Staying in Afghanistan Is a Recipe for More Terrorism

Global Opposition to U.S. Drone StrikesBarack Obama is daring the terrorists. He’s standing in their front yard. He’s calling them out.

Of course, that’s not how it’s reported. “U.S. ‘nowhere near’ decision to pull all troops out of Afghanistan,” was the understated Reuters headline. Under negotiation is an agreement keeping 8,000 to 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan “through 2024 and beyond.” Also on the table are night raids and drone strikes that Afghan President Hamid Karzai refuses to allow.

This is madness. “If the job is not done,” said the Russian ambassador to Kabul, “then several thousand troops…will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do.”

The only thing worse than the hopelessness of this plan is the backwardness of it. In an effort to prevent terrorism, we are continuing the very thing that creates terrorism: our presence!

Al Qaeda “has been precise in telling America the reasons [it’s] waging war on us,” according to CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who tracked Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999. “None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.”

In his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, political scientist Robert Pape analyzed every known case of suicide bombers from 1980 to 2005. He found that “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Specifically, he discovered that “al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries.”

The Obama administration can’t pretend that it doesn’t know this fact. In 2004, the Pentagon concluded that “American direct involvement in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. [In] the eyes of the Muslim world, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.”

Firsthand accounts confirm these conclusions. British journalist Johann Hari interviewed former Islamic militants who had since rejected jihad. He probed them, in independent interviews, about what made them join the cause in the first place. “Every one of them said the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 — from Guantanamo to Iraq — made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world.” One of them put it this way: “You’d see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think — anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?”

New York Times reporter David Rohde saw this attitude up close when the Taliban held him hostage for seven months. Looking back on his captors, he remembered, “Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.”

BBC journalist Owen Bennett-Jones found the same reaction in his research on the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud earlier this year. “Although many Pakistanis were happy that Mehsud was no long threatening them,” Bennett-Jones reports, “their relief was outweighed by the thought that the US’s use of drones in Pakistan was an unacceptable breach of sovereignty and a national humiliation.” The result was “a wave of sympathy in the country” for Mehsud and his fellow terrorists.

“As I travelled around the Middle East during the Arab Spring,” writes Bennett-Jones in this week’s London Review of Books, “the word that most often cropped up in the slogans in various capitals was not ‘freedom’ – the one the Western media recognised and highlighted – but ‘dignity.'”

These are the sad facts of a desperate region. We do not condone their violence, but we must understand their motives.

American troops, night raids, and drone strikes in Afghanistan will only make it easier for terrorists and insurgents to recruit angry young men to fight and die for their cause. By extending the occupation into perpetuity, we are not stopping terrorism at the source, as President Obama would have us believe. We are multiplying their ranks. We are taunting and humiliating them. We are endangering our nation.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Huffington Post.

My New Book Has Been Published! Just in Time for the Holidays…

Letter to the One PercentAvailable in hardcover from Lulu Press, Inc:

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

Available in e-book format from Lulu Press, Inc:

Support independent publishing: Buy this e-book on Lulu.

Available in Kindle format at Amazon.com:

Buy from Amazon.com!

 What It’s All About…

Letter to the One Percent is exactly what it sounds like: a letter to the richest one percent of American households. It is a call to action, a plea for compassion, and a manifesto for the future. It tells the story of their extraordinary success — and how the other 99 percent of Americans missed out. It explains how this divergence caused household income to stagnate, forced millions of Americans into poverty, and triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It appeals to the better angels of their nature to bear a higher burden — by paying higher taxes, empowering labor, and cracking down on white-collar crime — in order to reverse the damage done in the past three decades.

No other writer has dared to speak these truths directly to power. Every other mainstream book preaches to the choir. Only Letter to the One Percent is brave enough to challenge the rich to do what the country needs them to do. It is not an attack. It is not class warfare. On the contrary: It is a challenge to end the class war that the One Percent has been winning and the 99 Percent has been losing.

