"Liberating" Iraqis has killed more of them than Saddam's Rule

As we approach year #6 (and year #18 of assault on the health and welfare of the Iraqi people from the most brutal sanctions ever waged against a people), I hope we can all take a moment to reflect on what this statistic means:

One million Iraqis have died as a result of the US-led war in 2003.

We don't know how many people Saddam really killed. The highest estimates I've ever heard are 3 million, which includes the one million people estimated to have died in the Iran-Iraq War because he started it.

We don't know how many people we've killed. Hans von Sponek, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, estimated that UN Sanctions (truly UK/US sanctions, as it is our Security Council votes that kept them from being lifted) resigned because he realized that like Dennis Halliday, his predecessor who called the sanctions "genocidal", there was no way he could do any "humanitarian work" in his position. von Sponek estimated the UK/US sanction regime killed over 2 million Iraqis, and writes to Iraqis asking for forgiveness for this and other crimes in his very powerful letter To an Unknown Iraqi".

All while Saddam never missed a meal. No, no, while at least half a million Iraqi children starved to death (UN estimate) he no doubt continued his life of luxury and adding those chandeliers to movie cinemas and Olympic sized swimming pools that our soldiers occupy today (I wonder if he ever invited Rumsfeld into those lavish facilities when we were slipping him billions in arms?)

And now a million Iraqis killed due to the violence we have unleashed on that country that has never before had any sort of civil war. A country where a third of marriages were ethnically mixed. The birthplace of civilization. According to the Lancet Report, as of July 2006, coalition forces were responsible for 31% of civilians killed, which was estimated 203,050 civilians, mostly killed by air strikes.

In only 5 years we have brought upon Iraq over a million "excess" deaths. It took Saddam a quarter of a century of ruling with an iron fist to match such rates. Over a million excess deaths-- we've used plenty of our bullets, our cluster bombs, our "renovated napalm"-- Mark 77 firebombs, white phosphorous that burned men, women, and children alive through their clothing in Fallujah-- as well as the destruction of public infrastructure---perhaps the deadliest way to lay siege on a civilian population. But we've also laid the ground work for the endless division of Iraqi society--the occupation has gone beyond just targeting bodies to targeting the soul of Iraq.

But the Iraqis have been through this before. Over the last 13 centuries, Iraq has been invaded 20 times before, and 20 times before it has survived and rebuilt its social fabric.

For the last 20 times Iraq has liberated itself.

So why don't we let them have a go at it?

(Surpassing Saddam's record in a much shorter period of time seems to slightly de-legitimize our own brand of "liberation", don't you think?)

Shove over -- that's MY toy

I'm headed out of the office next week -- taking a little vacation down to Savannah. I'm quite looking forward to the weather and I'm also excited to get out of Washington for a bit. I have lived four places in my life: New Jersey, Paris, Washington DC and the campus of Bryn Mawr College, each of them with its own distinct but decidedly frenetic pace. One would think that I would be used to the hustle and bustle of a northeastern urban environment by now.

Why then, have I found my months in DC exhilarating yes, but also exhausting? What has made this experience distinct from the intense, type-a drive for a degree at Bryn Mawr, or the whirlwind of lights, operas, and foreign language that was Paris? (Only being able to understand 75% of that whirl and not having to work very hard probably contributed to my comfort with the latter.)

I think what is special about DC, and what makes it more draining even than that famous island to its north, is that in this city we are all striving for a similar goal -- to make the world a better place. At times it feels like the city is a play pen in which you are trapped until you can achieve this end. There's nowhere to take refuge from the quest.

Our endeavor is more nuanced than simply making money. There is no end point really; can't you always make the world a bit better? The route is also filled with characters who, though working towards the same end, have a vision of that end that is diametrically opposed to yours. You can fight against these people, or, as FCNL teaches us, struggle to find a middle ground, to find some space for discussion and compromise with these people. This path, though fruitful, is also more difficult and, frankly, more exhausting. It is much easier to define someone as an enemy than to find the good in everyone.

But, in the end, I suppose this journey that Washingtonians take together is more fulfilling than that of our stock broker neighbors. I won't be moving to Savannah anytime soon, and hopefully the vacation will give me the break. I hope to return ready to jump into the play pen once more.

Defeating DC Disillusionment

I get along great with my mom. Except when we're going places together. She is always at least five minutes behind schedule. However, when compared to the speed of Congress in advancing legislation, she seems like The Flash.

