The Reese Memo

Colonel Timothy R. Reese, a senior US adviser and military officer serving in Iraq, recently published a brief essay on his blog site about the eroding situation in Iraq and our nation's involvement there. He basically argues that the US job is done, not so much because we have built a democracy there or anything else like that, but because further progress is not and will not be forthcoming; the window of opportunity is basically closing. In the meantime, the good relationship between US forces and the Iraqi Security Forces that the US military has committed so many resources to building and sustaining, is itself eroding as the Iraqis become more interested in seeing the Americans leave.

Colonel Reese argues that we should get out now, and not wait till the December 2011 final withdrawal date agreed to in the US-Iraqi Security Agreement. He says not doing so will not only cost American lives needlessly, but will damage what little constructive work the US forces have sacrificed so much to build there.

While I take issue with the value of some of what the US forces have done in Iraq (such as running prisons and torture centers and violating pretty much everything that our nation has stood for throughout its entire history), I find myself in agreement with the colonel in a lot of what he says. His essay, just a few pages long, is well worth the read. Check it out (click on the title above, and it will take you to a NYT website edition of the complete text of his paper).

The Left and Immigration

Many people treat immigration as a "problem." The Right make much noise about it, albeit without really doing anything about it; in part, because it really isn't a "problem," other than the fact that popular perception of it as such makes them acknowledge it publicly; and they wish to point to the Left as being uninterested in the views of the people. Of course, the actual strategists for the Right are smart enough to know that immigration is a major part of what makes America a strong country with a (generally) healthy economy, so they make the right noises for the voters without actually taking real steps to curtail immigration. It must also be understood that some of the industries where illegal immigrants account for a part of the workforce, have lobby groups keeping the politicians from taking real action in order to keep company costs low. The Right-wing strategists therefore have a dual motivation for sitting on the fence, while verbalizing pointless and ineffectual jargon that makes them sound more "concerned" with the poor man's predominantly racist attitudes towards people that look and sound different, wear different clothes and eat different food, and worship a marginally different god.

Why is immigration considered to be a problem? Because of the increased competition for jobs (at least as far as publicly acceptable reasons are concerned); and because of prejudice against foreigners and foreign cultures (though this can't be stated publicly by proponents of increased controls and limitations). Also, there is a popular misconception of a connection between immigration on the one hand and increased crime and increased demand for public resources for the poor on the other (despite the enormous mass of evidence which actually suggests otherwise).

Why isn't it an actual problem? First of all, the competition for jobs is a myth, for the most part. Immigrants (especially the illegal ones that everyone gets up in arms about) generally get the sorts of jobs that most Americans choose not to fill, even when times are hard and jobs are scarce. In truth, it really isn't so much that Americans "won't" do these jobs; but Americans want way more money than meat packing plants and farms want to, or are able to, pay. These jobs are filled by immigrants because no one else shows up for them (and because the illegals are a "captive" workforce, unable to organize for higher wages for fear that they'd be deported). The better types of jobs, and the better paying jobs, that most Americans are concerned will go to the immigrants almost never do; companies don't hire people with language or cultural barriers when they don't have to. There are also legal and administrative difficulties involved with hiring (either legally or otherwise) non-citizens for work in the US, and penalties for hiring illegals.

Another reason why the "immigrants stealing American jobs" idea is a myth is the simple fact, always deliberately ignored by the Right in fanning protest, that every additional person in the country means one more person spending money and contributing to the economy by adding jobs in order to increase output to service the demand. An immigrant is one more person paying rent to a landlord, who has extra money to keep up his property, paying maintenance firms more money for upkeep, or putting more money into his bank account for that bank to use for domestic investments. An immigrant is one more person who wants to buy and operate a cell phone, paying money to a phone service that wouldn't have had that money, and which will be used for additional services which require putting their workers on for longer hours for more money, or hiring additional workers for the extra hours. An immigrant buys food and beverages from American stores, giving them more money for buying and stocking more product, and putting more workers on (or working their staff for more hours) to service that need. Transport and distribution companies then have more product to ship; again, more workers and/or longer hours for their people. An immigrant will want to spend money on entertainment, which again will be money that the recipient companies wouldn't have had otherwise. It is, of course, true that immigrants often have family in their country of origin to whom they send some of the money they earn here; but they still have to survive, and they still manage to buy cars, phones, TVs, and pay rent and utilities; all of that money is extra consumerism and extra money going to the merchants selling these products and services.

