Honor American vets, democracy with elections on Veterans Day


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Veteran[2]One thing all veterans have in common is their commitment to defend our democracy, namely the right to vote and self-govern. The right to vote defines our nation and the values we project internationally. It is the American brand, our trademark as the shining city on a hill.

The importance of these values has been palpable in Afghanistan and Iraq. From 2004 to 2005, my fellow veterans protected Afghani and Iraqi citizens as they chose their elected officials and their future. While the path to those first elections might have been imperfect, the sacrifice of our servicemen and women to protect the process was nothing less than honorable.

If voting is worth the lives of Marines in Iraq, isn’t it worth a day off in the United States of America? I’ll share Veterans Day with Election Day so that every American can make it to the polls. There is no better way to honor our veterans’ service than by voting.

And holding elections on Veterans Day won’t dilute the meaningfulness of the day, On the contrary, it will highlight the Americans who protect our freedom to vote in the first place.

Langevin, Reis at odds on Iraq, minimum wage, Ebola, term limits


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

langevinriesCongressman Jim Langevin, the Democratic incumbent in the second congressional district, and his Republican challenger Rhue Reis disagree on a terms limits and boots on the ground in Iraq during their NBC 10 News Conference debate.

(You can watch the David Cicilline v. Cormick Lynch CD1 debate here)

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

In the second segment, Langevin and Reis disagree on the minimum wage. Langevin says he’s open to lowering the corporate tax rate, but would like to see other reforms as well. Reis says Rhode Island doesn’t need to increase workforce training.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

RI GOP’s Rob Paquin and I discuss:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

RI delegation on Obama’s ISIS speech


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

obama isisWhile Rhode Islanders were still celebrating or commiserating their candidate’s primary performance earlier this week, President Barack Obama was addressing the nation about his plans to “destroy” ISIS without putting more troops on the ground.

Here’s his 15 minute speech:

Taking the nation’s temperature, The New York Times reports this headline: “Weary of War, but Favoring Airstrike Plan”. It could as easily apply to Rhode Island’s congressional delegation.

All four supported additional airstrikes and, for various reasons, agreed more troops on the ground would be counterproductive. Here are each of their full statements.

Senator Jack Reed (senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee):

“Tonight, the President made a clear, compelling case that denying these terrorists safe havens will require a targeted, smart, and sustained multi-national effort.

“Like many Americans, I am skeptical of deeper military involvement that could lead to an open-ended conflict.  I don’t want to see more U.S. combat troops on the ground because I think that is what ISIL wants: to try to bog us down in a bloody and costly fight that helps them recruit more terrorists.  Indigenous forces on the ground are going to have to step up.

“This President’s deliberate and thoughtful strategy ensures we will not repeat the mistakes of rushing into ground combat as we did in Iraq in 2003.  Instead, he developed a comprehensive strategy that includes our allies in the region, together with the force of our diplomatic power, intelligence capabilities, and targeted military might.”

Congressman David Cicilline (A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Cicilline received a national security briefing from Administration officials on Thursday, before issuing this statement):

“Last night, President Obama addressed the nation and outlined a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, including increased U.S. military action in the region and military and technical support for our allies. The President reaffirmed his position that our response will not include U.S. combat troops on the ground and the President made clear he has no plans to do so. I strongly support this position.

“It is clear that ISIL poses a serious threat to U.S. national security interests in the region and has expressly threatened the American homeland, and we must do everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. We must also remain vigilant as a nation and ensure we’re fully equipped to respond to all threats against America or American personnel. The President laid out a thoughtful strategy to work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground, as well as a broader international coalition, to defeat this grave danger to U.S. national security interests and regional stability.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Whitehouse visited Syria in January 2013):

“After a decade of war, I share the concerns of many Rhode Islanders about further military engagement, but I also share their alarm over the rising influence of ISIL and their horror over the brutal tactics used by these extremists.  I will continue to oppose the deployment of regular ground troops, but we must take seriously ISIL’s ruthless beheading of Americans, its threat to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region, and its ability to capture territory and resources to conduct terrorist attacks.  I believe the plan outlined by the President tonight – to build a coalition of regional partners and work with the newly formed Iraqi government to drive ISIL out of that country – is the right approach.  I also support expanding our efforts to provide military advice and airstrikes, and arming moderate rebels in Syria – a step I first called for after visiting the region early last year.  Syria and ISIL present a complex set of problems to which there are no easy answers, but I believe President Obama is pursuing the best set of options available to us at this time.

