Posts Tagged ‘9/11 attack’

America’s Political Debate – A National Embarrassment

July 29, 2011

John Shelby Spong

Either those who now run the legislative wing of our government are irresponsible and frivolous with this nation’s health and well being or there is something I do not understand about the current crisis in Washington. I am both amazed at and disgusted by the behavior of some of our elected representatives. Let me test my sanity and that of my readers by calling to mind what seem to be the facts that lie behind the budget deficit; facts that no one appears to remember.

When George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, this nation had a budgetary surplus. Indeed both liberal and conservative economists predicted a growing surplus “for as far as the eye can see.” President Bush responded to this reality, I believe appropriately, by having a tax cutting bill passed to restore a significant part of that surplus to the taxpayers. Every major economist and the leaders in both of our political parties supported that first Bush tax cut and it passed with huge bi-partisan majorities.

Then came 9/11 and the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That attack also struck a mighty blow at our economy. The costs of national security rose exponentially. The new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was created, making it the symbol of a huge new expansion of government. Leaders in both parties supported this initiative as necessary to the safety of our nation. Airline security measures, subsidized by the Federal Government, were enacted to counter the threat of more terrorist attacks. The cost of these measures was enormous, but it was argued that if our air travel was not assumed to be safe by the public American business would suffer badly, the airline industry would face bankruptcy and the economy would be dealt a near fatal blow. There were, however, no revenue increases asked of the American people to offset these new expenditures, so the deficit began to grow.

Next, and as a direct result of the 9/11 attack that originated from Afghanistan, this nation entered into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Wars are expensive, yet no budgetary provisions were made to offset the expenses of this war, so the deficit shifted into a higher gear.

Before that war was complete and even before our objectives in that war were achieved, a new war, ideologically driven and based upon the assumption that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” was launched. This war was far bigger in scope, and therefore far more expensive than the war in Afghanistan in terms of both lives and material, costing quite literally billions of dollars a day to wage. Yet once again no provisions for paying for this war were placed inside the national budget and no sacrifices on the part of any Americans, except those serving in the armed forces were asked. The result was that the national debt simply exploded.

While these things were going on, under pressure from lobbying groups, including political liberals, but carried by a congress under Republican control, a drug feature was added to Medicare. It was a benefit widely cheered by senior citizens and by those who had long dreamed of universal health care. It was signed into law by a Republican president. Once again, as seemingly had become a pattern, no additional revenues were solicited or called for to offset this new entitlement. The result was that the deficit went out of sight.

Then in a move that was not supported by our leading economists, including Alan Greenspan, a second tax-lowering bill was passed and signed into law by President Bush. This bill was heavily weighted with benefits for the wealthy and the very wealthy. Once again, there was no offsetting cut in spending. So we lowered the income to the nation while keeping spending at the same level and this served, not surprisingly, to raise the deficit to new heights. The argument for these tax cuts was that lowering the taxes of the “job-creators” would spur the economy and create jobs. That did not happen. The number of jobs created during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency was miniscule, one of the lowest rates of any eight-year presidency in American history.

Then came the financial meltdown of 2008, inaugurated by the popping of the housing bubble and staggering both American and international banking institutions, the significant manipulators of the spiraling housing inflation. With these institutions reeling the threat of a world-wide depression was real and we watched the collapse of up to 40% of the value in American stock markets. Capital losses then further diminished tax revenues. Unemployment in this nation rose to over 10%. Industries cut jobs, and people who were pink-slipped in this economic downturn not only lost their income, but they lost their health care coverage as well, since in this country health care is a benefit of employment. People also lost their houses in record numbers. Housing deals that were “too good to be true” turned out to be just that, too good to be true. In the face of this crisis, the primary activity of the federal government, begun under President Bush and continued under President Obama, was to bail out the financial institutions, the insurance companies and the automobile industries. It was stated that these steps would stabilize the markets and thus were essential to an economic recovery. I have no reason to doubt that, but from the perspective of those of our citizens who had lost employment, health care and homes, it looked like a misplaced priority and anger began to rise in the body politic.

Instead of focusing on jobs through a public works effort to put people back to work and in so doing to address infrastructure needs of this nation, the Obama administration used all of its energy to get health care reform passed that promises to add additional stress to the deficit. So, here we are, the United States of America, the world’s wealthiest country, with deficits now reaching to numbers most can not imagine, and with the political discourse about this crisis, called “blaming,” no longer even civil. With entrenched positions against raising taxes and even closing corporate loopholes on one side or cutting entitlements on the other, compromise has become all but impossible and, as a result, politicians posture as this nation teeters on the brink of disaster.

No economist I know of believes that the deficit can be addressed without a combination of significant spending cuts and revenue increases, including loophole closing. Yet politicians in Washington first want to play chicken with our national economic well being or, if that tactic fails, to provide opponents with an ideological victory to avoid the political pain by postponing any substantial work on the deficit until after the next election. Special interest groups ask candidates to sign pledges today that they will not raise taxes or close loopholes. Candidates are thus reduced to being controlled robots to ideological agendas. Congressional Republicans have now passed a meaningless resolution that they know will never become law, requiring a two-thirds majority before taxes can be raised or loopholes closed, thus making tax reform in the future impossible. They also want to amend the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget, which means that the weight of the balanced budget without revenue increases will fall heaviest on the poor and middle class. Our nation appears to be in the grip of uncaring greed. No one seems to care about the poor, the elderly, the infirm, our children, those without health care, the quality of our education, the needs of our common environment and many of the other things that make this nation what it is. The quality of national life is now to be subjected to hard, ideological lines drawn in the sand.

