In Defense of the Banks

The title probably makes the blood pressure go up for quite a few people. The banks after all are the villains that brought our economy down, and that is undoubtedly true.

But it overlooks one cogent and vital point and that is the nature of our capitalist system. Now some of my audience may react that this is exactly why we need to get rid of the capitalist system, but I say to them, nobody has as yet come up with a better one. China, India, the USSR and a number of other countries have tried planned economies, and all they got were shortages, a low standard of living, and more poverty than any capitalist system has ever seen.

So as far as I am concerned I am for a capitalist system, or more accurately, a mixed economy with regulations that prevent inappropriate risk taking, and unethical behavior. Regulations have been the US model going back long before Roosevelt’s New Deal, and as least as early as 1890, when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was enacted. A mixed economy goes back to the founding of the Republic, when the Constitution mandated that certain businesses, such as the delivery of the mail shall be a government function. Since then the US government has taken on innumerable business functions, from building canals, to land grants, to subsidizing the railroads, building highways, developing a widely envied (at least it used to be) public education system, establishing our National Parks, creating unemployment insurance, Health Insurance in the Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and VA programs and Social Security, to name just a few.

But why would I defend the banks? Well, they did what all businesses do in a capitalist system. They try to make as much money as they can, and that is what the banks did. So where was their fault. They used overly risky, ill considered and even unethical means toward their end of maximizing profits. But as long as what they did was not illegal, they did nothing wrong under our system of laws or even ethics.

Some, particularly in Republican circles, joined to some degree by left wing organizations, such as moveon.org, decried the bank bailout, and felt that they should reap the consequences of their reckless behavior. On a level of pure theory they are right, but we live in a real world, and the consequences of a melt down of our banking system would have had disastrous consequences for the whole economy, indeed the whole world. The failure to save Lehman brothers, which shook the economy, gives some indication of the abyss, which we were facing. Let us remember that F.D.R. dealt first with the banking crisis when he was inaugurated and despite unprecedented actions still had a 22% unemployment rate after 5 years in office.

In my opinion the fault lay in a misconceived believe that the capitalist system is self-regulating. Some, despite all evidence to the contrary, still believe that. Fortunately, many, among them the great apostle against regulation, the former Chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, have recognized that they were wrong, or as the conservative British newspaper, the Guardian, said:

“… Alan Greenspan has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology that guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.

“A long-time cheerleader for deregulation, Greenspan admitted to a congressional committee yesterday that he had been "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry and that the credit crunch had left him in a state of shocked disbelief.”

Even former President Bush, in his last year in office recognized the crisis and urged a bailout of the banks which was authorized by the Congress in a display of bipartisanship not seen since, with both Presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, voting for it along with a majority of Democrats, and a minority of Republicans, who clinging to their faith that the markets would right themselves, were willing to risk a total meltdown in pursuit of their ideology, and now oppose regulating the banks, having learned nothing from this crisis, or for that matter earlier crisis, and the people who through their votes support such irresponsible behavior.

We now see similar behavior from the Toyota company who resisted recalls and an emphasis on safety for fear that it would have a negative effect on their bottom line and we saw it during the Savings and Loan crisis of the ‘80s and ’90 which like this crisis was caused by the removal of regulations that until then prevented the calamity and would have prevented it had they remained in force, or as About.com explained it:

“Savings and Loans were specialized banks that used low-interest, but Federally-insured, deposits in savings accounts to fund mortgages. In the 1980's, the popularity of money market accounts reduced the attractiveness of savings accounts, so the banks asked Congress to remove restrictions. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which allowed S&L's to raise interest rates on deposits, make commercial and consumer loans, and removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios. At the same time, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board regulatory staff was reduced thanks to budget cuts.

“In an attempt to raise capital, banks invested in speculative real estate and commercial loans. Between 1982 and 1985, these assets increased 56%. In Texas, 40 S&L's tripled in size, some growing 100% each year.

“By 1983, 35% of the country's S&L's weren't profitable, and 9% were technically bankrupt. As banks went under, the state and Federal insurance began to run out of the money needed to refund depositors. However, S&L's kept remained open, making bad loans, and the losses kept mounting.”

