History Matters: Understanding Current Iranian Relations

In light of the recent unrest in Iran and heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, it is important to understand the historical path that has led us to this point.

In this light, I recently had the honor of reading Tim Werner’s book, Legacy of Ashes, the history of the CIA, an immaculately researched work based on the years the writer has written on Intelligence for the New York Times. Even I who suspect incompetence, exaggeration, and pure lying at every level am stunned. According to Werner, almost every action taken by the CIA since World War II has been illegal, dishonest, deceptive, and not successful in the long run. In the worst incidents, one of which I will attempt to outline, the results have been catastrophic for vast numbers of people. Millions have paid with their lives, torture and brutality have been let loose on the country, and certainly the results have been contrary to the best interests of the United States and the World in general. In this piece, I will deal with the situation in Iran and how it has been almost entirely created by the CIA, with some assistance from British Intelligence. It is entirely because of the CIA’s past meddling in Iran that Barack Obama must be very careful in his criticisms of recent events.

Imperial Past

It is incumbent on all observers of the Middle East to be aware of Persia’s ancient history. [ Iran was at that time known as Persia; I will use both names interchangeably.] Unlike most of the surrounding Arab states, which were all established by the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 at the end of World War I after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Persian History stretches back Millennium, and Persians are intensely proud of that history. Shortly before World War II, Britain purchased a controlling share of the Anglo- Persian oil company. At the time, these oil reserves were the largest known to the world.  For most of the next two decades Iran was run by a Cossack, Reza Khan, who seized power, proclaimed himself Shah of Persia, and held onto it through electoral fraud. During his reign, the British took the vast majority of the oil revenue. British oil executives enjoyed private clubs, while Iranian oil workers lived in deplorable conditions without electricity or running water. Iran asked for a 50/50 split of revenues with Britain, which was rejected outright.

In April 1951, the “Majlis,” a major group in the Iranian Parliament, voted to nationalize Iran’s oil production. Mohammed Mosaddeq who was voted as Iran’s prime minister a few days after the Majlis vote to nationalize the oilfields supported the issue and took it to the United Nations. The British immediately undertook an effort to try to depose Mosaddeq, and even drew up plans to invade and seize the oilfields.

The United States, while opposing any invasion, agreed to attempt a coup to depose the legitimate government that had been lawfully elected in a fully functioning democratic process. The CIA plot was code named, “Operation Ajax.” The plan was approved by President Eisenhower and the British Prime Minister. The CIA had previously stashed away sufficient funds and guns to support 10,000 tribal warriors for 6 months for another venture which had been shelved, and that money was now available for this effort.

The Coup

The CIA bribed Iranian Senators, Military Officers, and Publishers. They paid for and recruited Goon Squads to beat those opposed to the Coup. The coup was accomplished by a 3-pronged attack. First, the press denounced Mosaddeq as anti-Islamic, a Communist, and a Jew. Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets were also printed up and distributed, particularly around the capital of Tehran. The Shah was recruited and his forces were used to attack the heavily defended home of Mosaddeq. The coup was accomplished on August 19, 1953. It started with a demonstration in a gym by weightlifters and circus strongmen recruited by the CIA for the day. They shouted anti-Mosaddeq statements, and chanted, “Long live the Shah” while marching through the streets. The crowd joined them along with two major religious leaders, one being Ayatollah Khomeini, the future leader of Iran, after being exiled by the Shah. By the afternoon the CIA agents had seized control of Radio Iran. At least 100 people died that day, and at least 200 more perished when Mosaddeq’s house was invaded. The Prime Minister escaped, but later surrendered. He was imprisoned and later held under house arrest until his death.

The Shah was given 1 million dollars in cash and pronounced prime minister. He became the centerpiece of American Policy in the Middle East for years to come. The Shah maintained his position through a new intelligence service, the Savak, who were CIA trained. The Savak were to become reviled throughout Iran. Their powers allowed them to censor the press, arrest, and detain without any lawful process. Torture, starvation, and sleep deprivation were only some of the techniques for which they were to become reviled.

The Revolution

Revulsion against the Shah built up in Iran and among those exiled abroad. Finally by January 1979, demonstrations against the Shah could not be resisted, the Shah was toppled from his throne, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been exiled in France, was bought back to lead a new Islamic Republic. Unfortunately, as in most revolutions, the initial leaders often tend toward fanaticism and move to seizing all power in their own hands. It usually takes many years until the moderates ultimately gain enough support to overthrow them. The French Revolution and the Soviet Revolution are two good examples. The Ayatollah was true to historical form, crushing all opposition groups and centralizing power for himself and a few other radical clerics.

By November 1979, much of the population were enraged by the policies of the USA as described by the controlled press. Students who had been demonstrating outside the US embassy seized the embassy and all its employees. In total 52 diplomats were seized and imprisoned inside the embassy for a total of 444 days. Initially there had been calls by the students to execute the hostages, but eventually views softened, and diplomatic endeavors ultimately led to their release.

