A Wall Comes Down in Israel ... Will Anyone Hear It? Will Anyone Listen?

"In a sign of a calming atmosphere, Israeli army cranes yesterday began removing a concrete barrier that shielded a Jewish neighborhood bordering the West Bank from gunfire."

In a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, or that pigs in hell are flying, Israel took down a portion of its system of defense barriers - walls and fences - that separate Israel from territories under Palestinian authority. This is something that many said could not - and would not ever happen. And yet, it did.

Will anyone make note of this, or see it as a sign of progress - or at least a sign of positive steps toward peace? Unfortunately, I think not. It will either be ignored or side-stepped as a half measure. This attitude, as much as any violence, is what hinders progress toward a long sought after two-state solution. This attitude, is what we can all help change.

According to a story published by the Associated Press, "The Israeli military erected the 600-yard concrete barrier nine years ago on the outskirts of the Gilo neighborhood in southern Jerusalem because of repeated Palestinian shootings from the West Bank town of Beit Jalla."

"The barrier is being taken down over the next two weeks ... because of a reduced security threat and improved coordination between Israeli and West Bank security forces."

As someone who's profession it is to communicate how Israel, the Israeli Government, and the Israeli people are not the demons everyone thinks they are, this is a particularly noteworthy event. Despite the hundreds of checkpoints removed over the past few years; despite the gradual but real improvements in relations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank; and despite the improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians living under the PA, one would think we would no longer have to put up with distortions and lies about Palestinians being subjected to atrocities and murders on a daily basis. Yet, that is the perception that many around the world and in the United States still have of the situation. Seaprating for a moment what happens in Gaza from the West Bank - since Hamas is a very real and hostile threat to Israel on a daily basis - these events should be cause for either celebration or at least serious acknowledgment. Yet, I fear, no news shows will be talking about this, and no global movement will think twice about releasing their latest press statement about the evil occupiers. Even if you did not want to separate Gaza events from events in the West Bank, on the whole, despite the many civilian deaths caused by the war in Gaza, why can't this event be seen in a clear context and contrast to those regrettable deaths? Why can we not accept the intractable nature of dealings with Gaza - and still, at the same time - understand that progress is being made in the West Bank.

I ask these questions rhetorically of course, because half the reason why no one thinks about Israel and Palestine in those rational terms is because most of the press and extremists all over the globe push the discussion toward the demonization of Israel. Yes Israel and her proponents on the right often try to demonize Palestinians, but my friends, cry all you want about "Jewish" control of the media - the sheer weight and volume of press space and political coverage around the globe tilts very far in the other direction. If, in fact, Jews do run the media, they are doing a horrible job "controlling" it. This is the myth and folly of the anti-Israel movement. How can Israel or "the Jews" control anything that is so tilted against them? Is this some diabolical plan maybe to win people over through reverse psychology? I think not.

Whatever it is, it is a shame. Again, you will not see much about this move from most media outlets. In fact, even in the piece this information is taken from, this was not the leading headline. What was the headline? It was that "Israel insists on talks without preconditions." Yes my friends, this is the world where even good press is bad press. Can you really doubt what I am saying with clear evidence like this?

I encourage bloggers and readers alike to spread the word about progress like this and help shift the dialogue. I don't know what the solution is for Gaza and Hamas, but today at least, can we begin to talk about what both sides are doing well? I spend a good deal of time reminding people that when it comes to the security barrier, a wall put up can also be a wall taken down. I remind people to review the statements associated with the inception of the project - that the barrier, the fence, the wall, was meant to be temporary. It was meant to come down when it was no longer needed. And lo and behold, it has come to pass. This is not just a checkpoint being taken down. This is the demanded action that no one believed Israel would ever take. Just like leaving Gaza. Whatever you think about the way Israel left, or its handling of the post Gaza situation, it did in fact leave. Being around Gaza is not being in Gaza. Going into Gaza to attack in response to attacks is not staying in Gaza. Israel sometimes does do what it says it will do, as do the Palestinians. In the same report - also not placed in the headline - we are told that ...

