Iran, and the Rest of the World

Just finished reading Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men, which is going on the recommend list. It's an account of the CIA-backed coup against the Iranian prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. 

I'm young, of course, so my knowledge of Iran has been relatively limited to wondering why the utter crackpots Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayattolah Ali Khamenei were allowed to run the country. After reading this book, though, Iran's feelings about the Western world make much more sense. We (being the U.S. and Britain, though the others certainly helped) destroyed the nation's chance at successful democracy. Iranians were so long opposed to the U.S. and the U.N. because we represent a threat to their sovereignty and their traditions.

Of course, to some extent, the tide has changed in Iran. While Ahmadinejad and the government still seek to remain independent, as with the secrecy of their nuclear operations, many younger Iranians have become pro-West. This is not unusual to see: young generations are naive and forgetful and do not understand the tragedies of the past. For now, though, the elders are still in power and it will be sometime before an Iran that does not resent us comes to be. 

Inadequacy and the Afghan Army

Speaking of the Afghan army, I just saw this on Al-Jazeera English. Not the most comforting of news.

And now that I've actually seen it...

To begin with (so you know where I'm coming from) you can:

• watch President Obama's speech at West Point, or read the full text at MSNBC
• read commentary and opinions from military and defense experts on The NYT

Obama seems truly apologetic about the choice he has made. Not to extrapolate too much, but he spoke in a tone that revealed his hesitancy to sacrifice the lives of more countrymen. Obama appears to have a level of respect for the military which is often missing from the left. 

In spite of my confidence in the man's moral stance, I still have doubts about the new strategy. Obama and his advisors seem to be overestimating both the efficacy of the American troops and the efficacy of the Afghan government and Afghan security forces. Corruption and stability are rife in Afghanistan. There is little base for the foundation of a  functioning military and police. I also have troubling believing that 30,000 more troops will be able to achieve what the first 70,000 couldn't.

Obama did reference investing in agriculture and other positive economic assistance, which I would love to hear more about. He is, however, opposed to nation building. Obviously this is a signal that we will no longer be forcing Western-style democracy and values on other nations. However, Obama seems to view the building of any kind of infrastructure, perhaps even schools and hospitals, as a violation of that promise. I had hoped to hear more about improving life for the Afghan people.

No clear-cut plan was offered for supplementing the ongoing cost of the war and the additional troops. Obama said repeatedly that he would "address" it, but did not mention anything about attempting to reduce it. It would be nice if some progress could be made in getting those costs under control, especially given our precarious financial state.

Obama ended on a note about our duties not only to the international community, but to ourselves. It got a little obnoxious, but it's true that we must all work together to build peace and security. He's right when he says that we went into this war united, and we should leave the same way.

The American Military, Afghanistan's Lord and Savior

I hate to jump the gun and comment on President Obama's Afghanistan strategy before he gives his speech tomorrow, but I'm feeling fired up.

I've always been a bit wishy-washy on Afghanistan. Certainly they have nothing resembling a stable, legitimate government. The "democratically elected" politicians are passive at best and corrupt at worst. The would-be-again Taliban government is a threat to human rights. Living conditions in Afghanistan are incredibly low for the vats majority of the population, with little hope of educational or economic achievement. The constant state of fear probably doesn't help much. There is the threat of India and Pakistan and their nuclear weapons caches. Terrorist attacks are frequent and unsettling. 

In the end, though, Afghanistan is not our problem. Yes, when the Taliban was in power and Al-Qaeda was allowed to function without intervention, they was a distinct threat to the security of Americans. But it's not 2001 anymore, it's 2009. It is time to stop fighting a war we cannot win.

I don't mean to say that we should simply pull our 70,000 troops out and wish the Afghanis all the best. It's much too late for that. We've gone and gotten ourselves involved, and it has become our responsibility, and the responsibility of the international community at large, to make Afghanistan a safe place for its citizens. 

I really don't think that the way to do that is by sending another 30,000 troops there. It's not going to help. It's going to increase anti-American sentiment, increase our appearance as ignorant, aggressive imperialists trying to force our beliefs on everyone else. It's also an atrocious waste of money. Neal Conan quoted on "Talk of the Nation" today a figure that it's costing us $1,000,000 per year per soldier to keep troops over there. 

If we're going to spend money we don't have (and we definitely don't have it), let's spend it on something useful. Let's build more schools. Hospitals. Libraries. Town halls. Police stations. Provide plumbing, electricity, clean water, internet access. Invest in small businesses and agriculture. Let's build an Afghanistan that is empowered and informed and can withstand every suicide bomber, roadside bomb, and IED the Taliban throws at it. 

Lenin's Tomb

This is just a little extra credit piece I wrote for a class about Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. It's an in-depth look at the last days of the Soviet empire, including histories of the leading Communist politicians and political dissidents. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Soviet Union, Communism, or Russia.

Lenin’s Tomb by David Remnick combines Remnick’s first-hand experiences with the fall of the Soviet Union with a history of Communist rule under the Soviet system. Remnick covers a variety of topics, including repression of dissidents, the monitoring of Soviet citizens, the gulag and labor camp system, the development of atomic weapons and the crises of nuclear power, and the suppression of Communist party history.