It's a cliché observation, but there's a good reason it's observed so often: it's true. Occasionally, we do get movement on key legislation. The Senate finally passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act yesterday. Pat Powers, our lobbyist on Native American issues, jokes: "Only nine years of waiting."

I've gotten better at waiting since the days I would shake each of my Christmas presents as soon as they were placed under the tree. Still, I get impatient. When lobby visits and an active constituency fail to move a legislator, I get impatient. When after many months, the only movement on the bill I work on is the addition of a few co-sponsors, I get impatient.

But I'm an optimist and I don't like to leave people (including myself) feeling down, so here's my positive spin. There is room for change on Capitol Hill but, contrary to popular opinion, I don't think it begins at the top. I think it begins at the bottom, with the staff advising our nation's leaders.

Anyone who has watched "West Wing" is impressed by the tremendous power that President Bartlett's staff exercises. The same is true in many congressional offices (at least that's my impression from both my experience and the experience of friends on the Hill). While the legislator brings an ideological lens and potentially strong views on a few major issues, the bulk of the work on most issues is done by their legislative staff.

Legislative staffers face an overwhelming workload, requiring them to develop a working knowledge of a myriad of issues. Most are smart, terrifically hard-working, and quite friendly. Yet, too often there is one ingredient missing: courage. Courage is the willingness to take on good causes even when they don't fit their legislator's ideological bent. Courage is the willingness to make a potentially unpopular presentation on a bill to the legislative director, chief-of-staff, or legislator. Courage is the willingness to face rejection.

I don't think this is because those working on the Hill do not have the ingredients for courage. Instead, we have an environment where success and failure is not measured by good policy but by personal affirmation (whether measured in election results or promotions). The result is too often the first thought for staff is: what will my legislator think? What will his or her constituents think? And not: What is good policy?

To me, this reflects a misunderstanding of the democratic process. Legislators should not just be conduits of public opinion but also shapers of public opinion. Legislators are not elected because their constituents have studied their position on each issue, but usually because constituents have learned enough about them and a couple of their policy positions such that they trust their legislator's judgment.

It's this willingness to exercise judgment, I think, which is the missing link between the many bright staffers and legislators and good policy. Thus, my exhortation is simply this: exercise judgment.

Tax Season

Quick post, then it's back to work. I just found out that the D.C. quarter design, which included the inscription "Taxation Without Representation" was rejected by the U.S. Mint. Having just filed my D.C. taxes last night, and set up an alert to the Senate this morning which I cannot take action on because I live in D.C. and have no senators, this news particularly perturbed me.

OK -- now I will return to drafting messages to Congress that I can't send to anyone.

Hope, at last

As my pod-mate Sharon can attest to, my days at FCNL are largely spent reading, typing and munching. Munching on an endless series of Trader Joe snacks (the peanut butter filled pretzels, which Trevor recently introduced me to, are currently my favorite) and a large stockpile of dark chocolate and ginger candy (mmmmm ginger candy). And-- it will come as no surprise to those who know me-- I do even more munching outside of FCNL.

It’s true: I spend a better part of my life dreaming about good food (ay, even at the gym I’m usually watching the Food Network). I’m not quite as obsessive as my brother but I’m always on the lookout for a good meal. So, I was thrilled when Friday night (post a strange and crowded FCNL happy hour) I met a friend for a delightful Ethiopian meal at Dukem on U St. Now I’m not usually a fan of the slightly sour injera bread used to scoop up Ethiopian food but this bread surpassed expectation. We split a combo dish with samplings of a number of flavorful meats, veggies and delicious salads. A good busy buzz for a Friday night. Cheap by D.C. standards (read: not cheap but affordable). A decent amount of food that left us in a healthy food coma… All around a good time.

Having moved to D.C. from Providence (the Mecca in my mind of good, cheap, local restaurants), I’ve mourned and wept over the serious lack of reliable food establishments that plagues this city. Although K St. lobbyists apparently don’t mind paying an arm & a leg for a tasteless burger at a chain restaurant, I have slightly higher standards (insert joke about French having high standards here :) Thankfully, Dukem proved that in this dull city of black suits and burnt burgers, there remains a slim but solid glimmer of hope. If you haven’t been, I recommend you check it out!

A shift in White House rhetoric on climate change?