Unfortunately, the lessons of that crisis were not learned, particularly since that too resulted in an essential bailout under a Republican Administration. Or as About.com puts it:

“By 1989, Congress and the president knew they needed to bail out the industry agreed on a taxpayer-financed bailout measure known as the FIRREA provided $50 billion to close failed banks and stop further losses. It set up a new government agency called the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to resell Savings and Loan assets, and use the proceeds to pay back depositors. FIRREA also changed Savings and Loan regulations to help prevent further poor investments and fraud.”

But why any of this should be a surprise is difficult to fathom. Sport analogies are so very popular in our culture, and here there is one that is at much on point as any could be. Our capitalist system works on competition. Competition is the heart and soul of sports. But can anyone imagine sports without regulations and umpires to enforce them. With the Super Bowl just behind us, can anyone imagine that game without rules, among them unnecessary roughness, holding or other tactics considered unfair.

          The President has introduced legislation that would begin to repair this situation. The banks and their protectors in the Republican Party want to block these. They are essential if we are to avoid endless repetition, but even they are not enough. We need to once again separate investment from commercial banking, by reenacting the Glass-Steagall Act, as ably set forth by Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal: We need to cap usurious interest rates, whether disguised as fees, or in the form of charging interest for a month when the loan is in fact for a day.

          The idea that competition, the heart and soul of our capitalist system, can function without regulations and strict enforcement should by now be self-evident. The villain is not the banks, but the government that fails to set up regulations, the agencies that fail to enforce them, and the people who through their vote create such a government.

Eating Crow

On January 21 2010 I posted a commentary on my blog entitled: "Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!"

I received a comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn. that read as follows:

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republicans, and that that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

When I published my commentary: “Doesn’t Anybody Really Care," I intended to use this comment in the body of my opinion piece, but in doing so inadvertently misquoted the comment and misrepresented it. This led to the following exchange between Bruno Lederer and me, which I am publishing in order to correct this misrepresentation.

Bruno wrote:

“Just two short comments in response to your recent misquote of my letter and mischaracterization of what it contained. Your changed "Republicans" to "Republican" in the first line, giving the impression that I was referring only to Sen. elect Brown as the person guilty of lies, smears etc. when I was referring to the Republican party as a whole. I also never said that the filibuster may have had some influence on the outcome in Mass. when I was not referring to the filibuster as influencing the election result, but the lies and smears of the Republicans. I also take exception to the statement that my letter shows no indication that I care, which I do, as you should know.”

To which I responded:

“I just spent quite a bit of time reviewing your complaints. At first I could not figure what their basis was, and then as I searched further I saw your point. You are right!

“I was careless, though none of it was intentional."

“The dropping of the s in Republicans was the result of a spelling and punctuation check, though that should not have applied to a quote. In adding a comma, I apparently substituted the comma for the s."

“As for my misquoting you on the filibuster when you referred to the "many smears and lies" again inexcusable carelessness, due to my equating them in my own mind."

“I will distribute this exchange, or any other statement you wish me to make, though I recognize that corrections never undo the damage done by the original misstatement."

“What bothered me about your comment was that I had written an angry commentary which can best be summarized by its title, "Lying Pays off!!! Smears Succeed!!! Obstructionism is Rewarded!!!" and you came back with what I considered to be a dispassionate analysis of the election. Of course, I know you care, but I don't think that one could tell by what you wrote. But in any case, I was not intending to attack you, but looking for a good lead in to the contention that we liberals should be able to muster at least as much anger and outrage as the Tea party people. 

“You may be right that Obama did not spend enough time educating the voters, but that is a difficult, if not impossible task, when you are being savaged by not only the opposition, but by the liberal organizations whose support you should be able to count on, not to speak of the media, whose job is to inform. How much space has been devoted in the press to the Democrats being blocked at every turn by an unprecedented use of obstruction, requiring unanimity on the Democratic part. As I pointed out, people like Krugman, actually lie (distort) in attacking Democrats, ignoring that compromises which they may disapprove of were unavoidable. MSNBC which is supposed to be a counterweight to Fox joins in the attack, distorting the realities of the political scene and demanding that the President undo acts of Congress by executive order - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; not defend acts of Congress though that is a duty of the Solicitor General, and take hopeless appeals where the law is settled. They demand that the previous Administration be prosecuted for war crimes in connection with torture.”

