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.

The Republican Riddle: What the States Know That the Feds Don’t

Screen Shot 2013-10-07 at 3.00.13 PM

I’m going to tell you a riddle. It’s a paradox of sorts, and it’s confounding some of the brightest political minds of our time. Here it is…

The Republican Party has lost the last two presidential elections. In the House of Representatives, they lost the majority of the nation’s votes. In the Senate, they’re outnumbered 55 to 45.

The future looks even dimmer. The youngest generation is more liberal than its immediate predecessors, and they’ve been turning out in record numbers. The electorate is becoming more educated and more diverse — two liberal trends that don’t show signs of stopping anytime soon.

And yet, at the state level, the story is completely reversed. Republican governors outnumber Democrats 30 to 20, and they control a majority of state legislatures.

How can that be? What are Republican politicians doing right at the state level that they aren’t doing at the federal level?

I’ll give you a hint: They aren’t who they say they are.

The answer to this riddle is the greatest act of hypocrisy in modern politics. It’s a magic act, really. An illusion. Don’t be fooled by appearances. Look at what they do, not what they say.

Republican politicians say they want smaller government. They say the states are better at governing than the feds. They say we can afford tax cuts. They say we need tax cuts.

But their actions tell a different story.

Take Obamacare for example. The Affordable Care Act instructed the states to set up exchanges where people could purchase affordable health insurance that they weren’t getting from their employers. Twenty-six governors declined, choosing to let the federal government do it for them. Of these twenty-six, twenty-four were Republican.

These Republican governors, who say the states are better at governing than the feds, ceded enormous power to the federal government, violating a core principle of their party’s ideology. And then they crowed that Obamacare was a failure because it required a massive federal bureaucracy — the very bureaucracy that they chose to create!

The dirty little secret of Republican politicians at the state level is that they love the federal government. They need it. They depend on it.

In fact, Republican states receive far more federal spending, relative to the taxes they pay, than Democratic states. For every dollar they put in, Republican states get $1.46 back. Democratic states get $1.16. Of the 22 states that voted for John McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal funding than they paid in taxes, compared to only 55 percent of the states that voted for Barack Obama.

Then the Republican politicians have the temerity to brag that their states have lower taxes. Well, of course they can afford lower taxes: The feds are picking up the tab!

What they don’t tell you is that they’re spending just as much money. They’re just being subsidized by the Democratic states!

It’s no surprise, then, that Republican state governments are more popular than Democratic ones. They have lower taxes and more federal funding — both of which are very popular.

Thus the riddle is solved: At the state level, Republicans are cynically and diabolically riding to victory on the wings of a big federal government while claiming to be doing the exact opposite.

At the national level, meanwhile, they’re just starting to learn how to play this game. In Washington, Republicans really have been trying to shrink the federal government, so much so that they threatened to default on the nation’s debt and blow up the global economy if the President didn’t agree to cut spending on everything, including retirement programs.

It wasn’t until they realized that the spending cuts were extremely unpopular — because, you see, the public actually needs the services that the government provides — that they backtracked and claimed that they never supported them in the first place. And when the President finally proposed cuts to retirement programs, they attacked him for even considering such an idea…even though they basically forced him to do it.

But the award for worst hypocrisy surely belongs to Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, who went all-out to prevent sending federal aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and then demanded that the federal government send aid to their home state in the wake of the recent tornado disaster.

Maybe they’re finally starting to figure out what state-level Republicans have already discovered: The government is an essential part of our social fabric. It does important things, and someone has to pay for those important things. You can’t cut spending without hurting people, and you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending or blowing up the deficit.

There’s no such thing as real magic. Anyone who says differently is trying to trick you.

==========

An abbreviated version of this op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

How We Stopped Investing in the Future: A Florida Case Study

In June 2009, ten Florida Congressmen sent a letter to the Department of Transportation, requesting over $2 billion from the federal government. They wanted to build a high-speed rail line, shuttling passengers from Tampa to Orlando and eventually Miami in only two hours. The money was supposed to come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the $787 billion “stimulus” bill that newly-elected President Barack Obama signed in February of that year.

Of the ten Florida Congressmen, three were Republicans, and all three had voted against the stimulus: Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Adam Putnam.

This kind of about-face wasn’t unusual. Many Republicans were begging for a piece of the stimulus after they had tried to kill it in Congress. Even party leaders like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor got in on the action.

John Boehner defended this contradiction by saying that the stimulus would fund “shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs.” Only a few months earlier, he had been saying the exact opposite — and relentlessly trashing anyone who dared to disagree with him.

The Tampa-Orlando rail line really did fit Boehner’s definition. It was shovel-ready because almost all the land and permits were already lined up, and according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, it would create 27,000 jobs.

Moreover, it was good fiscal policy. According to two separate reports, the project would produce an annual surplus of $31 million to $45 million by 2026 — and that didn’t include the much more profitable connection to Miami that was likely to follow.

And it was good environmental policy. High-speed rail emits far less greenhouse gas than cars, especially in densely populated regions like central and southeastern Florida, which is why overflowing cities in China, Europe, and Japan have surged so far ahead of us in this vehicle of the future. It saves time, money, and pollution. Unsurprisingly, it’s very popular.

Fifty years ago, this would have been a no-brainer. In the 1950s and the 1960s, politicians were dedicated to investing in new technology and staying one step ahead of the Soviet Union. It’s no coincidence that economic growth was faster and more widespread in those days.

Back then, the federal government spent 2.6 percent of the nation’s income on nonmilitary investment. In the last twenty years, it has averaged 1.8 percent per year. That difference of 0.8 percent may not seem like a lot, but it adds up to trillions and trillions of dollars that could have gone into research and development, education, and new infrastructure — and, if previous investments are any indication, would have yielded benefits many times higher than the costs.

As economist Eugene Steuerle put it, “We have a budget for a declining nation.”

On January 28, 2010, the White House granted Florida’s request. By December, the Department of Transportation had allocated $2.4 billion against a cost of $2.65 billion, and they promised to cover any cost overruns. Had Florida accepted the money, its workers would be laying rail for the Sunshine State bullet train at this very moment.

Instead, Governor Rick Scott rejected the deal, citing cost concerns that didn’t make much sense since the feds were on the hook for any losses.

Thus did the dreams of high-speed rail die in Florida. Thus do many dreams of the future die in the modern political arena.

In Tampa, there’s a street called Bayshore Boulevard. It’s the longest continuous sidewalk in the world. It’s a beautiful walk, with a balustrade that overlooks the water below. It was built in the 1930s by the Public Works Administration, part of the federal government’s response to the Great Depression. It’s just one of many breathtaking feats of construction that dot this great land of ours, each a reminder that, as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said during the high-speed rail fiasco, “We still know how to do big things in this country.”

I’d like to think that’s true. I’d like to think we still care about the future. I’d like to think we can build a better tomorrow. I only wish Governor Scott and his fellow ideologues felt the same way.

==========

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