For years, the Bush administration has been unwilling to commit the United States to a binding international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, going as far as to officially reject the Kyoto Protocol over the claim that it would harm the economy and because it doesn't require developing nations to take actions to reduce emissions. (Congress hasn't been much help either. In 1999, the Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution to the effect that the US wouldn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol if emerging economies that emit growing amounts of greenhouse gases weren't also bound by the treaty to act, although some Senators are now calling for the US to ratify a new treaty.)

In December, 2007, during negotiations in Bali to forge a roadmap for creating an international treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when its first phase expires in 2012, US negotiators again attempted to prevent meaningful action on climate change. Not only did the US refuse to sign a document that set specific goals for emissions reductions, but the US also nearly refused to support financing the transfer of clean technology to developing countries to facilitate their reductions. The reason? India proposed that actions by developed countries to finance and encourage development and transfer of clean technology for developing countries must be "measurable, reportable and verifiable." The US actually got booed for its obstinance.

Today, though, I incredulously read the following in a New York Times article:

"The official, James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the United States could accept a binding treaty if it included mandatory steps by China and other big developing countries as well.

An acceptable pact, he said, would have all the world’s economic powerhouses, established or emerging, agree to a long-term goal for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions at some point, and commit to take measurable, verifiable steps domestically in the short term."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/world/europe/27climate.html?ex=1204779600&en=5105c9c4a9d3c943&ei=5070

Instead of blatant rejection of an international agreement that would legally bind the US to reduce its emissions, the White House is now proposing that the US could in fact be party to such a treaty. My initial reaction was to jump for joy. It seemed that the Bush administration has undergone a sea change on climate change.

Then, I realized what this means: the Bush administration remains blind to the fact that the US, as the world's largest per capita emitter - the US represents about 5 percent of the world population and emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases - and as the world's largest historical emitter, must take responsibility for a century-and-a-half of unfettered pollution.

Of course I agree that climate change is a global problem that requires that all nations take action, but the US must own up to its emissions history and agree to act before it can in good faith require that any other nation do so.

What Do We Do?

On Friday Ruth Flower sent a Washington Post article around the office. The reason? It explained lobbying, what we do, and what is so often vilified, in simple terms (notably last week in the New York Times). The lobbyists described here are certainly more commercial than FCNL, but the idea is the same:

"WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF LOBBYING, they generally envision shadowy operatives and their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress sneaking self-interested giveaways into law. That still happens, of course. Witness the Jack Abramoff scandal. The disgraced lobbyist pleaded guilty in 2006 to arranging all kinds of expensive outings for government officials, including free parties in skyboxes and a golf trip to Scotland on a private jet, in exchange for legislative favors.

But Abramoff was an aberration. Lobbying is much more substantive and out in the open than its ugly caricature. Lobbyists primarily woo lawmakers with facts. Making the case is what effective lobbyists do most and best. They spend the rest of their time persuading lawmakers' constituents to back the same causes, very much in the mode of an electoral campaign. If members of Congress see merit in a position and there is a public outcry in its favor, that's the way they tend to vote. Lobbying these days has a lot of moving parts and is, at its core, more marketing than arm-twisting or favor-swapping. It features not only the lobbyists themselves but ad executives, public relations experts, pollsters, Web site designers and other consultants."



PS -- I didn't get to the art show yet (went to a Georgetown Basketball game and movie screening at the National Gallery of Art instead) but when I do I'll let you know how it is.

Art! Peace!

Since coming to FCNL (since becoming an "independent adult" really) I have gotten good at sniffing out cool free things to do. At last I have found something that relates to my work here at FCNL.

As you may know (you will be reminded soon if you're on our email list!) the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is coming up in March (this also means that my 5 year high school reunion is coming up --crazy). To reflect on this frustrating occasion a gallery here in DC has put on a show called PEACE NOW!
I haven't seen the show yet (I just grabbed the news of it off dcist.com) but it sounds promising. We'll see.

What's more striking I think, is that war has become such a part of the fabric of our psyche that we have whole exhibits dedicated entirely to peace. I will be interested to see what this are looks like -- will it resemble art from Weimar Germany (an example of which is seen above, Otto Dix's "Skat Player"), a society caught between wars? Will it echo music and art of the Vietnam era? Will it use modern technology to depict images of war? Or is there something particular about this war, this new error of pervasive and chronic, but anything but total war? Is this art about war that is removed from war?

It sounds like I better hustle down to 7th Street NW and find out. If there's something outstanding I'll let you know. Get excited.

