Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith reports that the Obama Administration will unveil its Afghanistan strategy as early as Friday -- and one senior Senate staffer telling me that Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, will hold a Senators-only briefing on Afghanistan/Pakistan today -- it was good timing that yesterday the Congressional Progressive Caucus kicked-off its six-part forum, Afghanistan: A Road Map for Progress.
In his opening remarks, Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva described the significance of this forum: "We felt that it's very important for staff, community organizations, and Members of Congress to begin to have this vital discussion on Afghanistan and Western Pakistan and the policy direction in which we're moving… One of the best ways [to do this] is to listen and allow ourselves to get information from very learned individuals…."
One of the "learned individuals" on yesterday's panel -- which focused on a "Historic Perspective on Afghanistan, its People and their Cultures" -- was Dr. William Polk, a former history professor and State Department Middle East expert who served in the Kennedy Administration. Polk traced his personal involvement with Afghanistan back to 1962 when he took a 2000-mile jeep trip around the country. He was on assignment to speak with the provincial governors and tribal chiefs about a series of programs under the Eisenhower Administration that had nearly all resulted in "disastrous failure." Polk said during the trip he "fell in love with" the country.
Polk described the population as living in "deep valleys and on high plateaus scattered along one of the world's biggest mountain ranges…. [A country] about the size of Colorado and New Mexico." He said Afghans are diverse, speaking many languages, "divided in many respects but united by one belief: they don't want foreigners -- the British, the Russians or the Americans -- on their land." He also said that "Afghanistan is the perfect example of the land of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Every person is armed, every person is involved in protecting his local turf."
Through his intimate familiarity with Afghanistan, experience with Vietnam during the Kennedy Administration, and research on the history of insurgency and counter-insurgency, Polk has concluded that "we shouldn't be there at all."
"I look in vain for a place where we have succeeded militarily against guerilla warfare," he said. "… I think the more people we put in there, the more people are going to get shot at." He said Afghans who help Americans will be viewed in the same way as Loyalists during the American Revolutionary War -- they were despised even more than the British.
Even more powerful, however, were the lessons Polk drew from his experiences with Vietnam. "Always the idea was with a few more troops and a little more time we will solve the problem," he said. "… We were so sure that we knew how to do everything in Vietnam." He said the extent to which we didn't know what we were doing was made abundantly clear when a Marine Corps Colonel informed Polk that one could purchase a tank in the marketplace in downtown Saigon.
"The government that we were trying to promote was so corrupt that they were selling their opponents all the arms to kill us with," Polk said. He noted the corruption today in the Karzai government -- its involvement in the drug trade, for example -- and the consequent willingness of more and more Afghans to once again accept the Taliban as an alternative that "doesn't steal."
Polk stressed that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan doesn't mean the US has no role in promoting security. He alluded to the 12 recommendations in the book he co-authored with George McGovern in 2006, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now, and said some of those are applicable to Afghanistan as well. (He said he would provide a new list focused on Afghanistan -- stay tuned.)
"We have to recognize that we have inherited an incredibly fragile, fragile position to try to build on…." Polk said. "We have to try to find ways to make that transitional period [of withdrawal] as smooth as we possibly can. But we have to be very straightforward in recognizing it's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be simple. And we're not going to end up with the kind of [government] that we'd like to have theoretically."
The next CPC Forum is on Wednesday -- Defining American Strategic Interests in Afghanistan and the Northwest Border Area of Pakistan; Will the Policies and Goals of the Obama Administration Serve Our Strategic Interests? Testifying will be Clare Lockhart who worked as Chief Advisor for the Afghan Government and the UN on institution-building and reconstruction; Dr. Abdulkader Sinno, author of Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond; and a representative from the Obama Administration has been invited as well.
I'm concerned that policy recommendations won't be made to the entire CPC until after the sixth and final forum on May 13th. That's a long time to wait when all signs are pointing towards US/NATO escalation. Nevertheless, this effort is off to a good start, and hopefully it will lead to more congressional leaders speaking out with a humane, smart and progressive (and, in the case of Iraq, prophetic) voice as Polk did once again yesterday.
With reporting from Capitol Hill by Nation Reporter/Researcher Greg Kaufmann.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Again, Ms vanden Heuvel, just start preparing yourself for a "When will we get out"...not "Hooray! The escalation didn't happen"....cuz it's going to.
Reality needs to be accepted. 1. It's going to happen BUT ALSO 2. Obama wants to be on the road to getting out of Afghanistan well before 2012.
Same goal, different plans. But he's not going to want "another Vietnam" on his hands because unlike Dubya and the neo-cons HE understands the public won't give him years and years of benefit of the doubt.
If escalation doesn't work...he'll give more on diplomacy to the Taliban and warlords (to your delight and the doom-saying of the Right).
If it works, he'll be negotiating from a strengthened position and get a better deal.
But he does want to get out.
Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 12:23pm
Quoting someone like Polk who has been consistently wrong on so many foreign policy issues is hardly a recipe for success.
