Everyone,  

I truly regret that I have not had time to write for this blog at my former pace (or at any pace, for that matter) for the last several weeks.  I further regret that this will probably not change for several more weeks.  As many of you know, my move to Okinawa has afforded me an opportunity that I have not previously had since joining the Navy: I am going to school.  In the mad rush to complete my BS in Political Science (which I should finish by January of 2008), I have bogged myself down with school work to the point where I am practically a prisoner of my text books.  Considering that I still work a full-time (and then some) job in the Navy, and that I am still dedicated to spending time with my wife and child (regardless of other commitments), this Blog had to be put temporarily on hold.  That being said, it is my sincere hope and belief that my further education will only help to improve the quality of the work that I produce here; think of it as a lay-away plan.  Certainly there are many things going on in the world today that I would like both to comment on and hear from my readers about; unfortunately, that desire has been over-ridden for the time being.  I will try to do a better job of keeping you posted on my activities in the future because, as always, I look forward to seeing all of you when I have more time to commit to this project.  In the interim, please check out some of the (still incomplete) renovations I’ve made to the site.   

Until then, thanks for your patience and support.  

jess  

            Now that the cat is officially out of the bag, it’s time to dissect it.
            First and foremost, I’d like to give the President credit for giving at least the appearance of frankness.  It was truly refreshing (even if somewhat shaded with the President’s Pollyannaish outlook) to hear him take responsibility for mistakes made, to plainly state that things are not going well and that last year’s attempt to take hold of the situation was a failure, and to admit that even a winning strategy will not yield miraculous or quick results.  That being said, the President’s stated strategy had both good and bad to it.  Only the expenditure of time, blood, and treasure will tell which elements of the two were most important.
            Since this blog has often come under fire (incredibly) as being little more than liberal pontification, I’m going to first go over the aspects of the new strategy with which I agree.  First, the President is absolutely right that we need more troops in order to secure the country, and especially Baghdad.  Several people have written me to protest my position on this issue.  More often than not, these well-intended objections refer to the failure of more troops to secure victory in Vietnam.  However, as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, Baghdad and Saigon are simply not analogous.  Thankfully.  Vietnam was an ideological war against an invading (albeit guerilla rather than conventional) army.  If we had wanted to win that war in the traditional sense, we would have needed to invade and occupy North Vietnam.  Iraq is a sectarian civil war.  If we want to win this war in any sense, we need to suppress the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence (as well as find a way to limit or eliminate pernicious foreign influences).  Unfortunately, for what amount to purely political reasons, many Democrats would rather suppress the surge.  Some have even resorted to implying that the term “surge” is some sort of Newspeak intended to deceive the public.  However, surge is a term the military has used often since 9/11 to describe a boost in deployed troop levels.  I have personally been in “surge status” when the ship I was stationed on was kept on short notice for several months after a deployment, which simply meant that we might have had to augment the battle group that remained deployed.  So it seems that, if there is an argument against a surge that has merit, then no one in Washington has yet uttered it.
            The other thing the President got absolutely right is his insistence that we must enable the Iraqi government to provide security, and all that is connoted by that word, to its citizenry.  Equitable distribution of oil revenues, which has worked very well in Kuwait, will help to ensure financial security and lessen the need for other, more traditional social safety nets.  Putting a stop to the Iraqi government’s tacit complicity with Shiite militias will help to make the streets safer for Sunnis and Shiites alike.  And keeping troops that sweep through neighborhoods in those neighborhoods instead of having them simply leave and allow terrorists to fill the vacuum left behind will promote exactly the kind of stability that has been lacking in Baghdad for so long.  It also bears noting that this plan involves both Iraqi and American troops essentially living in the neighborhoods they are tasked with clearing; I will take as little pride as propriety permits for the fact that I suggested exactly that only a few weeks ago.
            But not everything boded well for the new effort in Iraq, or at least for a realistic assessment of that effort.  For instance, nothing in the speech could have been heard more loudly than what Mr. Bush didn’t say about opening diplomatic ties with Iran and Syria.  In fact, his insistence that we would (rather than would try to) disrupt the support that Iran and Syria are providing for terrorists in Iraq was overly and ominously vague.  This type of thinly veiled hostility is not productive in terms of results and is a step away from the sensible alternative of engaging these regimes in dialogue.
            Furthermore, to repeatedly claim that the Iraqi government will pass laws to foster reconciliation and to hobble sectarian agitators who are politically embedded in Baghdad is akin to the Democrats claiming that they can cut off funding for the war or to the notion that Bush can write and pass legislation.  Like our own, the Iraqi government is not a unitary actor that simply subordinates its different organs to the will of its chief executive.  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can give a lot of lip service to these ideas and he can even direct policy, but passing laws will be left to the Iraqi legislature.  Unless the Iraqi Parliament, which is the same body that houses militant leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr (who are, frankly, the source of Maliki’s authority), passes these laws, then such legislation will never materialize.  Period.  That’s not to say that they won’t do it.  But I would say that, if building consensus in Congress is like herding cats, then building it in the Iraqi Parliament would be more like herding rabid wolverines.  A healthy dose of cautious realism is in order here.
            Finally (and, honestly, just to nitpick), I would also have liked to hear the President be braver in his call for more troops.  I’m not entirely sure that 21,500 will be enough; I guess we’ll have to wait and see.  But this is the portion of the speech that least resembled an actual change in strategy.  Troop levels change periodically.  They can be further adjusted in the future if necessary.  What needs to be kept in mind, however, is that all options are viable for a strictly finite period of time.  I only hope that we react soon enough if the increase in manpower proves to be insufficient for the task at hand.
            Ultimately, we need to move forward.  We need to be both flexible and dynamic.  And we need to do it fast.  I’m not sure how much longer the Iraqis have.  But if all this doesn’t work, then it won’t be much at all.       

