I'm helping lead a study trip for Colorado Christian University in Washington Dc, May 10-15. Updates will appear on our '76 Blog, hosted by the Centennial Institute. Here's the first one.
Afghan War winnable & important
(Washington, May 10) As news from Iraq got progressively better in the last year the reflexive pessimists among us have shifted their focus to Afghanistan where they tell us portents of gloom and doom can be found in abundance. We hear of a resurgent Taliban advancing on several fronts, the capital of Kabul under siege, insurgents controlling ever more of the countryside, attacks and suicide bombings way up, the Pakistan border uncontrollable, and U.S. and civilian casualties increased dramatically.
Back in fashion are the words “quagmire” and of course “Viet Nam”. In fact a Newsweek cover story called Afghanistan “Obama’s Viet Nam”.
All these grim tidings, of course, lead to the inevitable advice that the U.S. should cut its losses, and escape this “graveyard of empires”, ASAP.
While most of the alarmist assertions cited above contain the proverbial grain of truth, collectively they represent a gross distortion of reality in Afghanistan.
A vital key to these misrepresentations is that increases in attacks or casualties are invariably reported as percentile increases over a previously established base number while failing to report how relatively tiny that number may be or offering any comparisons from similar conflicts (e.g. Iraq).
For example the Brookings Afghanistan Index reported a 48 % increase in attacks for 2008 in regional Command-Capital which includes Kabul and environs and has a population of over four million people. What is not reported is that the actual number of attacks went from just 106 to 157 for the entire year or that 157 was the average number of attacks that occurred in Baghdad every four days during the summer of 2006.
Similarly while civilian casualties are increasing in Afghanistan the total for 2008 represents only one sixteenth of the casualties in Iraq in the pre-surge year of 2006.
Thus when we hear as we do of late that attacks or casualties for a given week or month were greater in Afghanistan than Iraq this is much more a reflection of the dramatically improved situation in post-surge Iraq than any gross deterioration in Afghanistan.
In assessing the validity of comparing the two countries consider that Afghanistan ( 249,934 sq. miles) is a much larger country than Iraq ( 167,884 sq. miles) and its 30 million people exceed the population of Iraq as well.
In terms of results the Afghan war from the beginning has been a considerable success story despite being greatly “under resourced” when compared to Iraq. Today there are just 38,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and even with the recently authorized 17,000 increase the total will be barely one third the number in Iraq during the surge (160,000).
Similarly the Afghan National Army (ANA) which has performed most effectively and is universally regarded as the most trusted indigenous institution in the entire country numbers only 80,000 men. Even adding the 70,000 men of the far less effective Afghan National Police (ANP) 150,000 total security personnel is small when compared to the 500,000 men in Iraq’s army and police.
Finally we frequently hear that “primitive” Afghanistan can never be a real nation but only an aggregation of feuding tribes.
This ignores the fact that while highly tribal Iraq has been a nation for less than one hundred years (1919) Afghanistan has been an independent country since the 18th century with a history of strong monarchs ruling a reasonably stable country. The last of these- Mohammed Zahir Shah (1933-1973) – oversaw substantial economic and political progress including a fairly democratic written constitution. Only a 1978 Marxist coup and the subsequent Soviet invasion precipitated the tragic period of war and civil conflict that has characterized the last thirty years.
By no means should we minimize the very daunting challenges we face in Afghanistan or conceal the fact that only a strong multi-year U.S. commitment can assure success.
However neither should we minimize the severe price of failure.
Many critics including President Obama long derided Iraq as the “wrong” war and a distraction from Afghanistan which was the “right” war and the one we “had to win”. The 17,000 additional troops President Obama authorized are a commendable first step in backing that conviction with deeds. In continuing along this necessary road of many difficult steps he deserves our strongest support.
William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post.
'Change' now our issue
(Denver Post, May 10) Colorado Democrats are having a lousy year. It’s been a tough 2009 for the party in power, and 2010 may be worse. Which is odd, because 2008 was great for state Dems. They gained a Senate seat, a House seat, and threw a coronation party for Obama, who is now embarked on the most brilliant reign since Louis XIV, the Sun King. Yet with the legislature done and election year eight months off, there’s a sense that Democrats have worn out their welcome with Coloradans, creating an opportunity for Republicans to reintroduce themselves and get back in the ballgame. Malaise hangs over the Capitol. Will Gov. Bill Ritter do a Jimmy Carter and become a one-termer? You’ve seen the numbers. Voters disapprove Ritter’s performance by 49% to 41%, according to an April poll. Matched against potential GOP challengers, he trails Scott McInnis and barely leads Josh Penry. His appointee in DC, Sen. Michael Bennett, is disapproved by 41% to 34% and trails Republican Bob Beauprez. They’re a pathetic pair.
Camelot magic is gone from the Dem ascendancy that began in 2004 when Ken Salazar was elected senator and Andrew Romanoff stormed the statehouse. We’re now slogging through a recession that Ritter recklessly failed to prepare for, his legislative allies are split and ineffectual, and Susan Greene commiserates on “what a bummer it can be to be a Democrat in Colorado.”
Despite commanding majorities of 37-28 in the House and 21-14 in the Senate, Democrats this session failed on a number of cherished goals, including a tuition break for illegal aliens, easing sentences and ending the death penalty, quitting the Electoral College, and nanny-state rules for cellphones and seatbelts.
The majority party found itself well to the left of common-sense opinion on those issues, hence unable to ram through its liberal agenda when vulnerable members balked. Centrists from Colorado Springs, Adams County, and the Western Slope made the difference on last week’s capital punishment vote, for example. Senate minority leader Penry brokered the deal.