All we have to do is go back to 2007 when he joined with McGovern on the disasterous surrender proposal for Iraq that has proven to have been completely wrong.
From Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe
"For a long time the foes of both the Iraq war and the president who launched it insisted that none of this was possible - that the war was lost, that there was no military solution to the sectarian slaughter, that the surge would only make the violence worse. Victory was not an option, the critics declared; the only option was to partition Iraq and get out. Time and again it was said that the war would forever be remembered as Bush's folly, if not indeed as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history.
Even now, with a stubbornness born of partisan hostility or political ideology, there are those who cannot bring themselves to utter the words "victory" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. But six years after the war began, it is ending in victory. As in every war, the price of that victory was higher than we would have wished. The price of defeat would have been far higher."
http://tinyurl.com/d5743m
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 12:50pm
Wait...
According to SJCHERMAK....
George Bush defeated the Taliban for us...
So why do we need to be there again?
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 12:56pm
George Bush defeated the Taliban for us...
So why do we need to be there again?
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 12:56pm
when did the Taliban again become the official govt body?
to your question; the same reason we still do battle against organized crime in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 1:26pm
But six years after the war began, it is ending in victory. As in every war, the price of that victory was higher than we would have wished. The price of defeat would have been far higher."
http://tinyurl.com/d5743m
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 12:50pm
You must be referring to the establishment's war against the will of the people of the United States, aided and abetted by US mainstream media. Victory over the truth and democracy - yes indeed. I am still reading last page articles on death in Iraq. Out of sight - out of mind doesn't equate to victory, except in the mind of the MIC propaganda machine.
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 1:26pm
LOL!!!!
You're a riot Mr. Churchy. A true laugh a minute.
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 1:41pm
That's because Mr. Churchy and his friends are the fringe of the fringe of the fringe.
They represent a tiny fraction of this country, and the other 99% are laughing at them. Or at the very least feeling sorry for them.
Although I'm sure they have some empathy directed their way by the other 1%'s.
And in the end, that's really what angers them so much that they have to spend hours here arguing themselves into a corner.
Didn't you hear?! THEY are right, and everyone else is wrong! LOL!
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 1:50pm
That's it, I'm getting out of this damned socialist, commie-loving hellhole and moving my rear end to Sweden!
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 1:26pm
Sure Texas, don't you remember when Eliot Ness got out on the front of the courthouse steps in Chicago in 1932 with a "Mission Accomplished" sign and told us "major combat operations against the Mob have been concluded"?
Same deal.
Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 2:03pm
Didn't you hear?! THEY are right, and everyone else is wrong! LOL!
Posted by TexasFlood at 03/26/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is written. LMFAO.
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 2:25pm
The price of defeat would have been far higher."
http://tinyurl.com/d5743m
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 12:50pm
Huh? The Iraq war WILL go down in history as blunder. Based soley on the fact that we never needed to go there in the first place. Saddam was contained. Going to Iraq took the eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Bush's actions in going to Iraq has cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, will end up costing tax payers trillions of dollars. It has worked to recruit and train countless insurgents that could result in increased terrorist attacks in the future. Futhermore it has rendered any threat of force against Iran impotent, as they know the will of American people and military resources are no longer present.
This said we have not acheived "victory" yet, as the country is not stable enough yet for us to leave.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/26/2009 @ 2:33pm
to your question; the same reason we still do battle against organized crime in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So how many CIA went to jail over dealing drugs? This is organized crime is it not? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran-Contra, Venezuela. "ah....thats classified."
Now we got Hillary Clinton saying that the Mexican drug war is our fault. Whoops....better appropriate a trillion to fight that war. This "war" would better be described as "elected" organized crime versus free market organized crime.
What hogwash you spew.
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 2:38pm
Mexican church: Ex-ruling party blocks drug fight By Mark Stevenson, Associated Press Writer | March 15, 2009
MEXICO CITY --Mexico's Roman Catholic Church launched an unusually harsh criticism of the former ruling party on Sunday, suggesting the group may be blocking anti-drug efforts.
An editorial posted on the Archdiocese of Mexico's Web site did not mention the Institutional Revolutionary Party by its full name, but cited legislators describing the "'revolutionary' party as an obstacle to taking stronger measures to combat drug cartels."
No other major party has "revolutionary" in its name.
The editorial also alludes to "a party rubbing its hands at returning to power." The party, known as the PRI, held Mexico's presidency without interruption for 71 years, before losing the 2000 elections. Most polls show it leading for July's midterm elections.
The PRI did not immediately answer calls to party offices Sunday seeking comment.
The editorial suggested the PRI opposes reforms currently before Congress to enable the seizure of drug traffickers' property.
"The question arises automatically, is it because of financial interests or base political concerns?" the unsigned piece read. "In either case, the answer is alarming."
Earlier, PRI Sen. Fernando Castro told local news media that his party would approve some form of the law proposed by the administration of President Felipe Calderon but wants changes made to ensure that people facing seizures have a right to defend themselves.
