An Evening in Dhaka (Sort of)

On Wednesday I went to the independence celebration at the Bangladesh Embassy.

What an odd experience.

Don’t get me wrong, it was great fun – interesting to be inside an embassy, delicious food, beautiful saris to stare at, me mourning the fact that I would look ridiculous wearing one – but an odd social milieu to be moving in. (Not to mention that the invitation was addressed to my boyfriend – we were invited because he has worked a bit with the Bangladesh embassy on trade preferences—and Mrs.. Right off the bat, sort of pretending to be someone I’m not.)

So anyway, where am I going? Oh yes. I found the people there strikingly unpretentious, a little nerdy, and surprisingly low-key. Behold the wonder of the small nation! I am embarrassingly ignorant of Bangladeshi history ( I had do web research to find out when the country won independence, and from whom – 1971, after a war with Pakistan actually), so I had very little context before going. Perhaps because of my ignorance, but perhaps not, I found the atmosphere refreshing. There was no bombast, no speeches about how great and powerful Bangladesh is. We all stood around eating mutton biryani and trying to figure out each others’ connections to Bangladesh.

What did I take from all of this? Well, because I work on Capitol Hill and am consumed by the condition of this nation, it reminded me just what a tough spot the U.S. is in. While it’s great to be a world power with economic supremacy and a permanent voice in U.N. security council, we also have immense responsibility. Our embassy in Dhaka could never throw such a low key July 4^th affair. Is this constant scrutiny and responsibility the source of our eroding ability to deal with the nation’s and world’s problems in an effective manner? Are we simply tired out? Do we need a rest? A Caribbean vacation?

I don’t know how to get over the feeling that the U.S. is a lumbering, tired, giant – one that is in great need of a rest that will never come. How can we get our energy back? Our youth back? Our moral, creativity, and liberalism back? Any ideas?

While you all mull that over I’m going back to my mutton.

A Dream Deferred

What happens to a dream deferred?



Take Action!

US Deploys Nuclear Sub to Persian Gulf; New Reason to Protest IRS :)

US Nuclear submarine, like one pictured above,
just took off to visit Persian Gulf
and the general Iran neighborhood

Not to pick on you Nick, but I disagree on not protesting the IRS....so much so I have to write a big post instead of just a comment on yours :) It is true that every dime Bush has asked Congress for the war has been on an emergency supplemental....not in our budget. Our adventures in Iraq as well as Afghanistan have been funded entirely on debt. For the first time in American history, taxes go DOWN in wartime.

Well, sort of. As we know, 43% of our tax dollars went to military spending last year. You can't just subtract out the largest defense system on the planet and not include it in fighting two wars that are breaking down the military. After all, we spend half of what the entire world collectively spends on defense.... you can't just pretend like that is totally separate from bombing Iraq an average of 4 times a day.

Everything from the ammunition and tanks to the cluster bomb stockpiles to the fighter jets....we use what we had in storage for raining fire on Iraq and Afghanistan, and then Bush asks for "emergency supplementals" to "refresh" our supplies. Then that exhaustion of the military gets factored in for the next years...and lo and behold, the Pentagon then asks us to increase military spending!

We can't just subtract the fact that the war planners are being paid on our tax dollars.... this is all of course just the beginning. Look, the money for the so-called "War on Terror" is fungible. They have done it before...taken money from the Pentagon before getting the funds from Congress. Just like we started bombing Iraq intensively months before authorization from Congress for a full scale get out Saddam mission. (That is right, over 54 tons dropped on southern Iraq in September 2002...a month before Congress authorized it. Of course we had been bombing Iraq off and on since 1990, but we escalated air power on Iraq right up before the invasion to provoke a retaliation from Saddam.)

Besides, plenty of other things to protest at the IRS about...we just deployed a nuclear submarine to the Persian Gulf, amidst rumors that Cheney is telling our friendly Arab dictators that next target is Iran.

And what would happen from a cold fiscal view if we went to war with Iran? Long after bombing Iran Bush and Cheney would politely request money from Congress for an "emergency" supplemental. Let's remember that a large majority of Congress voted against the idea that congressional authorization for attacking Iran was necessary.