The War with Iraq

Less than a year after the hostages were released, Iraq invaded Iran. Many believe that the US was implicit in that invasion. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein felt emboldened to invade by US animosity toward Iran. The US did provide helicopters to Iraq and satellite intelligence to pinpoint bombing targets. The war was viscously fought by both sides, with estimates of casualties going as high as 2 million. To give some idea of the intensity I will cite 2 examples. First, when low on armaments, the Iranians sent children armed only with wooden rifles to overwhelm Iraqi lines. The children had been convinced that they were impermeable to bullets. These children were in turn mowed down by reluctant Iraqi forces. Similarly horrific was the use of human bodies in the marshes to the South. The Iraqis used Iranian bodies to fill ditches for their tanks to pass over. Saddam Hussein first tried his chemical weapons on Iranian troops in this war.

Finally in 1988 after 8 years of the terrible conflict, a ceasefire was effected, the border remained unchanged, 2 million were dead, and there was massive damage to the infrastructure of both countries. Just prior to the ceasefire, there was another incident by the US that made the Iranian view of the US even worse. A US warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civilian airliner resulting in 290 deaths. While the official investigation concluded that it was done in error, that was largely disbelieved by the Iranian public.

If we view the present turmoil in Iran through the eyes of those who have lived through these events, it is terribly obvious why Barack Obama must be very careful with his words about the present turmoil. If not for interventions by the CIA and British Intelligence, Iran might be a very different country today.

Recent Days

With this proper context, let’s now take a brief look at more recent events. Iran’s Supreme ruler is currently Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini after his death. The Supreme ruler controls the Armed Forces, Radio and TV, Security, the Chief Judge, and the Guardian Council. There is an elected council and president, who mainly deal with day-to-day governing matters and economics. Anyone who wishes to run for those positions must first be approved by a body loyal to the Supreme Leader. The rejection rate however is close to 80%. From 1997-2005, there was a moderately progressive President Sayed Mohammed Khatemi. However, he failed to deliver on any serious reformist policies.

It should be noted that directly after 9/11, there was a street demonstration of over 1 million in support of the US. All of this was support was lost by continuing US sanctions on Iran, the disastrous War in Iraq, and the Bush White House’s grouping of Iran in the “Axis of Evil.” In 2005, Sayed Mohammed Khatemi lost the presidential election to the ill informed, firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This swing to the right was probably largely a result of the three factors mentioned above.

Of course, during the recent election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected, likely by fraud. It is my opinion that the Supreme Leader did not wish to have a reformist President to deal with now that there was no longer George Bush in the White House, but rather the new more popular US President, Barack Obama. A moderate President was OK when the White House could be counted on to alienate the average Iranian, but could not be risked with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

What Does This All Mean?

How it will all play out is anyone’s guess. Effective change is unlikely as the Military and Security services are protected from the poverty and poor economy suffered by the average Iranian. It is encouraging that the Obama administration has chosen a policy of engagement, rather than strict neoconservative rigidity. However, engagement alone will not be the magic bullet needed to fully reverse a century of bad blood, imperialism, and CIA sponsored coups. When dealing with Iran in this light, incremental progress on any front will be a huge step forward.

Springtime for the Taliban: Afghanistan Needs a New Model

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to come out of eight years of American intervention in Afghanistan is the apparent inability of the Afghans themselves to decide what they want to be when they grow up.  Sure, that sounds like an average dose of lip service in this climate unless you consider the UN definition of “a failed state.” Afghanistan currently ranks seventh on the Failed State Index (FSI), a sort of Unfortunate 500 for dysfunctional nations. Somalia and its happy band of pirates is number one. For the purpose of perspective – out of a total of 177 UN recognized countries.

Previous US administrations somehow came upon the idea that the American model of a democratically elected government in a highly secular and tribal chunk of real estate was just the thing “to bring peace and stability to the region.”  Where have we heard this wistful speech before?  Probably somewhere between “winning the hearts and minds,” and if all else fails we’ll carpet bomb the daylights out of them until they come to their senses.  How does a country with a little more than 250 years of civility conclude that one system fits all, that it is the right system, or if it is even that useful of a system?  More importantly, is it exportable?

The US has spent more time in Afghanistan than was invested in all of World War II and Korea combined. To date, the Afghan government has made little progress toward establishing anything close to a stable government.  The country continues along the same path of sectional violence, the US led coalition now morphed into the role of neighborhood cop.  A great unifying tactic if it wasn’t for the body count.  The State Department meanwhile pushes the importance of elections and parliamentary process, which totally ignores the traditional power structures of Afghan society; those that encompass family ties, community obligation, and whichever interpretation of Islam that gets practiced in the neighborhood.   All eyes are told to look to the West.  Perhaps a better answer lies much closer to home:

Today the Turkish nation is called to defend its capacity for civilization, its right to life and independence – its entire future.

–Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1920.

Kemal (Ataturk was added later – something like ‘Father of the Turks’) had just made a pretty remarkable set of announcements.  They included:

• The end of the Ottoman Empire.  Well, it was almost dead before World War I anyway.
• The abolishment of the Caliphate.  (Political authority under Islam.)
• The formation of the secular Republic of Turkey.
• The unacceptable state surrounding British occupation.

And the need for the Armenians in the east and the Greeks in the west to relocate elsewhere. There was no place for Orthodox Christianity in the new Republic.