No other political subject is as timely as this one. No other economic trend is as pivotal. From the financial crisis in 2008, to Occupy Wall Street in 2010, to the presidential election in 2012, the divergence between the One Percent and the 99 Percent has been the most talked-about issue in American current events. And yet, no one has synthesized the causes and consequences of it in a succinct, yet comprehensive, book. No one has translated the protests and the politics into the simple pocketbook impact that it has had on the average American household. This is the biggest story of our time, and Letter to the One Percent is the first book to tell it fully, accurately, and unflinchingly.

Advance Praise for Letter to the One Percent

“In just 85 pages, the brilliant young economist Anthony W. Orlando analyzes the events of the past thirty-five years and thoroughly explores the rise of the One Percent at the expense of the rest of us. It is truly a manifesto for the 99 Percent and should be read by every one of us.”

— Reese Schonfeld, founding President and CEO of CNN

Letter to the One Percent is an excellent primer and refresher course on macroeconomics. It helped me understand why the U.S. is experiencing the current economic state of affairs. It is also a compassionate call to action. At first, one may not agree with the basic thesis, but it makes complete sense. I am now a believer and highly recommend this read.”

— Mark Itkin, Co-Head of Worldwide Television at William Morris Endeavor

“Anthony W. Orlando has written a short dossier and critique of America’s descent into a very troubled and vulnerable society. He presents it in the original form of a letter chastising the One Percent for these policy failures and urging them to get hold of themselves and opt for decency and long-run survival. But he also provides a small storehouse of ammunition for the 99 Percent to use in their self-defense.”

— Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, bestselling co-author of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

“Anthony W. Orlando has the unique ability to translate complex economic phenomena into everyday, nuts-and-bolts language. He speaks for a brave new generation with a voice that deserves to be heard.”

— Susan M. Wachter, Professor of Real Estate and Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

“…this well-researched, carefully cited book is a valuable resource for understanding how the country got in such a perilous position and what can be done about it. Using a clear, authoritative writing style,…Orlando…manages to present an impressive number of facts without overwhelming readers. In particular, the statistics he presents are startling, even for those who closely follow the state of the economy.”

— Kirkus Reviews

Geography: The Latest Front in the Class War

Upward Mobility Across America

At the heart of today’s political gridlock is a sense of disconnect. Too many Americans feel disconnected from their government, their economy, and even their fellow citizens.

Gone is the collective bond that united us in war and in peace, the sense that we rise together and fall together. In its place is a deeply divided America.

We talk a lot about the partisan divide in this country, but we don’t talk enough about the geographic divide. The citizens who feel the greatest disconnect from collective institutions are often the ones who live farthest away from them.

The latest evidence of this fact comes from a new study by the Equality of Opportunity Project, a team that includes some of the most celebrated young economists in the country. They found that one of the greatest enemies of economic advancement was sprawl.

The more concentrated a city was, they discovered, the more likely its citizens were to climb the economic ladder. Conversely, the lower and middle classes had fewer opportunities to advance in cities that were more spread out.

The release of their findings just happened to coincide with the bankruptcy of Detroit, an episode that illustrated their point quite tragically. Detroit is one of the most spread out cities in America — and one of the most economically segregated. At its core, the average household earns an income that’s half of what suburbanites earn just outside the city’s borders.

This is yet another consequence of the extreme inequality that is rending this nation’s social fabric. Not only have the richest One Percent taken almost all of the income gains in the past thirty years, but they have isolated themselves in communities where they never have to see the pain of the 99 Percent they left behind. Walled up behind their iron gates, they become less and less aware of the struggles of the average American, until one day when the elites who run our country no longer know what our country even looks like anymore.

Nowhere is this disconnect more clear than Washington, D.C., which boasts six of the nation’s ten richest counties alongside one of its poorest cities. Our legislators never seem to notice that the people who need their help the most are in their own backyard.

