August 02, 2007
Cheers for HarryPolitics
Yesterday’s NYTimes featured a profile of Harvinder Anand, the new mayor of Laurel Hollow (a village on Long Island). Anand is the latest member of what the Times describes as “a small but recently growing number of Indian-American officeholders [that] has been getting elected in communities across the nation where they are the tiniest of minorities.”
Harvinder Anand, the new mayor of this Long Island village of multimillion-dollar homes, private beaches and yachtsmen, is, like many other residents, a successful business executive, a boater and a connoisseur of world travel. His Sikh turban and beard drew double takes when he moved to the community about 10 years ago, but it does not get many anymore. At least not among the locals…Nonetheless, Mr. Anand’s way of standing out in the crowd of Bermuda-shorts-and-loafer-wearing people who elected him in June — he ran unopposed — attracted television crews from American and Indian networks to his inauguration on July 2… Link]
Other examples of Indian-American officeholders mentioned in the article include a host of people we have covered in past posts on SM: Upendra J. Chivukula, Jay Goyal, Nikki Randhawa Haley, and Kumar P. Barve. All of them (comprised of both Reps and Dems) actually called to congratulate Anand. How is that for identity politics?
Some are Democrats and some Republicans, but they all share a high level of education and a crossover election appeal. It is a testament, perhaps, to the fact that, compared with other immigrant groups, Indians tend to speak English when they arrive and are ready to assume a place in the middle class. [Link]
And of course there is also the Governor Elect (for all practical purposes) of Louisiana (he didn’t call Anand):
United States Representative Bobby Jindal, Republican of Louisiana, a second-generation Indian-American who was elected from a district whose population is 1.5 percent Asian, narrowly lost his bid for governor in 2003 and recently began a campaign for this year’s election for governor — in a state where Indian-Americans account for about 1 percent of the population. [Link]
Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:
In contrast, Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrants have largely settled in cities on the East and West Coasts and in Hawaii, which is mostly where they have been elected to public office. [Link]
It seems like Anand, like many other recent candidates, is adopting the Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger political philosophy:
“At the end of the day, I am a businessman,” said Mr. Anand, who ran without party affiliation in the village election but calls himself a Reagan Republican. “I believe in efficiency and cost-effectiveness…” [Link]
You can bet that there will be more Indian Americans running in 2008 and that we shall cover them all.
abhi on August 2, 2007 08:51 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:
1) indian americans came after 1965 when gov. segregation was banned. though the west coast didn't have segregation like the south, there were anti-miscegenation laws which gave you the general idea of why china and japantowns grew up. for the chinese the ghetto was a protective wall against violence directed at them.
2) indian americans are more ethnically diverse than the early chinese and japanese were. the chinese were mostly cantonese. the japanese were obviousl japanese. so group mobilization is a higher hurdle when 1st gen communities aren't united by a common non-english language.
3) i would be curious as to seeing lower-48 residential segregation patterns. seems brownz do concentrate in particular areas, just like japanese and chinese (east and west coast + large midwestern cities). the fact that brownz started out such a highly educated professional community might have resulted in immediate residential dispersion and acculturation with white america in terms of being "the only brown in the room."
What is exactly the difference between a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican? Also why do fence straddlers like Bloomberg and Arnold choose to run as Republicans rather than as Democrats?
i can only hazard a guess that part of it must be about money : when it comes down to fiscal policies, perhaps this is what makes it easier, or more sensible, to go along with the party that wants to tax less.
This guy has my vote only because he described himself as 'a Reagan Republican' This is who I am. As much as admire the Sikhs I would not care much if he called himself Democrat.
Also why do fence straddlers like Bloomberg and Arnold choose to run as Republicans rather than as Democrats?
bloomberg isn't a fence saddler, his history is as a moderately liberal democrat. he switched to the repubs because he wouldn't have to deal with a primary fight (which he might have lost). arnold is a more traditionally moderate republican, and his focus has generally been upon fiscal conservatism. but again, there's no way he would have won the democratic primary as a right-wing democrat (he is probably no more conservative than many southern dems, and in fact more liberal on social issues) in california.
This is so exciting! Isn't Harry the first turban-wearing Sikh in office? (I could be wrong)
I don't know, Abhi. While Laurel Hollow is not uber-desi, I do think it helps that it's located near an area with such a huge number of desis. I wonder if his election is due, in part, to the fact that maybe folks do not feel threatened by an ethnic voting bloc in Laurel Hollow?
[I'm just thinking "aloud," this is definitely not based on any hard data]
Why is that Rajesh? Why do you dislike democrats so much? Tell me tell me.
Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?
I remember the 80s. the age of the 4000 dollar or whatever toilet seats sold to the department of defense. REpublicans like to spend money and waste it too. Just in their preferred areas. Republicans like subsidies too. Just in their industries.
Why not "Hairy?" :)
When I first moved to Fargo as part of my temperory work arrangement. The first q most people politely asked ofcourse was "So, how do you like Fargo?". TO which I sadly replied "I miss brown on the streets". Most sympathized, one surprisingly responded "well what did you expect in small-town America?!". Ofcourse, I agreed (not quite so readily though:).
