Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
17
U.S. military intervention, occupation in Muslim world: at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, on the whole, infeasible
Filed Under Foreign Affairs, Law, Military, Politics | 10 Comments
That’s how the Rand Corporation is describing the large-scale intervention we’ve gotten ourselves into in their most recent study. This is from the Rand Corp., which, I am pretty sure, is supposed to skew conservative.
From the press release:
Recognizing that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be the last of their kind, a new RAND Corporation study issued today finds that U.S. capabilities to meet the threat of Islamist insurgencies are seriously deficient and out of balance.
The report finds that large-scale U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world is at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible. The United States should shift its priorities and funding to improve civil governance, build local security forces, and exploit information — capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces,” said David C. Gompert, the report’s lead author and a senior fellow at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge.”
The findings are from a major review of strategies to combat insurgencies RAND initiated at the request of the Department of Defense.
What is so absolutely, positively, bottomlessly aggravating about these conclusions is that people could have and would have and were telling us this certainly before we entered Iraq and perhaps before we entered Afghanistan (I recall the former, I do not recall the latter). And if you don’t believe me, well, here’s the Rand again:
The authors cite data from some 90 conflicts since World War II that show the surest way to defeat insurgencies is to foster local governments that are seen by their citizens as representative, competent and honest. “Foreign forces cannot substitute for effective local governments, and they can even weaken their legitimacy,” said co-author John Gordon.
Historically, large-scale military intervention against insurgencies — e.g., France in Indochina and Algeria and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — more often fails than succeeds.
The study finds that because it can take time for a local insurgency to acquire strength and turn jihadist, the chances of defusing an insurgency are better than 90 percent when caught early. But those chances drop to less than 50 percent if the insurgency has the chance to become a full-blown uprising. Thus, the United States needs the ability to interpret “indicators and warnings” so it can act in the early stages of the insurgency.
Sickening. What and who was President Bush and his advisors listening to when making their decisions to begin military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq? Feh. Don’t bother answering.
If this is the first time you are hearing this news, you aren’t alone – no one seems to have reported it. You know where I heard it, of all places?
Harry Shearer’s Le Show. Oh.My.God.We.Need.A.New.President.NOW.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:15 pm February 17th, 2008 in Foreign Affairs, Law, Military, Politics | 10 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
17
A primary view from the firewall, I mean, heart of it all: Ohio
Filed Under Barack Obama, Campaigning, Cleveland+, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, Voting, WH2008 | Comments Off
If someone had told me 20 years ago, when I first moved to Ohio as a born and bred in New England left-leaning graduate student, that not only would I still be living here in 2008 but that I’d be blogging about the politics of this swingiest of swing states – and that people would read what I wrote about those politics – I’d have said, “Oh, right. And we’re going to have a woman president before I die too!”
But not only do I still live in Ohio and we might have a female president before I die (I’m thinking I’m going to live long enough to see more than just one viable female candidate for that office), but I find Ohio to be at least as fascinating as my home state of Connecticut when it comes to politics.
With the full weight of the campaigns trying to push voters toward their preferred end of the pendulum (I’ve participated in two Hillary Clinton camp calls in the last 24 hours – one with Howard Wolfson and one with Harold Ickes and earlier this week, received a dinner invite for bloggers from Barack Obama’s on the ground online communications connection), here are my top ten reasons to love primary politics in Ohio and relish the run-up to its primary on March 4:
10. Ohio’s primary is an open primary. Ohioans who are registered to vote can go into their precinct and ask for (or “pull”) either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. Unfortunately for those of us who are still undecided, the removal of former candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson makes this feature a little less exciting. The inability to predict also has to do with the large number of Ohio voters who do not register as Democrats or Republicans specifically because they can pull either ballot at a primary.
9. Ohioans have experienced the worst of the worst when it comes to election fraud accusations. Start with this 2006 Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy. How much worse can it get? (I come from the school of “it can always be worse,” but seriously, given all the attention Ohio has garnered for its abysmal record of voter access and counting frauds, it still defies logic that it could be worse.) Well, this New York Times Magazine article from January 2008 is an excellent primer on just how much worse it can get and why so many of us say, paper, optical, touch-screen – they’re all problematic. Have I mentioned how many times my older brother in Seattle e-mailed during the 2004 and 2006 elections to rant against our former Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell?