The famous political scientist Robert D. Putnam made this case beautifully in a sad new essay about his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio. He talked of how stable and connected the community once was and how that all disintegrated when the manufacturing jobs disappeared. He marveled at how far his classmates had come and how different their experience was from the poor generation that followed them.

Port Clinton no longer lives as one community but two.

“In the last two decades,” writes Putnam, “just as the traditional economy of Port Clinton was collapsing, wealthy professionals from major cities in the Midwest have flocked to Port Clinton, building elaborate mansions in gated communities along Lake Erie and filling lagoons with their yachts. By 2011, the child poverty rate along the shore in upscale Catawba was only 1 percent, a fraction of the 51 percent rate only a few hundred yards inland.”

In this fractured world, it’s easy to see how the average American would feel abandoned — by the government, by the economy, even by their own fellow citizens — and why they would distrust anyone who asks them to bind together in common cause.

I know whereof I speak. This month marks my seventh anniversary of moving from the country to the city. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and suburban Florida. Since then, I’ve lived in Philadelphia, New York, London, and Los Angeles. I’ve seen the world through two very different lenses, and I don’t blame the one for being suspicious of the other.

But we must overcome this disconnect if we are to rebuild these forgotten communities and resurrect our ailing economy. The more isolated we have become, the more we have all suffered. We must find ways to connect the rural and urban regions, whether through physical connections like high-speed rail or social connections like labor unions. We must work together, and that means we must put our trust where it has always done the most good: in each other.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Why President Obama Is Right to Focus on Inequality

Real Household Income, 1967 to 2012

In his recent speech at Knox College, President Obama renewed the nation’s focus on income inequality, drawing criticism from the right for pandering to the usual Democratic interest groups instead of addressing real economic issues like jobs and growth. This reaction stems from a misunderstanding of recent history that is sadly prevalent among the American public. To set the record straight, let’s take a trip back in time…

Three decades ago, we awoke to Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America.”

It was 1983, and our economy had been through the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Reagan had slashed tax rates and broken the unions. In return, we were promised a bright future with faster economic growth for all.

At first glance, it looks like the Gipper delivered on his promise.

From 1983 to 2013, our economy’s output more than doubled, even after adjusting for inflation. The average worker today is 85 percent more productive than their predecessors were when Reagan took office. Taxes take a much smaller bite out of our income than they did in Reagan’s day, and American businesses are more profitable than ever before.

If the story ends there, it’s not hard to see why Republicans still believe in the power of Reaganomics.

But, as in every good story, there’s a twist. In this case, the twist is inequality, a politically charged word that Republicans rarely speak of. And for good reason: It invalidates their entire belief system.

The aggregate data leads you to believe that everyone’s income doubled, but that’s so far from the truth that it’s nearly criminal to foist that story on the public.

In fact, since 1983, the only incomes that have doubled after inflation are the incomes of the richest 0.1 percent of Americans. That’s one-tenth of the infamous “One Percent.” For the other 99.9 percent of Americans, inflation-adjusted incomes have grown by less than 20 percent.

But that’s a high threshold. In order to be a member of the top 0.1 percent, you have to earn over $1.5 million. What if we set the bar at a more reasonable level? Let’s exclude everyone making over $110,000. That’s a pretty good cutoff for what we consider to be “rich,” and it still leaves us with 90 percent of Americans earning less than that. These are the people who were supposed to enjoy the benefits of Reagan’s “trickle-down economics.” How much didthey gain since 1983?

Nothing.

For the 90 percent of Americans earning less than six figures, there has been absolutely zero income growth after inflation in the last three decades.

Sit back and contemplate that fact for a moment. During a period when the economy doubled in size, the total income earned by 90 percent of Americans didn’t increase by a single penny. All the gains went to the richest 10 percent.

Of course, the size of the economy is not directly comparable to the incomes of individual households. The economy grows when the population grows, even if individual incomes don’t grow. Also, the individual statistics don’t include taxes and transfers like Social Security and unemployment insurance. However, none of these facts change the big picture: After three decades of strong economic growth, the average American’s paycheck has barely budged.