“It isn't the voters who infuriate me. It is the ‘liberal organizations, like moveon.org and the others mentioned…, as well as Krugman, Herbert, MSNBC, etc.” 

Doesn't Anybody Really Care?

Almost nine years ago, on March 8 2001, I posted a commentary entitled: “The Death Of Outrage."

I went on to discuss the agenda of the Bush Administration even in that early configuration and found them the most outrageous of any bar none. Their agenda made the Reagan “revolution” mild by comparison, but I did not get any sense of outrage among the American people, not even among its most progressive elements. Somehow that ability to be outraged even by the most egregious agenda, or for that matter the most anti-democratic tactics brings no emotion and no outrage.

The Right, seems to be able to mobilize a sense of “Outrage,” as can be seen from their ability to mobilize the “Tea-Party” demonstrators. But liberals do not seem to be able to bring that kind of emotion into their movement, except maybe against their allies.
My last commentary, was entitled, “Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!."

In that I set forth the lies that Republicans have deployed against the President in general, and the Health Care bill in particular, and their use of the extra-constitutional filibuster to prevent an overwhelming majority from governing. I expected outrage primarily against Republicans, but also against the many liberal groups who have often been unintended allies of gridlock imposed by the filibuster.

But instead of outrage, I get the following comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn.

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republican and that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

What Bruno says undoubtedly has some truth in it, but is totally unresponsive to what I wrote. I wrote about the misuse of the filibuster and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him. He dismisses it with, “(It may have had) some influence on the outcome in Mass."

Whether it had an outcome in Massachusetts is beside the point. It prevented the Health Care Bill from passing; it caused the stimulus to be watered down. It kept innumerable other bills from seeing the light of day. And it gives the election of one Senator out of a hundred a significance, which it should not have on the legislative process

He shows no anger or even consternation at the smears that have been told and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him.

It is totally unresponsive to the petty carping of the various liberal special interest groups who refuse to compromise. But for those liberal groups, who will not support the Senate bill, that bill could already have been passed, and can still be passed. All the House has to do is pass the Senate bill. But I have not seen one liberal columnist, commentator, or organization advocate that.

As for a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snowe that is totally unrealistic. Snowe, said she would support the bill if there is no public option. There is no public option and she voted for the filibuster. She has never said what else she wants, and doesn’t say what would be needed to secure her vote. Furthermore whatever is given to Snowe, is likely to lose votes of liberals in the House.

But allow me to return to the “liberal” groups like moveon.org who savage the Administration for having rescued the banking system from collapse and thereby avoided a ’29 meltdown. Who write, “Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate.” Not one word about how “Pro-bank” Democrats were empowered only by the Republican filibuster. They rant about the Auto company bailout - do they not care about the huge number of jobs it saved? - and very likely without any cost to the taxpayer in the long run, since it is expected that every penny will be repaid. They show some outrage – but at whom? They sound like an adjunct to the Republican Party.

Or Paul Krugman who I said in my last commentary had a short memory. He deliberately ignores the political realities.

Or boldprogressives.org who distributed an e-mail saying:

“Tonight, Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a bitter special election… The Senate health care bill is not the change we we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

Or Credo Action:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.

Or NOW, the National Organization for Women:

“Tell members of your congressional delegation that throwing women under the bus in health care reform legislation is not acceptable. Contrary to what women's advocates have repeatedly been told, it now appears health care legislation allows gender rating after all. This, coupled with the anti-abortion rights language and other problems, renders the bill not worth passing unless these harmful provisions are removed.”

And Campaign for America’s Future:

“Let’s see. Obama packs his White House and economic team with former Clintonistas; devotes one-third of his stimulus plan to ineffective tax cuts; rescues the banks without reorganizing them; wastes months seeking bipartisan support on health care, jettisoning the public option along the way and insisting on taxing health care benefits rather than the wealthy.”

I don’t know from where the people who write these diatribes get their information, for they seem astoundingly out of touch and misinformed. A Health Care Reform bill cannot be passed by “reconciliation.” If that could have been done, don’t they think that this procedure would have been employed in the first place? Reconciliation under the rules is limited to taxes and expenditures. If a bill passes, reconciliation could be used to fix some of its rough spots. But for them to call for reconciliation on the whole bill is pure demagoguery.