            Despite my reticence to do so, I have decided to join the growing cacophony of voices clamoring to be heard on the subject of Iraq prior to the President’s fast-approaching announcement of a shift in strategy.  But before I do, allow me one last literary indulgence as I once again attempt to reduce an enormously complex and incomprehensibly challenging situation into an overly simplistic (and, I hope, somewhat apt) metaphor.
            Imagine that we live in an autocratic police state.  One day, on suspicion that you are in possession of contraband, the police come to your door.  After repeatedly asking you to produce the nonexistent contraband, the police barge in, brutalize your family, destroy all of your possessions, and set a fire in one of your rooms.  After all this is done, the police realize that they have made a mistake and that there is no contraband.  So, after kicking things around for a little bit longer, they turn around and leave.  As the last police officer reaches the door, he turns to you and says, “It’s your house.  It’s time you take responsibility for cleaning this mess up.”  This is what some are touting as the appropriate course of action in Iraq.  After buckling beneath the weight of the administration’s fear mongering and authorizing the invasion of Iraq in the first place, many in Congress are now trying to absolve themselves of the debt they now owe to Iraq and its people.  So while good answers are awfully hard to come by at the moment, there are few answers worse or less responsible then the call for immediate withdrawal, redeployment, or whatever euphemism one chooses to substitute for “hasty retreat.”
            So, since I am obviously not advocating that we leave the Iraqis to the wolves that we’ve shepherded in through their front door, many have asked what I would do.  While I cannot claim to have the depth of knowledge (or the number of recommendations) that the Iraq Study Group cultivated over the past several months, there are still a few things that I think should be salient features of our new policy in Iraq.  So, at the risk of appearing to be an armchair general, here they are.
            We need more troops.  Let’s face it: The troops that we have in Iraq right now, while sufficient to destroy any single target or to overcome any enemy on the field of battle, are not sufficient to root out an indigenous insurgency, prevent an influx of foreign jihadis, or put the brakes on an increasingly vicious sectarian civil war.  Further, simply training Iraqi troops to replace our own is not a solution; it’s part of the problem.  We are training and arming militants so that they may fight our own forces and terrorize the local population.  The only sense of security average Iraqis feel is when American troops are present and when they stick around for a while.
            Disarm the Iraqis.  That’s right.  Iraqis with guns doesn’t seem like such a great idea.  Because of our misplaced sensitivity to the extreme affinity for firearms in Arab cultures, we have allowed countless weapons to circulate unchecked through the entire nation.  We have further exacerbated the problem by intentionally issuing weapons to trainees of questionable loyalty; the Pentagon has even admitted to having lost several thousand weapons ranging from small arms to RPG launchers.  Once a massive surge of American troops exerts its presence in Baghdad and other troubled areas, a door-to-door sweep needs to be conducted to remove all firearms from the population until further notice.  While this is certainly an abridgement of the Iraqis’ rights, it is necessary if we are to create security.  Which brings me to my next point:
            Roll back democracy.  We need to cast off, once and for all, the lie that we went into Iraq to liberate its people and to foster democracy.  How so many came to believe this canard is beyond me.  But now that it has been exposed, we should promptly discard it.  Democracy needs to be a distant second to security for a nation that has never known freedom to begin with.  In a country as torn apart and fractious as Iraq, democracy tends to accomplish one thing only: the election of extremists.  This principle can be seen at work in Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian territories and in similar results in elections throughout much of the world.  In Iraq, it has given rise to a powerful parliamentary bloc led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and to de facto immunity for Sadr’s brutal Mahdi Army militia.  If Iraq’s “democratic” institutions are disbanded, we can act unhindered against the “politicians” who lead the militias that have been so much of the problem.  This will, unfortunately, require a US provisional government be put back in place, but it will certainly be better than the alternative.
            Go to war against the militias.  Since the militias, terrorists, and insurgents will be the only Iraqis who are still presumably armed, and since they will be all too willing to use their arms against our troops and against Iraqi civilians, they will represent an obvious target in America’s revitalized campaign.  Acting to disable and decapitate the Mahdi Army and the Iranian backed Badr Brigade will be essential.  Such a tactic will not only help to alleviate some of the nightmare the Iraqis currently suffer through day in and day out, but will also give our troops a measurable benchmark to work toward.  Our military is extremely good at accomplishing well-defined, finite goals, but not necessarily great at muddling through protracted and vague “stay the course” missions.  The more such benchmarks we have, the more we will accomplish.
            Talk to the neighbors.  Though it’s been said a million times (and denigrated just as often), we need to have diplomatic relations with other nations in the region, regardless of ideology, including Iran and Syria.  It is not the job of the US government to grant legitimacy to the regimes of sovereign nations.  The people of those countries have, by election or inaction, already done so.  That being said, we can despise, disagree with, and denounce those regimes all we want…but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have discourse.  Admittedly, I don’t see any pleasant (or even necessarily acceptable) way to entice the region’s other powers into helping to rein in the problems in Iraq.  But for the long term, this will be an essential element to any intellectually honest and forward looking American grand strategy for the Middle East (and elsewhere, for that matter).  This will probably not bear immediate fruit in Iraq, but if we want to encourage stability (and eventually democracy) in the region, we stand a better chance of doing so through dialogue than with diatribe.
            This list is obviously neither fully comprehensive nor easily palatable.  But from a purely pragmatic perspective, it seems to me to be a short list of essential components to any workable, responsible strategy in Iraq.  And while it seems quite doubtful, we’ll find out shortly whether the President agrees.

