how to understand Pakistan

What a mess! Our putative ally, recipient in billions of dollars in aid in recent years, lies to us, gives aid and comfort to groups attacking us and our other allies, has nuclear weapons, and lacks an effective civilian government. The Pakistani people hate the United States and believe incredible and untrue things about us. We are classic co-dependents who can't stand each other but desperately need each other for certain things. The best analysis I've seen recently is this piece in the Atlantic by Jeffery Goldberg and Marc Ambinder. It's more sobering than reassuring.

politics with a historical dimension

I usually like books with a point of view. They are much more interesting to read than "one hand/other hand" works, or ones where the reader is never really sure what the author is trying to say. Here's a fascinating book that traces U.S. political segmentation back to early colonial settlements and later migration patterns -- Colin Woodard's "American Nations."

Woodard describes eleven regional "nations" of North America and argues that they each have strong unifying cultures that keep them separate even today, despite some recurring broad regional alliances.His case is probably overstated -- so I'd like to see a rebuttal by another historian -- but he argues it persuasively and with ample documentation to quite respected historical studies. His work also falls short in predictive value, but it does explain in more nuanced detail than I've seen before the differences, for example, between the "Deep South" and "Greater Appalachia," and between "Yankeedom" and the "Midlands." As a Colorado native, I've always felt that politics in my state were quite different from either New England liberalism or southern or midwestern conservative. Woodard gives a plausible explanation based on their motives for migration and their discomfort at being dependent on eastern bankers and railroad owners as well as on the Federal Government.

congressional dysfunction

I've been otherwise engaged lately, confining my comments to my class.  One recent discovery deserves broader attention -- the article by propublica exploring the reasons for congressional dysfunction and including many links to excellent articles by Norm Ornstein and others. The explanations are not surprising  -- party polarization, preoccupation with the money chase, hyper-vigilant and hyper-active media, and a belief that minor disputes merit battles to the death -- but they are well argued and well documented. Regrettably, nobody has a silver bullet answer. I have long shared Norm Ornstein's view that greater socialization would help, and that that could be promoted by forcing members to spend more time in Washington, ideally with their families in town. I also wish that something could be adopted to limit the money chase. But both of those changes seem unlikely in the short run. A key point in this article that usually doesn't get mentioned enough is that most of the changes date from the mid-1990s and especially the Gingrich revolution that drastically changed politics in the House of Representatives. The years before were different, and better. I wish they could be recaptured.

private pay for public work

As a retired federal employee, I resent the ill-informed criticism of federal workers and the recurring efforts to punish them with across-the-board pay freezes. I am also concerned about the mushrooming growth of contracting out when it involves basic functions of government. About 1/4 of the intelligence community personnel are contractors, for example.

Much of this outsourcing has been done under the false impression that private contractors are cheaper than government personnel because the agencies don't have to pay federal health and retirement benefits. Now comes a solid study by the Project on Government Oversight showing that, in fact, contract personnel get about twice as much per person as federal employees doing the same work.  I hope the fed-bashers take notice.

much greener pastures

Lobbyists, like lawyers and taxi drivers, belong to an honorable profession. They all take their clients where they want to go. It's bad only when they break the rules getting there.

A new study shows that several thousand former members of Congress and their staff have moved from their high-pressure, moderately paid Hill jobs to richly rewarding K Street lobbying firms in recent years. That's actually a common career path for senior Hill staffers, especially on the committees that deal with taxes and business regulation. I was somewhat reassured to note [be sure to check the table] that defense and foreign policy staffers don't make the top ten list.

tattered SOFA

The policy pundits and media are politicizing U.S. policy in Iraq. That's unfortunate, since the situation is bad enough without turning the issue into Obama vs. the U.S. military.

The Obama administration has indicated a desire to keep about 3-4,000 American troops in Iraq after 2011. American military commanders reportedly prefer a much higher figure, like 14-18,000.  Even fair-minded critics like Peter Feaver are calling the policy reckless, and others are suggesting a renewed civil-military crisis.

Wait a minute. Yes, there are domestic American political pressures on the decision, not least the President's promise to end the U.S. combat role this year. And yes, the military has good arguments for having more American soldiers around for security than fewer.

But the real problem is in Baghdad, not Washington. The status of forces agreement [SOFA] signed by George W. Bush set the December 31, 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, despite the Bush administration's earlier criticism of any use of withdrawal timetables. The Iraqi government has failed to propose any alternatives to that deadline because of internal disputes among the ruling coalition. So the U.S. military is properly planning troop drawdowns to be compliant, even as it wishes for both certainty and specifics regarding any residual U.S. force. I say "Iraqi government," but the sad fact is that no successor government has been formed since the March 2010 elections. Iraq has a caretaker government that isn't taking care of the chief security issue that nation faces.  The Americans int he White House and Pentagon are just trying to cope with the dysfunctional government in Baghdad.

toxic politics

Jim Fallows has drawn attention to a piece by a recently retired Republican Hill staffer who complains that his party is weakening public trust in government by the GOP's take-no-prisoners approach to public policy.I find much of the analysis persuasive. Congressional Republicans are denouncing proposals they once strongly supported and seem to enjoy the turmoil their obstructionist tactics create in their wake. The answer isn't a third party, since our system is structured in favor of two, but a return to civility and mutual respect even during disagreements.