About the Man

Mustafa Kemal was born in Salonika (now part of Greece) in 1881.  Most of his early history has been revised so often that most versions lack credibility. Raised in the Muslim faith, a product of military schools, he later served with great distinction as a Lt. Colonel and division commander at the battle of Gallipoli, orchestrating one of the greater defeats the allied forces suffered in the First World War.  A great fan of the West and particularly The Enlightenment (having been assigned to Paris and the Balkans at varying points), he also fully embraced the potential power of the media, using newspapers (often his own creations) extensively in his nationalist pursuits.  Above all, he believed that the only way to save Turkey from complete partition by the allied powers was to establish a modern, secular republic.  In his words, “Islam and civilization are a contradiction in terms.”

The Background

Things were going badly on the western front for the British and French in World War I.  Russia was taken out by both the Nationalist and Bolshevik revolutions.  Britain’s attack at Gallipoli, (Australian and New Zealand forces, ANZAC) was aimed at knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war.  Instead it turned into a rout.  Britain then tried to turn the Arabs (with T.E. Lawrence’s deft assistance) against the Turks, promising them an Arab state for their trouble.  Naturally that was a lie, the one apparent constant in British colonial policy.  The Allies won the war, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned by the Treaty of Sevres creating what today are known as Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and of course, Iraq.  The Sultan was left in Istanbul as a British puppet and Kemal fled to Ankara with plans to turn Anatolia into his new republic. He was able to deceive the British and the Arab world just long enough to consolidate his forces in Anatolia, a process pushed along by his creation of opposing media outlets.  The Arab world believed he was fighting to preserve the Sultan and the Caliphate, the British assumed that his services were already on the colonial payroll.  By the time the British realized his intentions, they were already outgunned, out-manned and out maneuvered. In 1923, they signed the Treaty of Lausanne ending hostilities.  The Republic of Turkey was born.

Much of the internal struggle dividing Islam and adding fuel to sectarian violence seems to surround the Caliphate, which is best described as both a person and a thing. One of the chief splits in Islam, the chasm separating Sunni and Shi’a communities is based on the interpretation of Muhammad’s successor as sole authority on Islamic law. Each side accuses the other of being usurpers in a centuries long dispute over who has the right to read the mind of a dead prophet.  Many political and social issues in Islam today fail to achieve any real clarity while the two camps continue to hold on to conflicting interpretations of religious doctrine.  This is further complicated (or exasperated) by the very notion of Islamic Law, a shadowy domain where the words of the prophet Mohammad somehow hold credence with something as innocuous as the local traffic code. By all accounts it is an archaic system, one reminiscent of The Inquisition, but accepted in many quarters of the Muslim world.  Judging its validity is not the point, accepting its existence is, for the idea of belief is not validated by the structural framework of a society, though it is that very framework that accelerates the rift.  Kemal argued that Islamic Law was part of the “nomadic Bedouin custom,” totally unsuitable in the development of a complex, modern society.  That is difficult to argue against given the global interaction of nations today.  Countries like Egypt and Israel have both found it necessary to operate parallel courts to accommodate issues of marriage and personal conduct, but not civil law.  Religious law as the fundamental tenet of a nation is little more than locking the door and keeping the key.  All social, educational, and political exchange stops. No common ground is allowed to exist on this dogmatic, unilateral dead-end street.  America was founded on the premise of religious persecution elsewhere, that in turn, sanctioned by the state.  The road to modernity through democratic ideals couldn’t traverse the murky ground of theological interpretation. Noted historians, Will and Ariel Durant once stated that “the Bible is a great book, a great tale, but if you had to live by it, you’d go crazy.” Then again, modernity may be our point, not the point.

Constantinople (Istanbul) had been the official seat of the Caliphate since about 1514.  The last recognized Caliph was Abd al Majid II who with his family was exiled to Paris following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.  Kemal found this action necessary in order to create an Islamic republic based on civil law, not theology.  This was naturally viewed as an extreme form of heresy, particularly in the Sunni Arab world, complicated further by the establishment of language laws that reverted Arabic to second class status in both government and religious proceedings, though some laws were moderated later. In itself, this was an offshoot of his policies on nationalization, but it also played into his desire to create a literate, inclusive society.  Again, in opposition to fundamentalism which he saw as “a way of promoting intellectual stagnation” by authorizing religion to define social progress, including the very function of government itself.  Oddly, the Caliphate seemed to end there.  Saudi Arabia did not attempt to re-establish it at Mecca, undoubtedly since it would threaten their position as an absolute monarchy, and it was only briefly claimed by the Taliban following the Soviet departure from Afghanistan.

Kemal was brilliant in many ways, but he was no saint.  His orchestration of the Armenian exodus was as brutal as any forced deportation.  He stacked the military with believers in his own cause and seemed more than willing to arbitrate disputes at the gallows.  Within Turkey he was seen as both savior and despot; in the fundamentalist world, a Doenmeh (a closet Jew), an alcoholic, a homosexual, a womanizer and a heretic – personal attacks that continue long after his death.  The real truth is as clouded as the newspapers Kemal himself used to create.  Yet today, Turkey remains a somewhat stable republic in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth.  Not perfect, but functional.