            There are two prevailing schools of thought regarding the findings of the Baker-Hamilton Commission concerning the Iraq War. The first is that they have no basis in reality and are a recipe for surrender and defeat. The second is that they are brilliant and lucid….at least to the degree that they don’t contradict the preconceived opinions of whomever it is that’s co-opting them at the moment. While the first reaction is expected, since no opinion is without those who disagree, the second is somewhat petty and, sadly, also somewhat expected. Rather than take the findings of the commission, which has done little other than study the situation from all sides for the last several months, as the most well informed view of the Iraq War that exists, most of the big names in Washington have simply used them as a springboard to tout their own, pet plans for the war. All of which leaves us essentially where we were before the commission ever put pen to paper. And that’s the problem.
            While stewing over the expanding chaos in Iraq, I was struck by an interesting metaphor. Iraq is like a man that we have, for whatever reason, stabbed with a knife. Now that he lies bleeding and dying, his life in our hands, we are locked in debate. Half of us say we need to leave the knife in place. The other says we must remove the knife immediately, or at least very soon. While we argue and debate over the best course of action, the man we’ve stabbed continues to bleed…and die. No one (or, at best, almost no one) is suggesting we get the man to the hospital, that we do something to save him. If someone were to see this exact situation taking place over an actual person, the fools arguing over the stabbing victim would be thought mad. Sadly, since the man is not a man, but is instead a nation of millions of people who are too far, too unfamiliar, and too different from us to stir our sympathy, we rest on our self-righteous laurels and call this “honest debate.” Having made the dubious decision to cut deep into the heart of Iraq, we Americans seem content to just let it bleed.
            Some will say that this is mere hyperbole. If that’s the case, then why do we bemoan the “loss of American life” in Iraq when the sum of America’s casualties is not even 10% of the Iraqi lives lost. Is an Iraqi child’s life worth less than an American soldier’s? Not to an Iraqi mother it’s not. So when will we stop talking about human life as though we have a monopoly on it? For that matter, some pundits have gone so far as to suggest that there is no civil war in Iraq because there is no civil war in Washington, D.C., where they (falsely) claim the murder rate is higher than Baghdad’s. Even if we were to pretend for an instant, though, that this were true, doesn’t the fact that roadside bombs and mortars are not a daily fact of life in D.C. indicate that their two situations are very different? It’s time we look at Iraq and say, “We are in Iraq right now, for better or worse, and we will do what it takes to save the Iraqi people from the mayhem we have indiscriminately wrought.” But we seem incapable of such honest and practical assessments. Why is that?
            I recently interviewed a man who is a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Marine Corps and who might have an answer. Having been born in Pyongyang and escaping to South Korea as a boy of only 12, this man served in the Korean Army, working his way up through the special forces, and was one of the members of Park Chung Hee’s coup de tat that took over the South Korean government in 1961. He saw Korea during the US occupation of the South, he was in Korea during the Korean War, and he was in the Korean Military when President Park sent troops into Vietnam to support the US. He crossed over to the United States Marine Corps as an intelligence officer and, after he retired, earned a PhD and became a professor for military members and their families. Speaking from all these experiences with the United States military, he had this to say: “When America comes in, the people are very happy. They think America is coming to liberate them. They think America is going to save them. But they see that Americans—that we—are so arrogant, so spoiled. In Vietnam, Americans lived in giant barracks with air conditioning, they had house-girls to clean up after them, they ate very well, and they had to have beer all the time, no matter what. The people see this. They eat once, maybe twice a day. They go hungry a lot, and when they eat, they eat rice. They wonder what kind of soldier needs a house-girl to shine his boots. They wonder what kind of soldier needs so much beer. And they wonder why Americans want to sleep with their women, why Americans pay local women as prostitutes when they know the women must do it to eat. They see all of this. They know that they are poor and powerless. Before they know it, they no longer want the Americans there. They come to hate Americans so much that they help America’s enemies. Once that happens, the war is lost. If you go into a country and you eat when they eat, eat what they eat, sleep where they sleep, live where they live, then the people will love you. They will tell you where the enemy is. That’s the only way to win a war in someone else’s land.” These words moved me profoundly. Here was a man who had dedicated his life to fighting America’s enemies and here he was, sadly lamenting the history he sees us repeating.
            We are morally obliged to set right what we have kicked asunder in Iraq. We cannot allow the people of Iraq, the victims of our foreign policy stabbing, to simply bleed while we argue and watch from the comfort of our living rooms. Most of all, we can’t allow those who have already sacrificed themselves for our mistake to have died in vain. There has been enough debate. It’s time to learn from the past and set the present right…now, before it’s too late.