The reason why all of this money is additional income for our economy is that, again, these immigrants are not for the most part taking jobs away from US citizens, but are filling hard to fill slots that companies can't keep filled without them (or wouldn't be offering as many of at the higher wages needed to attract citizens and legal immigrants). Immigrants have a hard time getting the "good" jobs that Americans want, and yet they still find work when they get here, because there is a constant demand for them. Another reason why all of this money is additional is that, for US citizens, there is an unemployment system that provides a minimal income for workers out of work and looking for jobs; even in the hypothetical case of a citizen losing work to an immigrant (say for less pay for the immigrant), most workers still have a temporary income to spend while the immigrant brings in an income as well, so that now there are two incomes where formerly there was one. Ultimately, the effect of the increase to the population is to increase the number of jobs available and in demand; this growth forces the job market to expand to meet the needs of the increased demand for products and services. The surest and quickest way to improve an economy is always to encourage it to grow in real size.

So in the end, the only logical argument for closing the holes in the border and enforcing the laws more strictly (both of which require substantial outlays, which means less money for other things the government could or should be doing - e.g., health care, education, and social services if you ask the Left; or enforcing Christian morality and corporatism, and killing foreigners overseas, if you ask the Right) is that the illegals are different and therefore somehow bad simply because they're foreigners, and the laws certainly allow enough of that kind into our country. It is certainly fortunate that the Right-wing strategists know enough about their business and political careers to know that they can't, and won't, actually do anything about the "problem." Nonetheless, it is also just as unfortunate, and extremely hypocritical, for them to point the blame at the Left for their own lack of movement, and then get political capital out of a situation in which they have no intention or desire to move any faster than the Left.

Immigration is what makes America the great country it is - we ask for the world's tired and poor (however many legal quotas we may throw up to say, "Thanks, that will do us for now."), as well as the prosperous and ambitious, and we make them our citizens, friends, and family members, just the way our country did with our own ancestors who came here from foreign soils. We give them a chance to prove themselves, and we get a bigger economy, and more customers and consumers to sell our wares to, and make more money off of. America has grown enormously and explosively due to the waves of immigrants that came here to work and then give us their hard-earned money. The capitalists and corporate officers know this, the lobby groups in Washington know this, and the politicians of both the Left and the Right know and faithfully abide by this. It is time for the Left to stand proudly on their record (at least for those defending immigration and immigrants), or to return to the values of the people they claim to represent and verbally support immigration and the immigrants themselves trying to join our nation.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROPOSAL

The following proposal was sent as an email to the Obama-Biden Transition Team (now officially the Obama Administration):

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PLAN PROPOSAL

The Middle East is both a vital region of the world, and one which three of the most significant religions of the world view as their home. It is also home to one acknowledged nuclear power (Israel), as well as to aspiring nuclear powers. In the coming century, demographic shifts in the Palestinian territories are going to present great, and ultimately grave, challenges for Israel as a "Jewish State." These challenges themselves will increase the risks of war, as well as the actual costs of war, between Israel and other parties in the area. For these as well as other reasons it is absolutely vital to US interests as well as to global security in general that peace be established and maintained in this area. The following proposal constitutes my thoughts on how this should be pursued.

Involved Parties

For the peace process to be taken seriously, and to therefore have any chance for success, the following parties must be involved:
a) International participants: the United Nations Organization, and NATO.
b) National participants: US, the European Union, Russia, and China (as sponsors, trade partners, and providers of various technologies to the parties in the region); and Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority.
c) Organizations: Hamas and Hisballah, and other organizations as deemed necessary.

The international participants are needed to provide a global context (for example, by ensuring that the various negotiating parties abide by international law and custom) and to provide the maximum range of peacekeeping options and international aid options.

The non-regional national participants (US, Russia, and China) are needed to ensure that no external great power has interests or goals in conflict with the established peace terms, and that the external great powers with direct interests in the area support the peace and work together to maintain it.

The regional national powers are obviously directly involved to the point that the exclusion of any of the above mentioned powers would likely create a party or parties hostile to the peace and with motivations to undermine it by supporting extremist, factional , or terrorist organizations.

The inclusion of non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as Hamas and Hisballah is necessary in the recognition of the fact that in the 21st century, non-statist systems are developing as powers at least as potent and influential as traditional state structures. In Lebanon, specifically, Hisballah operates as a de facto government; while Hamas has also achieved a similar status in Gaza. These organizations specifically, as well as others (Al Jazeera comes to mind), go great lengths to influence popular opinion as well as direct action. In the day of the internet, and other forms of direct connections between groups of people that go across boundaries and don't require government participation or encouragement, it is vital to US interests to acknowledge and treat with these new powers on the mapboard. A Middle East "peace" that was not sponsored by both Hamas and Hisballah, and other organizations of the Arab "street," would be no peace at all, or for long.