Lessons for Afghanistan

The opportunity for a more progressive society in Afghanistan was probably lost shortly after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. In the vacuum that followed, the same Mujahedeen we once funded became the Taliban we now hunt.  Instead of rebuilding schools and infrastructure, promoting education and a sense of inclusion, we simply walked away, leaving the task largely to under-funded NGO’s and a lot of wishful thinking. The Taliban, falsely claiming the right to the Caliphate sought to force an Islamic state on the people of Afghanistan as an alternative to both communist autocracy and western indifference – two models of what they saw as a similar dysfunction.  The United States supplied much of the fodder for the Taliban position by reinforcing beliefs that Islam alone would see to the needs of the Afghan people, faith having been the sole unifying factor over ten years of Soviet occupation.  Education should have been the tool of choice to defeat a return to fundamentalism, not merely the establishment of a western leaning central government, manufactured primarily as a base for US influence in the region. No one seemed interested in the greater investment in literacy, the real slayer of despotism, secular or political, and the one indispensable ingredient in democracy. Afghanistan claims a 28% literacy rate among men, women an even more dismal 12%; Turkey, 87% overall.  The Taliban know this and they fear a literate populous far more than anything our armories can ever produce.  But we can’t export a system if nobody can understand the instructions.

Turkey’s example may be a harsh one by American standards, but it allowed the time necessary to go from a shooting war to the process of nation building in a realistic time frame. That element of time is probably what has always hampered American foreign policy, the impatience inherent in the very system we seek to sell.  Any parent will tell you that it takes twenty years or so to educate and develop a child into an adult.  Americans tire of foreign intrigue as quickly as they tire of presidents.  This lack of continuity is not only a result of the fickle nature of American politics in general, but the bad decisions orchestrated by a system in constant flux.  We don’t even bother to apologize since the person that set the policy is never around to finish it anyway.  When Kemal died in 1938 from chronic liver disease, he left behind a far more literate society than he inherited.  Right or wrong in his methodology, he did bequeath them the tools necessary for choice, the one thing the fundamentalist camp can never accept.

The question for Americans is whether we can endure a long-haul assignment, one that begins with security and ends with an informed society, one that just might decide that our model isn’t their model.  That’s the risk of intervention.  If US policy is confined to simply destroying the Taliban, then we’ve already lost this one.  If something else is on the table, this would be a pretty good time for a new President and a revamped State Department to explain just what that might be.

A Health Care Letter to the President

Mr. Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC  20001

Dear Mr. President:

I have a little problem.  My little problem, however, is part of a big problem – Health Care in America. It is a problem for all Americans.   I want to help you fix this problem. My individual experiences make me both passionate and uniquely qualified to help change health care in America to make our country a better place to live and work.

First, a short history of my little problem: I am a 49 year old American who moved to the UK ten years ago. I was a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of an international health care company, and I accepted an assignment in Glasgow, Scotland for a 6-months stint that somehow turned into ten years. While staying true to my American roots, I have enjoyed my stay in the UK and enjoyed a successful career – except for one little glitch when in 2005, I was diagnosed with tonsil cancer. Six months of intensive treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) has been followed by three years of aftercare.  All of my care was provided efficiently and effectively by the wonderful, capable doctors and nurses working for the National Health Service (NHS) here in Scotland. In some ways, I consider myself fortunate that I was diagnosed with this terrible disease while in the UK where I had access to the NHS to provide care.

But, now my little problem: I would like to move back to the U.S., but cannot – because no insurance company will come near a cancer survivor like me.  So, every summer, I visit my family for two weeks, and every April 15th, I send the IRS a check for my U.S. taxes for the privilege of being a U.S. citizen. And I now wait until I am 65, when I will be covered by Medicare, to return to my home  – this, of course,  is fifteen years away.   This, Mr. President, is no way to run a country.

Ironically, since I have worked as a financial executive for various health care companies for over 20 years – I understand all too well why insurance and health care companies run the other way when they see me coming. As a cancer survivor, I am a big, fat financial liability waiting to happen.  I also know that there are ways I can “sneak” into the U.S. health care system by getting a job with an employer with an insurance plan or otherwise getting into a group plan and hoping that preexisting conditions do not trip me up sometime in the future.  But then again, I know those insurance underwriters are smart and vigilant (that is what they are paid to do); they are continually finding ways to exclude the high risk patients from their insured population. And even if I do get into an insurance plan, I would imagine the fine print of the policy would find a way to exclude me if I became a major liability.  So, is this really any way to live my life?  Is this really any way for anyone to live their life?  Is this any way to run the greatest country in the world?

So for now, I will remain here in the UK. I know the UK is not perfect, and it has its own health care issues. But I know one thing is certain – if I show up at the hospital in the UK diagnosed with cancer again, I will be treated, and I will not be financially ruined.  The peace of mind this gives me is more than enough reason for me to stay here in the UK until we solve our little health care problem in America.

As I said at the beginning, my little problem is really an American problem.  The real problem is that millions of other Americans who have similar or worse tales of woe and do not have a solution.  They come in all shapes and sizes. Someone gets ill and then loses his or her job and health insurance coverage, and someone’s illness is excluded from insurance because of the fine print in the policy, for example because of preexisting conditions that were either conveniently or inconveniently forgotten at the beginning of a policy. The circumstances are wide and varied.   Far too many people in America live in fear or ignorance of a health care event which can be catastrophic to themselves and their family.  The free market system of American health care has developed in to a multi-headed hydra which is designed more for making profits than for caring for the sick – or even keeping people from getting sick in the first place.