"In another sign that Abbas is trying to counter Hamas influence, his religious affairs minister told a news conference yesterday that the government has taken control of all the territory’s mosques, including content of the main weekly sermon, to ensure that houses of worship are not used for political recruiting."

Now this is significant, and is also something demanded of Abbas. Will this too get much press. Not likely I fear. Mosques were once a Hamas stronghold. Since 2007, Abbas has been cracking down on the militants to make sure they don’t attempt a West Bank takeover. And he too is making progress, but we don't focus nearly enough on it - and both sides are at fault.

None of this "doubting" of the other side should really surprise anyone though. There have been plenty of retreats from positions. There have also been numerous times when agreements have been satisfied and no one believed it - right up until the proof was delivered. A Palestinian friend of mine once told me that even the day before the final evacuation from Gaza, he and his moderate friends did not believe Israel would actually leave completely. And they did. So let this removal of a barrier, or a wall, be another sign that more is possible than we think.

But of course this is the culture of distrust that has arisen and this is the culture of distrust we must all help to defeat. It is one thing for people to distrust each other for good reason and be proven wrong. It is quite another for that distrust to be fomented in the face of numerous reasons to believe that trust is possible.

Trust is possible. Let events like these be the first steps toward commending a very real process of trust building and positive steps toward a two state solution - a solution that while imperfect, is the only thing that presents a positive future for each side.

The Flotilla Incident and Gaza - More Revealed Beneath the Surface

"There is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, [but] malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade."

Before the the tragic events of the Turkish flotilla fade into the past, and before the next conflict or incident causes a similar international uproar, it may be useful to just ask just a few more questions and make just a few more points about the incident. For example, it may be extremely revealing to compare what happened with this Turkish flotilla to a very different encounter that took place just a short time after that debacle at sea.

Just days after this tragedy, another ship, also sponsored by the same "Free Gaza" organization, also set sail for Gaza. This ship, called the Rachel Corrie - out of Ireland - also attempted to break the blockade, but In this case, no tragic deaths occurred. Of course, this story, which would have illustrated the procedures Israel goes through to have the contents of all ships bound for Gaza, did not get widespread attention at all. But while the story got little press, it is illustrative of the complexity of what is going on in this cat and mouse game being played by the Israeli government, Hamas, and their international allies.

If you were wondering why the result was so different, the answers are quite simple. As this account by Ethan Bronner in the Boston Globe reveals (Israel thwarts new attempt to break Gaza blockade: Commandos seize vessel peacefully) the Israeli government handled the situation in a much more subtle manner AND the government responsible for the ship agreed to a reasonable compromise.

For weeks after the Turkish flotilla incident, all you heard from Israel was how this tragedy didn't have to happen; how the ship that was boarded could have docked in Ashdod - just like the other five in the flotilla did - and unloaded its goods for inspection and shipment to Gaza. This had been the routine for similar confrontations with ships bound for Gaza. Unfortunately, no one seemed to latch on to the reasonableness of this argument - mainly due to the deaths that took place, the fact that the boarding took place in international waters, and that the boarding took place at night. But the other problem was that Israel never did a good job publicizing how goods brought to Gaza by aid ships actually did get in to Gaza. That left a void in the basic story - only to be filled in by video of commandos going in at night, outside of Israeli national waters, swooping down from helicopters. There was no way for Israeli's to be seen as anything but aggressors who were trying to hide their "despicable" actions from the world.

This was a disaster for Israel in terms of public perception, international legitimacy, and their ability to have their decisions respected or trusted by, well, anyone. But in light of the better approach AND the better result from the Rachel Corrie encounter at sea - when the Israelis communicated their intent with the government of Ireland and the government of Ireland saw the reasonableness of their request to dock the ship and transport approved goods after inspection. Clearly, this was not something the Turkish government was willing to do - and reasonable people must ask what this says about their motives with the flotilla and their ongoing motives toward Israel. But also, one must ask why it took this initial tragedy to make them re-think their admittedly faulty approach to the Turkish vessel. And if they are re-thinking their strategy why do progressives not get more credit for asking Israel to re-think how they approach such dilemmas. Maybe they were doing what they always do. Maybe they were seeing the provocation in the Turkish actions and returning it in kind. I mean, isn't that what the game has devolved into - "You want to provoke us? Fine. We'll show you what you get."

