A Senate insider has been pushing the first five minutes of this segment from last night's "Rachel Maddow" show:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Friday, October 30, 2009
Bayh semi-redeems himself
Semi.
A Senate insider has been pushing the first five minutes of this segment from last night's "Rachel Maddow" show:
A Senate insider has been pushing the first five minutes of this segment from last night's "Rachel Maddow" show:
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
On Afghanistan
It's hard for me to say clearly and with great specificity just what we should do in Afghanistan. It is much easier to just put out there some of the things I've been reading, seeing, and hearing that are affecting my thinking. Here are some key items.
- A PBS Frontline documentary, called "Obama's War," that paints what seems to be an accurate picture of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the options that the President is considering.
- An article from Peter Bergen - who as far as I can tell, has been and is one of the most knowledgeable commentators on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the ongoing war - which argues for increasing the American troop presence in Afghanistan, especially in the more remote tribal regions.
- A letter of resignation from a state department official who wrote, "I fail to see the value or worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war." This part especially gives me pause: "...I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."
- A Fareed Zakaria interview of foreign policy expert Thomas Ricks, in which Ricks seems to argue in favor of counter-insurgency in the Afghan cities (Kabul and Kandahar, for example) and counter-terrorism (lighter troop presence focused on tactical strikes on terrorist targets) in the country-side. You can watch it below (the interview with Ricks ends around the 10-minute mark):
- Another bloggingheads episode in which Bob Wright airs some of his concerns about Afghanistan with Mickey Kaus, who is more eager to try some kind of Afghanistan surge and see how it works.
As I said before, it's hard for me to say exactly what I think we should do in Afghanistan. I find the Ricks approach, which has been termed the "Biden in the country, Petraeus in the city" strategy, to be on the surface more promising than Bergen's idea of surging into the remote tribal areas. As I've said before, I just think that kind of effort would require a commitment of huge amounts of troops and resources, as well as a slimmer chance of success. The Ricks strategy, in the long term, should result in a strengthening of the Afghan government in the most heavily-populated areas, with an ongoing effort to destabilize and disrupt terrorist activities in the countryside (which could be carried out by the American military until the Afghan military is better prepared to take on the task). This strategy seems to accomplish the major goals of a) significantly limiting the capabilities of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, b) securing a democratically-elected central government with limited support and power in the countryside, and c) showing Pakistan that we are seriously committed to a stable Afghan state that will act as a partner in their war against radical militants. It's not a perfect solution and it would not result in a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but it might be the best choice we have to pick from.
- A PBS Frontline documentary, called "Obama's War," that paints what seems to be an accurate picture of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the options that the President is considering.
- An article from Peter Bergen - who as far as I can tell, has been and is one of the most knowledgeable commentators on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the ongoing war - which argues for increasing the American troop presence in Afghanistan, especially in the more remote tribal regions.
- A letter of resignation from a state department official who wrote, "I fail to see the value or worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war." This part especially gives me pause: "...I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."
- A Fareed Zakaria interview of foreign policy expert Thomas Ricks, in which Ricks seems to argue in favor of counter-insurgency in the Afghan cities (Kabul and Kandahar, for example) and counter-terrorism (lighter troop presence focused on tactical strikes on terrorist targets) in the country-side. You can watch it below (the interview with Ricks ends around the 10-minute mark):
- Another bloggingheads episode in which Bob Wright airs some of his concerns about Afghanistan with Mickey Kaus, who is more eager to try some kind of Afghanistan surge and see how it works.
As I said before, it's hard for me to say exactly what I think we should do in Afghanistan. I find the Ricks approach, which has been termed the "Biden in the country, Petraeus in the city" strategy, to be on the surface more promising than Bergen's idea of surging into the remote tribal areas. As I've said before, I just think that kind of effort would require a commitment of huge amounts of troops and resources, as well as a slimmer chance of success. The Ricks strategy, in the long term, should result in a strengthening of the Afghan government in the most heavily-populated areas, with an ongoing effort to destabilize and disrupt terrorist activities in the countryside (which could be carried out by the American military until the Afghan military is better prepared to take on the task). This strategy seems to accomplish the major goals of a) significantly limiting the capabilities of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, b) securing a democratically-elected central government with limited support and power in the countryside, and c) showing Pakistan that we are seriously committed to a stable Afghan state that will act as a partner in their war against radical militants. It's not a perfect solution and it would not result in a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but it might be the best choice we have to pick from.
Senator Bayh (and his wife), the Insurance Industry, and Reform
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is one of the "conservative" Dems that has been - at best - luke-warm on health insurance reform. Here's why Bayh's reticence on these issues seems a little suspect:
When he was governor, Bayh's wife, Susan, was a lawyer for Lilly. After it became clear he was going to be a senator, she started stacking up memberships on the boards of health-care corporations.
Susan Bayh got paid a little over $2 million for her service between 2006 and 2008. Her husband had a good 2008 also, collecting more than $500,000 in campaign donations from the health-care industry.
There are scores of relatives of well-placed national lawmakers who are well-placed in enterprises seeking favors. To a man and woman, they would scoff at the notion of being influenced by anything but the burning desire to serve the commonweal.
Let's go on. Susan Bayh's largest reward for her impartial board deliberations came from WellPoint, another Indianapolis-based company that happens to be the nation's largest for-profit health insurer. WellPoint paid Director Bayh nearly $1 million over two years to exert no influence over Sen. Bayh.
WellPoint, of course, proudly notes that it was among industry folks "at the table" with President Barack Obama early on in the health-care "reform" process.
Lieberman's Stand
Hi everyone, "B" here. I thought we could get the conversation started by continuing our e-mail debate over Joe Lieberman's threat to help filibuster any health care bill with a public option. I heartily applauded this move, while my more liberal friends seem downright apoplectic about it.
I'll start by posing three sets of questions. Feel free to respond to all, some, or none:
B
I'll start by posing three sets of questions. Feel free to respond to all, some, or none:
- What is the overall goal of health care reform? Is it just some combination of (lowering overall health care expenditures; lower premiums for working class families; decreasing the number of uninsured; correcting perceived unfairness in the insurance industry)? Do you think any one of these is more important than the others?
- Why did President Obama not fight harder for the public option?
- To what extent is the relationship between Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and the health care industry affecting Bayh's positions on health care reform?
B
Bob Wright and Robert Kagan on Afghanistan
You may not be familiar with bloggingheads.tv, but if you are one (like I am) who enjoys listening to intelligent people debate and discuss important issues, you might want to check it out. In this webisode, bloggingheads' Bob Wright discusses the conflict in Afghanistan with surge proponent and military analyst Robert Kagan. It's worth a few minutes of your time.
The rest of the video can be seen here.
The rest of the video can be seen here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