I am passionate about helping fix the problem.  I offer my services to you as cancer survivor, as an experienced financial executive, and as an American who wants to make the country a better place in which to live.  I will consider any role in your administration (or indeed anywhere in the U.S.) which will put me in a position to help fix health care in America.  I want to come home and help, but the irony is that I can’t come home until I get my health insurance sorted.

My compensation for providing such services is simple.  My compensation will be to once again live in a country where if I (or anyone) am diagnosed with cancer (or any major disease), I will be treated and I will not be financially ruined.  The peace of mind that comes with this end result will be more than enough reward for any service that I can provide.

Thank you for your consideration.

I remain a U.S. citizen, proud of America, and missing my home.

Warren McInteer

Glasgow

United Kingdom

P.S. I have written also written a two part series for Demockracy.com on the subject that goes into more detail regarding the problems and solutions of U.S. health care.  If you are so inclined, please look at these pieces and let us begin the work to fix American health care:

Health Care in America: A Time for Change

Health Care in America: A Way Forward

Fiscal Implications of Illegal Immigration

Unlike a few years ago, there has been relatively little talk about illegal immigration in the last two years. With both presidential candidates holding similar views, there was rarely a mention during the recent campaign. In 2008, Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the non-partisan research organization, Pew Hispanic Center (PHC), reported that there has been virtually no growth in the illegal immigration population to the United States since 2006. The reason is likely because of the recession and the lack of jobs in the United States. While the poor economy is currently thwarting illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., there are still critical fiscal problems caused by illegal immigration that cannot be totally ignored.

The Issue

The PHC estimates that there to be about 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.  In 2004, 49% of illegal immigrants were high school dropouts as opposed to 21% for legal immigrants and 11% for natives.  Low education often leads to low-skill jobs and low pay and thus an inability to climb the economic ladder of success and pay a higher share of taxes.

In addition, legal taxpayers are paying for many illegal immigrants health care bills. Since many illegal immigrants are below the federal poverty line, they often have to rely on social services such as uncompensated health care which is predominantly funded by cost-shifting to legal taxpayers with insurance. In Texas, the state controller estimated that illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state’s annual cost at $1.4 billion. In Colorado and Minnesota for 2005, the costs were estimated to be $31 million and $17 million respectively.

Although some illegal immigrants do pay taxes to the government, the Census Bureau found in 2002 that households headed by illegal immigrants used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes.  According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the total K-12 school costs for illegal immigrants costs the nation nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born to illegal immigrants were added, the costs go up to $28.6 billion.  This is problematic at a time when states are cutting public school budgets and laying off teachers, students are often overcrowded in classrooms, and some schools are even thinking of changing the five day school week to four days due to lack of funds.

Possible Solutions

One possible solution to decrease illegal immigration is to make it simpler to enter and stay in the U.S. legally. Currently, the estimated waiting period to get a Permanent Residency Card is three years. On average, a person has to stand in government lines for a total of 45 hours to obtain a Permanent Residency card.  There either has to be less paperwork or more people need to be hired to move the paperwork in the process.

In order to stop the flow of illegal immigration, it must be physically impossible for illegals to enter the U.S. And in order for that to happen, the borders must be secured with precision. All United States borders must be secured with manpower trained to inspect and detect illegal immigrants. The government must make it a priority for the safety of its citizens to secure all borders. As such, there needs to be more funding and training for Homeland Security.

Additionally, anyone applying for a visa should be screened for criminal history in their native country before receiving a visa. Foreigners with temporary visas should be fingerprinted, with the information saved in computers, to be checked if they are overstaying their permitted time period. Once an illegal immigrant is identified, deportation must be carried out in an efficient, yet fair manner. It is therefore necessary for better cooperation between federal and state government agencies. In addition, foreign diplomacy must be culturally sensitive and humane.

For those illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. and are identified, there should be a priority list of who gets deported first based upon criteria such as knowledge of the English language, whether there is an economic need for their services, how long they have lived in the U.S., and how many family members are currently citizens.

Amnesty should be granted to some illegal immigrants because of the fiscal and logistical constraints to mass deportation. If it saves time, resources, and money to keep many illegal immigrants in the U.S. as opposed to deporting them,  then they should be permitted to stay in the U.S. These illegal immigrants would be given temporary amnesty and the opportunity to file for legal permanent residency as long as they met a certain predefined set of rules. In Britain, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that it would save Britain $4.7 billion pounds in deportation costs and raise $1 billion pounds in taxes if they did not deport their illegal immigrant population (assuming they had the ability to do so).  The Center for American Progress estimates that it would cost $41 billion to deport the over 10 million illegal residents in the U.S.

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to prevent illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration. In order to do this, the government must increase intelligence, border security, investigation, outreach, and interstate and foreign diplomacy. It must be evident that coming to the U.S. illegally is a disadvantage and that entering the U.S. legally makes one deserving of public benefits. By doing so, the U.S. will improve its fiscal status during times of economic hardship for all its legal citizens who are currently not receiving the full benefits of their hard earned fiscal contributions to their country.