You have to ask yourself: What’s the point? Why do we work so hard to make the economy grow if none of it is going into our pockets?

It hardly seems fair, but that’s not the only problem. Inequality isn’t just the by-product of a broken system; it’s a cause of the brokenness as well.

A growing economy is like a growing child. It needs to be fed often and well. The more an economy produces, the more its citizens must consume. If most Americans aren’t earning more money, they can’t afford all that extra consumption. So they borrow more than they should, but all that borrowing requires growing paychecks to repay the loans. When debt outstrips income, they default, and the economy comes crashing down.

That’s what President Obama meant when he said this crisis has been three decades in the making. That’s why it has become his highest priority. All our economic problems — high unemployment, weak economic growth, excessive debt and financial instability — have the same root cause: Most people aren’t earning enough money — and it’s not because the economy isn’t producing it. It’s because a tiny portion of the population is siphoning too much of it for themselves.

It’s not just a matter of politics, as the President’s critics would have you believe. It’s a matter of basic economics. “Morning in America” has only been bright for a select few. For most Americans, it’s been as dark as night.

The Reaganomics experiment has failed. It’s time for all of us to see the light.

==========

This op-ed was originally published in today’s Huffington Post.

The Man Who Stands for All of Us

Over thirty years ago, there was a party at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California. It was a big party, and it left quite a mess.

When the partygoers awoke the next morning, they beheld the remains of their debauchery: furniture overturned, clothes strewn about, food crushed into the carpet.

But they weren’t worried. It wasn’t their problem. The building had a cleaning woman who would get rid of the evidence. They laughed and laughed when they thought of the job she had ahead of her.

This vulgar display didn’t sit well with one girl. “You think that’s funny?” she said. “That could have been my grandmother, you know. She had to clean up behind people for most of her life.”

Most of the students probably laughed her off, but there was one young man in the group who never forgot that moment.

The young man started paying attention to the people around him. He began to notice that the cleaning woman wasn’t alone. There were millions of Americans just like her. And he was ashamed by the way he and his classmates had treated her.

Over the next fifteen years, he became a changed man, and he wrote a book about his journey.

“All too rarely do I hear people asking just what it is that we’ve done to make so many children’s hearts so hard,” he wrote, “or what collectively we might do to right their moral compass — what values we must live by. Instead I see us doing what we’ve always done — pretending that these children are somehow not our own.”

The man — no longer a young man — began speaking to communities like the one he grew up in. He taught people how to work together to solve their problems.

“In America,” he said, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

When he gave these speeches, he was standing inside the very institutions he was referring to: churches, homes, YMCAs, the all-American staples of family and community.

“What we need in America,” he continued, “is a moral agenda that is tied to a concrete agenda for building and rebuilding our communities.”

It wasn’t enough, he said, just to talk about “getting our fair share.” The citizens of a community have to be the “producers” of change. “The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe public spaces — the whole agenda of creating productive communities. That is where our future lies.”

Another fifteen years went by, but his message remained undeterred. “I’m here,” he told an audience recently, “to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.”

Voters agreed. And so, ten days from now, that man will take the oath of office to become President of the United States for a second term.

In writing this story, it occurred to me that those who voted against Barack Obama may have more in common with him than they realize. They believe in family. They believe in church. They believe in community. They believe in America.

They may not trust the government or the man who runs it, but they do believe that we’re greater together than we are on our own. That’s why they work at companies and root for sports teams. That’s why they celebrate our armed forces and pledge allegiance to our flag.

They believe in instilling values in our children, playing by the rules, doing their fair share, and getting a fair shot.

So maybe it’s possible, just for a day, for us to put aside our disagreements and celebrate our common beliefs. Just once, maybe we can come together as one community, one collective institution that has survived and flourished for over two centuries. And maybe, just maybe, we can applaud for our President — if not for who he is, then for what he represents: our great American family.

On Inauguration Day, may we all find something to believe in.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.