What other explanation can there be - can there ever be - other than "Oops." The point being - for all the anger we should rightly have toward Turkey, let's make sure we examine the approach to the Rachel Corrie and remind people that things could have been handled just a bit differently by Israel when it came to the Turkish incident. And in that "bit" of difference in all their actions, that is where Israel might have found less international condemnation. I hear Israeli's say all the time that nothing they could have done - in almost any situation - would have made a difference in public opinion. Well I disagree. I know many friends and colleagues who would also disagree. And I will always use examples like the Rachel Corrie confrontation to counter that position. And the line would be - "If you, yourselves, modify and "improve" your tactics regularly so you can show the world how "just" you are, then you are admitting that you DO care about how your actions are perceived. And if that is the case, don't attack other for suggesting improvements you can make sooner than you may have thought of them."

And so similar questions can be asked about the blockade in general. As the header quote states, it is true that no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza. Yet, Israel is continually accused of "starving' or 'strangling' Gaza. While those terms are demonizing and inaccurate, they will continue as long as incidents like this take place and as long as public perception against Israel's respect for the law and dignity does not change. Interestingly, after the reaction to the flotilla incident, Israel finally acted to eliminate certain restrictions that progressives had been criticizing for some time. Certain food restrictions, left over from a version of the Gaza blockade that really was meant to psychologically impact the population - like jelly and some other incidentals - were recently lifted from the restricted items list. Many reasonable critics of Israel had said on numerous occasions that these were un-necessary, punitive, and did nothing but increase distrust. Less reasonable critics said this was a prime example of Israel's evil. Many even said, everything else is ok, but those restrictions must go because they are inhumane. (And for the record, yes, restricting things like Jelly is petty, and spiteful, but is not inhumane.)

And in an amusing twist, now that the restrictions have been lifted, much of the reaction was that the gesture was meaningless. That, my friends, is certainly a perfect example of how Israel just can't win. But to be fair to the critics, taking this off the table as something people can demonize Israel with IS IMPORTANT. And to be fair to all those who DO posses something called 'forethought,' we should be able to ask why the restrictions were kept in place at all? Didn't Israel realize how much it was harming their ability to reasonably argue for the necessity of the blockade? And if their response would be again, that they can never do anything right in the eyes of the UN, then why remove the restrictions at all. The point being that Israel and her "Israel, right or wrong" supporters can't have it both ways. If Israel, from time to time changes policies, based either on their own time table or a reaction to international demands, critics of those policies MUST be given more credence and NOT be labeled as anti-Israel. Is Israel anti-Israel since they just advocated a policy change that a month ago a peace-nick would have been vilified for suggesting?

Today, one can read about the Israeli release of reports on the build-up in Lebanon of Hezbollah strongholds in population centers in southern Lebanon. And as so many are reporting, this can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, maybe Israel has gotten the point about gaining at least some support from the international community - before it actually has to take action. On the other, maybe they are just trying to convince the world about the perils of their neighborhood so that, in general, public opinion can be nudged just a bit. Whichever the intent, one must still ask an important question. If it seems to take such large scale tactical errors - ones that Israel herself has eventually admitted - like the entire Gaza war and the tactics used to board the Turkish flotilla vessel, why could they not have listened to critics earlier. One can only hope this will loosen up the dialogue around how the Israeli government should conduct itself - even if only to help the world better understand her plight. But don't hold your breath on that one.

Israel and the Flotilla Incident - A Reality Check

Opinions on Israel and the recent flotilla incident range widely - and they should. They should because opinions should always range widely and Israel and her predicament should be no different. In fact, that is the angle I want to take in this analysis. It has taken a bit of reflection to decide where the best approach on this should come from and I think finally, that this incident is instructive, but that it is not a “lesson” in the traditional sense. I say that because so many are using their “opinion” to simply reinforce why they are right or why the other side is wrong. In short – more demonization - to all sides - seems to come from the “lessons” we are hearing about these days.