            A principal theme of Remnick’s work is the rise and fall of Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who inadvertently caused the fall of the Soviet Empire by attempting to revise and improve the Communist system. Gorbachev’s story is compelling because his life serves as a metaphor for the ideological changes of all Soviet citizens during the transition. Gorbachev was raised to believe in the party system, and he actively supported Communism throughout his life. Gorbachev devoted his early years to studying Stalinist theory and joined the party ranks while still a young man. Gorbachev rose steadily in the party until his ultimate appointment as General-Secretary in 1984.

            Unfortunately, by the time Gorbachev accepted his powerful position, the party’s grip on its citizens had loosened considerably. Intellectual leaders such as Andrei Sakharov had long since turned against the Communist system after realizing the party had no interest in “moral protests” (Remnick 167). Long-time party leaders like Aleksandr Yakovlev had begun to see reason for liberalization, recognizing a need to pay attention to the positive performance of the wealthy capitalist nations. There was also increasing pressure from academics such as Roy Medvedev and from citizens’ groups such as Memorial to expose Communist history. More and more information was exposed regarding the abuses and horrendous human rights violations that occurred in the Soviet Union since the time of Lenin. The party was forced to admit its hand in such indients as the Katyn massacre.

            These were the times that Gorbachev was a part of. Still, Gorbachev believed in the system, and he believed that the party could be reworked through the policies of perestroika and glasnost. Gorbachev’s biggest mistake came in his attempt to prove his loyalty to the hardline Politburo members by retracting his support for the 500 Days Program intended to help transition the nation to a market economy. This move signaled to the hardliners that Gorbachev could be easily pushed aside and the Soviet Union could be returned to a traditional Communist system. Several high-ranking Politburo members, including KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchov, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, President Gennady Yanayev, and Defense Minister Dmitri Yazov led the August coup against Gorbachev. The coup was quickly foiled through the strength of Boris Yeltsin and other progressive party members, but it was already too late. Any power Gorbachev once held was eliminated. And it was vividly apparent how far in the past the hardline Communists were living.

            Gorbachev’s story is the story of all Soviet citizens because it demonstrates their struggle to couple a nearly religious faith in the party with the recognition that the system was doomed to fail. The transition to the post-Communist world was difficult for the Soviet Union and its satellite states because their entire way of living was flipped on its head. They were expected to rapidly adjust to a new political, civic, and economic life. It is no surprise that their economies are still recovering and their political systems are struggling with corruption and the emergence of nationalist and populist tendencies. It is difficult for millions of people to abandon seventy years of tradition.

Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham, and the Demise of the GOP

It's nearly Christmas, but it seems there's no room at the inn for moderate Republicans.

As if all the pandering and patriotic, moralist outbidding hadn't been enough (i.e. perfectly respectable Republicans like John McCain pulling perfectly idiotic moves like picking Palin as his running mate), now the GOP extremists are turning on staunch defenders of the conservative tradition. Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) is taking flack from his peers for supporting those damned liberals by pursuing immigration reform and confirming Justice Sotomayor. Nevermind all those years of protecting Republican interests (South Carolina Rift Highlights Debate Over G.O.P., Dewan).

Honestly, I'm beginning to enjoy all of it. I hope the right-wingers get crazier. I hope they keep manipulating the masses, I hope that Fox News and conservative talk radio continue to refuse time to anyone with half a brain and an ounce of reason. And most of all, I hope Palin shows strong in 2012.

Why would I hope for my country to be overrun by a mob of ignorant control freaks? Because I'm hoping someone will finally have the guts to split the GOP into the two parties it should have become fifteen years ago: a moderate conservative party and a right-wing populist party. Yes, it's true that this would give some of the crazies a legitimate chance at governing, but, well, such is the price of democracy. I'm willing to sacrifice for the benefits that would occur from the development of a credible conservative party headed by good people like Colin Powell, Bobby Jindal, and Jon Huntsman. Smart, progressive individuals who actually want to make the country a good place instead of hauling it back to the Dark Ages. 

It's probable that the Democrats would lose some of their moderate and conservative members, like our good ole' Blue Dogs, to a moderate Republican party. But there's no real problem to that. Having a few members switch over could promote a bipartisan coalition to fight off the populists. 

Of course, this is all my being extremely hopeful. It's impossible to know where this country is headed ideologically, especially in a time of intense international political and economic upheaval. 

Here's hoping.

Forgetting Sarah Palin

I am tired of reading about Sarah Palin. It seems that I can no longer safely turn anywhere - The New York Times, Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, The Nation - without having to read about Sarah Palin and what she means for the GOP and for the rest of us. I know, she just released a book. I know, her ability to rile up the extremists in spite of her utter lack of political acumen is terrifying.

But I don't care. The woman is ignorant at best and out of her mind at worst. She certainly has the power to inflame tensions at the time when we're working hardest to eliminate divisiveness. But maybe it's for the best. Maybe this country will finally see the rise of something better than the two-party system. But if the liberals are truly unnerved by the idea that she may well be the face of the GOp in 2012, then they have got to stop devoting so much coverage to her. Let's give credit where credit is due instead of to a woman we should be ignoring.