"It will be modified to safeguard individual guarantees, ensure constitutionality and prevent law-abiding people from paying for others' sins," Castro said.
Restricted by law from becoming directly involved in party politics, the Catholic Church has long avoided ..
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 3:25pm
Nothing political about the drug war going on eh Hillary?
You wouldn't want the conservatives to lose power in Mexico by chance would you? After all, they are big champions of your NAFTA agenda as well as catering to foreign investors in Mexico. You really fighting drugs or are you fighting leftists?
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 3:31pm
Sure Texas, don't you remember when Eliot Ness got out on the front of the courthouse steps in Chicago in 1932 with a "Mission Accomplished" sign and told us "major combat operations against the Mob have been concluded"?
Same deal.
Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 2:03pm
you are truly strange at times. I think most prosecuters in this country would say that the major war against organized crime is over with most of the mob bosses in prison or dead. but there are still ongoing conflicts.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 4:00pm
And thanks to Mask once again detouring off point, I repeat about Polk which is the subject:
Polk is consistently wrong just as he was about Iraq and Vietnam.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 4:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 4:00pm
Because organized crime groups such as drug cartels, gangs, crackers or political insurgents are unable to sell drugs, engage in sex trafficking, run fraudulent scams or create civil unrest around the world - much less so close as to do these things at our borders or in our cities. They'd be put in jail!
Organized crime isn't limited to the Italian mafioso, LVL - and as long as there is money to be made in crime, people are going to organize it to maximize their profits.
I thought you were in favor of unfettered capitalism.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/26/2009 @ 4:58pm
Kay Vee...
The Thread about Jim Webb has been closed to comment... but this AP release is pertinent...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeq
M5h88VgykKcn87UozOYaETJS6yufvgD975UAU00
...after you've patched the links back together...
Posted by ttr at 03/26/2009 @ 5:17pm
'Sources: Obama to add US troops in Afghanistan By ANNE GEARAN and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan And Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 1 min ago
WASHINGTON – Concerned about the faltering war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama plans to dispatch thousands more military and civilian trainers on top of the 17,000 fresh combat troops he's already ordered, people familiar with the forthcoming plan said Thursday.'
Looks like we are going to get the 'Iraq plan' in Afghanistan.
Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2009 @ 6:26pm
More troops to Afghanistan? It's a QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE!!! WE'RE DOOMED TO FAILE! JUST LIKE IRAQ!!!
LOL!
Obama is right to concentrate the War on Terror..oh, excuse me, the Global Contingency Operation...on Afghanistan. It's about the only correct thing he's done yet. Even Jimmy Carter did a couple sensible things, like deregulate the airlines. But aside from those small things, the rest of Carter's Presidency was a near-catastrophe (Thank God and Reagan for it not going all the way), as Obama's undoubtedly will be.
Posted by pontificus at 03/26/2009 @ 7:29pm
I thought you were in favor of unfettered capitalism.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/26/2009 @ 4:58pm
I've never said unfettered.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 8:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 8:42pm
Could you name a few of your favorite "fetters"?
Posted by Mask at 03/26/2009 @ 9:03pm
Rome eventually understood that its imperial frontiers exceeded its resources and pulled back. This realization has yet to dawn on Washington.
Posted by ficheye at 03/27/2009 @ 01:12am
One thing I've got to give G.H.W. Bush credit for, he was smart enough to win a war and get out.
The occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into no-win situations.
I read an article the other day in the Phil. Inquirer (I think, but could've been another paper) that described Baghdad as an ethnically cleansed city on the edge of violence with a populous living in constant fear. Afghanistan is even worse; remember, Bush said we're actually losing this war.
So, what will happen when the US pulls out? How can success or failure be determined before this happens?
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 02:13am
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 02:13am |
US Policy from 1998 was for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. No ifs or buts.
Now you may have different information from me, however I'm under what I hope is not a misapprehension because I've been led to believe he is no longer exercising a brutal autocratic regime, centred in Baghdad, that lasted from 19th July 1979 until 9th April 2003. It was, I've been led to believe, a capriciously cruel reign that negatively affected the lives of most Iraqis. Further I'm also under the impression that he probably won't be returning.
Now that particular regime change, in my opinion, could accurately be called an ILA1998 mission accomplished victory. However if you have different information on him, say, about him still being in office or even his present whereabouts or perhaps something on his likely return then I'm all ears.
Now what was this all about. Oh yes I remember; "How can success or failure be determined".. (before the pullout)
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/27/2009 @ 03:43am
If removing Saddam was the mission, then why all the lies leading up to the war. Yes, lies...And forget all of that bullshit about how everyone else had same intel.
Remember the French or the Germans? The Neocons maligned the French and tried to paint Chirac as a corrupt traitor, but the French were right.
Oh yeah, then there's the Downing Street Memo that proves the war was a set-up.
