limited knowledge of the topic, but I'm open to other possibilities and unwilling to rule out alternative explanations.

Obama's Nobel Speech

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:31:00 -0500

He didn't shy away from the fact that he's overseeing two wars while accepting a prize for peace, but he outlined a vision for a more peaceful world, which includes advancing economic opportunity:

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity.

I hope he follows through on this advice in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outspending the Taliban

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:45:40 -0500

Apparently the "biggest unexpected fact to emerge" from Gen. McChrystal's testimony to Congress is that the Taliban pays recruits more than the Afghan army. I say apparently, because this has been reported in a few newspapers and I thought it was fairly common knowledge among foreign policy types.

It's good, though, that policy makers are finally starting to connect the dots between economics and the conflict. Matthew Yglesias explains:

If there's anything the international coalition has, it's more money than the Taliban. If the Taliban pay $300 a month, there should be no problem with the coalition putting $350 or $400 a month together. This sort of thing is one reason why, despite some serious doubts about the strategy being pursued, I think there's reason to believe Obama, Petraeus, McChrystal, etc. can make it work. Some of the mistakes in our policy are so egregious that an enormous amount of good is going to be done as we simply reverse the obvious errors.
At the same time, this highlights a lot of lingering issues about the cost-effectiveness of our approach. Why are we spending a multiple of Afghanistan's total GDP on fighting a war in the country? Couldn't more be done, for cheaper, with cash for bribes and development? How is it that it doesn't take the Taliban years to train competent soldiers?

Afghanistan is portrayed as some hopeless cause, but we really have no way of knowing yet because our approach in the past has been so boneheaded.

"It's 99 percent economics"

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:55:49 -0500

Boston Globe columnist Kevin Cullen wrote a good column based on an interview with Stephen Landrigan, a US aid worker who has spent five years working on humanitarian projects in Afghanistan. Landrigan supports the surge of troops, but recognizes that there isn't a military solution to Afghanistan's problems. Money quote:

"It's 99 percent economics,'' Landrigan said. "You want to beat the Taliban? It costs $1 million to keep a US soldier in Afghanistan for a year. Hold back 10 of those soldiers and spend the money to give computers to anyone who wants one, as long as they can read, and if they can't read, teach them. For a small amount, you can buy off most of the Taliban. Some want to be martyrs. Most don't. There's just nothing else for them.
"Most Afghans don't want to fight. They've done it for 30 years. Afghans are probably some of the best entrepreneurs, more hungry for education than anyone I've met. They don't need nation building. They are a nation. Put Afghans to work. Build sewers. They have 22 hydroelectric plants, and only one is working. They need a WPA. They'd work their hearts out. They have an incredible work ethic.''

Thirty thousand more troops aren't going to turn Afghanistan around. If they can open a window for more economic development, the maybe they will make a difference. But I haven't heard much in the way specifics for rebuilding Afghanistan's economy yet.

The cost of three decades of war

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:56:27 -0500

A group of nongovernmental organizations recently polled 704 randomly-selected Afghans about how decades of conflict has changed their lives. Andrew Sprung has a summary:

1 in 5 say they've been tortured, three quarters have been forced to leave their homes at some point in the endless civil war, 43% have had property destroyed. The survey also has what would seem to be some moderately encouraging findings regarding the counterinsurgency: 70% see unemployment and poverty as a key driver of civil war; 48% blame the government's weakness and corruption; 36% point to the Taliban; 25% to interference by neighboring countries; just 18% to the presence of international forces; another 18% to al Qaeda-- and another 17% to the lack of support from the international community. After 30 years of civil war, only 3% named the current conflict as the most harmful period (though the report cautions that areas where the current fighting is worst are underrepresented).

The emphasis is mine. Notice the factors that the U.S. policy makers seem to identify as priorities—the Taliban, al Qaeda, and corruption in the government—are dwarfed by unemployment and poverty in the eyes of Afghans. That disconnect is revealing. The general consensus from the respondents was, if people are employed, the fighting will end. Here's a quote from a woman in Kabul:

"We thank God that the fighting we saw during Taliban does not exist now, even though still they do suicide attacks. The main harm of the current conflict is poverty and unemployment. If there are employment opportunities for the people, there won't be killings."

That's a point I've been trying to make on this blog for some time. It's not that rooting out the Taliban and cleaning up the government aren't important, but they will ultimately be futile efforts without some serious attempts to improve the fundamentals of Afghanistan's economy. Among its recommendations, the report calls for the international community to "commit and deliver not just more aid, but more effective aid for humanitarian, reconstruction and development activities throughout the country."

The international community has been reluctant to follow through with promises of aid since back when the Soviets left, and the American public is understandably skeptical of nation building. But we're already spending money in Afghanistan. We can either keep wasting it on a largely ineffective military solution, or we can try to fix this mess once and for all.

Octopus blogging

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:44:56 -0500

A 600-pound octopus can squeeze itself through a passageway the size of a quarter. They could be anywhere...

Is Afghanistan Obama's war?

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:06:53 -0500

Clive Crook thinks so. So does Milton Beardon. And the LA Times. And PBS. Newsweek takes it a step further and asks if Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam.

I guess it's an easy argument to make—Obama had a choice of which of the two wars to end and the option to pull out of both, and he made it clear even in the campaign that he wanted to double down on Afghanistan. Success or failure now rests on his shoulders, and even stems from his definitions of the terms. The money spent and lives lost—both American and Afghan—going forward are tied directly and indirectly to his decisions and orders.

But something about the phrase bothers me. It has become conventional wisdom too quickly, and the political value (for his opponents, at least) of anchoring the war so securely to Obama's future is too transparent. I recognize my own biases, that I want both Afghanistan and Obama to succeed for deeply personal reasons, so if those were my only objections I probably wouldn't bring it up. There's something else troubling about it, though. It's as if the ubiquity of the phrase represents some sort of collective memory lapse. In two words it rewrites—forgets, even—recent history.

We're talking about a war that went on for seven years before Obama even took office. Was it Bush's war before that? Iraq certainly was. But there was a lot more collective ownership of Afghanistan, and a sense that it was America's war of necessity, not that long ago.

And it didn't have to turn out the way it has. Today's memes rationalize the failures of the past eight years as inevitable consequences of Afghanistan's own flaws: It is the "empire of graveyards" and unbearably hostile; it will never be able to stand on its own legs under the weight of its own corruption, the pundits write.

But what if it was the priority in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that it has become today? What if more resources had been dedicated toward shaping the governing structure when its clay hadn't yet hardened? What if the United States hadn't lost so much goodwill in the region? Underlying all these questions: What if Bush hadn't turned the world's attention to Iraq before the dust had settled in Afghanistan?

There's a reason a pitcher isn't eligible for a save, and also isn't credited for a loss, in a baseball game he enters when his team is already down several runs. I don't want to get bogged down in a muddy metaphor, but Obama is entering in the seventh inning after Bush blew a lead by packing up half the team in the second to go play a game in another stadium. It'll take a lot to pull out a win, and Obama will deserve some of the credit. But if it's a loss? He can certainly make it worse (civilian deaths from more drone strikes aren't helping, for instance), but we're a long way from being able to put the entire mess on his shoulders.

I don't want to absolve the current administration from the repercussions of how it proceeds or create some sort of "heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" scenario. I also don't want to waste too much time parsing a phrase that most likely only exists because a handful of editors and writers thought it made for a concise, catchy headline.

But I also don't want America's policymakers and wordsmiths to gloss over how Afghanistan got to where it is today or the decisions that got it there.