So, to the extent that protest is how you can be most effective, protest at the IRS, protest at the Federal Reserve....there are many different players in promoting the de-stabilization of the Middle East. And we will certainly be paying off this war on debt, but we are also paying it with our own entire tax-payer funded defense system and defense capabilities...not to mention the whole ethical part of bombing a people (or multiple peoples) and stripping their sovereignty and what that does to our security situation...or soul.

Am I crazy?

I was just reading a CRS report,"Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 110th Congress," (as wretchedly boring as it sounds) when I came across this sentence:

"Striking a balance among the facilitation of legitimate travel and trade, the integrity of immigration documents, the security of personal identification documents, the protection of personal privacy and civil liberties, and the deterrence of foreign security threats remains a challenge for Congress."

In English, that means that Congress is still trying to find a way to let

a) businesses trade
b) Americans travel
c) immigrants enter legally, but
d) still keep "terrorists" out.

They're trying to convince every American to have a "biometric" identification card -- with all sorts of personal information recorded-- promising that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent abuse -- by criminals and by the government. Not forgetting, of course, that there's 800 miles of Southern border, 5,522 miles of Northern border (the longest common border in the world and still, surprisingly unmilitarized) and then a couple hundred U.S. ports and airports to regulate.

And thinking about all this, I actually felt bad for the mysterious body commonly known as "Congress." Besides those handful of folks who seemingly take joy in bashing immigrants and turning this challenge into even more of a political nightmare, the majority have been trying to figure out a -- yes, comprehensive -- solution. It's no easy problem to solve!

I know it's not fashionable to feel sorry for Congress, to make excuses for their general incompetence or to suggest that the schedules set for them are terribly inhuman. But I'll admit that for just the briefest of moments-- as I trudged through the CRS report-- I felt a pang of compassion for our sorry members of Congress as they go forth, trying to figure this mess out.

After 5 Years, I'm Still Confused

So I went to the protests yesterday (Mike Gravel is shorter than you'd think), and I saw everything from dancing polar bears with bad Rage Against the Machine cover bands to DC Police Bike Brigades. I think there was one point where there were more police than protesters in McPherson Square.

It was the protest at the IRS that really got me thinking, though. Those IRS guys, the ones that were kept out of their office building yesterday, aren't really the ones funding the Iraq War. Sure, 43% of our tax dollars go to military spending (along with paying down the military portion of the debt), but the war is really being paid for by that shiny government credit card called the National Debt. Using "supplemental funding" measures, the government has really been able to shield the public from directly feeling the financial cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's really a clever (read: devious) way to increase support for your war...

I'm no economist, but here are my thoughts on the situation:

Instead of introducing taxes to pay for the war (which would probably make it quite a bit less popular), the current administration is trying to shift the financial burden of this war onto future administrations.

Looking the mountain of National Debt that keeps piling up, the declining value of the dollar, and the current uncertainty surrounding the US economy, it seems that the financial repercussions of amassing all this debt are going to hit us a lot sooner than President Bush expected. I'm guessing he hoped he'd be out of office for at least a term by this point, far enough removed from the situation to escape most of the blame.

Now, here's where my lack of knowledge about economics really puts me at a disadvantage. I don't know what the solution is. It does seem to me that Bush's solution (more tax cuts, bailouts for failing financial institutions) just serve to further increase the national debt and delay an actual resolution to the problem at hand.

One of Dan's friends explained the situation to me like this: Forest fires are necessary, because they help clear deadwood out and make room for new life to grow. People however, try to prevent forest fires because they're dangerous and, well, forests are so gosh darn pretty. The problem is that not allowing forests to burn once in a while leads to a massive accumulation of deadwood. Consequently, when a fire does start, it's harder to control and the damage can be devastating.

The economy, similarly, needs to burn a little every once in a while. What we have here is a massive forest fire waiting to happen.

Okay, I went way off topic... Protesting at the IRS:

The IRS isn't spending your tax dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just trying to pay down the government's debt on those wars, so give them a break. Next time, I recommend a protest at the Federal Reserve; they're the ones issuing the bonds and paying for war.

5 years of war

Hey cats -- It's been a while since any of us have posted. Sorry about that. We've been pretty busy here at the office getting ready for the Iraq war anniversary (5 years -- I was at a band competition my senior year in high school clutching my flute when we got the call that the U.S. had begun bombing).

