The Way Out?
Americans are impatient — and increasingly despairing — about the war in Afghanistan. After 10 years of fighting, more than 1,500 American lives lost and $450 billion spent, they need to know there is a clear way out.
On Wednesday night, President Obama announced that American troops will soon begin to withdraw, but at a size and pace unlikely to satisfy many Americans.
He said that 10,000 of the 33,000 troops from the “surge” would come home before the end of this year, with the rest out by next summer. He vowed that reductions would continue “at a steady pace” after that, and that “the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security” by sometime in 2014.
We are not military planners, so we won’t play the too big/too small numbers game. Mr. Obama argued that the United States is starting the drawdown “from a position of strength” — that Al Qaeda has been pummeled and the Taliban have suffered serious losses — and that his goals are limited. “We won’t try to make Afghanistan a perfect place.” It was a particular relief to hear him say that “the tide of war is receding” in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But he will need to do a lot more to explain why it is in this country’s strategic interest to stick things out for another three-plus years. And why his drawdown plan has a credible chance of leaving behind an Afghanistan that won’t implode as soon as American troops are gone.
This was a sound speech, as far as it went. But 13 minutes for something this important?
Mr. Obama said that his fundamental goal is simple: “No safe haven from which Al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland.” Americans have good reason to be skeptical, especially after listening to George W. Bush’s claims that Iraq was a front line in the war on terror. It wasn’t. Afghanistan is.
Mr. Obama would have been more persuasive if he had just flatly declared that without a base in Afghanistan, the United States would never have been able to carry out the raid that got Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Obama had some tough words for Pakistan. But Americans need to hear exactly how close Pakistan is to the edge. If Afghanistan implodes, it could quickly become the base for Al Qaeda and other extremists for whom the real prize is Pakistan and its 90 or so nuclear weapons. This is no dominoes fantasy.
Does Mr. Obama have a credible plan for both building a minimally stable Afghanistan and bringing the troops home? His speech was short on specifics.
An American drawdown must be based on a buildup of capable Afghan forces. Mr. Obama’s team has made a serious effort on that front, unlike its predecessors. His argument would have been more credible if he had also acknowledged the real problems of attrition and illiteracy.
Mr. Obama said in the clearest terms yet that he is open to Afghan-led negotiations with Taliban leaders. It is an effort well worth pursuing if it is tempered with significant skepticism. Programs to bring lower-level Taliban fighters in from the cold are moving far too slowly.
Mr. Obama did not mention the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, whose behavior has been particularly bizarre and offensive of late. He also said nothing about the troubled American assistance program. A recent report by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warned that billions have been wasted on corruption and poorly conceived or unsustainable programs.
We know that “nation building” has become taboo in Washington, but helping Afghanistan build a minimally functional government is also part of the way out. Mr. Obama and his team clearly need to come up with a better way to manage Mr. Karzai, or work around him, and a more rational assistance plan.
Mr. Obama acknowledged Americans’ deep anxiety about this war. But one speech isn’t going to calm their fears. At his best, the president can be hugely persuasive. But we are constantly dismayed by his unwillingness to engage debates early and press them hard. The country needs to hear more from him, and a lot more frequently, about this war and his plans for getting out.
Budget Cutters v. the Law
The last three years have been the hardest for state budgets since the depression, and virtually every state has cut services. Most often, it is the poor, the young, and the elderly who are most hurt, as 34 states cut K-12 education, 31 health care, and 29 elderly and disabled services.
More than 30 states also have raised taxes to some degree, but some have simply gone too far and violated longstanding commitments to their citizens. When that happens, usually because of ideologically driven lawmakers, the only protection that many citizens have is the courts. In state after state, the courts have been forced to step in and stop the most ravaging budget-slashers.
As Michael Cooper of The Times recently reported, courts have sharply rebuked several states for breaking the law in cutting back vital services and improperly using new revenue sources. Governors and legislators can rage about judicial activism and unwarranted intervention, but in many cases the voiceless, including schoolchildren, prisoners and the poor, have no other protection.
In California earlier this month, a federal court ordered the state to increase its payments to foster parents, two-and-a-half years after the state was found to have violated the federal Child Welfare Act. The Legislature included an extra $10.7 million in the budget for the higher rates, which it had not otherwise been willing to pay. A few weeks before that, the United States Supreme Court said California could no longer crowd prisoners into dangerous conditions, a situation long ignored by the state.
The New Jersey Supreme Court last month upbraided Gov. Chris Christie for cutting the schools budget so sharply that he violated a court order requiring a proper education in poor districts. It ordered another $500 million in school spending. Governor Christie’s sputtering that the court trespassed on his responsibility would be more persuasive if he had made any attempt to meet his obligations, instead of cutting taxes and then pleading poverty.
The North Carolina courts are examining whether state cutbacks there violate court orders, and similar lawsuits have been filed in Kansas. In the words of John Robb, a lawyer for several Kansas school districts: “Just because the checkbook is empty doesn’t mean that the constitutional standard is swept away.”
These court actions are a warning to Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, who has proposed to cut $1.2 billion of the school money necessary to fulfill the 2006 court order that children be provided a sound basic education. When lawmakers ignore their fundamental responsibilities, it’s good to know there is a judge who will step in.
A Reasonable Public Union Deal
Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and leaders of the state’s biggest public employee union announced a responsible agreement on Wednesday that would create significant budget savings while helping to reduce potential layoffs. The five-year deal with the Civil Services Employees Association freezes wages for three years and raises employee contributions to health benefits. Other unions in the state should quickly adopt similar packages.
The governor set a goal of saving $450 million this year — by cutting pay increases and benefits or by laying off nearly 10,000 workers. The deal with the public employees’ union would keep workers in their jobs and bring salaries and benefits more in line with the private sector.
The deal would save $73 million this year and $93 million next year. If it were adopted by other public unions that negotiate with the governor, the state would save $1.63 billion over five years, the governor said.
The agreement includes a three-year pay freeze with 2 percent increases in the fourth and fifth years, nine unpaid furlough days over the next two years, and higher health care contributions (with bigger premium increases for higher-paid workers). In exchange, the governor has promised to shield the union, which has 66,000 members, from layoffs for the next two years.
Other unions, especially the Public Employees Federation, with about 56,000 workers, should begin negotiations quickly. If layoffs are necessary to meet Governor Cuomo’s budget target, members of those unions could face job cuts if they refuse to make similar concessions.
This agreement moves in the right direction. The next step is for the Legislature to work with Governor Cuomo’s efforts to scale back future pension costs.
Cloud Over the Court
The Supreme Court is not bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, but justices have said they follow it voluntarily. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, does not appear to believe that he needs to adhere to those rules.
The code says judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable endeavors lest donors feel pressured to give or feel entitled to special treatment if they do. Judges are not supposed to know who donates to projects honoring them.
On Sunday, The Times reported on Justice Thomas’s conduct connecting a museum in his hometown, Pin Point, Ga., with a major donor to that project, Harlan Crow, a Dallas real-estate magnate who is a big contributor to conservative causes and a Thomas friend and benefactor. A company controlled by Mr. Crow’s partnership paid $1.5 million for the site of the museum, which is scheduled to open this fall. Although the museum is not intended to honor Justice Thomas, his history will be part of it.
This case is the latest evidence that the Supreme Court’s voluntary compliance with the judges’ conduct code isn’t enough to protect impartiality and credibility. Justice Thomas seems utterly unconcerned with those rules. In January, he acknowledged that, over the last six years, he had failed to disclose his wife’s employment with conservative organizations, in violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court must adopt the rigorous code of conduct that applies to all other parts of the federal judiciary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment