Goodbye Jeremiah.

I was sitting at my desk this morning writing a French paper, worrying about the deadline that I would clearly miss and feeling badly about sleeping later than I should have. And there were other, more pressing concerns on my mind, namely, a recent mistake I made that caused pain to someone else and to myself. I won't go into details. My phone rang and I got up to answer it, sure that it was my dad calling for the first of what would inevitably amount to five or more phone calls throughout the day. He likes to check in more and more the older he gets.

But it wasn't my dad, it was an old Army buddy named John Williams, one of the guys I've been working with on a documentary project about National Guard veterans of the Iraq War. His voice, normally strong and clear, was faint. "Hey, sorry I've been out of touch for awhile," he said. "No problem,” I replied, “what's up?"

"Did you hear yet?"

"No, hear what?"

"It's McNeal. KIA."

A few minutes after I hung up with John Williams, another Army buddy called. It was Sean Crippen, a 3rd Yr. sports management student at Virginia State who I've also been working with. Crip's tears were audible over the phone. His voice faltering, he mumbled, "I can't keep going to these funerals man." I told him I'd be there too. There's small comfort in knowing that we can rely on each other for support when our war comes home to haunt us.

Sgt. McNeal was my friend and fellow soldier for three years. We lived on the same base during my year in Iraq and continued to serve in West Point, VA for two years after our return. He was a gentle human being, not Gung Ho in any way, but extremely dependable. Just before we deployed for the first tour, in February 2004, McNeal married his girlfriend. We were all sure it would fall apart, as do so many marriages rushed into before a pending deployment. But his marriage lasted, one of the few that remained strong. His wife recently gave birth to their second child. I don't know if McNeal ever met the child. I am sure, however, that neither child will remember their father, a man I respected immensely and had a great deal of faith in as a young leader.

As for me, I'll always remember McNeal because of his ready smile and because he laughed at all of my jokes.

McNeal deployed for a second tour with my former unit -- the 237 Sapper Company -- in October, 2007. He joined the Guard for college tuition assistance but ended up working full time to support his family. His death brings the number of Iraq dead that I've known personally to five.

With each death I retreat several steps from healing. If I've learned anything from my own veteran experience, from working with fellow veterans, and from reading as many veterans' novels and memoirs as I can get my hands on, it's that soldiers leave a part of themselves -- perhaps their youths, certainly their innocence, often their hope -- in whatever far away place they call "in country." Indeed, many soldiers never make peace with their war experiences. The war becomes for many a perpetual reference point for anger, sadness, failure, and alienation.

I am not there yet. Crip and Williams aren't quite there either. But we are keenly aware of how close we are, and every time one of our friends dies we fear what will come. We wait anxiously for the bitterness, the resentment, and the frustration to well up inside of us. We wonder how it will affect our lives, our careers, and our relationships. We wonder if we will ever be able to say goodbye, or if we should.

There's only one thing I don't wonder about. I never wonder whether or not men like McNeal would leap at the opportunity to take another crack at life. I never wonder whether or not they, having lost everything, would return from the grave with a commitment to take nothing for granted.

And so I try to turn the pain into something positive in the only way I know how, and that's to remember -- every time I doubt myself or feel like giving up -- how lucky I am to have the opportunity to try my hardest at this life. When I think of the friends I have lost, I take stock of all of the decisions I have made, of where I am headed, and I try to remember that I still have the opportunity to right wrongs, to do the right thing from here on out. Those are profound opportunities that five of my friends will never have again. To choose to live more fully, more compassionately, and more justly is the luxury of the living. It is your luxury and mine, and it is a grave responsibility, one that we must cherish and respect while we have the time.

So go out and say you’re sorry to someone you’ve hurt. Do something nice for someone, anything at all. And above all, be thankful you’re alive.

Mr. Rove turns his guns on Obama.

Today Karl Rove published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal describing the "tears" in the fabric of Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric. Alas, it seems that Mr. Obama has a leftist Democratic agenda under his cloak, laments Mr. Rove.

