Council for a Livable World

President Obama has not decided whether he will support General McChrystal’s request for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan. Part of the President’s hesitancy shows the influence of informed and politically influential voices who urge caution. It re…

National Republicans have introduced a genuine challenge to Delaware’s Democratic leaning by putting in play the person who may be the single viable GOP candidate for VP Joe Biden’s unexpired Senate seat. Today, Congressman Mike Castle (R) responded positively to National Republican Senatorial Committee recruiting efforts and announced his decision to run for the seat.

Attorney General Beau Biden, the vice president’s son, is expected to be the Democratic contender in next fall’s election. In spite of Beau Biden’s high-profile name, political analyses are predicting an extremely competitive race. According to Politico, “[Castle’s] decision is poised to set up a marquee matchup between two of the biggest names in Delaware politics,” while RedState claims, “Castle’s expected entrance into the race instantly makes the race for one of the Democrats’ safest seats competitive.”

Some analyses even give the early advantage in the race to Castle, a former governor who has been elected statewide for over 25 years. Rothenberg Political Report cites polls as it “[moves] the Delaware Senate seat from Currently Safe for Democrats to Lean Takeover for the GOP.”

It is too early to give a meaningful advantage to either candidate. In fact, it still remains to be seen if Biden will hold onto the bid. Recently returned from a year-long deployment in Iraq, Biden is still in the process of determining his political trajectory. Nonetheless, we can reasonably expect that he will run. And we can now expect an extremely tight race.

 

An Op-Ed by CLW Board Member Jim Walsh was recently posted on the New York Times “Room for Debate” blog discussing whether sanctions against Iran have actually been working. Here’s an excerpt:

Today, like most days, talk about Iran is talk about sanctions. Politicians and policymakers are drawn to sanctions because they offer an alternative to the unpleasant choice of war or surrender. Sanctions are also good politics, especially with a regime whose president questions the Holocaust and whose recent election brought both protesters and prison sentences. No one wants to start another war in the region, and sanctions provide the satisfaction of “doing something.”

But will they work? Will they force Iran to abandon its nuclear program? Research on the effect of sanctions is difficult to assess, but some scholars conclude that sanctions work about half the time. They are most effective when applied over a long period of time on small countries that are dependent on the outside world. Iran is a big country with oil, and it can build centrifuges faster than the international community can impose sanctions. The Islamic Republic is also a proud country, the kind for which sanctions are as likely to elicit defiance, as they are cooperation. Indeed, the Islamic Republic has been under one kind of sanction or another since its founding 30 years ago. Any objective assessment would have to conclude that sanctions have completely failed to alter Iran’s nuclear policy. […]

Read the rest of Jim Walsh’s post and other expert opinions about continuing sanctions against Iran at the NYT Room for Debate blog.

A clash is coming on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase there. One plan, advocated by Vice President Joe Biden, would “scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.” Greater reliance would be placed on drone airplanes attacking insurgent leaders and less on nation-building.

However, the 66 page classified report by the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, assessed the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan “as a potential threat to the safety of American troops. “ He called for more troops and “other resources” that “would be required for victory.” This approach is supported by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Can Obama resist the recommendations of his military leaders?

It is an embarrassment to the Obama administration that the secret report was leaked to newsman Bob Woodward and printed in the Washington Post. It forces the President’s hand at a time when he is hard pressed to push health-care reform legislation through the Congress, giving the President another controversial issue to manage. It is hard enough to handle a single controversy. One observer called the chain of events and the leaked report, “amateur hour.” Who slipped the secret document to Woodward? In the midst of the battle over health care, Congress must battle over troops again? Republicans are already on board for escalating the war, with more troops and money. The Democrats are divided but most want the administration to develop an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

It will be politically difficult for Obama, the leader of the only superpower on earth, to simply walk away from the war. But we did it in Vietnam, America is more secure and we gained a friendly customer. We have agreed to leave Iraq in 2011 and the political roof hasn’t collapsed. If we leave Afghanistan to the people who live there, how would such a haven increase the danger in the United States? That case has not yet been made. We have learned how to protect ourselves: no attacks have been made on the U.S. since September 11.

The President’s sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections, the widespread corruption, and the guerilla tactics of the Taliban. Nine months into his presidency and six months after announcing a new strategy, Obama is reconsidering his plan again. Does this indicate uncertainty?

The allies of the U.S. want out. At least half of the Americans polled have lost confidence in the war. There is division in the Obama administration. No strategy seems to work. Is it worth more American lives? Is it really necessary for American security?

Politically, the war is a loser. It is no longer the Bush war; it belongs to Barack Obama – to intensify or to end – halfway measures won’t do.

This post originally appeared on Sunday, September 27, 2009, on Relentless Liberal.

Random Friday fact… While looking for petition images online, I just looked up “letter” in Wikipedia. And what is the sample “letter” image at the top of the page? A copy of the letter written by Albert Einstein and Council for a Livable World founde…