So instead of lessons, I will speak of common sense realizations, multiple truths, and reasons why things are the way they are. For those unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Middle East, I think this can be an incredibly important read. For those who are already entrenched in the debate, you will not find answers, but you may just find a reason to step back, count to ten, and shut up for a second.

While I first want to start with Israel’s basic approach in this situation, I want to also interject a tangent. Popping up at the tail end of all of this was the Helen Thomas incident. I am bringing this up right now, because before I even get into detail, please remember that underlying almost any FACT about Israel and the middle east are the underlying attitudes about Israel, Jews, and their place in the middle east. While many will say I am just a knee jerking, anti-Semitism crying loyalist, I can’t worry about that. Any understanding of global opinion of Israel, what motivates some to action against Israel, and what Israel and Jews do has to be seen in this light. It is real, palpable and instructive. While people were wondering if folks jumped on the Helen Thomas bandwagon in violation of some principle of her right to free speech, I was wondering why no one was using her as a larger example. If this liberal lion, this well educated senior White House correspondent, could be so biased toward Israel and so frankly anti-Semitic in its classical and modern sense, ANYONE can be and more people then you think are.

And why is that so important? Well, because everyone jumping on the trash Israel bandwagon, whatever there reasoning should be able to step back with thanks to Helen Thomas, and realize that not everyone trashing Israel is doing so because of their “correctness” about any facts, or any moral high ground.

But here we go with some truths (on all sides – so be patient, I’ll get to yours)

TRUTH:
This flotilla was dispatched with express intention of provoking Israel into confrontation.

TRUTH:
Most of the ships in the flotilla were escorted by the Israeli Navy without incident to Ashdod as is common practice so Israel can inspect the cargo and send through approved goods.

TRUTH:
The larger boat that had every intention of causing an incident did in fact include a group of more extreme activists intent on violence.

TRUTH:
Calling all the participants in the flotilla “terrorists” is inaccurate? Most were what most of the world would call well meaning activists seeking to provide goods and humanitarian aid to Gaza and in doing so challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli blockade.

TRUTHS:
Is challenging the blockade in this manner an acceptable form of protest? Sure why not? Does the fact that people disagree with the blockade make it automatically wrong or immoral? No, not automatically. Does the intent of violence make the protest invalid? Well maybe not. If you view the blockade as a form of violence, why can’t you protest with violence? Is that the best way to end the blockade? Well maybe yes, maybe no. Since I waited a bit to write this I can now say that it has achieved something if it stirred debate and actually caused Israel to let more goods through it should always have been letting through. How Israel and defenders of Israel deal with this little fact as dissent and protest are denounced will be very important.

TRUTHS:
Do the backers of the flotilla have troubling connections to extremists and terrorists groups? YES. Does that immediately discredit the entire venture. NO – and this important. This is reflective of the entire Gaza problem. The intermingling of people who had been or are still supportive of what we deem terrorist activities, with respectable people who have either no knowledge of those connections or don’t care is an ongoing complication of how everyone talks about these kinds of initiatives. Should we give these groups a pass? NO. Can we just continue to label any person or activity connected to these groups illegitimate? NO. There were priests, Americans, and legitimate aid workers on these ships, and as long as that will always be the case – Israel and the global Jewish community MUST find a different way to talk about them. By painting ALL of the participants with such a broad paint brush, when any bozo can show that MANY participants are what MANY people would call “legitimate” activists and NOT terrorists, such criticism of them can be PROVEN to be disingenuous at best and LYING at worst.