Several months ago, Mr. Rove wrote an op-ed for Newsweek entitled "How to Beat Hillary." Hillary Clinton was then the strong Democratic frontrunner and the greatest fear of most Republicans. Obama penned a very similar open letter to Mr. Obama himself, "Memo: win Iowa or lose the race," subject heading: How to Beat Hillary. Well, apparently Mr. Obama read the letter well. He did indeed win in Iowa and since then his campaign has steadily outperformed Hillary's, which seems to have taken a nosedive.

Now that Clinton has faded a bit and Obama seems poised to seize the Democratic nomination, it makes sense that Mr. Rove is realizing his earlier error in offering strategical advice to the young candidate on the Obama-Hillary takedown. Mr. Rove realizes -- probably with alarm -- that Obama can, and likely will, beat Mr. McCain, and that he is a much bigger threat now that Hillary ever was. Oops. So now Mr. Rove turns his guns on Mr. Obama. It all makes sense. Damage control.

Don't know if the tide can be stopped now, though, Mr. Rove. It appears that you and every other American who underestimated Mr. Obama are in for a surprise. Will it be the collapse of the U.S. into the dark days of a leftist Democratic agenda? I seriously doubt it. Anyway, what could be darker than the last eight years over which your administration has presided with such damaging and disheartening carelessness?

Goodbye Castro, Hello . . . ?

Well, I guess we're all waiting to see if brother Raul will hold off on opening the floodgates until Fidel actually bites the chorizo. So while the old guy is still alive, perhaps it's time to get a bit nostalgic.

Last year Foreign Policy Magazine published a debate between two Cuban scholars (one is in American "exile") as to whether or not Castro has been good or bad for Cuba. We all know the charges levied against Castro falling on the negative side: forbade competition and caused imposition of embargos by alliance with Soviet Comintern; prohibits freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; and, worst of all, banned elections and made himself pres. for life. Those are pretty bad allegations, especially if one heavily favors the United States' ideological and strategic position during the Cold War. Which reminds me of another bad point not included in the scholar's own list: Castro allowed the Soviets to put nuclear warheads on his island, knowing full well that if the Soviets ever used one of them against the US, fired from Cuba, that Cuba would be utterly destroyed. That was perhaps an instance of taking too much liberty with his population's security.

On the positive side: The Revolution and Castro's government prioritized medicine, education, and egalitarianism, such that Cuba now has one of the finest medical systems in the world and some of the best trained doctors (of whom there are more deployed per capita doing international aid work than any other nationality), such that Cuba boasts one of the finest education systems in the world (to which students travel from all over Latin America), and such that race does not exist as a factor in daily life for most Cubans, who are overwhelmingly mestizos of one sort or another. Racism still exists institutionally, in the sense that dark black comrades are less likely to advance to high party posts than "whiter" comrades, but racism as such does not exist -- so I'm told -- in the way that it does in the United States. Cuba's advanced mestizo culture was an ideological selling point for Castro during the Cold War, when the United States preached freedom and democracy to the world while turning dogs and firehoses on peaceful black protesters in Alabama, when the United States still demanded that a citizen have white skin in order to vote.

And Castro's government accomplished all of these positive things while under embargo from the US, and thus suffering from a lack of US investment and export trade. So the pro-Castro scholar suggests that had Castro's Cuba been able to profit from a trade relationship with the United States, it would have been the lone successful communist project in world history (by successful I mean that the standard of living for all comrades would have approached, dare I say, "middle class," without, of course, ever becoming bourgeois). So it was the US, for all of those years, that kept Cuban children shoeless and living in dilapidated tenements, not Cuban communism.

It's an interesting thing to think about, and I'm sure the truth about Castro's influence -- as always -- lies somewhere between our two arguments. Certainly, however, Castro was no villain and his vilification in the United States has been an embarrassing reminder of our own national insecurities rather than a declaration of legitimate disapproval from on-high.