A Prayer

Recently, my roommate overheard two young, college-aged girls talking about Obama’s charm during which one girl loudly pointed out that Hitler was also powerfully charismatic. I guess, according to this Hillary fan, electing the charming Obama would be tantamount to the Germans supporting Hitler. At the same time, I’ve heard my Obama friends describe Hillary as though she has spent her entire career killing babies and feeding them to corporate conglomerates. Admittedly, I can’t vote so it’s easy for me to say: People, let’s take a deep breath! My God, to hear Democrats talk about their favorite candidate these days is like listening to O’Reilly or Lou Dobbs on their daily rants. And I don’t mean that as a compliment!

Can we please step back and take a look at the big picture? Do we really want to dredge up historic race and gender battles that pit disenfranchised groups against each other?

I can’t vote but I can still pray – so I’m praying that regardless of who the Democratic nominee is a groundswell of democratic fervor will stomp out this ridiculous in-party bickering and sweep the most qualified nominee into the White House. To those of you who can vote, I hope you keep my prayer in mind come November.

Inspire me on Valentine's day

It's Valentine's Day, a holiday which has little to do with Congress. To be honest, I'm finding it hard to find much to love about Congress right now. I've worked across the street from it for over 7 months, and in that time I've become a curious hybrid of insider and outsider. I'm certainly not on the inside of the institution, since I work on FCNL's outgoing message about happenings on the hill. But I am a close observer of what goes on in those chambers.

What I see right now isn't lovable or inspiring. This could perhaps be fatigue. Fatigue from seeing Jim and Alicia and even myself trying to find an optimistic angle with which to cover the bad job Congress is doing. (I guess it's not all bad -- the House does some good things, not that they get signed into law) I suppose it's a feeling of inertia. A feeling that nothing can be pushed through the huge bureaucratic monster that is the federal government. My reaction to an event my boyfriend told me about, a talk to be given by Rep. Rangel on International Trade Policy, was to shrug. What could he possibly say? Nothing will change.

How to combat this malaise? I'm looking for a way. The presidential campaign might serve as an outlet -- some new blood in the white house. I also turn to new and different sources of inspiration, like the Hungarian film festival currently at the National Gallery of Art. These films are not apolitical (the last one I saw contained oddly flip references to Auschwitz and the '56 revolution) but they are far from the daily grind of hearing about what Congress can't get done.

I suppose what I need is a recounting of what inspires those of you who don't work on the hill to act. Why do you keep writing letters to Congress? This girl, who spends her days helping FCNL convince you all to take action, needs some inspiration herself. So give me your ideas, your motivations, your thoughts, on believing in our governing bodies and taking action to change them. Thanks in advance.

(If this doesn't get any comments I guess I'll just have to take a long, contemplative walk, followed by a long, contemplative bath.)

The Surge is Working--- but only in Washington DC

"We Cannot Save them from Themselves"

-- Sen. Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing

Along with a rant about the lack of progress on the US agenda for the Iraqi government , this is as far as the "alternative view point" on the surge goes on the Hill, and the defining argument of most of the "anti-war" lawmakers.

Civilian killings (according to public records) ARE down throughout Iraq-- thank God. Nearly two years ago, the bombing of the Samarra mosque set off the worst bloodbath seen since the beginning of the invasion, and the latter half of 2007 has seen these numbers reach pre- Feb 06 levels. The troop surge began one year ago, and by the early summer the surge troops were in place. The following June and July were the most violent summer months of the occupation-- and August was the second deadliest month of 2007 for Iraqi civilians.

But on August 29 of last year, Moqtada al-Sadr declared a ceasefire. Since then the violence has dropped dramatically, by at least half from "the earlier surge months". Paying off yesterday's "terrorists" in al-Anbar province has caused the violence and attacks on coalition troops to climb down-- forget about troop surge, let's call it what it is--- a cash surge of pouring $24 million dollars a month into our "concerned local citizen groups". A bribing surge.

In DC, the most "anti-war" Senators affirm the great success of the surge. Of course, 6,000 miles away, 2.5 million Iraqis (nearly 10% of the pre-invasion population) have been forced out of the country. Another 2.5 million are internally displaced, meaning that one in every six Iraqis have lost their homes and the rest of them live in ethnic sectarian enclaves...increasingly walled off by our neighbors courtesy of our tactics to "save Iraqis from themselves".

WHAT SUCCESS FROM THE SURGE?