Governing is no picnic. Leading the Senate during the last budget crisis, back in 2004, I agonized through some of the same no-win choices President Peter Groff and Speaker Terrance Carroll have faced this year. You manage your diehards as best you can. You resort to ugly fiscal solutions and wince, knowing the out party will slam you for it in the campaign. In power, it’s hard to do otherwise.
This is the beauty of our two-party system. It pushes policy toward the center and curbs the ideologues. As a conservative Republican, I naturally believe our side has better answers. I also concede our sins and imperfections. For Colorado’s benefit at present, however, that’s beside the point. What’s great is how a feisty opposition from right OR left produces wiser lawmaking as well as livelier elections.
Lively indeed is the prospect for election 2010. Four Republicans are vying to take on the little-known Sen. Bennet, along with two each who are targeting Gov. Ritter, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Secretary of State Bernie Buescher. With Obama likely to suffer off-year erosion, Democrat congressmen Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and John Salazar sit uneasily in districts the GOP used to own.
Democrats might also forfeit legislative control in retribution for mismanaging the budget, gutting taxpayer protections, and saddling families with a billion dollars in new taxes and fees during economic hard times. And if the Tea Party rebellion continues, four activist justices could get voted off the state Supreme Court.
“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Not really, Coloradans are likely to answer if asked the famous Reagan question in 2010. On kitchen-table issues like jobs and roads, the incumbents have little to boast of. Change is now OUR issue.
They can be had
Slated on Backbone Radio, May 10 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.
Never mind the gloating by liberals in places like the current Time magazine cover, which depicts Republicans as an endangered species. The fact is, public skepticism over Democrat ineptitude could make 2010 a good year for the GOP here in Colorado. You’ve seen the numbers. Voters disapprove Gov. Bill Ritter’s performance by 49% to 41%, according to an April poll. Matched against potential GOP challengers, he trails Scott McInnis and barely leads Josh Penry. His appointee in DC, Sen. Michael Bennett, is disapproved by 41% to 34% and trails Republican Bob Beauprez. They’re a pathetic pair.
My latest Denver Post column, "Are You Better Off?" spells out the logic after this week's wrapup of another underwhelming legislative session with Dems in control. Read the column on our home page just above this post. A Republican comeback in 2010 will depend on good candidates and clear conservative principles, of course. But I believe we'll have those.
Two candidates who have shown the most seriousness about taking on Sen. Bennet are Ken Buck, the Weld County DA, and Ryan Frazier, the Aurora councilman. Both are friends of Backbone Radio, and you've heard from them before. Both will give us an update on this Sunday's show.
Hosting in my place will be Ross Kaminsky and Matt Dunn. I'll be in Washington DC, helping lead a public policy field study with 16 students from Colorado Christian University, where I work now. For details on the Centennial Institute, my new project at CCU, click here.
As for the socialist, secularist, nanny-nagging Democrats, be of good cheer. Their snake oil won't fool Americans forever. They can be had, and we're just the ones to prove it.
Yours for liberty, JOHN ANDREWS
Teacher's Desk: Seasoned Subs
Cool: I now recruit as well as teach. At my urging, the mother of one of our previous students became a substitute teacher at our school. I thought if she got a license and tried substitute teaching, it would give her flexibility and income. Lo and behold, it worked. She now earns more and can flex with doctor’s appointments for her mentally ill children. Now she substitutes all over Denver. She has run into the substitute annoyance several times now: rude employees and even ruder students.
When I was a substitute teacher several years ago, I really was lucky! Rarely did I suffer the indignities of a poorly run organization and bratty kids. Most schools know that substitutes need a list of school and/or classroom rules and procedures; access to a telephone (give them the outside line code); unlock the classroom door; tell them where the bathroom is and give them a stack of referral forms for the spring naughtiness syndrome (mostly found in middle schools and in some high schools) which abounds. Substitutes need to know the procedure for removing disruptive and rude students.
Parents: I would like to think that most of you would be absolutely embarrassed by your children’s behavior towards substitute teachers.
I have yet to figure out how an accomplished educator can manage to teach for 40 to 50 minutes (and in some cases 90) and not leave material for more than 20 minutes for their substitute! Teachers need to leave plans with instructions. I’m sure many teachers are like me and after leaving specific plans and having them ignored, tear up the substitute’s telephone number. But for those substitute teachers with diligence, having specific instructions is a godsend.
It is also the responsibility of the teacher to make her students aware of the consequence (stick or carrot) of inappropriate behavior prior to the substitute teacher’s visit. I usually give extra credit points for a positive report and deduct points from their grades for unwanted behavior.
My worst experience as a substitute, myself, was in a kindergarten classroom at a Montbello elementary school. I was pretty convinced the child was really an adult in a little person’s costume. No matter what, that one was going to graduate kindergarten and find himself immediately contained at Canyon City.
I really enjoyed my experiences at the Douglas County middle schools I “subbed” at, as well as, Hamilton Middle School, Gove Middle School, and Hill Middle School, a short walk from my home. At Hamilton, one of the teachers I regularly substituted for would allow me to plan the lesson and teach. I truly enjoyed it and the students were terrific too!
All too often, substitute teachers hear, “You’re nodda teacher, you’re just a sub.” These ignorant students fail to realize that the majority of substitute teachers are retired with more experience and accreditation than most of the teachers in the building!
Kathleen Kullback is a special educator at Colorado High School Charter with an MA in educational leadership and a former candidate for the Colorado state Board of Education.