So, I guess I say, "Viva la revolución!" But I also say, to all of those farmers, landowners, and businesspeople whose lands and livelihoods Castro seized in the name of the revolution, I'm sorry. I hope that you are able to finally find the justice you've been looking for after Castro.

Obama v. Clinton: Maureen Dowd on why Clinton promises to carry us further toward the Darkside.

This from a recent Maureen Dowd editorial in the New York Times titled "Darkness and Light"(www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):

Hillary Clinton denounced Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, but she did not absorb the ultimate lesson of the destructive vice president:

Don't become so paranoid that you let yourself be overwhelmed by a dark vision.

I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as "the best man for the job," and she told David Letterman that "in my White House, we'll know who wears the pantsuits." But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.

Darkness seeking darkness. It's an exhausting specter, and the reason that Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and so many other Democrats are dashing for daylight and trying to break away from the pathological Clinton path.

"I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire," Senator McCaskill told David Gregory on MSNBC on Tuesday. "You know, we've had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that's something that we have to capture."

I cannot remember the last time I was positively inspired by a politician, or any other public figure for that matter.  I am not naïve enough to pine nostalgically for some bygone era when politicians were brilliant, morally unassailable, and charismatic to-boot.  Politicians have always been, well, political, a basic fact that necessitates degrees of manipulation, cajoling, and varied self-representation.  I know that many people saw Lincoln and FDR as dubious and divisive figures who threatened the future of the country, but I also know that the lasting power over the American imagination held by men like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan results from the very real inspiration they engendered among Americans of all political stripes.  I know that the hope they embodied helped bring the country together in the wake of terribly divisive events in our national history.  Kennedy inherited a populace torn asunder by Cold War panic and its most reprehensible manifestation, Joseph McCarthy.  Kennedy also presided over the opening salvos of what would come to be known as the Civil Rights era.  Reagan took the Oval Office after the devastating economic losses of the late 1970s, during which time all of the social progress set in motion during the 1960s began to backslide.  Kennedy and Reagan inspired the American public to reunite, and Barack Obama can do the same, while the other major candidates will almost certainly tear the country further apart.  

Barack Obama is often criticized for a "lack of experience," but such criticisms fail to account for one region in which he clearly demonstrates the value of the experience he has had: he has experienced a nation and a political system on the brink of profound failure, and from that experience has learned the value and the immediacy of unity.  Obama has promised, above all else, to center his political agenda on national healing, something which he knows can only be accomplished through careful management of the economy, foreign policy, and social programs like education and healthcare.  When the two Democratic candidates' policy proposals are so similar, it's worth examining the foundations of -- the inspirations behind -- their candidacies, and in that regard, Barack Obama is a light on a hill, while Hillary Clinton lures us toward the Darkside. 

Making it all worthwhile.

I'll make this brief: I was pissed when Bush decided to invade Iraq, and even more pissed when it came to me -- a Virginia National Guardsman -- to do the dirty work.  But I did my job.  Ever since I've been plagued by the idea that perhaps we could have brought some good out of a very bad decision had we only pursued intelligent strategies and tactics from day one.  Of course, we did no such thing, and until very recently it did not appear that we would ever approach our mission conscientiously or intellectually.  And so I fell in with the staged-withdrawal crowd, advocating for hard time-lines and all of that.  It broke my heart.

Now I'm a bit perplexed: the "surge" (the "success" of which we're all a bit hesitant to acknowledge), the population displacements, the failure of al-Qaeda in Iraq to maintain support among the people with whom they live and whose lives they endanger by their presence, and maybe even the possibility of American withdrawal looming in the election politics, have all worked to spur the most sincere effort at cooperative statebuilding we've seen since 2003.  Such statebuilding can only continue -- now that it is finally going on -- in a safe situation; that safety will be compromised if we leave.

After this roller-coaster -- which I admit has taken quite a toll on my conscience -- I am left asking myself again: "shouldn't we stay as long as necessary to make all of this sacrifice worth something?"  And I ask that question with full knowledge that it's the same question that has dominated Republican sophistry for the past three years.

