One thing that struck me about President Obama's inauguration speech was when he called for forging "a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan."  He didn't vow victory at all costs.  No, this was carefully selected language from a skilled orator and stateman fully capable of sitting down with the Afghan government and elements of the Taliban to negotiate peace.   

And diplomacy, not a prolonged military presence, is what President Obama will need if he has any chance of rebuilding Afghanistan while restoring US credibility abroad and our economy at home.  For while Afghanistan's leader, Hamid Karzai, welcomes the arrival of President Obama, he certainly seems to be in the minority in that country.  The Afghan people, facing high unemployment, shortages of electricity and clean water, and the daily threat of NATO or insurgent Taliban bombings, have made their anti-American sentiment known.  Meanwhile, the Taliban have publicly warned Obama to learn from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and leave at once. 

By all accounts, 2008 was the deadliest year in this war.  Rather than doubling our troop presence and building military bases in Afghanistan that will further bankrupt our own country, isn't it time we try to forge a hard-earned peace through diplomatic means?

In March of 2000 during the last days of the Clinton administration, the EPA decided coal ash was a hazardous waste and then two months later, changed its mind. If the EPA had stuck to its guns, the Kingston Coal Ash disaster in Tennessee might have been averted. The push now is to have coal ash federally regulated.

Will the EPA make the same mistake twice?

On his first day in office, President Barack Obama said that he is freezing the pay of his senior White House staff. President Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, told Congress that he supports entitlement reform, an issue that will involve spending a lot of political capital.

C&L has more.

Can we please dispense with the idea that Bush kept America safe when his decision to invade Iraq has caused more US deaths than 9/11? From the AP:

As of Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009, at least 4,229 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action. At least 3,404 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

The AP count is the same as the Defense Department's tally, last updated Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST.

In retaliation for the 9/11 Bush let happen in the US, Bush created a 9/11-and-a-half in Iraq. Bush cheerleaders should ask those dead soldiers and the tens of thousands of soldiers wounded how glad they are that Bush kept them safe.

Iraq Veterans Against the War's "End the War Now" ad aired once coast-to-coast on NBC during the inauguration of President Obama.  But it needs to be seen again and again.

Visit www.ivaw.org for more information about Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Had to love Fox's coverage of yesterday's inauguration.  You had Chris Wallace actually question whether Barack Obama is in fact the President, since Obama messed up the oath thanks to conservative Chief Justice 'No Notes' John Roberts.  And then you had Megyn Kelly, who used her coverage of the inaugural ball as an opportunity to spout GOP talking points for "finishing the job" in Iraq. 

But the award for sleaziest inaugural coverage has to go to Glenn Beck, who feigned outrage over the benediction from civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery.  Lowery offered perhaps the most humorous moment of the day, asking God to "help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right." 

It was an acknowledgment that racism still exists in our society, and that we must learn to respect all races and cultures.  Of course, leave it to Beck to turn words so humorously poignant (and completely innocuous) into racially loaded garbage.  

Law professor and digital rights advocate Lawrence Lessig discusses the importance of finance reform for Congressional elections.  Lessig argues that large private donations to politicians inherently limit the public's faith in an honest and accountable government.

Check out Lessig's new book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Complete video at: fora.tv

President Obama (words thrilling to write!) has wasted no following through on his promise to close the atrocious Guantanamo Bay prison facility.  Just hours after yesterday's historic inauguration, Obama ordered prosecutors to request a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings regarding Gitmo detainees.  This is the first step toward shutting down Gitmo and shuttering the unconstitutional military commissions put in place by the Bush administration.  

The Obama administration's instruction came in the cases of five men charged in the 9/11 attacks (including Khalid Sheik Mohammed) and a sixth man, Omar Khadr, on trial for allegedly killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15.  Right now, there are 21 Gitmo detainees facing such war crimes trials, and 245 detainees total.

That this move came on Obama's very first day in office, coupled with the fact that it specifically applied to abused prisoner Mohammed, signals a fundamental depature with Bush's legacy of torture and human rights violations.  Hopefully, it's just the beginning.  What Obama must do next is shut down those controversial military tribunals altogether.

More than a million people flooded into Washington from all over the world to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama. ANP followed one group of passengers on their 700-mile bus journey from Fort Valley, Ga. - a trip that brought together both young and old in a quest to witness history firsthand.

From Katrina vanden Heuvel

"Never in our national history has there been so dramatic a coincidence as this simultaneous transfer of power and the complete collapse of a system and of a philosophy."

Resonant and relevant words at this moment.

Those words come from March 1933, as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt marked the end of an epoch, and The Nation editorialized that his inaugural words "had something of the challenge, the symbolism, and the simplicity of a trumpet blast."

As Barack Obama was sworn in as America's 44th president, we heard a new trumpet blast. The simple and powerful symbolism of the 44th President's inauguration reminded us, again, of what a stirring milestone his election marks for America's scarred racial landscape---and what a victory for the forces of decency, diversity and tolerance.