            One month has passed since the Democrats swept to victory in both houses of the Congress.  I wish that I could say that I am surprised by everything they have done thus far in preparation for their proper ascension, but sadly I am not.  However, I am pleased to say that I am surprised by some of it.  The fact that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backed the nomination of corrupt Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for House Majority Leader proved (as I suspected) that she is concerned with only two things: partisanship and loyalty.  Sadly these are also the prime motives behind much of the President’s maneuvering.  The irony of the parallel is not lost on me.  Besides his obvious corruption, Murtha represents the worst of both ends of the political spectrum; he is anti-choice, anti-trade, and anti-anti-corruption.  Were it not for his decidedly uncharacteristic change of tunes with regard to the Iraq war, he would still be little more than a little-known, plump relic of the political machines of yesteryear.
            However, I was pleasantly surprised to see that House Democrats resisted the urge to play by Pelosi’s divisive rules, which resulted in Murtha’s landslide defeat by Steny Hoyer (D-MD).  While Hoyer is sort of a bland, milquetoast figure to represent Democrats in these troubled times, his mild manner masked a skillful strategist in the run-up to the election and will probably come in handy again as Democrats take on the deceptively difficult tasks of leading and governing.
            To my further surprise, Pelosi avoided such shameful pitfalls by refusing to name Alcee Hastings (D-FL), another corrupt Democrat, to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.  While this was an unfortunate disappointment to the Congressional Black Caucus (and therefore kind of a gutsy move on Pelosi’s part), her refusal to name Jane Harman (D-CA), the current ranking Democrat on the committee, to the same position further illustrates that she is still unable to see past her own narrow interests in order to provide a strong and unified Democratic Party in the House.  It is no secret that Harman and Pelosi have bad blood.  However, Harman is not without her own taint of corruption; this might be an indication that Pelosi is beginning to match her walk to her talk when it comes to an ethical congress.  But considering her move with Murtha, it seems more likely (to me, at least) that her reservations concerning Harman were more personal than professional.
            Considering the weight and depth of action that is required for the incoming congress to live up to its high-minded rhetoric from the election, it is still far too early to assess what manner of job they will do.  But these early mixed tidings are not overly reassuring.  We, the American voters, need to be especially vigilant in holding our representatives’ feet to the fire.  Even more important, we Democrats need to refrain from resting on our laurels and simply celebrating a return to power.  If the new congress doesn’t change about itself what was so obviously wrong with the old congress, then I see little reason to celebrate.  As far as I am concerned, this is my party’s last chance to prove that it has America’s best interests at heart.  We still have a long way to go.