But shouldn't we guarantee security as long as the Iraqis are willing to make good use of it?  Don't we owe it to them?  And to ourselves?  If I knew that the private sector fraud, waste, and abuse that characterized Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority and set the tone for 2003-2007 were finally under control (e.g. Halliburton's recent loss of no-bid contractor privilege); if I knew that strategists like Gen. Petraeus would remain in place; if I knew that something would be done from within the Iraqi administration to quell the tide of displaced persons; if I knew that we could somehow re-budget the unsupportable expense of the war ($200 billion a year not adjusted for interest/inflation?); if I knew our troops could handle the taxing deployment schedule for another five years; if I knew all of these things, I would say "let's stay the course." 

But I'll never know any of these things for sure.  Nor will any President or Congress[wo]man.  That's why we put our trust in our national leadership, and that's why I'm so concerned about who will become our next President. 

Read this if you're in a swoon because of all the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

I've often heard over the years that there's a lot of "good news" in Iraq that never makes it to press, and that all the media wants to report are the horror stories, the corruption, the fledgling government's failures, etc. blah blah blah.  It's true that many media sources have harped on the horror, at times overshadowing small victories and even somewhat hopeful human interest stories.  But in the wake of the "surge" and Presidential election politics, it's become more important than ever for the Right to condemn the "liberal media" for refusing to acknowledge our "success" in Iraq.  It's important for Americans to believe that their Army is winning against the insurgents and succeeding in its mission to establish security; it's important for Americans to believe this untruth as the Republican election machine that has been so tied up with Bush's Iraq policies gears up for another White House run.

Just a clarifying point: the media has not been shying away from reporting the "good news" coming out of Iraq. In fact, it's become common sense across the airwaves that "the surge is working"; hence McCain's sudden appeal, and hence the Democrats sudden fear of the powerful question: "So, Dem candidates, all of you have opposed to war for some time and campaigned on a promise of scheduled withdrawal. Now that the 'tide has turned' in Iraq, how have your Iraq plans changed?"

Articles citing the success of the "surge" have appeared in both the NY Times and the Washington Post in recent weeks, sometimes begrudging admissions from journalists who previously advocated immediate withdrawal. The sentiment is this: "Damn. It seems like there might actually be hope. Now what do we do."

But anyone who uncritically accepts the "good news" coming from Iraq is begging for long term disappointment. The "good news" has perhaps less to do with the success of the "surge" and more to do with a record exodus of displaced Iraqis. Over 800,000 Iraqis were displaced either within Iraq or to one of the neighboring countries in the past year. There are now as many as 4 million Iraqi refugees spread throughout Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (a country that recently closed its borders officially to Iraqis, though they'll still come illegally — and they're in most of the other countries illegally too).

So who does all of this "good news" benefit exactly? Also, remember that news of "decreased violence" does not signify an actual decrease in violence to manageable levels, only a decrease from the completely chaotic violence of 2006-2007. Now we're back to mere chaos instead of full-scale civil war. It remains to be seen whether or not the Iraqis will take this relative "calm" and run with it. And when they do decide to "get serious" about things, how will they handle the flood of four million displaced and frustrated people that will come pouring back into their borders, having been kicked out of their host countries?

Don't talk to me about "good news" from Iraq. When it comes to war, there's really no such thing as "good news." You demean the seriousness of the situation by reducing to simple questions of good or bad media, as if the media have anything to do with the way the military conducts the war in which we are currently embroiled and probably will be for years to come.

Afghanistan: The Good, the Bad, and the Newsworthy, pt. 1

I'm happy to see Afghanistan back in the news after a conspicuous absence lasting, oh, say, four years (every since we invaded Iraq).  Since 2003, there has been an oft-heard refrain among disgruntled military types and anyone else ranting about American strategical failures/inconsistencies in the Middle East-- it goes something like this: ". . . . and NOBODY is talking about Afghanistan anymore."  You might have heard it like this: ". . . . and you wouldn't even know there's a war going on in Afghanistan."  Gripes about the downsized media coverage of Afghanistan are legitimate; though a smaller scale conflict by roughly 130,000 soldiers (U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have fluctuated between 18,000 and 26,000 over the past two years compared to Iraq's "surge" increase since January 2007 from 138,000 to 163,000), a losing war in Afghanistan poses no less of a security threat to U.S. and global interests than loss in Iraq.  