As for NOW’s concern. It is understandable. But it is not a question of getting a bill with this provision or that provision. It is a question of getting a flawed bill or none at all. And there is no question that a flawed bill would be better for most women than no bill at all. The discrimination in rates exists now. The bill would not make it worse. It would reduce it by eliminating Pre-Existing Health Conditions and by increasing coverage for pre-natal care. It always comes down to allowing the perfect from being the enemy of the good.

As for Campaign for America’s Future, do they really think that turning the country back to the Republicans would serve their objectives better? As I said about Krugman, The Democrats didn’t have 60 votes when the stimulus was passed. To get the three Republicans, and even some of the Democrats from conservative states they had to have tax cuts, which were most certainly not totally ineffective. The banks, as unpopular as they were and are, had to be rescued or we would have had a ’29 meltdown. First the rescue – then the regulation-, which without 60 votes may no longer be possible - thank you very much. Since a unanimous Democratic vote on Health Care Reform was made necessary by Republican intransigence and the filibuster, and some Democrats wouldn’t accept the public option, it was again compromise or nothing and the Public option was made into a symbol which as long as we had adequate regulation, which the bill provided for, was far from essential, though it became a rallying cry for organizations more interested in raising money for themselves than in reform.

As for taxing some Health Care benefits – that, it is agreed, is one of the few means for controlling costs, and without controlling costs we will all lose out.

But as can be see all these “liberal organizations” train their attacks not on Republicans but on the people laboring to actually accomplish reform instead of grandstanding.

They seem intent on returning Republicans to power. Maybe that will further increase their fund raising, but it will not advance reform. I for one will no longer contribute to any of them.

But right or wrong, sincere or not, they show passion.

What bothers me about Bruno Lederer's comment is its total lack of passion, or even any indication that he cares. He appears to seek the position of an uninterested commentator.

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"

Taking a Sabbatical

Recently the President gave his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. It was hailed by most observers as one of his greatest.

The full speech which is well worth listening to, and which has been hailed as a seminal one, can be seen and heard here.

To hear an excellent discussion of it by Shields and Brooks I urge you to listen to a segment from the PBS Newshour. On the left of that site you will find a listing of recent videos. Look for those under 12/11, scroll down until you find the heading, "Shields and Brooks Dissect Obama's Nobel Speech" and click on that.

With that I must once again regretfully take a sabbatical of uncertain duration.

I say regretfully because so many issues that I feel I could beneficially address, remain.

Health Care Reform is so complicated that even though I have addressed this issue more than once, there is still so much I have not covered and which I believe I could shed light on.

Immigration reform is another; Same Sex marriage, the so called war on drugs, end of life issues, lobbyists and election reform, the filibuster and the state of our Democracy, to name a few that immediately come to mind.

Senator Lieberman has become an increasingly controversial figure and there is much to be understood, both about the man and the pragmatism that applies in dealing with him, or for that matter with other issues that divide Democrats in the face of adamant and united Republican opposition and the need for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

The issue of torture and rendition and how we should deal with this legacy deserves focus.

Unfortunately, to address these or other issues, not just with of the top of the head opinions, but with carefully researched facts, which is the only way I care to do it, is extremely time consuming. In addition to distributing these commentaries to some 500 people by e-mail I also publish them in my local newspaper and the ensuing debate distributed as comments takes up more research and more time, not to speak of the time it takes for distribution and posting the comments on my blog, where I now have an extensive archive of past commentary along with extensive comments. I intend to keep adding to that archive.

For better or for worse I do have another life which often becomes neglected in my singular focus on my political commentary. Periodically I must attend to personal matters. And so I take temporary leave.

Until then - See you later! Arrivederci, Au revoir, Auf Wiedersehen, ω˙¯‡Â˙¨ 안녕히, 가세요 and До свидания.

The War in Afghanistan

 As I write this it is before the President has announced his policy. This is deliberate because I did not want my views to be influenced by the President's decision.

What disturbs me is that it is a very complicated decision and yet most people, whether Left or Right hold strong opinions lacking nuance or even real understanding.

