The most unusual information floating around the blogosphere lately is the presidential election of 2009. That would be the presidential election in Afghanistan. As the situation in Iraq has improved in the past few months, the war in Afghanistan has deteriorated. Much of the blame for the recent setbacks there are being laid at the doorstep of the current president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. The next election for president there is planned for 2009 and the one who is rumored to run against Karzai is the US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad was born in Afghanistan. The implications of having an American run the country of Afghanistan should make any of the readers here pause. This sounds like something that comes right out of the 19th century imperialism playbook. Granted, this is just a rumor but the prospect of having Zalmay Khalilzad as president of Afghanistan would have some interesting implications and sets up a plethora of unintended consequences for America’s war on terror. Our commitment in Iraq may be limited but our effort in Afghanistan will most likely be long term. If Khalilzad decides to throw his pakol (Afghani hat) into the ring, the pros and cons of his presidency will be fiercely debated by experts in the coming months.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive was an attempt by communist forces throughout the country to weaken American resolve during the Vietnamese New Year in 1968. On a tactical level the Communist forces were devastated. For a rare moment in the war the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) came out of the shadows where they were ground down by superior American firepower. On a strategic level, however, the Tet Offensive proved to be the turning point that tilted the war in favor of the Communists. The images that were beamed back to American televisions revealed an enemy that did not appear defeated as the then commanding general Westmoreland had bellowed. On the contrary, as the US Embassy was breached it gave the impression the US presence there was under siege. The years that followed saw some of the most deadly fighting of the war. Soon the policy of Vietnamization was the concept that would provide a way out for the US. Handing over the war to the South Vietnamese while the US withdrew proved flawed and fatal for a free, pro-western government in Saigon.

We face a similar decision in Iraq forty years after the Tet Offensive. Bush’s policy has been to “stand down when the Iraqis are able to stand up”.  Joseph Galloway writes in the Miami Herald about death squads in Iraq and how they are attempting to kill the head of the snakes that have stepped up to fight Al-Qaeda forces. There is also tensions within Iraq between the Sunni tribes and the Shia majority. If Moqtada Al-Sadr resumes his campaign against the Sunni in the coming months or years Iraq will again descend into chaos. Currently we are arming and training the Iraqi army which is made up of mostly Shia Muslims. We are also arming and financing the Sunni militia and their new “Awakening Councils” that are currently battling Al-Qaeda in Iraq forces. This has become the equivalent of our Vietnamization policy in Iraq. The difference is we are in effect arming both sides of the divide in the hope that there will be reconciliation. But what will  happen if the two sides slip away from each other. With training, arms and religious fervor a new stage in the history of Iraq would be like the Lebanon civil war on steroids. We are pinning our hopes on the new Iraqi government and the bravery of US soldiers. Like in Vietnam, an early withdrawal means almost certainly that Iraq will fail. But a continued US commitment does not guarantee success there.

We study history for a reason. The true lessons that can be learned from both conflicts is not to enter into war when we don’t understand the dynamics of the nation we have invaded and, when either nationalism and/or religion are in the mix the result of the war will never be assured. Finally, when the government we are supporting is weak only a continued presence by American forces will make victory a possibility. The question for both wars is how long will it take for the host nation to take over the mantle of power?

We know what happened in Vietnam. We did not continue the commitment for viable reasons and the nation along with large portions of Southeast Asia flowed red under communist rule. In Iraq, the enemy and the conditions are different. There is no political division, but there is an ideological and a sectarian division. Are any of these factions truly on our side? Perhaps one could say the Iraqi government is and if they fail we will lose any influence we may have in Mesopotamia. In essence, if the fledgling Iraqi government fails, we fail. These are the lines that are drawn as we contemplate the implication of the 40th anniversary of the Tet Offensive and the lesson’s we learned from the US policy of Vietnamization and the withdrawal from Vietnam.