In Afghanistan, loss means the collapse of the Karzai government and the return of the Taliban. Loss also means the unchecked resurgence of the opium trade and the end of seven years worth of sustainable economic development initiatives.  Finally, real loss in Afghanistan means true failure for Bush's misguided Iran containment plan (U.S. bases supported by stable pro-U.S. regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan).  Whether or not Iranian containment is the most pressing issue in the region is another story entirely.  

Should U.S. and NATO forces (the latter also at an all-time high of 26,000 since December) leave Afghanistan, precious influence over and upon Pakistan's tribal regions will also be lost.  As everyone knows, the mountainous regions of northern Pakistan (esp. Waziristan) -- just over the Khyber pass from Afghanistan's Tora Bora cave network -- are home to nearly unfettered Taliban and al-Qaeda training camps and operations strongholds.  Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf claims to have global anti-terrorist interests in mind and strong anti-terrorist military policy in place.  He remains "pro-U.S." and anti-Taliban/al-Qaeda.  But as last summer's Red Mosque siege, the Bhutto assassination, a quadrupling of suicide attacks in Pakistan, and recent Taliban successes in Afghanistan show, Musharraf's iron fist needs some alloying from his allies.  

These issues -- threats to development, the risks associated with allied failure in Afghanistan, and the ultimately feeble hand of Musharraf are the subject of recent articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Washington Monthly.  Last week's Sunday edition of the Post included a series of articles on Iraq, the most powerful of which was an article about the effect of Iraq's many displaced populations on regional stability and economic/political development. 

This Sunday's Post gives all its attention to Afghanistan, with a strangely comforting interview with Afghan President Hamid Karzai (perhaps dismaying, depending on whether you take Karzai's answers as dejectedly noncommittal or optimistic) and an article about small success in Jalalabad overshadowed by Taliban success on the other side of the country.  Karzai shocked me with his answer to Lally Weymouth's question about Iran: 

Q: How much influence does Iran have in your country right now, Mr. President?

A: We have had a particularly good relationship with Iran in the past six years.  It's a relationship that I hope will continue.  We have opened our doors to them.  They have been helping us in Afghanistan.  The United States very wisely understood that it is our neighbor and encouraged that relationship.  I hope Iran would also understand that the United States is a great ally of ours and that we value that alliance with the United States.  So that is the foundation of our relationship with them, and I hope that it will continue as it is.

Wow!!: "The United States very wisely understood that [Iran] is our neighbor and encouraged that relationship."  Is that the same United States that calls Iran an Axis of Evil country and maligns Iran for providing Iraqi insurgents with the materials that go into EFPs (a new breed of armor-piercing shape-charge IEDs)?  Is that the same United States that recently added Iran's Revolutionary Guard to its dread list of terrorist organizations?  The same United States that, up until a month ago, was threatening bunker-busting bombing missions over Iran's potential but actually non-existent weapons facilities?  I know Karzai's in between rocks and hard places (actually three rocks when you include Pakistan), trying to please Tehran, Washington, and Brussels, not to mention a swath of formidable warlords and domestic political forces; but are such answers nothing more than the squeals of a pinched man?  I hope not.  I hope it's true that Iran is a positive actor in the future of Afghanistan.  And oh how I hope it's true that some representative agency of the United States "very wisely," officially or unofficially, recognized where Afghanistan's logical friends and enemies are in the region.  Such an "agreement" or "realization" would be called "diplomacy" by some, something that has been lacking between Iran and the United States for almost thirty years.