Also, the war was supposed to transform the region into democracy. This convenient excuse was offered after no WMD's were found.
And, now it was all about Saddam and removing the cruel regime.
China has executed more innocent people, or at the very least unfairly tried people, than Saddam ever did and we do business with them. So don't hold it against me if I doubt the altruistic motives you've described.
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 04:04am
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 04:04am
Notice Dubya didn't move to invade...Sudan. And Omar al-Bashir isn't exactly playing nice with Darfur, is he?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 08:32am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I've finally had to put this guy on my ignore list. Quoting Jeff Jacoby? really? Fox next.
Posted by julien38 at 03/27/2009 @ 08:37am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 8:42pm
"I've never said unfettered."
Is anyone in favor of unfettered anything?
Posted by pontificus at 03/27/2009 @ 08:59am
Any one who believes we can win a guerrilla war is purely delusional. Organized armies are so predictable, flying little drones around blowing up wedding parties while the militant guerrillas only have to wait and see. Our best GI'S have to walk around in full military gear at 120 degrees above zero in complete situational awareness mode. We not only can't win we can only create several centuries more of hate. Why do we keep arguing the same stupid issue over and over. The marines call this a cluster f@#$. We have won in Iraq, really? The best we can hope for is to leave quietly and hope that our diplomats can undo the damage. We have managed to push China and Russia closer together and organized the middle east and Europe against us in a silent rage. Wow, this must be what blue blood gets you. A slow dumbing down of an entire race.
Posted by julien38 at 03/27/2009 @ 08:59am
Posted by julien38 at 03/27/2009 @ 08:37am
"I've finally had to put this guy on my ignore list. Quoting Jeff Jacoby? really? Fox next."
Good job. God forbid anyone should quote someone you strongly disagree with.
Posted by pontificus at 03/27/2009 @ 09:00am
China has executed more innocent people, or at the very least unfairly tried people, than Saddam ever did and we do business with them. So don't hold it against me if I doubt the altruistic motives you've described.
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 04:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
10,000 last year according to NPR. They are not very nice people. I was terribly disappouinted when we kept right on trading with them after Tienanmen square. Some of the kids who got out and went around touring colleges, had some really horror stories, If only half true Question: are we morally complicit? I watched one of my heroes, Warren Buffet, interview with Becky Quick, on his way back from china after a shopping trip for cheap labor. I'm stuck ion the Wal Mart economy, they have essentially wiped out every other small business in our small city. They seem to pick a small business like shoes and have spies going around and under cuttin the prices until that particular business goes bankrupt. As a matter of fact some small businesses buy their stock more cheaply at Wal Mart than they can from their suppliers.
Posted by julien38 at 03/27/2009 @ 09:20am
Sorry my spell check has gone south.
Posted by julien38 at 03/27/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/26/2009 @ 8:42pm
While it may be true that you never said "unfettered", I don't believe I've seen you argue for government regulation either. Sure, you frequently talk about the government respecting property rights - so long as it doesn't get in the way of waging what you consider to be Constitional wars - and presumably the rule of law. So, is your conception of fetters limited to a Ron Paulian environmental policy based on property rights and stopping illegal activity such as fraud. Or, are fetters the province of consumers in the market place - which I wouldn't count as a fetter? Or are their Constitutional provisions for the government to regulate the economy as a whole of individual sectors?
Posted by pontificus at 03/27/2009 @ 08:59am
I heard that the "Angel is in the details." Please feel free to talk about your ideas of fetters on the economy that are not inherent in the functioning of markets.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/27/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by pontificus at 03/27/2009 @ 08:59am
Yeah, I'm curious too, PONTI....what "fetters" on capitalism do you support....specifically?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 10:39am
So don't hold it against me if I doubt the altruistic motives you've described. Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 04:04am
Exactly. I mentioned the other human rights violators to Mr. Jones once before... he just ignored it. Sudan, China, Arabia... it don't make no never mind.
How strange. I thought we invaded Iraq because of 911 -then WMD's... then yellowcake... then Cheneys assertion that Saddam had miniaturized nukes (which he quoted to Dick Armey as a truth). And then, and then...
If we are so superior militarily we should have just sent in Rambo to take Saddam out instead of starting a war. That's a waste of resources. How about an elite sniper squad? Guess we don't really have one. But I truly think that a lot of conservatives want to blow things up and watch it on TV... their tax dollars at work.
Posted by ficheye at 03/27/2009 @ 10:56am
Mask, SRJenkins,Ponti,
I have repeatedly stated that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly outlines some power for Congress regarding our market system.
The enumerated powers are:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
So, clearly there is a role regarding:
1. Unfair or restricted commerce between the states
2. Regulating our currency and banking systems
3. Regulating securities to ensure against fraud
4. ensuring standardization on products as regards weights and measures (ie, a gallon of milk is the same amount in every state).
Clearly there are defined areas where effective regulation is allowed. Where our Congress routinely goes overboard is in adding layer upon layer of redundancy rather than clearly defined regulation.