Harry, Are We There Yet?

On January 3, 2009, just one week ago, the 111th U.S. Congress was sworn into session. So now that all the dust has settled, where do things stand? The dust has settled, right?

Well, things are pretty straightforward in the House where the exact number of the Democratic majority matters little at this point. With a comfortable majority, even when subtracting conservative blue-dog Dems, most legislation will be a foregone conclusion. Of course, the Senate with its arcane rules and blue-blood past has always been the voice of idiocy and reason at the same time. This is not a new phenomenon. President Garfield is famous for allegedly responding to his wife’s call that robbers were in their house, with a quip of “No, my dear, not in the House, but there are plenty in the Senate.”

Nothing controversial gets done in the Senate, of course, unless you can somehow muster 60 odd votes for your particular bill. With that said, I began to ask myself what exactly is the makeup of the Senate as of today, the 11th of January.  The number of Republicans looks fairly certain.  With Norm Coleman losing the recount in Minnesota and with Illinois refusing to hold a special election, there will be almost certainly 41 Republicans in the upcoming session. However, after that it gets a little tricky. Right now, there are 53 Democratic Senators, not including Joe Biden, who is still a Senator and who will also become vice president in a week. Biden stayed on, unlike Obama, because he got a photoop with Dick Cheney while being sworn in for his seventh six-year term. (Perhaps he and Cheney can talk about whether Biden will actually be switching branches of the government next week.)

So that leaves us with 94 total Senators. Who else is left? Well, there is also one Benedict Liebercrat and one Ben-and -Jerry socialist (Bernie Sanders, Vermont), making 96. But this is not a Lost episode, and I am not having a flashback to before Hawaii became our forty-ninth state in the year my mother was born. Instead, what we have here is four Democratic Senators in limbo, with only one assured of actually becoming a Senator.

Still confused?

Well, let’s take a brief look at all four of these individuals who could potentially fill out the remaining four spots. Or at least at three of them. Or maybe at two.

1. Well, we know who one will be for sure anyhow, Ted Kaufman of Delaware. Mr. Kaufman, a long-time aide to Joe Biden, will be a two-year seat warmer for Joe’s son Beau to continue the nepotism tradition of the Senate. I think we can agree that Mr. Kaufman’s isn’t all that interesting, so let’s move on.

2. Next in the order of likelihood is either Al Franken or Roland Burris. Now these two, unlike Mr. Kaufman, are very interesting stories. Mark Wilson gave a good background about the legalities surrounding the Burris appointment. In short, Burris is the legitimate appointment of illegitimate and recently impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. First, Harry Reid appeared to be playing hard ball, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms (no, this is not Britain) even went as far as denying Mr. Burris’ credentials this past week. However, as the days go on, it looks likely that Burris will probably become the junior senator from Illinois. Well, unless Blago is actually convicted by the Illinois Senate before the U.S. Senate finally caves. The fact that some, including Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush, are comparing the treatment of Burris to a lynching, makes it likely that Mr. Reid will capitulate.

3. The other interesting individual here is a comedian who is ahead by only 225 votes after a two-month recount. Famous for his Saturday Night Live role as Stuart Smalley, Franken looks to be good enough and smart enough to actually become Minnesota’s Senator. However, unlike in Illinois, where the law is probably on Burris’ side, Franken still legally is not allowed to be sworn in as Senator, and it’s not exactly clear when that might change. Incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, who had a few hundred-vote lead before the recount of all the lizard people votes, has filed a lawsuit, and Minnesota law states that the results cannot be certified until this is settled. Yes, Franken will most likely pull this out at the end of the day (or month or winter), but it’s not completely over yet.

4. Finally, we get to the seat that, although everyone this side of Cher is lobbying for it, hasn’t actually had anyone appointed to it yet. New York Governor David Paterson, who is apparently too scared to tick off either the Kennedy or Cuomo family, has waited nearly two months and still has not selected anyone to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. We know it will likely be a political scion–we just don’t know which one yet.

You’ve probably noticed that I’ve linked to a few other previous articles that I have written in the past. This isn’t because I’m feeling cocky or self-important tonight. Rather, it’s to demonstrate a point. We have been in purgatory season for U.S. national politics for the past two months, with only Senate seat payoffs, tainted ballots, and dinosaur bailouts to keep our domestic palate wet. Thankfully, this long national political nightmare is about to come to an end. No, I’m not talking about the Bush presidency (although that will be nice as well). Rather, the dead zone between the election and inauguration is finally almost over, and we will at last have some fresh new policy to talk about in the coming months. Now we can start debating important things, like how long until the new Congress actually passes meaningful legislation. Nancy Pelosi has promised to keep the House in business through its President’s day vacation if the Stimulus package is not passed yet. Harry Reid has made no such promises. The word on the street is that the House might even reintroduce the State Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion bill again as soon as this coming week.

I’m starting to feel excited about U.S. national politics again. Kind of like a kid who might be lucky enough to find health insurance under the Christmas tree (and maybe a tax cut after that). How in God’s name did people wait until March for this dead season to end back in the days when there were actually supposed to be 96 Senators?