Afghan insecurity poses a threat to the region as a whole, and Iran has as much of a stake in Afghanistan's future as the United States, if not more.  It's helpful to remember that Iran is managed somewhat tentatively by its slim Persian majority (51%), holed up mostly in Tehran and its environs.  Instability in Afghanistan invites instability along Iran's ethnically and economically repressed southeastern border, where the regionally prominent Baluchi population -- which moves between Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan -- remains a threat to the Iranian state.  This from the Congressional Research Service's May 2007 "Report for Congress": "In March 2007, a group called Jundallah attacked a government motorcade which left 20 people dead, kidnapped a number of hostages, and executed at least one member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards."  I'd say that's a significant attack; if such an attack were carried out on U.S. citizens by any splinter group it would be the biggest insurrection since the Civil War.  I'd also say increased instability of southern Afghanistan -- a region known (and feared by Iranian and Pakistani authorities) for its major smuggling industry -- only presents the possibility of more attacks like this one.  Hence Iran's support for a stable Afghanistan.  If Iran is supporting Karzai's government, and supporting U.S. interests in doing so, why would Iran encourage Iraqi instability?  

Similarly repressed and militant ethnic populations exist on Iraq's borders (Azers and Kurds), and instability offers these groups freer reign too; so wouldn't it be in Iran's interest to promote Iraqi stability too?  Maybe they are, but Bush's Axis of Evil rhetoric prevents the sort of diplomatic dialogue necessary for an expansion of Iran's role (or at least of our truthful awareness of it).  Maybe it's only because Afghanistan has been so far out of the limelight that U.S. and Iranian agents have been able to "wisely understand" each other; the lack of media attention has ensured no Washington firebrands would notice.

Karzai shocked me with another of his answers:

Q: Are you going to run for another term in 2009?

A: Well, I have things to accomplish.  Who was it who wrote -- Robert Frost? -- "The woods are lovely dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.  And miles to go before I sleep."

WOW!  Can you imagine President Bush quoting poetry at all?  Let alone poetry in a foreign language?  Karzai wins me over with that response.  I only wish our own presidential candidates were able to focus on their jobs over their presidential aspirations like Mr. Karzai. Had Bush not been wholly focused on winning in 2004, I wonder if 2003 - 2006 would've been such botched years in Iraq and Afghanistan (hmmmnn . . . I wonder if we would've gone to Iraq at all, had Bush's sole concern -- and the concern of all those riding along with him, or maybe it's better to say 'all those for whom he chauffeured' -- not been neocon re-election).

The same Outlook section also features an article by David Ignatius about a tentative development success story in Nangahar province, titled "An Afghan Province Points the Way." "You can see in Jalalabad what success would look like," writes Ignatius; "the challenge is to make that picture real across Afghanistan."  Focusing mostly on the blend of factors leading to relative stability in Jalalabad, Ignatius also examines the increasing instability in southern Afghanistan and the sad potential of a northward spread of the violence.  As evidence of that potential, he cites the minister of education, Hanif Atmar, who reports that "Taliban terrorist attacks killed 147 students and teachers over the past 10 months and seriously injured 200 others. This campaign of intimidation closed 590 schools last year, up from 350 the year before.  In areas where students are too scared to go to school, stability and security are still distant goals."

Contrarily, "the American contribution to stability in Jalalabad," writes Ignatius, "is twofold.  First there's the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) effort.  With its focus on economic development, the team is reaching out to the very people whose support the Taliban insurgents need to survive. . . .  A second component of U.S. success here is the low-visibility but high-impact mix of combat and intelligence operations. . . . When you visit places like Jalalabad and see things working the way they're supposed to, there's always a disconnect with what you've been reading and hearing about the larger war. . . . The reality is that the larger war in Afghanistan isn't going as well as it seems to be in this province.  Roadside bombs and suicide attacks were up last year.  The Taliban is gaining strength in some parts of the country.  The Afghan national government is weak and disorganized.  And NATO's operations are a ragged quilt--with no other nation matching U.S. effort, either in combat firepower or people friendly PRTs."