TRUTHS:
Is the blockade itself morally wrong, illegal, or inhumane? NO. For anyone to claim otherwise is naive, trying to gain political points, or not thinking things through. People will claim that the blockade of Gaza was initially established to deny certain goods to the general population to make things so difficult that they would turn away from Hamas and realize moderation and Fatah were the way to go. This is completely TRUE and the government of Israel has already admitted this. It had the opposite effect, brought on the Gaza war and the government has already admitted it was a mistake. Did that cause them to change things? NO. But that is not the critical point. The critical point is WHY they did not lift the blockade. For many, not reversing course is the point. For Israel, providing truckloads of humanitarian aid should end the discussion. For others, the limiting of harmless food items is the ultimate insult and proof if Israeli “inhumanity.” (Yet when those food stuffs were recently taken off the prohibited items list, all of a sudden its not really about those silly items is it.)

TRUTH:
In the view of Israel, getting out of Gaza was the ultimate sacrifice and they will be forever bitter that Palestinians did not see the magnanimity in that sacrifice. It can be shown how the unilateral turnover without a plan for economic integration was the mistake that bore the current situation. But Israelis do not focus on this. They focus on the rockets that came over and the militancy that has always existed in Gaza. And in this respect, one might say that the reason there was no plan for better integration of the border was that they could not find one. This is a critical point. The inability to find a solution – not that one could not be found - is at the heart of many of Israel’s decision making and MUST be understood as a reasonable motivation for acting certain ways.

TRUTH:
To be honest about Gaza, one can only talk about “ending the blockade” while at the same time asking how a Hamas controlled area could instill any confidence at all in any kind of “open border situation.” It is easy for people who do not live Israel, to say how smooth things would go if Israel just opened the border. It is easy to say things like “just give it a try,” when you are not confronted with a sworn enemy having easy access to your people. Would any sane country really do that? Just look at the US. Mexico is NOT a sworn enemy and look at the racism, hatred, bias, and rhetoric take place in regard to that open border. Is the situation in Israel really so different – except that they have good reason to be afraid.

TRUTH:
It is still the truth that the majority of the people of Gaza would be peaceful participants in the economy of Israel. In fact, that is the only thing peace advocates can hang their hat on. And it IS important. But in Israel, among the people and the government, security is the mindset. Does that need to change? Yes. But it will not change overnight and to ask Israeli’s to change that mindset so quickly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and insulting. In fact, distrust, on all sides, is the main issue behind why so much of this is a problem at all. Yes this distrust is more perception than reality, but perception becomes reality in politics (just look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown).

TRUTH:
The truth is that too many Israelis distrust Arabs and that is why enough of them do not demand more out of their leaders. Is this wrong? Is this morally wrong? I do not think it is for us to judge. It is for us to realize and help the world understand that the best way to get to a two state solution is to have a plan that does NOT change things overnight. It is for us to realize and help Israel understand that we get it – BUT that change is essential and a roadmap with a definite END in place is the only way Palestinians will choose the way of moderation and peace..


There are many more “truths” to be discussed on these very important issues. But these are a good start. My friend Ehud Eiran recently published an excellent article in Newseek about the flotilla and the blockade itself. His premise is an important one – that the blockade is a contradiction in that it perpetuates the very situation Israel says it is trying to end – the militancy of Hamas in Gaza. While I agree with 99% of the article I will take issue with one point. But it is a big point. Who says the blockade is intended to moderate the people of Gaza any longer? If the government has already acknowledged that has failed, there has got to be another reason the blockade is still in place. My contention is that they cannot think of any other way. Listening to Ami Ayalon recently, I am convinced people need to know more about the different language Israel and the Palestinians are speaking to one another. To remove the blockade and open the borders would mean one of two things. Either a plan would have to be put in place to assure the Israeli public that the people of Gaze, who chose Hamas as their government could be trusted. Or the Israeli government would no longer have any real control over the situation and would simply have to hope for the best. In many ways, both of those situations are unthinkable and impractical TODAY. And this is what I think most people outside of Israel do not consider. I am not saying something can not be worked out someday and sold to the Israeli voting public. I am just saying that today, neither of those options is really a possibility given the mindset of the Israeli people and the reality of what Gaza is like right now. And it begs the question, why can’t the world get their act together to help Israel and the Palestinians in the way they really need it. They do not need condemnations and accusations. They need a plan, they need time to adjust to it, and they need honest brokers to help. Just look at what has just developed. The UN offered to participate in the inspection of some foreign aid shipments and Israel agreed because they really have nothing to hide in that respect. In this way the UN (some in the UN) are acknowledging the need for both security and for goods to get through.