With growing desis here (AND in office), in another decade - I bloody well expect to a desi-tipping-tractors in small town America!
hmmm.... maybe NOW, after he's passed the "Reagan Republican" litmus test, he'll get a call from TMRWDITUS. ;)
Yaay for more pols of all races. I'm happy to see that desis are kinda going to both parties. Although I think that for a few more years, there will be more Republicans than Dems. Not because desis don't want to be dems, but dems don't want desis. You know what will be really sweet? Desis in parties other than these two. Like the green party, libertarians, reform party, ***king LaRouche's party, everything.
Democrats fiscal policy just doesn't work. Its the fiscal conservatives, and socially liberal who are the so called 'moderates' in each party. Party affiliation depends on where they would get through in the primaries. You will hardly see a non religious person who is fiscal liberal and socially conservative...and that segment of 'moderates' is really small.
Posterity, I did not dislike Democrats untill the the the advent of Jimmy Carter, since then it has gptten it has gotten worse because al the pro American Democrats inthe House of Representatives have retired one even campainged for Pres. Bush these were the 'Cold War arriors and patriots. Today's Democ-Rats are traitors and deeply anti-American.
Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians
So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...
Not sure I understand what you mean.....as an aside desi tractors (i.e. Mahindra) are already in small town America, now we just need desis from the kraamam/pind to ride them
Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians
So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...
ScarletGuju, just because a family has the means to move into the suburbs or outside doesn't mean the South Asian or rather the Indian-American population is "deracialized".
My understanding of the reason why Indian-Americans do not have a Chinatown or so, is the fact that since they entered the country in droves primarily as professionals, they did not need to set up shop in an ethnic enclave and they had the money to pick and choose where would be the best place to raise a family as well as building temples, gurudwaras, mosques, and other places of worship.
This is just an opinion, but I think Indian-Americans have held on to their culture more so than other Asians (and no this isn't based on scientific study so if someone knows of some research on this that contradicts me that is fine). now this may be b/c of so many factors, but being able to afford to live in a town where the best schools are and where it is safe does not obviously make Indian-Ams deracialized.
So Jimmy Carter is more anti American than the likes of Cheney???? Can you honestly say there has been a Democratic VP worse than Cheney or Agnew in recent decades? Cheney earned blood money through Halliburton and he has done nothing while Halliburton was stealing money by overbilling the country and indirectly stealing money that could have been better spent on the troops. This is your Republican types. He hasnt donated anything meaningful to the troops. A lot of these Repub warmongers seem to have a trend of avoiding serving. Meanwhile the likes of McGovern who actually served with honor get tarred as wishy washy anti American types.
The Dems are no angels. But it is hilarious when you paint one side as Anti American and the other side as pro American. Regardless of how one views Carter, he did try to improve America's image. So even if you think he is a failure, you cannot seriously claim his intentions were anti Americans. Meanwhile someone like Kissinger put himself above the country when it came to policy making.
Some part of me thinks that bobby jindal's star should burn as brightly as barack obama's.
that is, if race were a non-issue.
One reason that desis tend to go with Republicans is the conservative/family values flag that they wave. IMO. That's also the reason why Muslims have voted for Republicans in the past, based on a documentary I saw. Though seems like Republicans are the ones who have more sex scandals than Democrats.
Yup. As PF said many moons ago:
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
From what I heard, Bobby Jindal did nothing of any significance to help out during Katrina. Is that true? Not good for someone with the drive to become the next GOvernor of Louisiana.
Amit, which documentary are you referring to?
moreMirchi, the one by Salman Ahmad, the lead singer of Junoon, called It's My Country Too. IIRC, he mentions in that film somewhere that Muslims in the US have in general voted for Reps. I don't know if that's backed by statistics or not.
ScarletGuju, where should I live to avoid becoming a "coconut" ? Can I evade caucasification as a grad student at OSU ? I caught myself thumbing through L.L. Bean catalogue and tying my sweater around my shoulders. Yesterday I listened to Prairie Home Companion in my car for 30 minutes before a co-ethnic pulled alongside and shook his head in disgust. Can I be helped? What does Marx chaachaa say ?
At least in 2000, major Muslim organizations like CAIR voted Repub, in large part due to the same socially conservative messages that appealed to Christian conservativesFrom this writeup
interesting. while i know that there have been core Muslim populations in the US that voted Republican, my sense was that the "general" tendency was to vote Democrat. does anyone have statistics?
also, i know this is SM is primarily a US site, but i do wish there was a Canadian counterpart somewhere, at least for this post and the way brown communities vote across the two countries. and also, up here we have lots of brown politicians. =)
But does he have the Long Island swagger?
louiecypher #27, well said, my fellow Lemurian!
Pravin, I agree with almost all of you what you said, except for:
This is a very poor reason to criticize their decision to go to war (which I completely disagree with). I do not at all think that a decision to go to war can only be made by an ex-soldier, but what it does require is an excellent understanding of geo-politics, history, military strategy, and political savvy. And these are all elements in which the current crop is lacking.
(Sorry, I always tend to be harsher on the "more reasonable" side of an argument, because I expect better from "my team" - I know that sounds patronizing, but I don't know a better way to put it :-)
The way I read that statement was that the Repubs are cowards (and not that they have no authority to declare a war) - they did their best to stay out of military service, but have no compunctions about sending others to war.
Amit, yes, and I disagree with the ad hominem nature of that rebuttal.
What is with the Indian - American this, Indian - American that? I thought this site was a South - Asian this and South Asian that champion?