Congressman Jim Langevin (senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence):

“The threat posed by ISIS demands the world’s attention and action. They are the very definition of extremist, and their brutality knows no bounds. They have perpetrated unspeakable acts of violence against innocent people, including women, children and religious minorities who have been targeted for their refusal to adhere to an extreme and dangerous set of principles cloaked in religious sentiment.

“Intelligence officials estimate that thousands of Americans and Europeans have joined ISIS fighters, and these individuals could return home with the intent of doing harm to the United States and our allies.

“This terrorist threat, combined with existing sectarian tensions and an Iraqi government that, until now, has marginalized too many of its people, has created a complex challenge in the region, and it will take a multifaceted, collaborative effort to ultimately defeat ISIS. That approach must include a more inclusive government in Iraq, and I am encouraged by the improvements we are starting to see on that front.

“Like so many of my constituents, I do not want to see the United States embroiled in another ground war in the Middle East. We have learned over the past 13 years from our mistakes in Iraq. But on the eve of September 11, a date so deeply ingrained in the minds and hearts of Americans, we remember where we have been, and can see a clearer path forward. Evil cannot be left unchallenged. I applaud the President’s speech tonight as a first step towards addressing this threat, and I appreciate his commitment to working with Congress and keeping the American people informed. Going forward, I expect to hear further details of the timing and scope of the strategy he proposes, and I will continue to exercise rigorous oversight of the military commitment to come.

“The challenges we face are tremendous, but in the face of this adversity, the United States of America is ready to lead a broad coalition of partners in the region and worldwide to address the threat posed by ISIS. And as we face this threat, I continue to be so grateful to the brave men and women of our military. To the service members here and abroad, and to the troops that will join this effort to defeat ISIS, thank you for your tireless commitment to preserving freedom and protecting our country.”

Rhode Island Kurds: Stop ISIS terror!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_590330,000 Yazidi Kurds face imminent starvation as they huddle on Shangal Mountain in Northern Iraq. The Yazidi refugees are escaping ISIS, an Islamist, terrorist army that has pledged to destroy them because of their religious differences. The New England Kurdish Association (NEKA) held a rally on Tuesday to highlight the plight of the Yazidis. The Yazidi people, whose culture and religion is twice as old as Christianity, face extinction, yet the United States is reluctant to get sucked back into Iraq, so soon after pulling out our troops.

President Barzani of Kurdistan is not asking for troops, telling the Associated press, “We are not asking our friends to send their sons on our behalf.” What Barzani wants is weapons. Weapons that will provide his people a fighting chance against ISIS.

DSC_5792

DSC_5802

DSC_5808

DSC_5812

DSC_5815

DSC_5821

DSC_5825

DSC_5827

DSC_5838

DSC_5850

DSC_5855

DSC_5871

DSC_5873

DSC_5879

DSC_5887

DSC_5896

DSC_5900

DSC_5909

DSC_5914

DSC_5919

DSC_5934

DSC_5948

DSC_5950

DSC_5954

RI delegation weighs in on situation in Iraq


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

reed burnettAs President Obama prepares to deploy some 300 “military advisers” to Iraq in hopes of quelling the Sunni-led violence there, Rhode Island’s congressional delegation is mixed on the move.

Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Jim Langevin said they support the president’s decision. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he will “cautiously support” the president’s decision. Congressman David Cicilline, on the other hand, said he would “continue to urge the Obama Administration to proceed cautiously.”

Each offered a detailed statement to RI Future about the escalating strife in Iraq. Assuming the progressive position is opposing war and violence, here are their statements in order of how opposed they seemed to me based on their statements alone:

Congressman David Cicilline:

I am very concerned about the implications of any new U.S. military engagement in Iraq and strongly oppose sending American combat forces to this country.