            One of the most prevalent and pernicious myths about the economy is that high prices mean bad economy and low prices mean good economy.  This idea is not only absurd, but also dangerous.  The fact is that, historically speaking, nothing is worse for the economy than plummeting prices.  The Great Depression centered about a Deflation driven crash.  The more recent East Asian financial crisis (which is still ongoing in Japan) was the result of massive deflation.  What’s worse is that the coming fall in our economy is, in my opinion, to be a crisis of deflation.  Don’t believe me?  Let’s take a look.
            The price of oil is down.  This is either proof that recent Republican policy has spurred innovation that has led to a decline in consumer prices, or it is simply a minor and temporary correction to the larger, upward trend in energy prices, right?  Wrong.  The fact is that, after years of raking in the most amazing markups on oil and oil related revenues, demand has (remarkably) declined, and there is now a surplus.  What’s more is that, after years of stunted exploration around the centers of the world’s best proven oil reserves (the United States does more exploration in the most tired fields of Texas in a year than the entire kingdom of Saudi Arabia does in a dozen), foreign consumer backlash has prompted a renewed interest in Middle Eastern reserves, which has only served to exacerbate the glut in its attempt to assuage foreign buyers’ fears.  All this adds up not only to a surplus of oil and oil products, but also to a long, drawn out decline in their prices.  If you don’t believe me, ask yourself if you think OPEC actually wanted oil prices down around $10 a barrel in the early 1990s.  That being said, they don’t want oil prices down now, either, but that’s where they’re headed.  Stay tuned.
            Further, the housing market continues its downward decline.  The deflation in this system is self-explanatory.  Like any commodity craze, the real estate bubble had the seeds of its own destruction built within it.  Now that prices are headed down, they are not likely to stop at their “real” values, but rather they will most certainly spiral until the market’s emotional bottom has been reached.
            These two factors alone have been propping inflation up to the Fed’s “nominal” rates for a very long time.  Their absence now leaves a conspicuous hole in the theories of men like Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan.  Combined with those factors is the effect of the ever-present deflation of technological goods ranging from PCs to mobile phones(when was the last time your TV was more expensive six months after you bought it than it was when you actually did buy it?), and the increasing devaluation of service wages, the real threat is not, despite all claims to the contrary, inflation.  It is deflation.  The only linchpin left in the tired, inflationary chestnut is healthcare, which continues to outstrip every other area of growth.  But, like any industry, when people stop being able to afford an overpriced commodity that they had previously been willing to shell out ridiculous sums for, prices for healthcare will almost certainly go spiraling soon as well.
            Great, right?  That means that prices are dropping and that the economy will be paying dividends to all, doesn’t it?  Not likely.  Not unless that’s your view of the Great Depression.  The fact is that deflation is at least as bad a sign for the economy as gross inflation.  It is often far worse.  Our economy is propped up on incredible amounts of debt—currency that has been borrowed from East Asian nations that wish for us to continue to buy their goods using our over-inflated credit.  It seems certain that the ride is about to stop.  The economy is, no matter who holds the most seats in Congress, in shambles.  We will come to a point when our only options are to default on our foreign loans (with God-alone-knows what consequences), causing a massive contraction in our credit/liquidity bubble, or when (probably only after the former situation has already wreaked havoc in every American district) the Fed will decide to rampantly run its presses, resulting in a hyperinflation of at least the same magnitude as Germany’s during the Weimar Republic.  Either way, you can pretty well rest assured that belts in the States will be tightening.  It is worth noting, though, that in the Great Depression the Fed resisted the urge to simply “run the presses.”  That probably means (though certainly not definitely) that they would do so again in order to maintain some sort of legitimacy and limited health.  The comfort to average Americans, I think, will be small.
            Oh, and about the Dow.  Please notice that the DJIA is the only index that has seen any sort of meaningful rebound since the late 1990s.  All other indices are well below their highs, as are stocks with caps too small to appear on major indices.  The point being that the Dow, as a last resort to those with the money to invest in stocks priced at over $50 per share, is not an accurate distillate of our economy.  It too, though, will have to face facts as even the richest of investors begin to feel the squeeze of a shrinking economy.
           The point is that, no matter who pulls the levers in Washington, if we don’t address our foreign debts and mounting deficits soon, the age of American Hegemony might be closer to an end than we would like to believe.  While this might be a desirable condition to many, I somehow doubt that failing global ambitions will be foremost on the minds of those Americans who want no more from the world than a roof without leaks and enough food to feed their families.  Buckle your seatbelt, Cassandra.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