The Afghanistan Tightrope - Still Promising More Than We Can Deliver

"The highly hyped counter-insurgency strategy is illusory. It is an attractive concept in the abstract — “secure, hold and build’’ — but enjoys neither the capacity nor the conditions to actually work."

From the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, The Cohen Side was reporting on the VAST portions of the country US Forces did not control, and the folly of even thinking we could "nation build" when we weren't even close to being in control of, well, much of anything. The lack of reporting on this has been shameful and the political posturing over this untenable situation has been way off the mark. Afghanistan will play out the way Afghanistan wants it to. For us to think otherwise simply denies History and is the height of ignorant arrogance. We need to put our testosterone aside for once, and learn from our past mistakes. Me MUST resist the urge to think we can't get a military "win" everywhere we put troops down on the ground. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can have a rational discussion about what we CAN do over there. There will be a crisis point arriving at our doors soon and we must convince our politicians NOT to shy away from the reasonable course of action - which is to stay committed to a plan of withdrawl - a plan that should not be imediate but deliberate and certain. Our leaders will be facing pressure to press on or devise another surge. That, however would be more folly. As Jonathan Morse points out so well;

"[These] temptations must be forcefully resisted ... [trying to actually win] the insurgency war against the Taliban, [and] weakening the US plan to begin withdrawing forces ...

Securing remains frustrated. Holding is delayed. Building is even more of a failure: development is almost impossible without security; the military itself cannot accomplish the local rehabilitation and stability needed; and the civilian backup to accomplish enduring building is absent, both from the internationals and from Kabul.

In truth, any US commitment to assure good governance in a democratic Afghanistan - before it withdraws - is a self-entrapment of dire consequence."

And why is this important? Well of course its the body bags, the severed limbs, and the families torn asunder. While no one should ever say a soldier died in vein, the questions about this misguided war must be asked - as John Kerry asked decades ago - "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Here is a link to the full article. Please read, pass along to your friends, and tell your congressmen to be brave in the right way - to NOT expand our military presence in Afghanistan and to get our troops home as soon as humanly possible.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/13/the_afghanistan_tightrope

The Right Kind of American Populism

"And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise."

Below is an excellent piece by Jon Meacham written for Newsweek. It is a great commentary on the over exaggerated - if not misplaced - anger toward government. This echoes a consistent theme on The Cohen Side about the "Feau" populism of the day that focuses an irrational anger at government and lets corporate America off the hook for many of its abuses of our economic system. And why does this matter at the end of the day? It matters because this "wrong" brand of populism will only serve to see officials elected who will not fight for the least amongst us. Those most in need will see an evaporation of essential programs and services that form the foundation of our already too loose safety net. In the modern age, we should be very careful about how we treat that safety net. It is entirely possible that our future is one of lower employment than we have ever known. There just aren't as many human jobs needed as there once were. The 'corporate stimulus' referred to in this article is about finding creative ways to support a population where more people are out of work, yet corporate profit margins continue to grow and grow. That money can either go into the pockets of shareholders and the uber wealthy, or it can be used to care for a population in need that will continue to grow and grow. That is the responsible populism I am for.

---

Economically populist causes and candidates have not had the best of runs in recent decades. Jerry Brown tried it in 1992, as did Ross Perot. Eight years later, in an echo of his father’s New Deal origins, Al Gore campaigned for president talking about the “people versus the powerful,” a theme John Edwards unsuccessfully appropriated in 2004 and 2008. If anything could have given new life to old-style populism, the financial meltdown of 2008–09 should have—but, remarkably, it did not.

At first, in the age of Jackson, American populism was about money; later, in the age of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, it became more about culture. It is admittedly difficult to draw precise lines between these things (money is inescapably a driver of culture, and power is a common denominator), but it is safe to think of economic and cultural populism as two different, if occasionally intersecting and overlapping, forces.