The resolution of the current crisis in Iraq is ultimately the obligation of the Iraqi people. Their leaders have the responsibility to establish a pluralistic and inclusive government that will provide stability in Iraq. America has spent more than $1.7 trillion and sacrificed 4,486 American lives in this terrible war.  After nearly a decade of war in Iraq, Rhode Islanders and most Americans think it’s time to focus on nation building right here in America.  I will continue to closely monitor this situation and continue to urge the Obama Administration to proceed cautiously.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

I will cautiously support the Administration’s efforts to help Iraqis regain control of their territory. This insurgency could become a real threat to our interests and we need to find ways to support the Iraqis who seek a peaceful democracy.  But that should not mean sending American troops into combat.  The Iraqi government needs to include all its citizens – not just the Shiite majority – in their democracy if they wish it to last.

Congressman Jim Langevin:

The violence in Iraq is very disturbing, and it is something we must monitor closely. Like the President, I am opposed to sending any new combat troops into the area, but I respect and agree with his decision to provide additional security to the United States embassy in Baghdad and Special Operations advisors to better assess the situation on the ground. Going forward, we must continue to explore all of our options as the situation develops. However, U.S. actions must not be in any way a substitute for meaningful action on the part of the Iraqi government to mend the rifts between Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish leaders.

Senator Jack Reed:

Iraq represents a very difficult situation.  The U.S. needs to be vigilant when it comes to ISIS, which is so ruthless that even Al Qaeda disavows it, and we obviously need to protect our diplomatic personnel and other assets.  But the responsibility to maintain the security and stability of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi government.  We can’t be their air force and U.S. combat troops are not the solution.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far managed to politicize Iraq’s military and militarize its politics, a dangerous approach that will only breed more instability.  To even begin to solve this conflict, Maliki must make serious political reforms to build an inclusive and stable Iraq.  This country’s future must be decided by every segment of its society, not just by certain groups, and certainly not by the United States.

Reed also spoke with CNN’s Erin Burnett Wednesday about the issue.

Iran: the Progressive War?

Iran 2012:  Iraq 2003 All Over Again? presented the neoliberal case for the imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. The panel was moderated by Karen Finney and consisted of Democratic strategist Bob Creamer, Alireza Nader from the Rand Corporation, National Security Network executive director Heather Hurlburt, and Rhode Island’s own Senator Jack Reed. Reed was quick to point out (to some applause) his 2003 vote against the authorization of force in Iraq. But still it’s no surprise I suppose to see him defending the administration’s plan for projection of U.S. power via sanctions on Iran, a strategy he described as a “peaceful” alternative to outright military force. What was odd for me was that the discussion focused entirely on justifying economic sanctions on Iran without a single panelist to the left of the empire lite position of the Obama administration.

Essentially panelists sought to convince progressives that although sanctions in Iraq led eventually to the disastrous invasion and occupation, this time it will be different. War weariness, a faltering domestic economy, a changed Middle East, and the “one extraordinary difference, unilateralism,” as Senator Reed put it, make it different than 2003. Certainly there are some differences, but I couldn’t help but think the panel should have asked, Iraq 1990 All Over Again? As the Times put it in 2003:

For many people, the sanctions on Iraq were one of the decade’s great crimes, as appalling as Bosnia or Rwanda. Anger at the United States and Britain, the two principal architects of the policy, often ran white hot. Denis J. Halliday, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in Iraq for part of the sanctions era, expressed a widely held belief when he said in 1998: ”We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that.” Even today, Clinton-era American officials ranging from Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, and James P. Rubin, State Department spokesman under Albright, to Nancy E. Soderberg, then with the National Security Council, speak with anger and bitterness over the fervor of the anti-sanctions camp. As Soderberg put it to me, ”I could not give a speech anywhere in the U.S. without someone getting up and accusing me of being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.”

I asked exactly that question when given the chance. I traveled a bit in the Middle East in the 90s and was approached by an Iraqi who begged me to tell people back home the effect the sanctions were having on Iraqi civilians. “You’re killing the children and old people,” he said with the hope that if Americans only knew we’d stop. That’s a difference now too. Americans can no longer claim to be unsure or blissfully ignorant. We now know the effect these sanctions will have on the civilian population.

As Madeline Albright said it, “this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” Heather Hurlburt, a speechwriter for Albright, similarly defended the calculus of the collective punishment of civilians as preferable to war. But these rationalizations conveniently omit the effect the sanctions and the Clinton administration’s eventual signing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 had in laying the groundwork for the Bush invasion. By 2003 the die was cast, and progressives could do little to stop it. The question now, will we do it all over again? Just don’t say you couldn’t have known.