How many people, I wonder, were poor or involved in the arts (visual, performing), and found the Reagan years to be some sort of utopian existence, "when the conservatism was pure and F^cked over both the rural/urban poor as well as the arts community(who were obviously pinko commie dole-grubbers, working on behalf of the USSR to instill some appreciation of life beyond watching the Cosby show and getting your vegetables via Ketchup.)"
Rajesh,
For most wealthy junk-bond investors and corp raiders, the 80s were a really good time--if you don't believe me, watch American Psycho and see what kind of hijinks they would get up to--gold chains and Lamborghinis were plentiful and, thanks to Miami Vice, open-chested shirts and chest-hair were not as forbidden as they became in the 90s.
But for people living in BumF^ck USA (any rural location, take your pick)and those who made their living by teaching anything arts-related, these were the leanest, meanest, most miserable times of their life. I know, because I was both of those things: rural and the child of a single parent who unfortunately made her living as dance teacher--the "Islamofacists" of that decad
Bobby Jindal has done tireless work during Katrina for his constituency and has been praised for it. New Orleans is not his area. Dick Cheney made his decisions based on the same intelligence that Clinton got. Clinton said the same exact things about Iraq. It was faulty intelligence rather any machlivian plans to aid Halliburton that caused the 'misadventure' in Iraq. Saddam himself wanted others to believe that he had more than he had in order to deter Iran and other enemies.
I wonder if its possible for a bearded turbaned brown guy to get voted into office in a red state...
What is with the Indian - American this, Indian - American that? I thought this site was a South - Asian this and South Asian that champion?
I referred only to Indian American b/c I was commenting on someone's conclusion that since In-Ams don't have ethnic enclaves like Chinatowns than they are "deracialized". Louiecypher, that was such a great answer by the way.
In order to respond to that I wanted to refer to the specific demographics of In-Ams, that are not shared by Bangledeshi-Ams, Srilankan-Ams, etc.
anyone that had to hide from gettin beaten after 9-11 isnt "deracilized"
A few points:
1) some people seem to forget that beginning from the middle of his second term, Reagan was one of the most unpopular presidents in history (you can look up polls on this)
2) it was also during the Reagan years that the United States became a net debtor (i.e. had persistent current account deficits; though one might legitimately argue about the exact contribution of his policies)
3) "small government" Reagan also dramatically increased the size of the federal government (though not the "left hand" of the government, i.e. social services etc.; compare this to Carter, who was far more fiscally conservative)
4)Let us not even go into his murderous policies in Central America (and other peerless foreign policy choices such as monetary support for the Apartheid regime, and South African mercenary forces, or frankly, death squads in other parts of Africa; again, there is not enough space to talk about Central America)
However:
1) one might argue about the extent to which Reagan personally was responsible for the policies, since his knowledge about most things (esp. those mentioned above) was next to nothing (one might consider the role of the reactionaries around him that comprised his cabinet)
Therefore this mindless mythologizing and Reagan hagiographies piss me off.
but...but...i read somewhere that reagen took off his shirt and single handedly arm wrestled the evil soviets to death...
you could argue that deficits have been a net benefit for the US.
as per Colbert, he punched a whole in the Berlin Wall causing it to fall.
And pray tell us what the heck is so darn American about the republicans today and not about the dems?
Cheers to Harvinder!
>>Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:
Apart from the reasons for this mentioned by Razib in comment #1, could fluency in English by desi immigrants be another factor?
M. Nam
but...bush told me so, so it must be true...bush is one os "us". he wouldnt lie...
One can be just as desi as when they arrived on these shores AND live amongst non-desis. I would argue that those who do this are better ambassadors for desidom, than those who find comfort in their own conclaves.
Recently read a report that said that the net deficit reported is usually inflated because it does not take into account the fact that in the case of many US multinationals, the profits do indeed make their way back to the US and this is not reflected in deficit calculations.
Ardy, please ignore such baseless rants.
My bad!
Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:
Except for maybe the Gujjus in Edison, NJ :-)
#47 ardy, you stole my words. I simplified a bit; I should also add that Reagan was no "free trader"; his various tariffs and quotas are legendary. The deficits, as Ardy points out were basically an artifact of the beginning of "off shoring". So I did not mean to imply that the deficits were due to "free" trade (Otherwise the Reagan administration would not have pushed for the Plaza Accord).
Muralimannered, Govt shoud not be funding the arts or pbs. I do not wath anti-American propaganda like American Psych or anything that Michael Moore puts out. I boggles my mind that supposedly intelligent young professionals can leftist anti-American DemocRats. This just goes to show that professional qualification does not equal commonsense much less intelligence.
The 1880's were America's second golden age after the 1950's because of Reagan. Jimmy Carter was withoud doubt the worse president in my lifetime. I do not support Bush because he is a leftist. Spending went up because Reagan had to work with a Democrat congress. The prsesident does not spend money Congress does. When Reagan asked for a war-ship or a carrier. the Congress authorised it with tons of pork attached. If Reagan wanted the ship he had no choice but to sign the bill.
When America's image is good to to the rest of the world that is when things are bad at home. When America is strong that is when the world hates us. The world will allways hate us, that is OK as long as they fear us. When you are king of the hill you have no friends.
The DemocRats are the domestic enemy, worse than AQ they are in a position to do the most damage and they do their best. We can't kill thim like AQ because they are protected. It is only because of the system of checks and balances with our three brances of government that pevents them from doing the most damage to America.
It is no co-incidence that the Officer Corps and most enlisted describe themselves as Republican. Today's Democrats hate the military and those of us in uniform are well aware of this.