Tonight I would like to introduce a new aspect to my blog. I am titling it “Burning Sage” and it includes several points and/or non-sequiturs. These will encapsulate some of my random thoughts about the week’s events.

With a third place finish by Democratic hopeful John Edwards one wonders why he remains in the fight. Do not ponder too deeply. If he is able to garner enough delegates and the Democrats head into August with a brokered convention, John Edwards could end up being a king maker. What would John Edwards want in return. Well if not named as Vice President outright, he is a lawyer and the Attorney General position might be right up his alley.

The Drudge Report links several stories about the endorsements by the Kennedy’s, with the “Lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy to fall off the fence and support Obama (notice I didn’t say fall off the wagon). This is an interesting story line due to Obama’s message of change. The Kennedy’s represent the old guard but JFK’s presidency under the slogan “New Frontier” heralded a progressive era inspiring such revolutionary programs such as the Peace Corps and the moon flight.

It appears the Clinton campaign overplayed their hand in utilizing Bill Clinton. It is the first time in American politics where a spouse of a candidate played such a dominate role in a campaign. Bill’s heavy hand and, at times, controversial tactics has cast the campaign in a not so favorable light. At times it is hard to tell who is actually the nominee. Bill Clinton is a politician down to his core. There is no doubt about that. But if Hillary Clinton is to succeed she will have to do it on her own merit. The Clinton team seems on the verge of dialing down the former President. With Super Tuesday looming in just over a week, you should see the changes immediately. 

Is the Republican establishment set to back one of the two front runners? McCain’s mother claims her son doesn’t have the support of the base. Rush Limbaugh has never liked McCain because he lacks conservative credentials. But Mitt Romney is not exactly the poster child for the Reaganistas. McCain continues to rack up key media and political endorsements but McCain has many enemies within his own party. The more conservative members of the party are lining up behind Mitt Romney (such as our very own Matt Blunt) whereas the more moderate leaders are backing McCain. If the Republicans head into their convention without a clear cut candidate there could be a schism within the GOP the likes we have never seen.

One final note. Kansas’ own Kathleen Sebelius will be giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union speech tomorrow. She is a rising star among the Democrats and this will be a coming out party for her. 

Most of the truly nutty politicians on the national stage reside in the House of Representatives. One current example of this is Randy Forbes Republican of Virginia. Mr Forbes is the sponsor of House Resolution 888 which is intended to combat what the Congressman sees as an assault on the Christian religion in America. The introduction of the bill came on the heels of H.R 847 which supported the “role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States…” and “expresses continued support for Christians in the United States.” HR 888 is a bit more bizarre than HR 847. One component in the resolution is to have the education on America’s history of religious faith taught in public schools. There is a current among right wing politics that wishes to wipe away the establishment clause of the Constitution. The scary part of HR 888 is there are 31 co-sponsors for the bill. If anything is un-American it is these zealous bastards. To read much more on the bill check out Jason Leopold’s great article below in the Baltimore Chronicle. A special thanks to Ms Hale for giving me a head’s up on the bill.

House Passes, Considers Evangelical Resolutions

I know this is beating a dead horse but I have to pass on data that a pair of think tanks gathered in relation to the US going to war in Iraq. These two groups, the Center For Public Integrity and the Fund For Independence in Journalism counted the number of false statements the Bush administration concocted between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The total: 935. You may have known some prevaricators in your lifetime but I bet no one you know has lied to you 935 times. And just think of all the conservatives who got their panties in a knot over Monicagate (sorry about the pun). These 935 instances of deceptiveness are broken down into those within the administration who have spoken the most falsehoods (I am running out of synonyms for the word lying). Bush led with 259 instances, 232 dealing with weapons of mass destruction alone. Powell actually led the way  over WMDs with 244 utterances. The following quotes come directly from the Center for Public Integrity.

• “1) On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ ”
• 2) In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
• 
• 3) In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
• 4) On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
• 5) On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
• 6) On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”
• Vote well this year, eh?