Success in figuring out the right price to bribe insurgents in al-Anbar, who are driving out Shias from the region? Success in driving out every sort of Iraqi from their homes? Success in Sadr's ceasefire-- well yes, true, I suppose he is the great success in all this, but I thought the point was that it has has something to do with increasing US troop levels?

SAVING THEM FROM THEMSELVES

No question that the "surge" has been a "success" in bringing about unity in Washington DC-- for the pro and anti-war crowd--it fulfills the dominant narratives of both. Here, more US troops means "winning the peace", and if the Iraqi government wasn't so inept and the Iraqi people weren't so filled with primordial ethnic hatreds then we could stop sacrificing our blood and treasure. (And maybe then those ungrateful Iraqis would stop making bogus claims about how more troops in Iraq, is having a "worse effect" on the security situation, as 72% do.)

Check out the Iraq Body Count's graphs on the rise and fall of violence. (While not pretending to approach the actual death toll, the methodology has been consistent throughout the war, and the overall trends illustrated are what is most important for the "surge" argument.)

The surge story is so successful in that it unites America behind a story of justifying the occupation-- which the "anti-war" crowd in Congress as much as the "pro-war" crowd needs to excuse ourselves as occupiers in a country where curiously over half of its people approve of attacks on our troops.

But we don't talk about that here in the 1 mile radius where we write the "legislative benchmarks" for the Iraqi government. We don't talk about how 71% of Iraqis want us to withdraw completely from Iraq in a year or less.

People talk about the "battle in Congress over Iraq". What battle? The surge has worked here... we are all convinced that "the surge has worked" and that "the Iraqis" cannot govern themselves. The surge has succeeded in boiling public discourse to one question:

Can we save the Iraqis from themselves?

In five years, with over a million Iraqis dead due to the invasion, 5million refugees, another 4 million in dire need of emergency assistance, another 3 million wounded, that means that nearly half of the population are either dead, wounded, displaced, or in dire need of basic necessities for survival.

All to save Iraqis from themselves... resulting in catastrophes on a scale wholly unprecedented before our intervention. So do you really think they are asking (or ever did) the US to "save them from each other?"

WHY WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT "THE SURGE"

Because some of the most prominent anti-war voices "for ending the war" are arguing along the same lines so well illustrated by the columnist Thomas Freidman in his solution for an "endgame for Iraq":

“We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children.” - Thomas Friedman

For the sake of Iraqis who have been lived through 13 years of the most devastating sanctions in contemporary history, taking AT LEAST a million lives, and then 5 years of brutal war and occupation, I let these people make their argument for the sake of, one distant day, boosting chances of withdrawing US troops.

But for the sake of America (and the rest of the world where we launch our "global war on terror/democracy project"), when our conversation degenerates into this level of unquestioned racism, I have to ask:

WHO WILL SAVE US FROM OURSELVES?

What is that racket? More Adams Morgan shenanigans?

Because I am an crotchety old woman stuck in 22 year old's clothing, this was a question I asked at 9 o'clock last Friday night. I was walking to a party at a friends house, and since I live two blocks from Adams Morgan (a now passe DC party neighborhood)I assumed that the honking and yelling I heard in the distance was just more 21 year olds testing their newly minted ids.

Turns out, it was Obama volunteers starting a ruckus on the corner of Columbia Ave and 18th Street NW. They may have begun the excitement, but everyone who passed, even taxi drivers, were getting into the act. "Well," I thought "these are the kind of shenanigans I can get behind."

And I was in luck.

The Hilary people were out on Saturday! More excitement that had nothing to do alcohol and girls wearing tank tops in February! Ahhh... Heaven.

(I didn't see any GOP volunteers, although I did share a metro station with the CPACers last week -- lots of Huckabee and McCain signs there)

Why all the excitement? It's primary day today in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Get out and vote because I can't -- I'm still registered in NJ (I sent in my address change form today). I'll be staying up too late tonight to listen to the returns.... presidential election season is my super bowl.

A musing on the United States Congress

I agree with Trevor that Mitt Romney's departure from the race is a bit of a head scratcher (as is the meaning of the meaningless phrase "a surrender to terror"). It was, however, a welcome respite from the habitual confusion that abounds in governing bodies of the land.

I present you with: the inexplicable metaphors, similes and symbolism of the U.S. Congress!

1) Pork -- why are pet projects stuffed into appropriations bills referred to as pork? Why not a more interesting meat? One that is usually stuffed, perhaps? What about Foie Gras? If you ask me, imagining the food that is stuffed into that bird's liver to make is so gras would make a much more vivid image.