Obama’s Progressive Street Cred

The selection of Rick Warren for the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration is troubling, to say the least. Many progressives are rightly outraged at the selection of a man who is virulently anti-choice and homophobic. Yet, this is only the latest in a series of Obama decisions that has left many progressives wondering who it was, exactly, they voted for. Apparently, “change” looks a lot like the Clinton administration. Rahm Emanuel is back. So is Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General. Most conspicuous of all, Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. A bevy of liberal-but-not-quite-progressive apologists have tried to explain away all of Obama’s decisions. Here is a list of some of their justifications:

• Obama is pursuing Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” approach. Authors of this justification also cite Lyndon Johnson’s phrase: it’s better to keep one’s enemies “on the inside, pissing out” rather than “on the outside, pissing in.” By keeping his enemies in the White House, those enemies are not in Congress or on K Street trying to defeat his plans.
• Remember how we all said for six months that Obama’s qualifications don’t matter? Not so much. As such, he’s surrounding himself with a group of people who have experience working in a presidential administration, and the last Democratic presidency was Bill Clinton’s, so it only makes sense that he would choose people from there.
• Obama is sneakier than he seems (think I, Claudius, I suppose). He’s putting a lot of center-left (and, in some cases, center-right) Washington establishment politicians in key positions to pay lip service to that establishment. Don’t worry, it’s only a front. The real reforms are going to happen, but from behind a veil of mainstream non-reform. That’s the only way he can get things done down there.
• Obama does not want to continue the divisive politics of George W. Bush. Even though it might anger those on the hard left, Obama would rather heal and reconcile than punish.  Turn that cheek!

Some of these justifications are disturbing. The last one, that Obama should be conciliatory instead of punitive, is put forth by people who believe that the crimes of the George W. Bush administration should not be investigated. The country needs to heal, they say. It’s time to get on with the business of the United States, where “business” is defined so as to exclude investigations of the previous administration. Of course, this logic ignores the fact that the law has been broken. As Glenn Greenwald has observed, politicians are more than ready to throw the full force of the law at marijuana dealers, but when it comes to prosecuting their own, politicians are equally ready to be lenient, even though the marijuana dealer harmed no one and the politician may have, oh, I don’t know, been responsible for torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping at the least. When crimes are committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted – not just for poor people, but for everyone, including politicians. For Barack Obama to suggest that Bush administration criminals should go free is to suggest that politicians live in a special class above the reach of the law. It also encourages more illegal activity in the future, once it is known that the government won’t prosecute those activities.

Furthermore, it’s not even up to Barack Obama to decide what is or is not investigated. The cult of personality surrounding him is great (in fact, it contributed to getting him elected), but even though we like him we must not forget that, as the president, he has constitutional limitations. It was irresponsible for the media to even ask what Barack Obama thought about Joe Lieberman being kicked out of the Democratic caucus. On November 5, Obama’s life as a senator ended, even though he didn’t officially resign the position until three weeks later. The president has absolutely no say – none! – in the operation of Congress. It would be different if Obama were acting in his capacity as a senator, but after winning the presidential election, especially in a nation eager for a new leader, any notion of Obama acting solely in his capacity as a senator would be extremely naïve. Obama must repudiate the unconstitutional powers that George W. Bush has claimed for himself, either through complete fabrication or malicious misreading of constitutional law.

Given his opinion of things like same-sex marriage (he tactfully says that same-sex couples should not be allowed to “marry” as such, but then says that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples), NAFTA/CAFTA, and Israel, no one could confuse him for a true progressive. Obama’s apologists rationalize his decisions by pointing out that Obama never claimed to be a progressive at all!

Or could they? George W. Bush’s method of saying-without-saying is well-documented. While he never explicitly said that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks, there is definitely a reason why, in 2001, virtually no Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible, but in 2003, one third of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible.

Could it be that Barack Obama, whose campaign P.R. was spectacular, performed the same saying-but-not-saying function? Yes, it is entirely possible that Obama clothed himself in the cloak of progressivism while still wearing the mainstream Democrat’s clothes underneath. He has suggested massive new spending on entitlement programs, but he wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but he voted in favor of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the administration in warrantless wiretapping. His foreign policy goals consist of using real diplomacy instead of threats, but he voted in favor of NAFTA. He wants to provide government health care for people who have no health care, but he stops short of suggesting a universal-payer system like Canada’s or Great Britain’s. Obama’s positions are a wash: for every progressive-sounding idea, there is another conservative-sounding one to balance it out.

Or, on the other hand, it could be that Obama never suggested anything, but that he was forthcoming about his non-progressive credentials. It could be that we, the progressive Americans, were so thirsty for a change that we latched onto the only candidate (outside of Dennis Kucinich) who even brought up the issue of health care reform (at those early Republican primary debates, not a single candidate brought up the issue of health care), social reform, and getting out of Iraq (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards failed on at least one of these). We projected onto him the candidate we wanted him to be, ignoring the fact that he was not that candidate. Did we set ourselves up for disappointment? Yes, that is possible, too.