There was perhaps no better choice for a performer at Barack Obama's inauguration celebration last Sunday night than Pete Seeger.  Not only does Seeger embody Obama's notion of breaking down political, economical, and cultural divides to fire up the masses, but both convey such powerful messages through seemingly simple means. 

From Obama, we've had catchphrases like Hope, Change, Yes We Can, and Change We Can Believe In throughout his campaign.  And from Seeger, we've had about seven decades of anthems like "We Shall Overcome," "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?," "If I Had a Hammer," and "This Land Is Your Land," a hearfelt rendition of which Seeger sang with Bruce Springsteen Sunday night in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  These are songs everyone knows, songs of protest used by progressives over the years to end racial discrimination, labor unrest, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, apartheid, and human rights violations.  Think Seeger deserves a Nobel Prize for Peace? 

Like Obama, Seeger's ideological core is deeply rooted in the anti-war movement and civil rights era of the twentieth century.  And so just as it was profoundly meaningful to have the first African-American President sworn in a day after Dr. King's holiday, it was also significant to watch Seeger up there the day before. 

Students at the traditionally African-American Howard University in Washington D.C. are committed to a long struggle for progress after Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States. Cognizant that it might take at least eight years to resolve the problems of the past administration, students are ready to simultaneously support President Obama while holding him accountable for his campaign promises.

As the nation awaits the inauguration of Barack Obama, the legacy of Lincoln is taking center stage. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. sits down with the American News Project to discuss why, even after all these years, misconceptions remain about the 16th president and his views on race.

From Frank Rich:

I cannot testify to what black Americans feel as our nation celebrates the inauguration of our first African-American president. But I can speak for myself, as a white American who grew up in the segregated nation’s capital of the 1960s. Barack Obama’s day is one that I never thought would come, and one that I still can’t quite believe is here.

Last week I joined a group of journalists at an off-the-record conversation with the president-elect, a sort of preview of the administration’s coming attractions. But as I walked some desolate downtown blocks to the standard-issue federal office building serving as transition headquarters, ghosts of the past mingled with hopes for the future. The contrast between the unemployed men on Washington’s frigid streets and the buzzing executive-branch bees inside was, for me, as old as time.

Ourfuture.org asks Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, how to respond to the movement to cut federal spending on entitlements and public infrastructure, and why progressives should not be afraid to argue for a larger public role in ensuring a sustained, broad-based prosperity.

In my last two posts in this series, I discussed two deep challenges to a planned troop escalation for counterinsurgency purposes: the enormous number of troops needed and the lack of a legitimate host government.  In this final post in the series, we'll deal with a dangerous and contradictory facet of the emerging strategy: arming local militias.

Looks like the greedy just got greedier.  Bank of America has been running 115 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office.  The report named Bank of America as one of 83 of the country's 100 largest corporations that are using such offshore subsidiaries; Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo also made the list from the financial sector.  What is particularly galling though is that this news came out the very same day Bank of America received another $20 billion in bailout funds on top of the $25 billion they already got from the Treasury.  

So I ask you, why are we forking over $45 billion to a bank that clearly couldn't care less about our economic plight?  Bank of America is squandering their bailout billions on foreign banks and DC lobbyists, flying their executives around on corporate jets, raising interest rates on cardholders, lending less, and actively refusing to help mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure.  Meanwhile, they're laying off 35,000 of their own employees and refusing to provide adequate salaries or healthcare for tens of thousands more.

I realize it's impossible to get the biggest bank in the country to curb its avarice, but until Bank of America starts using its bailout billions to support economic recovery and aid the taxpayers currently funding their bailout, we must stop payment altogether.  

As another $350 million dollars go out the door, ANP looks at one small bailed-out bank. Eagle Bank, a community bank headquartered in Maryland, received many millions of dollars of TARP money, but is having trouble making loans. Its CEO, Ronald Paul, says that the government has not taken fleeing depositors into account and, as a result, small banks and their surrounding communities will suffer.

Our values, our methods and our definition of victory in Afghanistan are fundamentally at odds in Afghanistan. In my previous post in this series, I talked about the mind-boggling numbers of troops needed, according to U.S. Army and Marine Corps doctrine, for a counterinsurgency strategy. In this post, I'll talk about what it means to "win" a counterinsurgency effort, and how our choice of allies severely undermines the rationale for an escalation.

Victory in Counterinsurgency

Counterinsurgency is fundamentally about picking the side of the host nation government and making sure it fends off the challenge of the insurgents. It's not us vs. them. It's them vs. them, and we help one of them. From the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual:

Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking responsibility of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as man causes of the insurgency as feasible." (p. 2) "Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the government's legitimacy and stops actively and passively supporting the insurgency." (p. 6) "The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government. (p. 37)

Legitimacy of the host nation's government is referred to in manual as "a north star." But let's be clear: there is no legitimate host government in Afghanistan.

This week, Johannes Mehserle, an Oakland Transit Officer, was arrested for shooting an unarmed black man named Oscar Grant in the back. Mehserle is a white man. He was arrested on fugitive homicide charges. His arrest took place in Nevada. He's scheduled to be back in Oakland today.