Anyone who watched the Dems debate tonight will quickly understand why it is difficult becoming the president from Congress. Defending votes in the legislative branch is like grabbing and holding sand. You can make a hundred great votes but it is that one you regret that gets you. The sharp exchanges by Hillary and Barack were entertaining and I for one liked to see them. The depth of the dialogue is more detailed than you see in the Republican debates. The one issue where the Democrats are wrong is Iraq. They are not capable of altering their position with what is transpiring on the ground. Granted, Iraq is a difficult issue because George Bush has made it so. The course of the war has taken turns that are unpredictable because Iraq has proven inconsistent. Pulling troops out now would be folly. If the situation takes a turn toward chaos then it will be time to leave but it is time to make hay as the sun shines, as they say; and the Democratic candidates need to be pragmatic. Pragmatism is a liberal virtue and they should not shy away from that strength now. When they debated Iraq tonight their stances seemed dated.

Another aspect of the debate this evening was how much this election season is so much unlike the 2004 campaign. Most people coming into this election believed it would be Iraq that would frame the race. This campaign will be about the economy. As I write this we have seen foreign markets lose between 5% and 7% of their value in a single day of trading (a seven percent drop in our stock market would be about 900 points). When the markets open tomorrow there could be dramatic sell-offs. Most experts believe that we have been in recession since December. Whereas the 04 election was a referendum on Iraq this election will be about the economy and I don’t believe it is one the Republicans can win. If McCain captures the GOP nomination where will his acumen to resolve financial matters come from. In fact most Republicans want to keep the debate in the realm of national security. The Republicans on national security, like the Democrats on Iraq, haven’t moved with the times. So as the day progresses tomorrow and we watch as the stock market reacts, we will see if the candidates campaigns move with it or continue to talk as if the topics of yesterday are still the most important issues. Many have talked about change. Well, we will see if they are in fact “change” candidates.

Like the end of the Confederacy you will begin to see the presidential aspirations of Mike Huckabee collapse in the next three weeks. He has made some atrocious strategical decisions the past week that will doom his campaign. Governor Huckabee did a brilliant job of keeping his faith blanketed pre and post Iowa so that he appealed to many moderate and lower income Republicans. Evangelical Christians understood the underpinnings of Huckabee. This past week, however, the former Governor of Arkansas blew his cover. He pronounced there needed to be a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion illegal and to nationally outlaw same-sex marriage. This would surely galvanize his Christian base but to many on the fence, there will likely be an exodus (pardon the religious reference). True conservatives don’t like messing with the Constitution much. In the last couple days Huckabee fired off a strange statement about South Carolina’s choice to maintain the stars and bars as they see fit. I realize South Carolina is the birthplace of the Confederacy but even if you think they have a right to uphold their “battle flag”, it doesn’t play well in the vast majority of the Union and it does serve as a dividing symbol. These choices made by Mike Huckabee will marginalize his support and ultimately torpedo his bid for the White House.

In the following video notice the irony of how Joe Scarborough (host) frames the question about federalism. If you are a student of history you will be able to capture the 21st Century tinge to a 19th Century issue.

In 1954 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala and replaced it with a military dictatorship. The fears of a socialist government and the nationalization of industry in the small Central American country persuaded Eisenhower and his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to doom the fledgling democracy. The decades that followed resulted in the most horrendous slaughter of indigenous people in the modern history of Latin America. The aim of these military campaigns against the Mayan Indians was to ensure a Latino majority who had historically been in the minority. A small Marxist insurgency sprouted up in Guatemala and the military led government with the assistance of the US government unleashed on the Marxists and Mayans alike. Death squads fanned out within Guatemala and killed hundreds of thousands of Mayans in the countryside throughout the 1980s. The Civil War lasted for 36 years. More people died in Guatemala then in all the other Central American countries combined; a significant fact since both El Salvador and Nicaragua waged war throughout this same timeframe.