Methodology

1) The first step will be for the US to begin organizing these various forces towards a peace process. Direct, bilateral discussions must be made with each of the parties mentioned, with the following immediate goals in mind:
a) Getting all of the parties interested in a large and cohesive peace plan that does not sacrifice any of the negotiating parties' core interests.
b) Canvassing all of the parties, to get initial talking points worked out on the issues seen by each negotiating party as vital to their interests, as well as to get initial ideas on negotiating room (potential compromises the various parties would be interested in making in order to protect their core interests).
c) Agreeing on specific formats and schedules for initial talks.

2) Once these goals are met, and multilateral talks can begin, the participants should create Working Groups, each of which will be a smaller group of participants working on specific issues that are of direct interest to them but are of less direct interest to parties not in that group. Working Groups can be created, disbanded, coalesced, or broken into smaller groups as needed to settle specific issues and ensure all parties that their interests are being served by the peace process; but four general Working Groups can begin the discussions, organized by their status with respect to the region:
a) International and Non-national Group: UN, NATO, Hamas, Hisballah.
b) External Great Powers Group: US, the European Union, Russia, and China.
c) Central Conflictual Powers Group: Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority.
d) Regional Powers Group: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

These groups should begin by identifying key issues, and core interests. Key issues will become the final talking points for the treaty negotiations, and core interests will serve as the minimal results for each party, which the peace process and treaty terms will serve to protect.

Once Working Groups are developed and begin talks (including the creation of new, and more specific Working Groups to discuss specific issues), talks should begin at several different levels simultaneously, and include the following direct-negotiations formats by statespersons and representatives of mutual responsibilities from all parties of the Working Groups:
a) Heads of state and/or government
b) Ministers of foreign affairs, and/or principal ambassadors
c) Ministers of defense, and/or national security policy-makers
d) Legislative representatives
e) Human rights representatives

In the process of conducting these negotiations, it is vital that the United States not be overly sympathetic to Israeli needs at the expense of the other parties. The other parties are more likely to come to the table and talk, and stay at the table to work, if the United States can assure them that we are concerned just as much with their interests as with the Israelis'.

Ultimate Solutions

The following represents a basic outline of objectives for the peace process, to be enshrined by formal agreements between the various negotiating parties:

1) Israel must withdraw entirely from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These territories must be legitimized as a Palestinian state, with their own government, military, security and intelligence, foreign ministry, and civil bureaucracy.

2) All parties involved in the negotiation process must ultimately proclaim the mutual legitimacy of both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. Both Israeli and Palestinian territorial integrity are each to be guaranteed by one or more friendly, negotiating parties capable of offering direct, military intervention.

3) Israel and Palestine must agree on limited and specific terms of right of return. The negotiation process should also discuss and establish the right of Jewish fundamentalists settling in the West Bank to remain there under Palestinian citizenship if they so choose (and the Israeli renunciation of all rights of governance, sovereignty, allegiance, and protection with respect to such citizens).

4) Israel and Palestine must agree on an international and protected status for all existing religious sites in the city of Jerusalem, and the right for all people of all faiths to visit these sites and practice there.

5) Egypt must secure its border with Gaza and prevent illegitimate arms trade and other smuggling across that border.

6) Israel must (either as part of the peace treaty system, or as independent government legislation, but developed in concert with the other negotiating powers) develop guarantees and rights for its non-Jewish population (and especially for Palestinians returning under agreed upon right-of-return language).

7) Israel and Syria must reach a permanent accord on the Golan Heights territories, and a final, binding peace treaty in the same vein as the treaties between Israel and Jordan and Egypt.

8) The parties of the region must work towards an agreement on the composition of power in Lebanon. Israel and Syria must include in their final treaty a section on securing their mutual relations with Lebanon in a way that ensures the Lebanese of their own security and ability to develop their own independent state and civil structures.

9) All parties must sign an accord forswearing the use or support of certain specific methods such as suicide bombing, the targeting of civilian populations, and the use of indiscriminate bombings.

10) Iran should agree to a temporary moratorium on the development of nuclear weapons and place all nuclear-related sites requested by the UN under UN inspection for the duration of the agreed moratorium. The United States, the European Union, Russia, and China must provide Iran with positive incentives for fulfilling these goals, such as protected trade status and assistance as requested in the establishment of infrastructure and social services.

11) The United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran must come to an agreement on the status of Iraq and on these states' relationships with Iraq, in order to guarantee Iraq a chance for its own internal development as a state. These states must agree that all of the above parties have an interest in Iraq and a desire for involvement, and so none of these states should be excluded in Iraq should the people and government of Iraq request their presence or assistance.