Council for a Livable World

The former government in Japan, ousted from power in recent elections, was playing a curious double game. It professed support for nuclear disarmament while lobbying for keeping these weapons. Read the article below: Japan lobbied for robust nuclear um…

In an editorial last week, the Washington Times sent a clear message to world leaders on Iran, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

We need you help to send a message that the Washington Times could not be further from the mark.

Saber-rattling and fear tactics are counter-productive. Threats of military action bolster the positions of hardliners in Iran’s government and weaken the position of anti-nuclear moderates in the region.

They also undermine diplomatic hopes for a negotiated settlement.

The Times goes so far as to state that, “Compared to the 2002 case for war against Saddam Hussein, [the case for using force in Iran] is a slam-dunk.”

We all remember what happened the last time neo-conservatives had a “slam dunk” case for war – we’re still paying the price for the mess in Iraq.

While we oppose Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, bellicose rhetoric and military action actually make the United States less safe. They reinforce Iran’s pro-nuclear regime and put our troops in Iraq at further risk of attack. The staggering economic, humanitarian, political and military consequences of a conflict between the United States and Iran would damage American strategic interests both now and for years to come.

There is clearly time for diplomacy to work.  Experts state that Iran is unlikely to possess the capability to develop a long-range nuclear missile within the next ten to fifteen years.

On Saturday in Berlin, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei urged the international community to continue to engage with Iran diplomatically, saying that “small steps and negotiations” are necessary to achieve results. ElBaredei insisted that threats of force are a “bridge to nowhere.”

Take action now! Send a letter to your local newspaper urging negotiations, not bombs.

Each election cycle, in addition to our own analyses, we compile predictions by other political race experts on the most competitive contests in the country.

Find forecasts for 2010 Senate elections from Stuart Rothenberg’s Political Report, Congressional Quarterly, and the Cook Political Report. (Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball has not yet posted information on 2010 races, but will be added to this list as predictions are made.)

Click here for the complete listing of early predictions for the 2010 Senate.

 

Two incumbents (one Senate and one Governor) are in serious trouble in the 2010 Senate contests.

In Florida, the hard right conservatives who recently managed to throw an upstate New York Republican seat to the Democrats by supporting a third party candidate are at it again.  The popular Governor now running for Senate, Charlie Crist (R-FL), is opposed by Club for Growth and other conservative activists who think he is too moderate.  Crist’s Republican opponent, Marco Rubio (R-FL), the former House speaker, has begun closing the gap in the polls although not in fundraising.  Rubio is also winning Republican straw polls.

In Connecticut, incumbent Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is either running virtually even or behind any of five Republican opponents, including 11 points behind former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT).Ralph Nader, who managed to screw up the Al Gore for President campaign in 2000, is thinking of running for Senate in Connecticut as an independent (beware of any potential candidate who talks of all the people urging him to run).  Dodd’s main hope is that the Republicans destroy each other in a primary.

How many other incumbents will be in trouble next year, or will improved economic conditions and an enacted health care bill create a rising tide for many of these incumbents.,

For eight long months President Obama has been wrestling with the request of his commanding general in Afghanistan for at least 40,000 more American troops to reinforce the 68,000 already there alongside the 50,000 NATO soldiers. Virtually the entire foreign-policy establishment has been tied up in a series of eight long meetings on Afghanistan; papers have been researched, written, and discussed in excruciating detail.

As the nation awaits the president’s decision, it seems clear that the enormous investment of time and study presages much more than a decision on the number of troops. The president must offer a game-changing strategy: either the application of irresistible force for victory within a reasonable time or a prompt exit strategy. The irresistible force might be assembled quickly by transferring U.S. forces now in Iraq to Afghanistan. The exit might be blamed on the corruption, ineffectiveness and drug dealing of the hopeless Karzai government.

Why has it taken Obama so long to decide? We should keep in mind that the Afghan war is not his prime problem. His administration will succeed or fail primarily on the economic situation in the nation, the level of jobs and business activity. Is there a relationship between the economy and Afghanistan? Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a clue on November 12 as he commented on the president’s many meetings on Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was talking to reporters on his plane en route to a Wisconsin factory that is churning out thousands of armored trucks for use by American troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was in Wisconsin to visit the Oshkosh Corp. which is making 6000 trucks to help protect troops from improvised explosive devices (IED), which account for the vast majority of American and NATO casualties in Afghanistan. “Obviously, if the president makes the decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan”, Mr. Gates said, “We would look at this in terms of whether we needed to buy more”.

Is the war in Afghanistan indirectly part of the Obama stimulus plan to increase economic activity and employment? An exit from Afghanistan and the planned withdrawal from Iraq would mean wholesale cancellations of military contracts, expenditures that the Congress supports and welcomes. Such cutbacks would exacerbate the difficult business and employment situation. Will this be a factor in the Obama’s decision? As a student of American history, he knows that FDR finally overcame the Great Depression with an armament program beginning in 1938-39 that stimulated the economy and put millions of workers back on the payroll. Will that be a factor in Obama’s decision about continuing the wars in Southern Asia?

This post originally appeared on The Relentless Liberal on November 14, 2009. Jerome Grossman is Chairman Emeritus of Council for a Livable World.