8. No one “C” city is like another. The big Cs are Cleveland, in the north along Lake Erie, Columbus in Central Ohio and Cincinnati in the Southwest. I’ve spent time in all three, though only a few days total, in twenty years, in Cincinnati. But I know no one who would dispute the difference between the three. Although in Cleveland and Columbus, Democrats rule, while Cincinnati’s diverse city council includes members of a political party called Charterites, the fact is that many of Ohio’s more than 9 million eligible voters live in rural areas, not urban centers and that fact has a lot to do with the state’s red hue of the last few years, though much less so since the blue tide of 2006 when four of the five state offices turned over to Democrats from Republicans (governor, attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer; only the auditor’s office remained occupied by a Republican politician).
7. Few people thought Ohio would matter. And honestly, not even that much space – cyber or otherwise – was spent trying to convince anyone in Ohio that we should move the primary. I don’t know if that was prescient as much as typical of Ohioans being slow to accepting, let alone desiring change. Still, Louis Jacobson of Congress Now said Ohio would matter regardless of when we held our primary and I tended to think the same.
6. With three weeks between Super Tuesday (2/5) and Ohio’s March 4 primary, and only a few states in between, the patterns the candidates are making as they crisscross through Ohio look like the back of a needlepoint canvas. Just check out the posts on Glass City Jungle by Lisa Renee Ward. She’s based in Toledo and tracks as many events as she can (see her left-hand sidebar with campaign contact info). Additionally, pretty much every Ohio political blog has added some kind of an “upcoming” widget to help people track what’s going on when and where. Read more
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:54 pm February 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Cleveland+, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, Voting, WH2008 | Comments Off
Print This Post
Feb
17
Media, press, blog credential info for Cleveland State Clinton, Obama debate
Filed Under Announcements, Barack Obama, Blogging, Debates, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 3 Comments
News Media Resources
Working members of the media wishing to cover the Ohio Decision 2008 Presidential Candidates debate on February 26 must be credentialed. Requests for credentials are to be submitted electronically beginning Monday, February 18, 2008, when the Credential Request form will be available on the CSU web site. Space is limited, so make sure you apply as soon as possible.
Deadline for Credential Applications: 6 p.m. Wednesday, February 20, 2008.
Credentialing Process – Media credentials will be required to gain access to the Media Filing Center in the East and West Wing Function Rooms on the fourth floor of the Wolstein Center and the Practice Gym where the Spin Room will be located. Media stand-up positions will be located both outside on the corner of East 21st Street and Prospect Avenue facing the entrance to the Wolstein Center and inside the Spin Room. Please note that media credentials do not provide access to the arena floor, the site of the debate. The debate will be broadcast on large monitors in the Media Filing Center for working journalists to watch.
Important Note – Media organizations must fill out a Credential Request form for each person requesting access.
Credential Approval Process/Media Logistics Call – Requestors will be informed on Thursday, February 21 if their credential application has been approved. Once credentials have been granted, debate organizers will hold a media logistics call at 1:00 p.m. Friday, February 22 and a debate site survey for broadcast media on Monday, February 25 from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
Credential Distribution – Credentials for approved media will be distributed at the CSU Media Filing Center from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday, February 25, and starting again at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, February 26. Debate organizers will provide food for credentialed media on the day of the debate in the Media Filing Center.
Cell Phone, WiFi Coverage. There is good cellular phone coverage and free wireless Internet service at CSU and onsite at the debate facility.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:45 am February 17th, 2008 in Announcements, Barack Obama, Blogging, Debates, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
17
The Economist: Democratic nomination for president is Obama’s to lose
Filed Under Barack Obama, Campaigning, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 2 Comments
The Economist does a down and dirty recap of where the competition to earn the Democratic Party members’ nomination to be the candidate for president in 2008 stands right now. It’s fair and accurate, except for its name-calling. That crap needs to stay out of venerable publications like The Economist.
The comparison of where they are now:
Mr Obama has not only solidified his hold over his core constituents—blacks, the young, independents and educated white liberals. He has driven a truck into Mrs Clinton’s coalition. In Virginia he won 52% of the white vote to Mrs Clinton’s 47%, 54% of the (admittedly small) Latino vote to Mrs Clinton’s 46%, 55% of people 65 and over to Mrs Clinton’s 45%. He won every income group handily.
