As far as our involvement goes, I’m really not sure what it would look like. I think in terms of overall effectiveness, probably the best thing would simply be having more (non corrupt) police or other law enforcement mechanisms operating in especially dangerous regions. Even then, though, there’s only so much product and arms that can be seized. Though Calderón makes much of the seizures, claiming that he’s ’saved’ untold millions from 700,000,000+ doses of illicit drugs, if anything that demonstrates the magnitude of the operation at hand, as that’s surely only a small fraction.

Also, to clarify, I’m not ‘advocating’ involvement; I just can’t see further appreciable gains unless the US gets involved and even then I don’t think we would make much of an impact.

You might want to note:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_corruption.html

Just curious, what does American involvement in Mexico mean? Financial aid, training, advisory but non-combat US military deployments (a la Plan Colombia), or something else entirely? (I am cynically waiting for somebody in the US to start arguing for Predator strikes, our new favorite solution to everything it seems)

The divides within broad ethnic groups vary on not just tribal but political and local lines. They have more to do with politics of the village and mountain valley in eastern and south eastern Afghanistan, while notions of broader ethnic and tribal identity are most prevalent in western Afghanistan, and south western Afghanistan. Conflict between localities largely (which often have more to do with resource, property, and personal disputes than conflicts of a tribal nature) drives violence within Pashtuns, etc… Taliban propaganda tries to galvanize Pashtun nationalism, but Karzai and his enemies within the Pashtun ethnic group don’t view their identities this way.

So what exactly would a new Biden-Gelb plan federalize Afghanistan into? I agree institutions are the key to long-term Afghan stability, but division into Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek (how much further do we go? Nuristanis? Heratis?), is that what we’re supposed to be pursuing? To put it simply, is the difference between the basic counterinsurgency strategy of reinforcing government at both federal and local levels and the Biden-Gelb model that the latter will explicitly divide Afghanistan’s governing authority on ethnic and tribal lines rather than the existing provincial structure?

To do that we are reaching out to voters that want to Vote for Daggett but are afraid a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote. So…

The I’ll vote for Daggett Pledge:

“I want to vote for Chris Daggett, but only if he has a real chance of winning. He needs pledges from 100,000 people like me. I don’t want to wait til Election Day to find out that those votes existed, but we were all afraid to cast them. So, I’m signing my name below, with my address to prove that I’m real, and pledging that if 100,000 people like me sign up, I will vote for Daggett.”

Take the I’ll Vote For Daggett Pledge Here

Assume Israel halts settlement construction and removes its entire military presence from the West Bank, including roadblocks. Assume it takes down the separation barrier. Assume they end the isolation of Gaza. Assume they use these as preconditions to negotiations. Assume they don’t ask Palestinians for anything in return at that stage.

Would the two sides be able to reach an agreement, with or without American pressure? No. The problem is that large portions of Palestinian society will not accept any agreement with Israel and will fight as a result. It’s got nothing to do with American pressure.

Point #3: That’s undoubtedly true, but not really the point I was making. I was talking about motivations. It’s certainly possible to support a good thing like the secular-democratic character of Israel for bad reasons that have nothing to do with secular-democratic ideals. The belief in evangelical circles that America has a divine mission to protect Israel, to preserve it for the second coming of Christ (at which point all the Jews there will be anihillated as unbelievers) is a good example of this. A more general example: You can support freedom of speech because you believe in human rights and the essential role it plays in maintaining democracy, or you can support free speech because you’re in the Klan and want to spew racism without legal muzzling. Good reasons, Bad reasons.

Point #5: Perfect. NOW here is where a stereotypical AIPAC supporter and a stereotypical J Street supporter might differ: the latter would be more open to direct American pressure on Israel (say, the Obama administration’s insistence on halting settlement construction) while the former would be less inclined. For my part, I think that massive American pressure is the ONLY thing that can bring peace to the region because only America has the kind of leverage to compel actions toward peace from both sides. If Netanyahu refuses to stop settlements and Abbas refuses to take a stronger stand against the obvious hate-spewers and extremists within his own ranks, Obama should start running down the Israeli/Palestinian foreign aid list with a big red pen, and wave it around for the whole region to see. But that’s just my view….guess that would make me more of a J-Street supporter, if I didn’t think that lobbying and special interests in general are a huge corruption of the whole poltical process.

p.s. hi seth and will!