            In winning back the House (and, quite possibly, the Senate), Democrats have done their part to return balance to our political system.  And while preventing a monolithic hold on power is an important contribution to America, especially considering how antithetical a single party state is to American principles, all Democrats have actually done is prove that they can employ the same polarizing political tactics that the GOP began in earnest in the 1990s and that Karl Rove perfected over the course of the last 6 years.  They have proven that they can do so effectively, and they have proven that, with these tactics, they can win elections again.  What remains to be proven is whether they can govern.  I guess we’ll see.
            The problem is that the Democrats haven’t actually had many ideas in a long time.  They have been against so much that they have neglected to be for anything.  They can either choose to maintain this trend by using their newfound positions to subpoena, investigate, and castigate their former tormentors, or they can try to move forward in the spirit of compromise and negotiation that they have for so long complained was lacking in our halls of power.  Here are a few things that Democrats can do to reward their base, support the American people, and promote a forward-looking agenda.
 

1. Gut the leadership: It’s great that Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have led the Democrats this far.  That’s why the Democrats in Congress should thank them…and then dump them.  Nancy Pelosi is a self-described anti-moderate, and has no place in a workable, bipartisan congress.  She has ostracized any House Democrat who so much as considered cosponsoring legislation with Republicans because, to her, the needs of the party outweigh the needs of the country.  Harry Reid, on the other hand, is not just hyperpartisan, he is also as crooked as any Republican in the Hill’s “Culture of Corruption.”  Further, being a pro-life Democrat, he represents the pandering turn that Democrats are making to the right, much as the Republicans once eagerly gobbled up the dismayed, white Dixiecrats whom the Democratic Party alienated during the civil rights movement.  There is no law that says these two must maintain their positions of leadership.  Democrats should let them go.
   
2. Censure, but don’t impeach: While I really liked Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) idea of a symbolic censure of the president for his administration’s mishandling of prewar intelligence, impeachment proceedings at this point would be both counterproductive and undesirable.  The country’s agenda has already been derailed once in the past decade over a nasty, public impeachment trial that failed to remove from office the accused president.  That was plenty.  Plus, if Democrats somehow managed to unseat the president, we would then have President Cheney, and I’m reasonably sure that no one (not even Cheney) wants that.
   
3. The boat has rocked enough; it’s time to steady it: Despite what many Democrats think, sudden, sweeping positions that bring the government to a standstill are not in our best interest as a nation.  We should not move to suddenly dissolve the Bush tax cuts or to pull funding from the war effort.  Now that balance has been reached, an open and honest debate of options can occur, but it should not occur at the expense of the troops or the economy.  The reason that the tax cuts were a bad idea in the first place (namely, their size and suddenness) are the same reasons that bringing all of those taxes back would be a bad idea.  Tax policy, like so many other policies, should be adjusted gradually so as to avoid unforeseen consequences.
   