Rajesh, dude, I respect your right to opine, but you would have to do better than issue slogans and assertions to count as indulging in an argument (all this is putting what you said very mildly; might even be the understatement of the week).
This takes the cake; how do I say it, I hope your wait for your Fuhrer is never fulfilled.
dont feed the troll....
I meant to say I hope your wait never ends (man you are scary; I'm glad that the army also contains people like my brother)
Liberal fiscal policy of big government and high taxes does more damage to America, than isolated attacks. The same socialistic policies have almost destroyed Sweden with its 60 % tax rate. Swedes are emmigrating to Norway in record numbers. There is an article on the web called 'Death of Sweden' which gets into it a bit more....
I am neither a republican or a democrat...but a Libertarian. My belief is that organized religion and big government cause nothing but grief. Could it be that they both end up as a vehicle for a powergrab.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234
The Republican-Democrat fight on SM is so pre-2007.
Somebody in the comments also tried to bring back that old Indian v. South Asian nonsense. That baby was killed and buried a while back.
It is no co-incidence that the Officer Corps and most enlisted describe themselves as Republican. Today's Democrats hate the military and those of us in uniform are well aware of this.
40% of the military votes for the Democrats.
40% if the military does not vote Democrat, only a few REMFS (rear echelon mother f#*%#@s).
Ditto: Vic
The Republican-Democrat fight on SM is so pre-2007.
Somebody in the comments also tried to bring back that old Indian v. South Asian nonsense. That baby was killed and buried a while back.
You sound like such an SM-snob; The thing is some of us haven't been reading SM very long. I would think anyways the Rep-Dem fight would be ongoing since politics is ongoing.
Rajesh and ACFD- Where do you get your data on the military?
Rajesh - When America's image is good to to the rest of the world that is when things are bad at home. When America is strong that is when the world hates us. The world will allways hate us, that is OK as long as they fear us. When you are king of the hill you have no friends.
The DemocRats are the domestic enemy, worse than AQ they are in a position to do the most damage and they do their best. We can't kill thim like AQ because they are protected. It is only because of the system of checks and balances with our three brances of government that pevents them from doing the most damage to America.
This hyper-aggressive logic you have has wreaked havoc on the US b/c it is the same logic that the US under Bush has produced. I've always felt this type of aggressive thinking is just cowardly...nobody who has to send their loved. You have a lot to learn from India's culture on civil disobedience and the MLK's civil rights movement. There is no machoism involved in these movements and they are much more powerful than stupid rhetorical aggression. I'll take McGovern's humanism anyday over the evil enemy speech...god when I think of what Reagan's dogmatic and McCarthyistic foreign policy did to so many parts of the world --- how many lives he destroyed it makes me sick how anyone can admire him.
You sound like such an SM-snob; The thing is some of us haven't been reading SM very long. I would think anyways the Rep-Dem fight would be ongoing since politics is ongoing.
I was kidding! I love dem-republican debates and look forward to more of those debates on SM as we get closer to the primary season.
Rajesh and ACFD- Where do you get your data on the military?
According to the 2004 exit poll by CNN, people who had served in the military voted 57% for Bush and 41% for Kerry.
Rajesh...are you ex-military ? What's driving this Manichaen outlook on Dems vs. Republicans (I ask as someone who has voted Republican before)? Do you as a former front line soldier (?)feel that you have been failed by the Dems? What exactly are you looking for, carte blanche on things like Haditha? No introspection on the rationale for the war ?
Reagan was a necessary president for the late period of the Cold War and I disagree with those who label him a McArthyite. Those were scary times, at least for most of humanity except ScarletGuju/LeftyProf, but due to that fear some pretty horrific stuff happened during his watch in Central & South America. I generally give the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions to presidents during those times. But in the case of Bush Jr. we have someone presented with a whole list of legitimate targets in the war on terror but opts for Iraq for reasons unknown. Don't conflate Chomsky/Arundhati Roy with the antiwar Dems, they are NOT the same thing. The former view the US as the source of all evil in the world, Dems are merely suggesting that we be circumspect in the use of force which necessarily involves the loss of American and foreign civilian lives
Rajesh is probably the biggest idiot I have ever seen on this blog and it has nothing to do with him being Republican. My mom votes republican. I am normally independent(I support school vouchers, death penalty, less government including less bloated defense a concept Republicans do not know about). Though during this cycle I am going to be more of a Democrat only because the Republican party has failed spectacularly in administering the country in many areas.
People like Rajesh are dumb sheep that vote for leaders that pay lip service to them. To people like him, Cheney is probably a hero despite the fact that this guy avoided serving at every turn in his life. Most of these Iraq war architects have not served in the military. Not only that, they have not enoucraged any of their family members from serving which actually gives credence to the fact that they do not really care about the importance of service. McGovern was branded a wimp despite the fact that he served with honor unlike some of his republican counterparts. REpublicans were in charge of the senate and congress for most of the recent decade. Did your benefits go up by much????
Why did Republicans can the moderate REpublican from NJ if they were so concerned about the welfare of the military personnel? I forget his name, but he was one of the few Republicans who stood up for funding the troops better. WHy do Republicans like Halliburton so much. A company whose crookedness indirectly robs the troops of money that could be used for their welfare? And why are your freaking republicans getting into my personal business with this religious bullshit? Less government, my ass. Less government is only somethign they like when it suits them.