One only has to look at our tax codes to understand this problem.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 11:13am
1. Unfair or restricted commerce between the states
2. Regulating our currency and banking systems
3. Regulating securities to ensure against fraud
4. ensuring standardization on products as regards weights and measures (ie, a gallon of milk is the same amount in every state)-----Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 11:13am
Okay, let's take specific. If a state, say Kentucky, wanted to make it legal for elementary-age children to work a part-time (even full-time) job...
would the Federal Government have a role (per #1, 2, 3, or 4) for stopping them? (in YOUR view of the Constitution)
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 11:15am
Has anyone noticed that the logic of conservatives here seems to be degrading by the moment?
Always a drumbeat for war. Always some skewed logic for justifying it, always a new myth about Iraq.
To be fair, I'm not even saying that they are always wrong, but on the particular issue of war, wars, and the justifications for involving america in them, they seem, in general to be war loving folk. They seem to feel their needs are met by going into a foreign country where they hated us before we got there, and then ruining their infrastructure and declaring ourselves morally superior to some 'backwards people'. That mentality is very subjective and dubious in what it really hopes to achieve. Superiority through destabilization?
The Nation of America needs fixing, not just economically, but morally. We need to fix a lot of our own issues relating to division before we make sanctimonious decrees about the societal shortcomings of others.
What about all of our technological superiority? Aren't we supposed to be able to read a license plate from space? We should have been able to take out Saddam without invading, and find bin Laden long ago, from space. Our technical superiority seems to be easily nullified by slingshots at times, and our moral high ground is eroding in a 'hundred year flood' of historic proportions.
If we go into Afghanistan with a new mission, we need a plan to get out again quickly and decisively.
ponti, jones, and anti are just trying to get traction on a slippery street. I've heard much better logic from them before.
Posted by ficheye at 03/27/2009 @ 11:23am
Okay, let's take specific. If a state, say Kentucky, wanted to make it legal for elementary-age children to work a part-time (even full-time) job...
would the Federal Government have a role (per #1, 2, 3, or 4) for stopping them? (in YOUR view of the Constitution)
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 11:15am
No. there is no role for the Fed in wages or at what age someone can work.
I started working part-time jobs at age 11. It had to be under the table pay, but I was happy to be able to work.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 11:50am
No. there is no role for the Fed in wages or at what age someone can work.------Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 11:50am
So no problem from you if 6 year olds are working in the coal mines?
Coal mines, due to the removal of "un-Constitutional barriers to free enterprise", no longer need to meet Federal safety standards and are roughly as they were back in the 1890s?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 12:14pm
So no problem from you if 6 year olds are working in the coal mines?
Coal mines, due to the removal of "un-Constitutional barriers to free enterprise", no longer need to meet Federal safety standards and are roughly as they were back in the 1890s?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 12:14pm
If a 6 year old is working in a coal mine, it has to be because the parents approved it.
Now I don't think a 6 year old is capable of working in a coal mine; they don't have the strength or the endurance to put in the hours. So your question is not realistic.
If you asked whether a 6 year old should be able to work in a family business, retail or even light manufacturing, then I support that right.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 1:00pm
If you asked whether a 6 year old should be able to work in a family business, retail or even light manufacturing, then I support that right. Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 1:00pm
I can't imagine any parent approving of their child working in a coal mine, not a rational one anyway.
In a family business it would be assumed that the parents actually gave their child a choice in the matter. the other two options usually infer that the child has no choice. If a child has been given a choice and finds the involvement to be fun and a learning experience that they enjoy it would be supportable.
Unfortunately, history has proven that many parents show bad judgement in this department, allowing greed to cloud their thinking. Then other kids magically appear when pandoras box is opened and a sweatshop ensues.
In ant case, free will has to hold sway over the whole concept.
Posted by ficheye at 03/27/2009 @ 1:37pm
In ANY case. Sorry.
Posted by ficheye at 03/27/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 1:00pm
Okay, how about a 10 year old...if their parents approved (or was starving)?
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5571/
But based on what you said, you could NOT object to a State making it legal for a 10 year old to work in a mine...nor for that mine to ignore any safety measures that the State didn't impose, right?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 11:13am
I'm reading this, and I am still having trouble seeing anything I would consider a fetter on capitalism. The enumerated Constitutional powers are dealing with commerce on the level of states and enabling commercial transactions through structures like minting money.
If you take a more expansive view of say, Hamilton, you might interpret additional powers like levying tariffs and excise taxes. But again, I don't think these are fetters.
When I think of fetters, I think more along the lines of Mask's line of questioning. There have clearly been occasions from the dawn of the industrial revolution until now, where children have been used as workers. Are you in favor of 6 year old children working in factories? Would is make a difference if they worked 18 hour days?
What about occupational hazards? Environmental pollution? Restaurant inspections? Professional licensure? Etc.?