Thus Cheney, our former V-P who dithered for eight years about having a real strategy in Afghanistan, or about adequately sourcing it, accuses our President of dithering because, unlike our previous President, Bush, he has a deliberative consultative way of reaching decisions. Instead of going, as the former President did, “by his gut”; he takes two month to reach a considered conclusion. To the former V-P it seems everything is a no-brainer, whether it is torture or escalating the commitment of our overstretched troops, and his Republican allies in the Congress are no different.

The hawks even go so far as to argue that we could have and should have won in Vietnam. See the article in Newsweek of November 16 by Evan Thomas and John Barry but that is so unhinged from reality that it is hardly worth time and effort in refuting, for it assumes that it was important for us to win in Vietnam, which subsequent developments have disproved. Losing did not affect our security (the domino theory was wrong) and today we have friendly relations with that regime. In fact it seems that losing in Vietnam had more positive results than winning in Korea, for N. Korea is a hostile state while Vietnam is an important trading partner. As for “we could have won” assumes infinite patience on the part of the American Public and a level of military firepower that might well have inflamed the region in a conflagration, (we dropped more explosives on little Vietnam than on all the axis countries in WW II) which could have set off the 3rd World War.

On the other hand many in the liberal camp, such as Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times of November 8, 2009, without evaluating the security aspects of the Afghanistan war, seem to feel, in his words that, “We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.” That is a wrong and simplistic, though a populist analysis. When we have problems at home it does not follow that we should ignore the problems away from home, and our security can never be dismissed so easily. Would Herbert take similar attitude toward the people of Porto Prince in Haiti. Would he reject, for example, Obama's inspirational words in his inaugural address, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." Would he also say, “We’re worried about Porto Prince when Detroit has gone down for the count.” 

Others are ready to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam and to call for a quick end to our involvement."

As I see it, neither conclusion is obvious and those who see ‘the right course so easily” have not considered all its ramifications.

I have heard that we need not commit more troops to Afghanistan because there is actually no real danger to our security from there and that if Al QAEDA does not find a sanctuary there, they will find it elsewhere, in one of the failed states on the African continent. But if that were so they would have already moved, because they have not had a safe haven in Afghanistan for years, are wandering without real bases, as they roam in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the argument that withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban/Al QAEDA return does not appear to be valid. Of course, The Taliban and Al QAEDA are not one and the same, but until the Taliban chooses to break the link it might as well be, and there is no indication that they are prepared to do so.

There is also the danger that the Taliban, which now uses Pakistan as a safe haven to attack in Afghanistan, could if in power in Afghanistan use that area as a base to destabilize Pakistan, and that is a far greater danger, though Pakistan, at least for now, seems not very enthusiastic about our stepped up activities in its neighboring state, arguing instead that the more pressure that is brought to bear on the Taliban, the more they are pushed into Pakistan with destabilizing results. This leaves the issue in the grey area to say the least. We are in a situation where we are damned if do and damned if we don’t.

And yet it seems that if we could succeed in keeping the Taliban from overrunning that poor country at a cost that is not excessive in lives and/or treasure it would appear to be the wise thing to do.

But in Shakespeare’s words, “There’s the rub,” for at the moment the Taliban are in the ascendancy. On the other hand that is the direct result of the neglect and inattention given this vital theater while resources where devoted to the wrong place, in Iraq.

Should we not now at least for a limited period see if we can retrieve some limited success from that neglect?

Thus I discount as nonsense the hawks as represented by Cheney and Thomas, but that does not resolve the issue of withdrawal or for that matter a surge. Certainly, the dishonesty and corruption of the Karzai regime does not bode well.

Nor do I join those who feel that the President should be bound by his generals’ recommendations. Our founding fathers, wisely made the President Commander in Chief, not as Bush/Cheney claimed, to enhance the President’s power over the Congress, but to make sure that such important decisions are not made by generals, who have been wrong time and time again, (Lincoln had to keep changing commanders) they misled us in Vietnam, and have never been known for not wanting anything but more troops.

I conclude that it is too dangerous and too early to give up on Afghanistan, but that we must have, if not time lines, performance tests, so we do not get bogged down in an endless and fruitless war. The benefits of a successful pacification of the area are too great not to allow for one last and limited effort.

This view will not earn me kudos from Right or Left, but there are times when the middle is not a straddle, but the right place to be.