Oh those miltary adventures in South America? those were under Reagan. THe intentions to beat up the Soviets by proxy in Afghanistan were good, but like a kid playing with dynamite, Reagan and his people failed to consider long term consequences when they deal with powerful weapons(in this case, the Mujeheeden). Every action has consequences that are part of the same package. YOu cannot pick and choose the great things your leaders do and dismiss the negative consequences as trivial stuff. Reagan was not as dumb as DEmocrats liked to sneer, but he was not as freedom loving as his devotees make him out to be. He praised people like Marcos and Zia in more than the usual diplomatic terms.
Here is another thing I do not understand about military guys. Even those who did not support the IRaq invasion kept their mouths shut because of the chain of command. FIne. Fair enough. But when Clinton wanted to allow gays in the military, people like Powell all of a sudden did not respect that, and did a lot of things to make life tough for Clinton. Where was the chain of command then? Also ,when you are shitting next to another guy in open toilets, does it get any worse than that? Is it really that much more uncomfortable to hold be in the same trench as a gay guy with enemy bullets being fired past you? You can take all kinds of insults by your superiors in your boot camps, but serving next to a gay guy threatens your sense of security????
I appreciate the military, but I will not give a free pass to anything they do. That would be patronizing.
Sure, the cold war and threat of nuclear annihilation was scary stuff, but it is completely incomprehensible that you could give Reagan a pass on what he did internationally in Central and South America, and domestically on the economy and his policy towards gays etc. Not to mention that we are reaping the benefits of the grassroots conservative/evangelical program seeded in his time (by stalwarts such as Ed Meese) to infiltrate American politics and civil service.
louiecypher, I do appreciate the value of realpolitik, and I usually (grudgingly) see the point of view that justifies reprehensible actions by countries, despite my personal (admittedly naive) idealism. But what Reagan did in the 80s, and Kissinger in the 70s, is absolutely beyond the pale.
I was kidding! I love dem-republican debates and look forward to more of those debates on SM as we get closer to the primary season.
I'm sorry! I didn't realize you were joking :) - thanks for the link to CNN
People who lived in those places in those times--non-elite parents of my friends from Argentina and Chile--do not give the benefit of doubt. Neither did some Catholic priests from Ecuador.
Plus Reagan gave the famous line "I don't remember/I don't recall" which is being put to good use by Alberto & Rummy these days.
Lets not give undue importance to violent rantings. Here's some perspective from my favorite soldier, Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (USMC) :War is a Racket
Poor choice of words, I agree that he was behind these policies. Anyway, let's not rehash the entire Cold War in this thread.....way off topic
Indians tend to speak English when they arrive
Yes when they come to the United States. But this is not true when it comes to Canada. Two countries side by side, yet so different.
Damn. The entire spectrum of leftist thought summed up and dismissed in 14 words. Really, is it that simple?
Chomsky and Roy have developed complex, nuanced analyses that deal partially with the US's role in the history of imperialism in the context of class, as well as race, gender and other factors.
ScarletGuju and LeftyProf are not, by the way, Stalinists, and both find the Reagan administration's legacy and its current adherents scary as hell.
And all of those Democratic politicians who wanted us to be 'circumspect in the use of force' really ought to have voted against the war in the first place, which is what the 17 million of us who marched against the war on Feb. 15, 2003 were asking them to do.
First off, this [Gays in uniform] has been debated on SM. Check the archives out. An Army JAG Officer also joined the discussion.
You are conflating mission/functional requirements (support a fight or not) with cultural desires. Many of you/public don't seem to understand how status quo the military is. EVERYTHING is to push one agenda - how to win. People have different opinions on that, but the military isn't so short on numbers that they feel its in their interest to have openly gay members. The numbers game suggests it's in their detriment. Yes, many gay 'translators' were kicked out, but that statistic is misleading. They aren't the only ones with dual language skills. Army SF (Green Berets), PSYOPS, Civil Affairs, Military Intelligence and others go to language schools as a part of their MOS requirements. Most forget that the military isn't 'kumbaya', it's job is to kill as an organization, not 'individuals'.
Also, a minority in the military disagreed with Iraq and Afghan policies (both were completely different models in warfare. One was unconventional with only 100 Special Forces,SEALS and CCTs leading a local army with AF support. The other was a massive exercise in conventional maneuver warfare.) The MAJORITY of military agrees that gays shouldn't be allowed openly. It differs with services, with USAF and USN being far more lax than the USMC or Army. Infantry isn't an easy place to be and the last place generals want to 'tweak'.
Now, to discussion of 'dissent' with Presidential policies:
1) Powell giving Clinton a hard time had to do with mission requirements and lack of confidence in the CINC, resulting from the Somalia "Black Hawk Down" incidient. If you've read Mark Bowden's book, he mentions how Aideed was almost finished, however, he was relieved at the reaction the American public had when they saw pictures of the Helicopter Crew being dragged through the streets. Clinton buckled under pressure, when the military, particularly Special Operations wanted to finish the job off. Clinton lost credibility. This 'backing down' also played into Islamist publicity pitch of the US lacking intestinal fortitude. Clinton policy since then depended on an over reliance of Air Force and Naval stand off fights (Bombs, Missles) and missions of kosovo which the US military wasn't all too happy to be involved in, since they felt if things got tough, Clinton wouldn't back them to finish a fight off (or handicap them). They felt the mission was too obscure and lacked clarity. Clinton policy also helped rapidly decay basic military infrastructure, for example, ammunition production. Not big ticket items, but bullets and grenades type things, which were considered obsolete. The public won't get to see it, but the 90s decay of basic military infrastructure hurt in several ways.