I have never known Washington, DC, to be so dysfunctional. I have never known such obvious political priorities to overwhelm so obviously the good of our nation. I have never seen such unreasonable rhetoric coming out of apparently educated people, combined as it is with such unwillingness to compromise. While all this goes on, the gap between the rich and the poor of this nation grows larger and larger. This gap first accelerated at an increasing rate during the eight years of the Clinton administration and then rose off the charts during the eight years of the Bush administration. Even more frightening, the gap between the rich and the super rich has now become astonishing. A hedge fund operator who made 4.9 billion dollars in one year still argues that his income should only be taxed at the capital gains level, while General Electric managed to pay no taxes at all in the United States last year. Is either appropriate behavior?

The reluctance of the rich and the super rich to pay a proportionate share of their income to keep healthy the nation that provided them with the context in which this wealth was created simply astounds me. Patriotism does not simply mean coming to the defense of your nation in time of attack and war. Patriotism means helping your nation become that “shining city on the hill” of which President Reagan once spoke, the last great hope of humankind, a nation that inspires the people of the world because of the stable and fair society that we have built. The greatness of a nation is always seen in the way it cares for its weakest citizens.

I expect there to be in our body politic, both liberals, that is those whose primary goal is to seek the common good even at the expense of the individual, and conservatives, that is, those whose primary concern is to preserve individuality at the expense of the common good. That is as it should be, but a nation cannot finally have one without the other. It is in the tension between the liberal and conservative positions that great nations are built. To demand the “unconditional surrender” of one or the other to the ideological extremes of our day is an act of national suicide. This nation can do better than this. This nation must do better than this! Perhaps the emergence of the six ideologically diverse senators with a compromise plan represents the first shred of the return of sanity to our government. Time will tell.

Dangers of the Afghan war

June 13, 2011

By Khalid Aziz

THE US Defence Department’s quadrennial review for 2006 defined the security threat facing the US in the following words:

“The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation has fought a global war against violent extremists who use terrorism as their weapon of choice, and who seek to destroy our free way of life. …Currently, the struggle is centred in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will need to be prepared and arranged to successfully defend our nation and its interests around the globe for years to come….”

The review highlighted areas that required strengthening; one of these advocated the shift of emphasis from “conducting war against nations – to conducting war in countries we are not at war with (safe havens)”.

This means fighting war by stealth, while maintaining the façade of peace. In this sense, the Defence Department has entered an Orwellian construct where we live in a world of, “doublethink [that] means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”.

In 2006, we find the US military seeking a solution to fighting a war within the territory of a country with whom it is at peace – Pakistan. However, by 2011, the US had developed the capacity to execute that kind of war with success, through pilotless aircraft, special forces operations, pursuit teams in Fata, electronic surveillance and false-flag operations – like the Raymond Davis affair. They all add up to a formidable capacity to fight such a war within the territory of an ally.

The operation to kill Osama bin Laden was the latest and not the last example of this new approach. Both the US and Pakistan are allies in the war on terror; that is where the agreement ends, as Pakistan is beginning to lose cohesiveness. If it becomes ungovernable, then the chaos will dwarf any gains made by the new US strategy.

The Pakistani political-military elite supports the overall objective of defeating Taliban radicalism and countering extremism; yet the population is not really concerned with this goal being more worried by the daily business of living under increasingly gruelling conditions. Pakistani public sentiment is seen to largely support the Taliban perceived as fighting a war of liberation against a foreign ‘aggressor’.

As long as the US remains in Afghanistan, it will feed that perception. Therefore, improved US metrics in Afghanistan don’t really add up to much. The situation in some ways resembles the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. The US won but ultimately lost the Vietnam War.

Military logic says that if you kill enough of the enemy you can dictate the terms. Yet this is not how it works in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The counterintuitive war on terror creates the following logic. Pakistan is a huge country with a population of 180 million and a military strength of around 500,000.

Large tracts of the country that provide the soldiery for the military are also regions that have over the last 20 years become the hotbed of radicalism and contributed fighters who have battled the US troops in Afghanistan and fought against the Pakistan Army in Fata and Swat. At one time, these forces were used by Pakistan against the Indian forces in Kashmir.

These warriors have now grown numerously over the last three decades and fought first against the Soviet Union and later India. They are now convinced that they are fighting a defensive jihad against the Pakistani and US forces for the freedom of Afghanistan, a Muslim land.

The dangerous consequence is that since 9/11 the contagion of jihad has entered the military at the junior commissioned level, a class whose scions are represented at the highest level in the military thus creating profound doubts and misgivings in this class for launching new operations that the US is demanding so vociferously. They are seen as threatening the unity of the armed forces. Operationally, sympathy for the Taliban cause creates the danger of leakage of battle secrecy.

Secondly, as transpired in the 2009 attack on GHQ and the complicity of some ranks in the Mehran naval base attack last month, there is a real threat of possible fragmentation of the fighting forces. It is these considerations that compel the Pakistan military to avoid new operations. It is this fear that prevents the military from moving against the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. The US too faces a dilemma. Should it under these considerations exert pressure on Pakistani decision-makers to launch new operations in North Waziristan or elsewhere? Perhaps the US needs to step back and think. Its unilateral actions in Pakistan may open a can of worms that would be difficult to shut once opened. Pakistanis don’t only live within the country. There is huge diaspora overseas in many countries of the West and the US. They could become a threat.

If the destabilisation of Pakistan is a much more serious danger than the challenge in Afghanistan then does it not call for prudence in handling the situation in Pakistan? Should this not also result in a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Given the threats facing it, Pakistan must seriously undertake de-radicalisation and reintegration of an angry population.

However, a necessary condition for this to happen is leadership.

This analysis suggests that the US needs to phase out of Afghanistan as early as possible. If the fighting continues then Pakistan will become more brittle and the ability of its military on which the US depends heavily will be compromised. This must not happen.

The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.

azizkhalid@gmail.com