2) Christmas trees -- Senate opponents of the economic stimulus package referred to it this week as a "Christmas tree hung with ornaments". Huh? What's so bad about Christmas ornaments? Who are these grinches? I think hearing Senators talk about the "bling" included in the stimulus package would have been more amusing and quite frankly more accurate. (But then again, what harm did a little bling ever do?)

OR, the Congress could stop using these silly metaphors and start saying what they mean.

Romney Drops Out to Bolster McCain's Campaign

Today, Mitt Romney dropped out of the horse race. In this speech he says electing a Clinton or Obama Administration would be a surrender to terror:

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," excerpt from Romney's withdrawal speech.

On youth, unity, and history

After focusing almost entirely on retirees last Sunday, this week's "Outlook" section in the Washington Post happily greeted this readers with the more broadly appealing headline, "Talking 'Bout Our Generations." (Mom! Dad! We can read it together!) I was even more invigorated (both positively and not so positively) by what I found in the two op-eds that followed.

I first read "The Boomers Had their Day. Make Way for the Millenials". Why did I read this first? Because I'm a touch self-absorbed and interested in my own generation. I enjoyed this essay because it was hopeful, well argued, and laid out a methodical analysis of American history. The authors argued that "idealist" generations alternate with "joshua" generations in American history. The former comes at problems with ideals and moral arguments, unwilling to compromise them to solve disputes. "Joshua" generations come in after, more interested in pragmatism and reconciliation, and make way for the change that the idealists demanded but ultimately couldn't deliver. While this is perhaps an overly simplistic view of how history unfolds or society functions, it resonated with me.

I am at the elder frontier of the"millennial" generation, defined as people born between 1982 and 2003. We are the people who couldn't vote in, and maybe not remember, a world before 9/11, and who have come of age during the Bush administration. We have only known a world view shaded with impending disaster, war, and terrorist attacks. And yet -- I feel that my generation is not apathetic, is not overly combative, and is more open to solving the problems that have been dogging our country since our parents were our age. We've been hearing about the divisions in U.S. society forever -- from the mouths of our parents who attended Woodstock and learned how to protest with Martin Luther King or Malcom X. Just as our mothers and fathers threw off the proprieties and restraints that bound their parents, we are ready to take a step away from the concerns of ours.

The other essay was entitled "Getting Past the '60s? It's Not Going to Happen." and explained why nothing is really going to change in American politics, not even after the upcoming election. It was poorly explained, and though it brought attention to the forgotten histories of the 1960s, did nothing to convince me that we, the next generation, cannot move forward from the problems of our parents. The author, Rick Perlstein, apppeared to have a case of sour grapes for not being part of a protest generation (He was born in 1969) and a misunderstanding of what matters to millennials. He argues that we must come to terms with the '60s before we can move past them. I don't . My greatest wish is to become a historian, and even I understand that the power held by the boomers is fading. They can retire to think about what the '60s meant -- those of us with whom those divisions don't resonate can focus on fixing the important problems the last generation drew attention to.

Please, let us move on -- why would we want to wallow is the problems of the past?

(Unless it's your job -- attention to history departments looking for grad students -- I'm available)

In other corners of the web: Even apathetic Gen Xers can get into the act.

Note: While some of the pieces I linked to may endorse political candidates, I, and FCNL, do not necessarily agree with those endorsements.

Monday Morning Coup?

Violence can destabilize countries and regions very quickly. Only a week after the fradulent elections in Kenya, a quarter of a million people had been displaced and several hundred were dead. History shows that once the bombing and violence begins, it is very hard to stop. This is why I predict a coup d'etat in Chad by monday morning.

Earlier this week, chadian rebels crossed the Chadian-Sudanese border from Darfur, Sudan and made their way towards the capital of Chad, N'djamena. By Thursday they were fighting President Déby's forces just 80 kilometeres outside of N'djamena. By Saturday morning, they had control of the airport and other parts of the city. Although French and American expats are getting on flights out of town, the rebels reportedly said they would abide by "international norms" and not harm the expats. The French Defense minister issued a communiqué today stating that French forces would not intervene, and stay neutral. However, French minister of State, Bernard Kouchner said that France would stand with authorities and the law.