2) Bush is considered a straight shooter by military folks. They don't doubt his will or intentions, people definitely don't have much confidence in his strategic vision and ability to conduct warfare from political standpoint. He's kinda dumb, but at least he tried and backs military up. Clinton was smart but looked 'down' upon infantry types. One may not agree with Bush, but military folks do respect him somewhat and understand he's a limited guy.
In conclusion: Both Bush and Clinton are poor executors of warfare. First was cautious and pretty flippant towards the military (Hillary, from sources, was very anti-military type). Bush listened to the wrong strategists of how to execute warfare in Iraq and muddled organizational details which resulted in shitty execution. Generals who advised him are to blame also. Erik Shinseki stood up to the admininstration. He was pushed out and 'retired'.
In recent US history, IMO, FDR, Reagan, JFK, Bush Sr, and Eishenhower understood how to fight war on mulitple fronts (Political, diplomatic, economic, and military).
YMMV. But one thing across the board I have noticed in the United States is that considering how much we try to educate our selves, principals of warfare is a topic that isn't very well taught or dicussed (yet, its a huge part of human and American History). Unless one had an opportunity to get a formal military education, or read enough first person accounts and history, conflict theory is poorly discussed.
AAAHHHHHH. I hate when I do this. PRINCIPLES.
Even Karl Rove couldn't have come up with such a wonderful talking point! The spin is enchanting.
I will refrain from discussing how Rumsfeld's one-track agenda of modernizing the military and having a small army hurt in a very direct, tangible, and quite long lasting way.
Glad to have helped.
.Why refrain from it? I'm sure curious minds would like to know.
Um, why do people always bring a wrong up, to dicuss another wrong? I don't disagree at all that Rummy was too McNamara like. Our strategy in Afghanistan had strong support from him, but if you're going into a conventional fight, you don't take an unconventional toolbox to it. For Afghanistan, he brought a knife for the knife fight. For Iraq, the USG showed up with a Knife to a gun fight. Different tactics and strategies...if he wanted an unconventional fight in Iraq, he should have left Army SF to do their job and told the big army general types to shut up. But he let the Big Army guys loose, without the "Big" part of it. Frankly, I would have opted for an unconventional fight, with Army SF building local guriella armies.
It's been said a million times, but Paul Bremer disbanding the Iraq military was the biggest mistake anyone could have ever made. This goes into the organization details part - most in the US military DID NOT want that. But the dual chain of command with CPA and DOD meant that there wasn't a clear chain of command.
Like I said, Clinton and Bush presidencies are shitty examples of how to fight. Maybe if you had a Clinton/Bush hybrid, you'd see a president with more brains AND guts. We can all dream...
Fair point, but Clinton's vision would have been fine if we had not plunged headlong into a hopeless war with a boneheaded strategy.
Sarah: Yes, pretty much. If I were to get tenure on the other hand I would definitely give the Left and navel lint more consideration
Actually, I don't know what Clinton's vision would have been had be been President when 9/11 happened. I say this, because BEFORE 9/11, Bush was leaning towards an isolationist policy towards the middle east. He thought we had our hands in too many arguments where they didn't belong. It made sense since he wasn't know as an internationalist type anyway (and not as pro israeli either then)
Major events tend to change opinions.
My beef isn't with going to war (which many are against in a knee jerk fashion). It's the way we went in, not Afghanistan (because that was brilliant), or the inintial Iraq invasion (maneuver warfare), but the fact that once we got there, people, especially ADMINISTRATORS were holding their weenies bickering.
But I'll tell you what, General Petraeus (who wrote the Army's COIN manual), one of the 'outsider' type critics of the initial COIN effort,is the head honcho there now, may have some interesting testimony coming. Check out Michael Yon's website for a slice of what's happening in the insurgency. It's always refreshing to read indepedent sources. Yon's got a unique perspective - Afghanistan is far worse off, Iraq may actually be salvageable. One is counter to what the right wing has to say, another is counter to what the left has had to say.
Gujudude, Rahul
both of you guys seem to have come to peace with collateral damage. I'm curious as to how you two got to that point.
not Afghanistan (because that was brilliant)
brilliant? You've got to be kidding...
There were very good reasons for us to involved in Afghanistan and focus on that and work with the rest of the world.
That was something that Clinton was very good at --- even if you don't agree with the UN you still need to in this interconnected world, have to not only play politics with the rest of the world, but argue your point and get opinions from others - as can be seen in our disastrous Iraq policy. If we'd work thru int'l channels there would have been less likelihood that we would have jumped into this illegal war. Bush/Cheney had to jump into the Iraq war this way b/c of course any unbiased outlook into the war, which the UN community had, would have shown Bush/Cheney to be idiots and worst liars and exposed the illegality of it.
Anyways getting back to Afghanistan...I'm just so confused why you call this brilliant. If we had properly went to war there and focused our attention on that war, than I'm sure we'd have caught bin Laden. Weren't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield disastrous in supplying the correct number of troops/forces and support for them when they were fighting in Tora Bora?
This is assuming that neither of you were born into a Spartan family.