Safe, and useful, for the passage of financial-reform legislation in the House last week and a dispiriting report on jobs brought the curious history of populism to mind. Given the clinical economic and political facts of the hour, we should be living through a Jacksonian era of hostility to the rich and the well connected. Those whom Jackson called “the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers” ought to be generating substantial political pressure to exact reparations from, and impose severe new regulations on, the plutocratic few. Unemployment remains high; poverty too pervasive and intractable; the moneyed classes too skilled at the Washington game to make contests over economic justice even remotely fair fights.

And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise.

Populism’s shift from economics to culture in America is as important a development in our politics as the rise of civil rights at home or the fall of the Soviet Union abroad. Without an effective progressive economic movement, questions about wealth and power become questions of degree, not kind. The status-quo is accepted (that’s why it’s called the status-quo), and even the ablest of modern Democratic politicians find themselves at work in an arena defined by those with an interest in limiting reform and thwarting revolutions.

It is a good moment, then, to try to marshal a kind of economic populism that is both principled and practical, a habit of mind and action that allows markets to thrive and neither unduly favors nor penalizes those who already have means. That, at least, was Jackson’s creed. Drawing on his understanding of a republicanism in which institutional interests—in the forms of a central bank, or an entrenched Congress, or an appointed federal establishment—could be corrupting agents in the life of the nation, he wanted to see that the concerns of the ill-organized many were protected against the exclusive privileges of the well-organized few.

For decades, whether the issue has been the tax code or financial regulation or, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the oversight of dangerous industrial practices, the initial American instinct has been to ask how little government can do, not what government should do. An economic populism for the second decade of the 21st century ought to create a sense of commonality in which all means, public and private, should be viable options. Government may not always be the solution, but sometimes it is. (Just ask the banks about that.)

There is an intriguing place where we might begin the work of a renewed economic populism: in corporations, not the capital. If the goal of populism is the amelioration of life for the many, then President Obama could strike a confounding (in a good way) pose by calling on the private sector to take up an idea put forward this week by Fareed Zakaria: unleash a corporate stimulus. “The Federal Reserve recently reported that America’s 500 largest non financial companies have accumulated an astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash on their balance sheets,” Fareed writes. “By any calculation (for example, as a percentage of assets), this is higher than it has been in almost half a century. And yet, most corporations are not spending this money on new plants, equipment, or workers…[Such] investments would likely have greater effect and staying power than a government stimulus.”

A populism that begins in the boardroom—that would really be change we could believe in.

All of a Sudden, Afghanistan's not going so well? Really?

Not for nuthin', but my April post on Afghanistan seemed to fly in the face of what other's were claiming as our "success" in the region. Lo and behold, a couple of months later, it turns out you really can predict the future by knowing the past and by knowing the way our military leaders refuse to learn from it. Who knows what "success" or even General Patreaus's "progress" even look like? My only real question is, if it is now clear we don't know what we want, how can any realist plans be made to get there? We will just keep trudging along - trying this - and trying that - only to face the same problem - which is that no one wants us there. Those who are violently opposed to our being there will kill anyone who collaborates, and those who may actually want to see a change in government still blame us for the violence. We cannot solve every problem in the world and the Bush strategy of "getting them over there so they don't come here" now seems as outdated as the cold war itself.

We should leave - sooner rather than later. And the reason is clear. With some philosophy of protecting the US or defeating the Taliban (who many want to believe are interchangeable with Al Queda) we are simply sending Americans into harms way with no clear benefit in sight. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Hell, even Iraq isn't Iraq. How many people died in Iraq over the past two weeks from bombings? Whether we seem to care or know about this is not the issue. The issue is that for all our money and all the lives wasted and for all the "surges" and strategies. Both places may only be marginally better for us having been there. And I repeat, MAY be different. It is entirely likely that both places will have a militant religious group in power, either running things or instilling enough fear so to have their way. We need to face that we cannot remake the Middle East anymore than Europe could and move on. Containment from abroad may be the better policy, as it most likely was when were containing Iraq before our invasion. But I'm just saying.