…
[The turmoil in Clinton's campaign] is significant for more than the obvious reason that it is dangerous to switch key staff in the middle of a campaign. It suggests that Mrs Clinton underestimated the challenge posed by Mr Obama. She expected everything to be wrapped up by Super Tuesday, and is now putting together her campaign on the fly. It also undermines her claim to be a CEO-type figure who will be ready to run the country on day one. Mr Obama has run a steadier campaign. He has consistently out-organised and out-planned his rival.
The Economist writes, however, that Clinton has three things on her side that might derail the inevitable:
1. Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania
At least one in three of Democratic voters in Texas will be Latino, a group that has favoured Mrs Clinton in the past. Mrs Clinton is ahead in the polls in Ohio, a classic blue-collar state, by almost 20 points. These two vote on March 4th. Much of Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22nd, is also Clinton-friendly, and the popular governor, Ed Rendell, is working hard on her behalf. Between them, the three states choose 492 delegates.
2. Time
Mr Obama’s message of “change” and “hope” is becoming a little tiresome. As he becomes the front-runner, media scrutiny is bound to intensify. And Mrs Clinton will take every opportunity, not least in two forthcoming debates, to attack him on substance, particularly about national security and the economy. Is Mr Obama tough enough to stand up to John McCain on security (security-minded voters tend to favour Mrs Clinton by a wide margin)? Is he experienced enough to save the economy from free-fall?
3. The quirks of the delegate race
Even if Mr Obama wins every contest from now on by a five-point margin he will not gain the magic number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination. The Clintons are lobbying the superdelegates furiously. They are even prepared to push hard to seat the “ghost delegates” from Florida and Michigan in the convention. These are delegates elected in those states in primaries held in defiance of party rules (and hence not recognised by the party). Mr Obama’s name did not appear on Michigan’s ballot.
As an ear-witness to Harold Ickes’ conference call yesterday, there’s no question that the push on all three variables is on. Whether it will make a difference and how voters will view that push, and whatever results come from the push, I have no idea.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:31 am February 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
17
How to get Ohio debate tickets: Ohio Democratic Party lottery
Filed Under Announcements, Barack Obama, Debates, Hillary Clinton, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 9 Comments
Great news! The Ohio Democratic Party has secured a block of tickets for the Democratic Presidential Debate on February 26th, sponsored by Cleveland State University and NBC News. The debate will air live from 9:00pm – 10:30pm at the Wolstein Center on the campus of Cleveland State University. Regardless of which candidate you support, it is an exciting time to be a Democrat in Ohio.
Due to overwhelming demand, we will be giving away a portion of the ODP debate tickets in a drawing of those who request their name be added.
Please sign up here to enter your name into the lottery. Each winning entrant will receive one free ticket. All entries must be received by Wednesday, February 20th at 10:00 am. Winners will be notified by phone and/or email.
Sign up now at: www.ohiodems.org/debateticketsGood luck and I hope to see you there,
Todd Hoffman
Director of Internet Operations
Ohio Democratic Party
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:13 am February 17th, 2008 in Announcements, Barack Obama, Debates, Hillary Clinton, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 9 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
17
NY Newsday takes blame for Obama’s misleading NAFTA campaign literature
Filed Under Barack Obama, Blogging, Business, Campaigning, Economy, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, NAFTA, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 7 Comments
Wow. Thank you Bill Sloat for being so keen-eyed.
From Newsday:
Because [our coverage of Clinton's NAFTA position, during her Senate primary race in 2006 has now] raised questions — with Clinton criticizing Obama for making “false claims” in the mail piece — we’ve looked into the chart. In it, we did not have the Clinton campaign using the word “boon” in describing NAFTA. The word was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.
Tasini called for scrapping NAFTA in 2006. She did not.
We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time. Also, for that matter, Clinton’s campaign did not contact us to question the item after it appeared in print.
Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said “boon,” not us. It’s an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.
That said, we should have been clearer. [my emphasis]
Good for Newsday and thank you again to Bill Sloat.
In this Ohio Daily Blog post, before Newsday published the above information, Jeff expresses his belief that there’s enough basis in reality for Barack Obama to raise Clinton’s record on NAFTA an issue.
But now that Newsday has recognized its error, will Obama do the same?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:52 am February 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Blogging, Business, Campaigning, Economy, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, NAFTA, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 | 7 Comments
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