The impact of US involvement in the overthrow of the Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán government in 1954 left a wound that festered during the Cold War period. A culture of fear and violence remains to this day. 90% of all cocaine traffic that comes to the US traverses Guatemala. Criminals rule significant sectors of the state’s police and military forces, expediting the movement of drugs. Gangs continue to threaten the civilian population there.

Guatemala has returned to a democracy following the civil war and recently Alvaro Colom, a liberal, was elected president. He is promising to heal the wounds of the past but this will not be easy. Any who have pushed back at the criminal establishment have ended up dead. He proves to be an interesting figure to lead the state. He is a trained Mayan priest despite the fact he is Latino and not Mayan. He is committed to improving the lives of the indigenous people; most of whom live on less than $1 a day. It would be in the US’s best interest to invest time and resources to ensure that Colom is successful. That is the least we can do for our transgressions during the 1950s there and the murderous decades that followed.

Guatemala’s Silent Genocide

Guatemala’s New Dawn?

Guatemala’s Challenge

Many Republicans claim that the current election season reveals the Reagan Coalition has collapsed. The bitter and extended infighting has failed to galvanize a candidate and there seems to be no end in sight. All those running on the GOP side like to evoke the name of their idol but conservatives throughout this great land can’t quite find the “Great Communicator” in any of their candidates. Each tries to grab a hold of piece of Reagan philosophy but can’t quite retain the essence. Republicans voters are at a loss. Their candidates this season are shifty; moving in out of focus with each state primary. Most candidates evoke the words “change” but they exude status quo.

The Democrats have issues as well. Barack Obama is an amazing orator. He is able to deliver words that compel people to watch in amazement or even to cry. But the one term Senator is an empty vessel. People fill it up with their hopes and ambitions. Many people hope the intelligence exhibited by the young politician will propel him to greatness. Like many campaigns, voters are hoping that the new candidate will correct the flaws of the previous president. In 2000 America was searching for a President that was moral and would return wholesomeness to the White House. George Bush, who obviously loved his wife and was the son of George H.W. Bush, seemed to fit that mold. Never mind about the other qualities. Barack Obama is able to rectify the most significant shortcoming of President Bush, eloquence. When a candidate is eloquent it also magnifies their intelligence in the eyes of the listener. The appearance that Bush lacks intelligence is also world renown, literally. Senator Obama appears to have that base covered as well. However, when Bill Clinton said a vote for Obama was a “roll of the dice” there is some truth in that statement. We really don’t know what we will get with him because he is such an unknown.

Senator Clinton is a known quantity. Therein lies her greatest weakness. Like the current occupier of the Oval Office, she is a divider not a uniter. People associate her with her husband. The electorates’ mind is made up when it comes to Hillary. Her presidency will continue to divide the nation. Most of her opponents have her pegged as a liberal but she is less liberal than her two main rivals in the Democratic Party. She refuses to say her vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake and that point alone alienates her with the more left leaning faction of her party. She is also a solid friend of the military. In fact she has received the most donations from key military industrial companies than any candidate from either party. Top military personnel who have met with her for any length of time have their skepticism swept away by her attentiveness to their requests.

The race on both sides has become a dog fight and the excitement level is unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes since 1968. Ok, so I’m old. With Michigan for the GOP tomorrow and South Carolina and Nevada coming in rapid succession I can only think of the famous poker saying, shuffle up and deal!

*WWRD in the title means “What Would Reagan Do?”

This morning I was watching a Rudy Giuliani campaign speech from Florida. He was haranguing the Democrats (principally Hillary Clinton) about taxes. He said the Democrats would raise your taxes by 20 to 30%. If taxes were raised to that level we would be paying more than half our pay checks to the government. Obviously, even if the Democrats wanted to do that it would never be passed. What he said next should make you shudder and realize this man is not fit to lead. It is one thing to make statements about what the opposition would do, it is another to make a statement about your intent. In his own words:

With a national debt soaring past nine trillion dollars and two foreign wars to pay for how does a heavy dose of tax cuts sound?