Ignatius makes an interesting point with his take on the claim that "counterinsurgency wars are . . . about creating a state of mind.  Security is a habit," Ignatius wisely understands, "born of weeks and months of ordinary life."  The problem, he continues, is that "insecurity, too, is a habit, born of fear that a suicide bomber may attack your village or your Kabul hotel, regardless of how infrequent those attacks may really be."

(To be continued)

George F. Will charges Dems with Manicheism

In a Washington Post op-ed piece entitled "Waiting for Straight Talk" (Sun., Jan 20) George F. Will writes "There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity and efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats." Putting aside Will's obvious condescension -- those of us who believe in evolution and human-induced global climate change subtly deride the nation's Evangelical science-deniers with the same language -- we should look instead at his criticism of Democratic over-reliance on Government regulation of markets. Such a charge is hard to deny. Dems tend to expect a bit too much from the government when it comes to making sure everyone gets paid the wage they want and not the wage they deserve, or the wage "the market" can sustain. "Living Wage" campaigns across the nation over the past decade illustrate the power of misplaced hope to motivate the masses.

During my first year in Charlottesville, VA, University of Virginia students mounted a large and long-lasting protest/propaganda campaign for a "Living Wage" for University employees. With the backing of the University Democrats, the "Living Wage" folks, decked out in t-shirts and buttons, flooded the school with flyers and posters demanding $10.72/hr for all entry-level employees. The "movement" culminated in a round-the-clock occupation of the President's office building, with students camping out on the front lawn and encouraging passersby to "Honk for a Living Wage!" University employees were conspicuously absent from the demonstrations, and, as it turned out, from the Living Wage Campaign's meetings as well. Perhaps they did not want to lose their jobs, or perhaps they weren't as outraged as the students themselves.

I remember being approached by one student organizer who asked me, "hey, would you be willing to get arrested?" The question struck me as odd, so odd that I actually listened to what the kid had to say. He and some of the more hardcore Living Wagers were going to sit-in until the cops came to arrest them, he told me, and their arrests would surely cause enough public outrage that President Casteen would have to compromise. "Well, no, actually I'm not willing to get arrested," I told him, "at least not for this." And, sure enough, about a dozen of the stalwart protesters wound up in the Charlottesville City Jail for a few hours one night in late spring. I've always wondered how much their protest cost the city courts. As for the "Living Wage" itself, it died away without the President's approval. Where did the number $10.72 come from, many students wanted to know. Turns out the Living Wagers borrowed the amount from a similar protest that took place in Washington DC. President Casteen praised the students' commitment to social justice, lamented their unfortunate decision to take their protest too far, and encouraged future protesters to remember that a "Living Wage" in DC and a "Living Wage" in Charlottesville are two different things. UVa employees, Casteen reminded us, begin several dollars above the state's minimum wage.

The "Living Wage" hoopla was one of my first experiences of political organizing -- if we might call it that -- on the local level. I was impressed by the entire event, especially by the students' ability to get the entire city fired up about the issue, on one side or the other. But the most powerful lesson I took away from the debacle was a bit less inspirational: it was the first time I was ever embarrassed by the confluence of idealism and over-zealousness. Well, maybe not.

Later in the article, in which Will accuses McCain of attempting to control political speech and markets (especially the pharmaceutical market) in non-Republican ways, Will recounts, "In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is 'the power of the pharmaceutical companies.' When Mitt Romney interjected, 'Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,' McCain replied, 'Well, they are.'" Again Will throws the apostate McCain to the Dems, but this time with less simple scorn and a bit more vitriol, one might even say unselfconscious over-zealousness: "There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichean simplicities. That place is the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream."