Today we joined other anti-war activists down K street to protest the war. We handed out many WINA signs, got caught in the rain, were interviewed by media outlets, and even met Mike Gravel*!


* Again -- not a political endorsement. Though on the topic of Iraq I agree with Mike Gravel more than with what Bush said.

Happy Women’s Month

For any of you who missed this gem by Charlotte Allen in the Outlook section of the Washington Post this past weekend, do go back and check it out.

A heads-up: don’t be surprised when—after a long re-hashing of old stereotypes (women can’t drive, add 2+2 or read a map) and gross generalizations (all women sit around reading trash novels while sipping lattes) — the piece concludes women should “relax” and enjoy our innate “tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.” Why should we do this? Well, apparently so that we won’t have to think about “the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.”

I know, it sounds like a joke and after hundreds responded with outrage, the Outlook editor, John Pomfret, lamely defended the piece as “tongue-in-cheek.” Ha ha very funny.

No, Mr. Pomfret, sadly a preliminary online look at Allen’s record reveals that it’s no joke. But Allen’s record aside, the piece isn’t funny because women already hear this *stuff* all the time. Admittedly, we don’t usually read it all at once, condensed down into a single poorly written, incoherent piece in a once respectable newspaper. Usually, it’s just a side comment, a look in the elevator, an implied suggestion here, a “harmless” remark there. There is nothing in Allen’s article that I haven’t heard before or that I don’t expect to hear again.

So I hope that Mr. Pomfret will forgive those of us who didn’t laugh when we read Allen’s charming reminder of the daily denigration that women around the world and throughout history have faced and – it appears—will continue to face for generations to come.

(To celebrate women’s month, consider writing a letter to the editor -letters@washpost.com- or sending a complaint to the Ombudsman- ombudsman@washpost.com)

THE 79% CAMPAIGN---HOW TO MAKE OPINIONS OF IRAQIS MATTER IN THE US

photo of Iraqi girl after 2003 invasion, courtesy of Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell

THE 79% CAMPAIGN-HOW TO MAKE OPINIONS OF IRAQIS MATTER IN THE US

Anyone have any ideas on this? I'd love to hear it.

Here's my suggestion: "memorize for peace" a few of the following stats on Iraqi public opinion and spread them far and wide. When I was talking to Andrew about these striking statistics that are almost never used in arguments on Iraq on the Hill, he said "79% of Iraqis are proven to oppose coalition presence in their country? Why isn't that the title of a campaign?"

The idea of the "campaign" is to drive home the point that the real "experts" support a speedy (different than "precipitous") withdrawal of US military presence from Iraq--but its not just that.

It is about working towards the much, MUCH longer term goal of changing the American consciousness and consequently US foreign policy.

These stats demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe the "surge" has worsened security, oppose the US-led presence in their country, believe the US is making the security situation worse, endorse a time-line for withdrawal, and believe the US is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

The majority of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within a year, and majorities believe that a US withdrawal will increase political progress in the Iraqi parliament, availability of public services, and decrease crime. The situation is so horrific that a majority of Iraqis support attacks on US troops, at the same time that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis are opposed to al-Qaeda.

Importantly, all of these now majority opinions have only increased throughout the duration of the US-led occupation.

• About 70% of Iraqis believe the US military “surge” of extra troops over the past six months has worsened security

• 79% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in their country

• 72% of Iraqis believe that US presence is making the Iraq security situation worse overall.
  

• 87% of Iraqis endorse a time-line for US withdrawal

• 78% say that the US is provoking more conflict than it is preventing (82% of Shias, 97% of Sunnis, and 44% of Kurds hold this view)

• 76% of Iraqis believe that if the US withdraws in 6 months, there will be an increase in the “willingness of factions in parliament to cooperate

• 67% of Iraqis believe that there will be increased public services if the US withdraws in 6 months

• 64% believe that there will be a decrease in the amount of crime if the US withdraws in 6 months.
  

• Finally: 71% of Iraqis support withdrawal of US forces within a year.

(37% call for withdrawal within 6 months, 34% opt for all US led forces to leave in a one year timeline. 27% favor two year timeline, and only 9% favor the Bush administration line of “only reducing US led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.)