Posted by srjenkins at 03/27/2009 @ 2:05pm
Polk is your typical weepy-eyed defeatist. Defeating the Taliban is a little like going after cockroaches. You can stamp them down like we did after 9-11 but if you relax for a few years, they will slowly come back and then must be fumigated again. Eventually the Afgan Army will be in a position to deal with it. The people living there will go with whichever side is the strongest for their own self-preservation, much like Iraq, except in Iraq the people got sick and tired of all the senseless, indiscriminate killing AQ commited against the population. AQ stopped going after us because we were killing them by the bushel and AQ switch to only fighting people who cannot defend themselves.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
But based on what you said, you could NOT object to a State making it legal for a 10 year old to work in a mine...nor for that mine to ignore any safety measures that the State didn't impose, right?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
Your last statement is a contradiction.
if a state doesn't impose a safety measure, what is the mining company ignoring?
As to a 10 year old; no I wouldn't if the parents approved. That is between the parents and the child. but it must be because the child wants to.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 2:18pm
Sorry, let me be more clear....if a State (not the Fed) imposes NO mining safety regulations (due to the fact that under "free market campaign financing" the Governor and State House are fully owned subsidiaries of Big Coal)....
you would have no problem with a 10 year old working in a coal mine under conditions similar to those of the 19th Century.....right?
BTW, as for "the child wanting to"...let's say "the child wants himself and his family to be able to EAT".
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 2:52pm
Sorry, let me be more clear....if a State (not the Fed) imposes NO mining safety regulations (due to the fact that under "free market campaign financing" the Governor and State House are fully owned subsidiaries of Big Coal)....
you would have no problem with a 10 year old working in a coal mine under conditions similar to those of the 19th Century.....right?
BTW, as for "the child wanting to"...let's say "the child wants himself and his family to be able to EAT".
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2009 @ 2:52pm
This is where you go on ad infinitum, creating new hypotheticals. Each answer, only draws another hypothetical
So
1. Yes I would have no problem with that choice by the parents and the child. It is their family decision and part of a free society.
2. Your hypothetical is truly as strawman argument as there are no coal mining operations that operate under 19th century conditions. Competition and the need to be productive and profitable has helped just as much as law to change that fact.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/27/2009 @ 3:03pm
Jeff Jacoby? Didn't he used to play for the Redskins back in the day? Oh, wait, my bad, that was Joe Jacoby. Sorry.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/27/2009 @ 6:08pm
Kids, it's all about THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. That's the Feds' doorway into everything. Once again, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.
Condoms? Were they shipped in interstate commerce? Bingo, Feds are in.
Kiddies' wages? Is the employer IN ANY WAY engaged in Interstate Commerce? (i.e., receives a package of hotdogs to stock in Detroit from Toledo) Bingo. Kid's wages are Fed territory.
And so on.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/27/2009 @ 6:17pm
Ha! It only has taken 2 plus months before your true colors show. If Obama actually thought the the whole "taking the eye off the ball" Afghan first crowd would actually help AMERICA win he must of been looney! It will cause the fracture of the demo again JUST like the 60's......I am giddy!!!
Posted by wmstarr31 at 03/27/2009 @ 11:53pm
Afghanistan is now being called "Obama's War" -- and why not? Over the past seven years, Bush sure didn't wage that war, even though this is where Al Quaida is based. Seven years ago, Bush pledged to get Bin Laden, "Dead or Alive". Today, Bin Laden is very alive and Bush is politically dead. This had better be "Obama's War". Bush sure didn't know how to fight it. Afghanistan was Bush's foreign policy Katrina -- even more ineptly handled by his administration than Iraq was. From now on, it's Obama's War and Obama's Economy. Thank Goodness. The whole country can breathe a sigh of relief.
Please visit my Blog: "Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists" http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/
Posted by CJP at 03/28/2009 @ 08:58am
Posted by wmstarr31 at 03/27/2009 @ 11:53pm
Don't get TOO giddy. As long as Obama keeps the looting/handouts coming, most Democrats will support him.
Posted by pontificus at 03/28/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by CJP at 03/28/2009 @ 08:58am
"From now on, it's Obama's War and Obama's Economy. Thank Goodness. The whole country can breathe a sigh of relief. "
Yeah with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, I feel better already.
Posted by pontificus at 03/28/2009 @ 09:35am
Posted by koroviev at 03/27/2009 @ 04:04am
K, you and many other American including some on the right seem to be ignorant of the agitation in your Congress through the 1990s and which culminated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Google it up, read it (same for F and Mask) and you and they won't go on with all that irrelevant nonsense about human rights abuses in China and other parts of the world.
Your official government policy, you will find, was not specifically to remove the Communist regime from power in China nor for that matter did you have legislation that specifically makes reference to the removal of the human rights abusing tinpot regimes F and Mask and others use as red herrings.
But you did have a pre-GW Bush Act "on the books" that called for the removal of Saddam from power.