There was an incident where a Predator drone operator put his fist through a computer monitor in frustration while waiting for the administrators to get the legal clearance to take the shot. Symptomatic of the way the Afghanistan/Iraq war has been conducted.
When someone says something so final and authoritative and sweeping like that, I like to know who they are, what their agenda is (everyone has an agenda), why they say what they say, what their background is, how many hours have they pored over their books and data, and from where their 'ultimate' and 'solid' knowledge comes from. Too bad this is just an online discussion place where all that people show us are their creative handles, skill in rhetorical writing, attitudes, and quite often egos. Perhaps, all these are sometimes backed by true 'learning.' Whatever that may mean. Perhaps not.
That's why I will anyday take the words of someone who does get tenure Through a peer-review system, I should add. Or who writes books with their real names published on it and makes it easier for us to figure out who they are and why they say what they say.
malathi,
good that you qualified your assertion--at my alma mater, an English prof with recommendations from his entire dept. and dept chair, was denied tenure through an extremely opaque final review. The board of directors met behind closed doors and decided that his 7 years spent at the university were not deserved of a step up the academic career track.
Even in apparently transparent processes, like at DePaul, there are outside forces (Alan Dershowitz), who are capable of steering a tenure process down denial alley (you are the weakest link, Norman Finklestein! Goodbye!)
Gujudude,
Nice to hear a different perspective from someone who is not frothing at the mouth like Rajesh. Yet I do not agree with one of your points - about Bush. You mention how Bush Jr is considered a straightshooter wth the military and make another reference to his "guts' when you talk about a clinton-bush hybrid. At least Clinton was upfront about his lack of desire to take part in a war or even join the military during his student days. How is Bush more of a straightshooter or gutsier? He and the Cheney types supported the Vietnam war and other wars, and make wars the centerpiece of their talking points, yet both avoided service(please, if you reply to this point, dont join in the usual spin about Bush's National Guard service being honorable.). THere is no evidence that either Cheney or Bush have donated any of their huge assets or income to servicemen as part of their charity efforts. There is no evidence that either man have tried to instill in their kids the desire to pursue military service at least as an option. (which is not to be confused with those who demand Bush's kids need to serve). So where is this respect for the military? All I see is wish fulfillment from a guy who wants to act macho like he is playing with his GI Joe action figures. There is no evidence that Bush has tried to get his party to pass legislation to focus on improved funding to troops back home in terms of healthcare or other benefits back home. He kept pressing for funding for the war and conflated it with funding the troops welfare.
The fact is this - Bush didn't know what the hell he was talking about before 9-11. He just knew talk about an isolationist policy jibed well with his past track record of lack of curiosity about international affairs. It jibed well as a campaign talking point. But the people he hired were all neocons well known for their repeated efforts to try to invade Iraq again. So if he was truly an isolationist, why were so many of these types hired in influential position? Whether one likes Richard Clarke or not, one cannot dismiss that not only he, but others have mentioned that Bush targeted Iraq as the problem right after 9-11. He seemed to be clueless about that area. WHich tells me that if this guy was really concerned about the military, why was he not prepared to hold his civilians to a high standards to make things easier for the military with better planning? Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz got away scotfree despite their pigheaded advice.
Point taken regarding the difference between the protest by some military on the gay issue and the Iraq issue. I still am not convinced that the military is right on restricting the right of gays to serve, but I get your point on the analogies used. ANd I won't discuss it further I we have already veered offtopic.
A quick point about those criticizing Reagan about South America. Reagan's choice was between supporting dictator (possibly brutal and corrupt) or communism. This was during the cold war. The choice was between bad and 'very bad'...and similar to supporting Musharraf against Islamofascists.
Lets not forget when Reagan took over we had 15-16% inflation, 11-12% unemployment. He faced tremendous criticism for his economic policies, but they worked in the end. US was a laughing stock military under Jimmy carter...and I suppose we would have had nukes pointed right at us from central America if Jimmy had continued.
I am not at peace with collateral damage at all, don't know where I conveyed that impression. It is in fact one of the difficulties I have with any sort of modern war - how do you value some lives over others, and make some woolly headed evaluation of the greater good, especially when some military powers like the US have ridiculously asymmetric amounts of air power etc. which they can use to inflict damage without fear of directly losing lives in the bargain.
in a nutshell (while i don't think you meant it that way) you said why i have such deep unease with sociology and history, and by extension, many of the leftist ideologies (the rightwing nutjobs don't even make a pretense of thought, so i leave them aside for a moment). i am going to make blanket statements in the rest of the comment, but it is not what i think of everyone in these disciplines. the ones i respect personally (there are such people) imo are not representatives of the profession.
the opinions expressed by people in these academic disciplines are very important in molding public thought and hence they are probably far more important than any science in the short term. *but* peer review in these fields is little more verifying that the author says what is considered fashionable for the day.
it is, of course, difficult if not impossible to have a scientific opinion in most of these issues. that by itself is not an issue with me. my first problem arises when someone says or implies that "how many hours have they pored over their books" makes a difference---really, in most cases, these books have an agenda, and in most cases, no more scientific than the opinions on this thread. the worse part is when opinions are labeled "scholarly work" and made into ideologies, which of course wait for a stalin to be "put into use". i really wish sociologists and historians stopped thinking so highly of themselves and realized what "scholarly" in their discipline means---"skill in grammar and spelling".
that said, the domination of iraq was obviously a good idea for the US---iraq has maybe the biggest stores of oil. why isn't that enough? attacking a country for its resources is what has happened since the dawn of time, and it is what will continue to happen in one form or the other. really, the only problem people in the US have is that it wasn't executed properly---maybe an outright military adventure was not the best option.