And then there’s the argument that all this complaining is pointless, that Obama isn’t even the president yet, and we should all just wait and see what happens on Jan. 20. Well, Rick Warren will happen Jan. 20, and that gives me even less optimism that, at noon on that day, Obama will suddenly throw aside his centrist mask and shout, “You fools! You thought I was just like Bill Clinton! But you were wrong! Free health care for everybody!” Agreeing to take part in Warren’s Saddleback (which sounds dangerously like “bareback”) debate with John McCain, Obama could conceivably have been seen as paying lip service to evangelical Protestantism, just like every president since Nixon has had to do. But putting Warren on the bill for Inauguration Day? Imagine if George W. Bush had hired Hillary Clinton to give a speech at his second inauguration. Yeah, it’s like.

Most troubling in my opinion, though, is Obama’s own insistence, ever since March of 2007, when he announced his candidacy, that he is not an ordinary politician. His grassroots, fifty-state strategy was unparalleled in its success. His speech about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was intelligent and it treated the American people as though they, too, could understand long speeches that contained nuanced thoughts, as opposed to the Manichean sound bites of George W. Bush. His political maturity happened after the Vietnam War era, and, as Andrew Sullivan has suggested, the very core of his being is not instilled with a reflexive fear of Republicans and conservatism.

Conservatism demands the acknowledgment of a false dualism in every aspect of life, with the promise that conservatism will lead people to the correct side of this duality. Democrats buy into this framework and then try to argue the opposite side. The true progressive would never let the Republicans frame the debate and then proceed to work within their ill-conceived framework. To the progressive, there is no debate about whether or not health care should be free, or if there should be a premium for minimum services, or if the government should control it. The answer is: the current system of privatized health care doesn’t work and it should not be repaired, it must be rebuilt from the ground up. Obama appeared unafraid to work outside the existing framework and create a new framework that works in the interests of everyone. “Should it be a public solution or a private solution?” is not the correct question. “What solution is best for the country?” Now that’s the right question. It’s a question that Obama appeared to be asking during the campaign, but one that is being substituted by justifications for increasingly conservative behavior.

A Scottish Bounce? Labour Stuns the SNP

If British Prime Minister Gordon Brown completes an unbelievable rise from the realm of a political dead man walking, he’ll have his native Scotland to thank. In what was thought only months ago to be the last stand for the Prime Minister,  there came a resounding victory in the Glenrothes, Scotland by-election on last November 6th.  Of course, the electoral statement of Scottish voters is a reaction to the economic realities of the day. It is the end product, not the cause. However, it will nonetheless be remembered as a symbolic watershed moment if Mr. Brown is to complete an amazing Labour comeback in time for the general election, which could occur as early as next spring. While most opinion polls have shown the Tories up by least 10-15 percentage points for most of the calendar year, the most the most recent opinion poll shows the Tories clinging to a mere 41-35% advantage.

So what happened at Glenrothes?

The open seat was caused by the death of Labour MP John MacDougall, who won comfortably in his 2005 reelection bid. However, in 2007, the Scottish National Party (SNP) took over the Glenrothes council and won the nearby Scottish parliament seat of Central Fife. In general, the SNP’s rise over the past few years has been indirectly correlated with the fortunes of the Labour party. Labour had recently lost two safe seats, Crewe and Nantwich and Glasgow East, both in by-elections. In fact, SNP First Minister Alex Salmond’s rhetoric recently has been very confident about taking most Scottish seats in the next general election. What made this seat all the more symbolic is that Prime Minister Brown resides over a neighboring district. Glenrothes was seen by many for months as the possible impetus to finally overthrow the unpopular Prime Minister.

However, to the surprise of many, Labour candidate Lindsay Roy, who happens to be the headmaster at Mr. Brown’s old school, defeated the Scottish National Party candidate Peter Grant by a resounding 18 percentage points.

What likely caused this surprise Labour victory?

First of all, one shouldn’t discount former American Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill’s famous words that “all politics is local.” The local SNP-controlled council has made some unpopular decisions regarding taxes that undoubtedly didn’t help them at the polls.

However, I believe the larger lesson lies in the current financial crisis. Although Prime Minister Brown shares much blame in the lack of fiscal control during the boom times that is now somewhat impeding the actions of the government, he does have much credibility economic issues, being the former finance minister. With the financial crisis as his opportunity, Mr. Brown has begun to govern as a populist who is out to help the people from the excesses of the market (of course ignoring the fact that he certainly didn’t help to prevent these excesses). Bailout of banks? Of course. Overall, this bounce could likely recede as times continue to get tougher for several generations of British who have never collectively experienced tough times outside of the history books. Will Labour call an early election? Probably not.  My belief is that 2010 is a safe bet. However, one thing is clear–Gordon Brown and Labour are far from dead.

What about the SNP?

Simply put, regional parties and the sentimentalism that comes with talk of Scottish independence are great ideas in better times. However, in tough economic times, one must look at practicalities and absolutes, and not at historical idealism. How would an independent Scotland be fairing in the current economic crisis? Probably as well as Iceland, which has been a Scottish example for independence in better times. Of course Britain is not exactly in the best shape right now either, but its diverse economy has the ability to weather this shock much better than would an independent Scotland. Local rule for local issues? SNP control of local councils? Of course. However, sending regional-minded representatives to Parliament during a global economic downturn may not be as popular in the days ahead.