Now that was before 9/11 and the NIE of October 2002. Thus WMD was not so much in view and was not such an emotional issue. So you will find, if you read the act, that Saddam's human rights abuses are important part of what forged his path to the gallows. And that began with the ILA legislation.
Further if you take the time to read the speeches, well before March 2003, by Bush and others, including Democrats, the removal of Saddam Hussein was couched in terms of his human rights abuses and were a major consideration in seeking to overthrow that regime.
It is probably true that some of those who voted for the 1998 legislation were hoping the Iraqis would do the job themselves however that did not act as a check on the majority of Congress who effectively gave Bush the authority to remove that regime from power. Without their "exposure" to the ILA it is inconceivable that Congress would have voted thus. Even if the WMD evidence had been incontrovertible.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/28/2009 @ 10:39am
(Posted by lrjones4 at 03/28/2009 @ 10:39am)
The reason for that should be fairly obvious. WMD in Iraq couldn't do much damage to the US homeland while they were in Iraq. The delivery mechanisms simply did not exist and policing and security checks at entry points, as has occurred since 9/11, would probably have been all that was required.
So it seems a little excessive to have worried about Iraq WMD doing any damage in the US. I'm pretty sure more than a few in your Congress had thoughts like that flashing through their minds. Paul Pillar suggests that the Admin intended to go to war regardless of the state of Iraq's WMD development. One can add to the Admin the Congress also. But I guess it is easier for most to personalise the devil. At least for the uniformed and the superstitious (aka conspiracy theorists).
Of course the most damage from Iraq's WMD would have happened in the ME, as did happen in the Iraq/Iran war. Iraq's belligerence toward its neighbours also forms part of the reason for removing Saddam. That is also in the ILA.
So it seems to me there was no moral reason, associated with Iraq's WMD, to go to war as American lives, at home, were unlikely to be affected by injury and death or even be in danger.
The only moral reasons, in the ILA, I suggest are those that deal with human rights abuses.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/28/2009 @ 12:09pm
I apologize for doing this here, but I searched for a "contact" link and couldn't find one.
Embarrassing as this is, it's important to introduce you to the novel "Homefront," praised by critics, as well as by military members and their spouses, for its accurate representation of the wait experienced during a deployment.
Semi-autobiographical (my husband deployed to Iraq in 2003 with the 101st Airborne Division), "Homefront" explores the private experience - behind the stereotypical yellow ribbon image - of waiting for a loved one to survive a war.
Those left behind to wait are plagued by an ever-present combination of anxiety, hope, hopelessness, dread, and a unique spectrum of heightened and passionate emotions. It's a story that hasn't been told with the rawness and intimacy such a thing warrants - until "Homefront."
Called "soulful and seductive" by Josip Novakovich, it has been the topic of discussion on WNPR's "Faith Middleton Show," Army Wife Talk Radio, and will soon air on Navy Wife Radio.
"Homefront" explores the darker truths, the complex psychology, and even the unexpected humor and beauty of one of life's most uncertain moments that is experienced by citizens of every country.
The more people who are given insight into this other important aspect of war, the more equipped they will be to look at it from a perspective that extends beyond the political.
I hope you will consider "Homefront" as a possible topic for discussion on your blog, or wherever it would be appropriate.
Thank you so much for reading, KT., Author, "Homefront"
Posted by kristent at 03/28/2009 @ 12:39pm
Obama is his own man and full of surprises. Who would have imagined several months ago that he would now be laying out a strategy for Afghanistan that is modelled on Bush's surge?
I'm sure Bush must be tickled pink by this tacit acknowledgement by Obama of the success of the way the Iraq conflict was eventually handled.
I notice our PM has suddenly become about as gung ho about Afghanistan as Howard was about Iraq. The reason? Obama that super salesman, who could sell ice to Eskimos, has got him all enthused about the necessity of defeating al Qaeda there.
Not a bad selling point for Americans but unlikely to do much in protecting the US from terrorists as it now is a pretty insignificant remnant hiding behind the Taliban. (al Qaeda is in a relationship of temporary convenience with the Taliban, as they do not share the same religious, political and strategic perspectives and goals). It will be a significantly more difficult task than Iraq but America is at its most admirable and altruistic best when it takes on nation building.
Unfortunately not much has been done along these lines since WW2.
Japan which looked like suffering the same fate as the post war carve up of Germany, with portions going to the major allies, including the Soviet. However that did not occur and a new democratic constitution was put in place. That to a large extent reflected the US Bill of Rights. Power was transferred from the Crown to the people and in fact Shinto was abolished as a state religion (sort of separation of "church" and state).
Thus your country has a pretty good and enduring record in nation building and that bodes well for the democratic future of Iraq and for a better, if not democratic, Afghanistan.
Let's hope Obama has success in this difficult venture.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/29/2009 @ 05:52am
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/29/2009 @ 05:52am
Actually, lr, what will be more interesting is how once we're in the middle of getting out of Afghanistan, neo-cons like you will have a TOTALLY DIFFERENT view on wh assumed the leadership after "the surge".