From a military standpoint, how the first year and half of the Afghan Campaign were conducted was spot on. Sure, Bin Laden got away, but meat and potatoes was to eradicate the base of operations where salafists came and practiced their craft. Catching Bin Laden doesn't stop AQ. His number 2 is running the show (and was always the more dangerous guy tracing his roots back to EIJ). Disrupting their ability to network/plan is as important as catching and killing them. Read Marc Sageman's Understanding Terrorist Networks.
That wasn't a strategic error, it was a tactical one. US Marines were on standby ready to deploy as a 'blocking' force. The decision was made to use the local Afghan Army who knew the terrain better (and give Afghans the chance to get to Mullah Omar/Bin Laden, their enemies and men who had Ahmed Shah Massoud assasinated right before 9-11). Tora Bora happened in 2001, not during the Iraq campaign. Taliban leadership managed to escape the Afghans who weren't as efficent as advertised or hoped. Two years into Afghanistan, once the mission was taken out of purely SOCOM hands, shit started to deteriorate. I know an Officer who's part of the NATO force there and says pretty much the Aussies, Kiwis, Brits, Canadians, and Americans are holding the fort. Rest of the guys from NATO aren't all that productive.
When I say Afghanistan was brilliant, it was from how the war was conducted from a strategic standpoint. I don't think many understand the difference between strategy and tactics. The strategy was solid and pretty groundbreaking from several aspects.
With teams of Special operations, with Army Special Forces leading the way, the Taliban was routed from power within months with a very small, but highly trained, American force. Special Forces are force mutipliers and their primary mission is to raise and lead local fighters of the land they're in. They sat with warlords and tribes, drank tea, ate from the same plates they did, traveled the way they did, and when the fights broke out, they fought with them. SF also train locals who use 'spray and pray' techniques to refine their skills. Etc.
Again, Afghanistan was fought unconventionally and executed as such, well, before administrators screwed that one up too. The focus among the American public, congress, media, etc. is "Direct Action" ie - raids and killing terrorists. But there is so much more to unconventional warfare. Hell, I've barely scratched the surface in my own understanding of that subject matter from reading whatever sources I can get my hands on.
Afghanistan wasn't about troops, it's about the politial resources devoted to it. The center of gravity has shifted away from Afghanistan now. It's Pakistan. As my other comments here suggest - that is far more complicanted of an issue to deal with now.
A quick point about those criticizing Reagan about South America. Reagan's choice was between supporting dictator (possibly brutal and corrupt) or communism.
So? All communist regimes are not the same and it works differently in different cultures with different histories. The so-called "communists" were often (depending on which country) the majority of people, often working-class, who'd been exploited forever to maintain the lifestyle of a few.
This sort of thinking on communism is just what Reagan painted and it was so wrong and inaccurate.
There's also the fact that only a tiny group of people benefits from this war. It's meant death and devastation for Iraqis, as well as for American soldiers and their families. It's great for Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, et al though.
I really recommend Kathy Kelly's Other Lands Have Dreams, by the way, if you want a look at the other side of the US's great idea.
sarah, I was with you till you used the words Roy and nuanced in the same sentence without an intervening not. I personally think that the shrillheads like Roy, Moore et. al. do the cause a disservice because their exaggerations, fact mangling, and me-first attitude detracts from the very real and genuine substance they are defending.
I have a lot of questions and things to add, I can't right now and thanks for giving your viewpoint. But about this
Tora Bora happened in 2001, not during the Iraq campaign
I know that...actually Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/and crew were very much involved in starting the Iraq invasion...they were sharpening their knives for Iraq right when little bush got into office.
#65
guess i was extrapolating from this statement a bit too much--I took it to mean that you are okay with strategic-resources grabs (a portion of the Iraq War motivation) and the collateral damage that they invariably entail.
good to know you're not from the Steven Seagal School of Foreign Policy--i would have to say I developed somewhat of a man crush after reading your many humorous comments on other posts (oh dear! low-brow! head for the personal blog hills!)
bytewords,
You just took my comment (out of context) to serve some personal agenda of your own.
I do not share your sweeping opinions (which you did warn me you were going to make) on history and soicology. Neither do I have such a generalized demeaning outlook on 'scholarly work', 'books' or 'ideologies' of any nature.
@93 sarah:
my point is that as far as the us govt is concerned, republican or democrat or independent, it really doesn't matter who dies and who doesn't. it is easy to fault bush, but if you think about it, there is nothing spectacularly surprising or different from what has always happened. why do people think military adventurism is over? because europe said so? and because america says so?
it doesn't matter if you and me feel sorry for "collateral damage" (it is unbelievable no one even considers that term offensive). these things are here to stay, it is better to be realistic.
PS if ever you run for Pres, you have my vote. If only more people in Washington believed the same. Darn neocons.
Ahh yes, the world-weary realist resigns us all to mute acceptance of genocide, rape, torture and all manner of such injustices--we puny peons cannot do a thing about it, so we must treat geopolitics much like we treat the weather.
I wish commenters would research the history of the nation-state a bit more before stating, like a bizzaro-land Hobsbawm, that, "these things were here, are here and will always be here--just like apple pie, the 2nd amendment and personal income taxes."
wtf??