In a bizarre turn of events, Kadhafi Libya's chef d'etat (also infamously authored the Green Book) is talking to Déby and the rebels in hopes of securing a cease-fire. However, Le Monde reports that Déby has called up recruitments (article in french, unfortunately Le Monde has been the best source of news on the situation in Chad) from outside of the country. By monday morning, more fighting could occur in N'djamena between Chadian rebels and Déby's reinforced troops or we could see a new Chéf d'Etat in Chad.

Imagining Another Foreign Policy

For many young Americans - such as myself - our entire adult life has been watching the Bush Administration run the country. We watched a President rise to power on the coattails of his father, and through a deeply contested election. Our trust in our government has fallen during the Bush era, as we watched an incompetent administration launch a war in Iraq based on lies , trample on American constitutional rights to due process and radically expand the power of the presidency.

We have seen the effects of mismanagement post Hurricane Katrina. We have seen the effects of corruption and cronyism in Iraq, where Defense contractors and private firms like Blackwater and Halliburton have benefited enormously from the Bush Administration's strategy of preventive war. While claiming to be a uniter, we have watched an administration divide the country and the world for political gain. For the Bush Administration, American politics is a game of divide and rule, rather than make compromises to better the country. Only after the Democrats swept the Republicans out of the power in 2006 did "Bi-partisan" become in fashion once again. Yes, watching the Bush years has been depressing and turned many young people into cynics. It has been difficult to imagine another world during the Bush years.

As I watched President Bush give his last State of the Union Address this week, I was both refreshed and anxious. Refreshed, knowing that this time next year, a new administration would be in power. And Democrat or Republican, the debate has changed since the start of the Iraq war. In Washington, there is greater recognition regarding the limits to military power, and the need for better foreign relations to undo the damage done by the Bush Administration's cowboy unilaterlism. Anxious, because the leading candidates in both parties still have yet to articulate a radically different foreign policy.

Democrat or Republican, the next President of the United States must bring big ideas to the table. Just prior to the winter recess, both chambers of Congress sent letters to the President urging a substantial increase in the President's request for the international affairs account - which funds non-military tools - in fiscal year 09. Despite modest increases, the international affairs budget is 17% less than during cold war years, adjusted for inflation. We need a president with the courage to reduce the Pentagon's half a trillion dollar budget, and increase funds for diplomacy, development, post-conflict reconstruction and civic action abroad.

We need an administration with the courage to renounce the failed global war on terror, and pursue an ethical foreign policy based on diplomacy and international cooperation. One of the most mentioned words in the State of the Union Address - terrorism - is something that will be with the world for some time. But preemptive war and imperial occupations are innapropriate means of combating terorrism. Rather, the U.S. should use spy agencies and security services to locate and capture terrorists, while undermining the conditions which create terrorists. After the Tsunami in Indonesia - the most populous Muslim country in the world - the military and U.S. aid agencies mounted a massive relief effort. As a result, public opinion polls showed the first major rise in support for the U.S. in the Muslim world since the Iraq war. While we at FCNL want to get the military out of delivering aid, the next president should capitalize on American economic power to help those suffering, and subsequently shore up U.S. national security.

Change comes through incremental steps to improve peoples lives, not revolutionary tactics like preemptive war, which undo the fabric of societies. A post-Bush world requires a President with vision, hope and reason to pursue a foreign policy rooted in Wilsonian idealism, yet tempered with realism.

Can this blog be any good?

Development committee came to FCNL today, and while I was down in the basement scavenging for left-overs (committee meetings = free food for interns) I has a conversation with Sharon about the blog. She asked me how many people read it, who they were, etc. Then she said she wasn't that interested in blogging. Fine. I know that the interns fall in to roughly four categories when it comes to the blog: those that write on it, those that are scared of writing, those that don't care, and those that think it is a waste of time. I think most of us don't understand what one is (when even the NY Review of Books does) or how to successfully write on one.

But I realized that probably very few people other than the few interns who write on this blog actually read it.

I also got to thinking -- can it be good? Can we make this blog interesting? More importantly -- what the heck is it about? (Reason one it probably can't be good: since this blog is semi-sponsored by FCNL, and I am employed by FCNL, I don't feel comfortable using a more adult word in the previous sentence)

So, I raise this question -- what are we writing about here? Ourselves? Our experiences at FCNL? Or is this a blog that pushes the policy issues of interest to FCNL? I am certainly inclined towards the former, perhaps because I am self-absorbed, and perhaps because I don't work directly with policy issues.

What do we want this blog to be? What do the four of you who read it think? How could we get the message out better?