While al-Maliki is christened as some combination of Churchill and Thomas Jefferson, the guys who will eventually take over in Afghanistan will be "anti-democratic and seeking to re-impose Sharia law."
Which may be true, but will carefully ignore the fact that IRAQI women aren't all that certain of their civil rights either. And it's doubtful that the "Guys in Kabul" will have Ahmadinejad over for tea...as al-Maliki did.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 08:12am
Interesting speculation Mask but the world is changing even for a backward nation like Afghanistan. That is being brought about and will continue apace through exposure to global communications and media. (and don't forget the "corrupting" influence of all those Yanks there).
Some would tell us that Muslim culture is inimical to democracy and that may be so in Afghanistan where literacy rates are so low. Indonesia, on our doorstep, is numerically the largest Muslim nation and post Soeharto has a thriving democracy. Pakistan whilst not thriving would like to consider itself democratic. So it is not impossible.
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan is implausible. al Qaeda got done over in Iraq where over 4000 had been killed between 2003 and Sept 2006. It is the Taliban and how to deal with it that is the issue. So that is political spin for the natives. Being a bit of a "neo-con" (which of course is a paradox because conservatives generally don't like too much change) I'm all for the US having a bit of a go at "civilising" the barbarians whether it was Saddam's Iraq or the war lord's Afghanistan.
Doesn't the new Iraq Constitution guarantee 25% of the seats in parliament to women? How does that compare with the number of sheilas actually seated in your Congress?
Have read of this from WSJ 2006.
Womens Lib: Saddam Wasn't a Feminist.
http://www.iwf.org/news/show/19079.html
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:24pm
MY TAKE PART THREE
We the People in Unity want to make a stern call to all elected and charged to govern us to end laws and programs that don't work, eradicate the laws, programs and agencies that cause harm, and cause a call from Justice to come to all that have violated the basic tenets of our Constitution.
We the People in Unity seize the power to restore the full force of ALL the amendments, which will bring back the power to us to govern ourselves in all needed sane sanguine and society social functions and end the use again and end now all preemptive aggressive wars that have robbed from us our people and our communed treasury.
WE NEED YOU TO JOIN IN TODAY to have your VOICE and VOTE heard in We the People Advocacy WTPA Contact DWIGHT BAKER dbaker007@stx.rr.com
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 03/31/2009 @ 06:37am
MY TAKE PART TWO
Has our humanity become less ---- that now hope has become dim and --- many now spend most of their time digressing toward the give up, give in to anarchy mentality, then revolt and when grief, and no relief is in reach taking it to the streets? History proves that attitude has destroyed many people and property in civil societies in the past?
If you are one that loves this land and our rich diverse people and you want your VOICE heard then read our preamble and take the rights steps to become a contributing member/partner.
We the People in Unity Declare
We believe that our United States of America has grown in population such that our voices in representation in our federal government has diminished to a degree that we must in solidarity form our own We the People Advocacy to lobby in Washington DC. To make our voices heard once again.
When we were a young nation of less that five million the size of our Congress and Senate had an ear to the grass roots needs of our people. Our population now is over three hundred million and the size of our Congress and Senate has not keep up with our growth. Therefore We the People in Unity declare that our city, counties states and Federal Governments have grown too centralized, too intrusive, too exclusive and too expensive.
We believe in Constitutional oversight by the people, smaller governments, Rights to Life for everyone in civil liberties, federalism, and taxes that span the great gulf of all our contributing members and resources and be assessed with equity for all.
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 03/31/2009 @ 06:39am
Katrina vanden Heuvel
MY TAKE PART ONE
The BUSH BUNCH GANG OF THUGS made Iraq and Afghanistan their mission long before the less than honest elections in 2000. The BIG OIL BOYS needed that land to lay pipelines from the GIANT OIL FIND NORTH in the Caspian Sea called the Tengiz. Mr. Cheney made all that possible while with Halliburton----- I think he might have bribe some folks over there. Lots of oil and gas but not any good ways to get it out for oil down through Iraq on into Kuwait where old GW had some friends. And then for Gas out thorough that god forsaken Afghanistan on down to China. Now all that is easy to prove with the real facts used by most in journalism today ---- whoops I forgot about the White House talking points that come out daily for our Free Press here in America during the BUSH BUNCH YEARS OF TERROR ON US.
So what is wrong with Barack----tell you this---there is from five to seven thousand of the hold over gang of the BUSH BUNCH THUGS still buried deep and wide in the Obama years ahead ---- they are salaried folk in the Political and Military Arena in DC. And to build pipelines where folks talk using their guns will not work for the BIG BOYS IN OIL AND GAS cause somebody might blow them up. So got to have the hangers on in our military that want to move their families over with them to Iraq and Afghanistan to live the life of freedom. Got to patrol to patrol those pipe lines daily.
And there is only one way to get rid of them and it is in our message of hope as read below.
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 03/31/2009 @ 06:40am