Will's charge is laughable at best. In recent years our Republican President has presided over an expansion of Manichean American rhetoric not seen since the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy. I doubt that even Richard Nixon would sling words like "evil" and "bad" around as recklessly as Bush has. Childish, over-simplifying phrases like "Axis of Evil" and "bad men" belong in comic books, not State of the Union Addresses. Worst of all, such rhetoric proves that the Bush administration holds the American public in very low esteem; only an idiot could swallow that kind of Manichean mumbo-jumbo without retching. Bush has presided over intellectual regression on a national level, refusing to engage in the sort of international diplomatic dialogue that acknowledges world leaders -- even enemies -- as sovereign heads of states that represent complex viewpoints and are woven into a complicated fabric of global issues, dilemmas, and geopolitical forces. Were we to follow George Bush with unblinking allegiance, we would have to agree that the world is made up of "good" people and nations and "bad" people and nations, and we would have to acknowledge "evil" as a real, unitary force in world politics. Manichean theology rests on a notion of an eternal struggle on Earth between "good" and "evil." When it comes to espousing such absurdly over-simplified notions of the world -- notions which, unfortunately, gain ground with seemingly intellectual work like Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilizations -- it's Republicans, not Dems, who have anointed themselves Masters of the Universe.

Trip to Colombia.

I've just returned from a three week trip to Colombia. I travelled around the city of Cali, home to more than three million Colombians, and the mountainous province of Quindío. Quindío contains some of Colombia's most beautiful mountain terrain. The lush hills are home to hundreds of small coffee plantations and plantain farms. The numerous valleys -- which must have been all but impenetrable before the advent of the automobile and modern roads -- are perfect for horse farms and cozy haciendas. The rugged terrain would be perfect for the guerilla, but for some reason which isn't quite clear to me, the guerilla have never found a foothold in Quindío. The military presence is strong, and, according to some of the people I was traveling with, the local identity of the "paisas" -- descendants of tough basque settlers -- works to ward of guerilla recruitment techniques. A successful coffee region for nearly a century, Quindío's citizens have not suffered the mass poverty suffered in other regions, where small farmers turned to illegal production of coca either by will or by force, and where youth respond to guerilla promises out of desperation or are conscripted at gunpoint. Now Quindío has a thriving tourism industry that attracts foreigners from Latin America and the broader world and also large numbers of Colombians with disposable income. In Quindío's small towns, one of which houses the national amusement park (Parque del Café), amidst advertisements for rafting trips, Senderos Ecologicos, and zipline canopy tours, it's easy to forget the reason for the large military presence. It's easy to forget that elsewhere in the country soldiers from other units patrol similar towns looking for signs of the guerilla. Other Colombian soldiers follow the sendero ecologico into ambush after ambush in the regions of Colombia where the guerilla remains strong, in many places stronger than the army.

In the city of Cali there are signs of a good deal of economic development. Notably, three or four enormous home improvement centers. Think Home Depot, but twice as big, so big that you can drive your car through the aisles (and you're supposed to, half of the store is drive-in-drive-out loading). There are also a slew of new shopping districts and beautiful restaurants designed with innovative architecture and boasting creative menus. Clearly there are a few thousand people with money to drop on new windows and tile flooring as well as chic dining. But what about everyone else? The slums are incredible, shanty towns lining dirt streets that turn to impassable mud with the first hint of rain. The overwhelming majority of Cali's residents live in poverty, and drug money offers one of the only escapes. Cali's small cadre of bourgeois citizens do not attempt to hide the fact that most of the signs of development are the result of trickle-down drug economics. The "traquetos" -- junior level narcotraficantes -- have a lot of cash on hand, and they're the ones keeping business afire at the city's shopping malls and discotechs. But narcotraffic is not sustainable, and certainly not a foundation for development. What will happen when narcotraffic crashes (if indeed it does crash)? Apparently Colombia is on the verge of signing a free-trade agreement with the United States. Perhaps free-trade will offer enough growth in the labor sector and sustainable manufacturing foundations to regrow the Colombian economy from the ground up. But the broad failures of NAFTA -- particularly for Mexicans -- do not offer much room for hope. Colombians are enjoying this period of growth, and well they should after more than a decade of total stagnation and paralyzing urban violence. But no one is without doubts, and no one will be surprised when dark days return.