Afghanistan and the Sunk Cost Fallacy


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
10th Mtn. In Afghanistan
10th Mtn. In Afghanistan
A soldier of the 10th Mtn. Div. during Operation Mountain Fire (via U.S. Army)

The recent news out of Afghanistan is grim. On the heels of a burning of Qurans (along with other Islamic literature) that sparked mass protests in the country, the massacre of 16 civilians, nine of whom were children and three of whom were women, by a lone U.S. gunman; now Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai has demanded that foreign troops of the U.S. & NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) pull out of villages. The Taliban has also announced they are suspending talks with the U.S. in Qatar.

It is perhaps the longest war in U.S. history (this claim is disputed). For much of it’s history, it was unpaid for, and has contributed greatly to our deficit; unlike in past wars, we did not increase taxes for a wartime footing (indeed, we started another unfunded war in the same time period). But this does not mean we have not paid a cost; we have given the lives of my generation to the war. And because this cost has been paid in lives, it has made us irrational.

There’s a thing called the sunk cost fallacy: that if you’ve invested in something, you need to keep investing in it, even if it’s not working and just an unnecessary cost. This describes our policy in Afghanistan. Now, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron have both said they intend to hold the course. But the fact of the matter is that it makes no sense. Afghanistan has become NATO’s sunk cost. We are losing money and lives there, the situation is not improving, and there are clear benefits to leaving.

Even the purpose of the war, as stated by both former President George W. Bush and President Obama, defeating Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, is completely ended. I can remember the night Bin Laden was killed. I came home, went to my computer and checked my Facebook. People were saying that Bin Laden was dead. I checked on it on the news, and sure enough, it was credible. A short while later, a friend contacted me.

“Wow. We got Osama,” he said.

“Yeah,” I replied. Then a short while later, “can we go home now?”

Much has since been made of the celebrations that night; that we reveled in the death of an enemy, that it was unbecoming of us, that we should’ve soberly reflected on what this one man’s death had cost us. I don’t believe that we were truly celebrating Bin Laden’s death. I believe that in our heart of hearts, we were celebrating the end of the war. If President Obama had announced the end of operations in Afghanistan at his press conference, it would’ve been a fitting end to a disastrous war. Instead, we will linger on; unwanted by the people of Afghanistan, unwanted by the people of America.

Our best military officers recognize the situation as untenable. General David Petraeus abandoned Afghanistan for a civilian post at the Central Intelligence Agency rather than have his career blemished by failure in the Central Asian country. Our military policy; “counter-insurgency” (COIN), is based on the writings of an obscure Frenchman who fought in a peaceful sector of France’s defeat in the Algerian War of Independence. Each successive general in Iraq, from David McKiernan, to Stanley McChrystal, to David Petraeus, to John Allen has portrayed their COIN policy as a break from the previous commander’s. Each has failed to produce results.

The reality is that COIN produces no solutions without horrific inhumanity. Its most-cited success, the Malay Emergency, relied on the massacres of ethnic Chinese insurgents by Malays while the British imperials of the time quietly watched (this is called “winning the hearts and minds”). America has no intention of replicating such policy; for good reason. To those who cite the end of war in Northern Ireland, they should be reminded that the IRA managed to successfully change its tactics from targeting people to targeting capital. If a military solution had been successful in Northern Ireland, the British government would’ve never gone to the negotiating table. Military solutions against insurgencies have a terrible success rate. Successful policing and negotiation are the most successful ways out.

As callous as it is, the reality is that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan. We destroyed its stability (what little there actually was), and we cannot replace it. President Bush was mocked by Jon Stewart when he claimed that “success in Iraq is not no car bombs.” Little did we know that he would be right. Can we honestly look ourselves in the eye and say that we won in Iraq? Of course not. There was nothing to win. If anything, we handed a victory to Iran and damaged the useful myth of American superiority. We likewise have found there is nothing to win in Afghanistan.

The victor in these wars will be anyone who chose not to get into them. We have wasted eleven years in wars we should not have fought. President Obama, don’t make us waste thirteen.