4. Finally, work across the aisle: Cosponsor bills with Republicans again.  Work together.  The acrimony that the average American feels for the half of Americans who vote differently than they do is a direct reflection of the acrimony in the capitol.  If these people can work with Bush and Congressional Republicans the way the GOP worked with Clinton and Congressional Democrats in the late 1990s (admittedly, out of sheer habit from all their years in the minority), then perhaps they can accomplish things on a level commensurate with that era.  But the last thing the country needs now is to see our leaders devolve into a bunch of screaming and bickering children.
   

 
            Believe me, whichever party is able to come out of this looking the most civil and productive is the party that will do the best in 2008.  I, like most Americans (I think), am literally exhausted from the vitriol of this election season.  So, although it may seem strange, perhaps it’s time that our lawmakers got to work…you know…making laws.  Unless campaigning is all they are good for anymore.  In which case, the country will be no better off in January than it is today.
 

            That’s right.  Terrorists don’t have rights…or at least not many.  Neither do murderers and rapists.  However, one has a long way to go between being nabbed at home or abroad in the War on Terror and actually being a terrorist.  For that matter, one has a long way to go between being arrested and accused and being an actual murderer or a rapist.  The problem, it seems, is that Americans have dropped from their functional vocabularies one very important word: alleged.
            An alleged murderer or rapists not only has rights; he or she has more specifically enumerated rights than any undetained Joe walking down the street has.  That Joe, being that he is not in custody against his will, has no need for a right to a speedy trial, a right to a jury of his peers, a right to remain silent, a right to an attorney, a right to refrain from incriminating himself.  These are all rights reserved for alleged criminals.  No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how foregone the conclusion of the verdict, until a court finds one guilty of a crime, no one is, in fact, a criminal.  This is a very important distinction.  While the Constitution does not explicitly cite a “presumption of innocence,” the Supreme Court has affirmed that the wording of the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments implies it (see Coffin v. United States).
            Of course, many will argue that terrorists are different.  These are not criminals; they are terrorists.  Allow me to be the first to insist that they are, in fact, alleged terrorists.  Without a trial of any sort, they absolutely cannot be “terrorists.”  Even POWs are given rights under the Geneva Conventions (as ratified by the US Senate, in accordance with the Constitution).  So then the argument goes that these are not uniformed soldiers fighting for a recognized state, and that the Geneva Conventions only apply to such specifically defined combatants; these are, instead, terrorists, to whom no such laws apply.  But there is a major flaw in this logic.  Those being detained are also human beings.  Whether they are found to be terrorists or not (though reliable sources have admitted that as many as two thirds of them are not, which is why so many have been released after years of uncontested detention), they are mentioned in the founding document of our nation.  While the parochial nationalists argue that only American citizens are entitled to the rights enumerated in the Constitution, our founding fathers, it seems, would disagree.  According to the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”  But equality doesn’t necessarily mean that we can all share in the laws established under a given sovereign state, right?  Wrong.  The framers of that declaration go on to say, “that they [all human beings] are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.”  So our own founding document, that declared us a free and sovereign nation, proclaimed that our rights are not derived from our place of birth or of naturalized citizenship, but from our very existence.  Whatever force one believes to have created us, that force has endowed us with these rights based solely on the merits of our humanity!  Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever claim that a human being’s rights should be abridged based upon his nationality.  Neither do they say that the exceptional nature of a claim brought against another human being can be used to abridge those rights.  In fact, the founders were very careful to enumerate an exceptional number of rights to which the accused are possessed, and that those rights are bestowed upon them by the very power that breathed life into us all.  It is interesting to note that even the government that the framers were in the process of founding was not said to be granted legitimacy by a “creator,” but only by the “consent of the governed.”
As long as we keep men and women in detention who have no access to counsel, no right to habeas corpus, no right to a trial, and no formal conviction, those men and women are as surely “governed” by our government as anyone can be said to be.  That, my friends, is un-American.  If these trends go unchanged, we will someday look in the mirror to find that we have become what we wished to destroy: the enemies of freedom and democracy.  Sadly, by then the first government of the people, by the people, and for the people will have already perished from the Earth.