February 25, 2004

We’ll be in Iraq for how long?

Decades, says former Gen. Jay Garner, our first Iraq administrator. He thinks we ought to view it like the Philippines. We acquired them after the Spanish-American war and maintained forces there until the Filipinos finally asked us to leave after the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos. "To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary." he said in an interview with National Journal. What a pleasant prospect. There is, however, a small problem: “Iraqi Shiite Leader Seyyid Ali Al-Sistani yesterday warned that he would call for an intifada (uprising) if American soldiers stayed in Iraq after the hand-over of power on June 30, 2004.” So far we’ve had to deal only with an uprising by groups from the minority Sunni Muslim population. If there is, indeed, an uprising by the Shiites, problems for our troops in Iraq will escalate dramatically, and perhaps irretrievably. This may be jawboning by Sistani to prod the U.S. to meet the scheduled transfer of governing authority from the U.S. back to the Iraqis on June 30, as scheduled, not necessarily the removal of all troops. Let’s hope. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, attacks by the Taliban have reached their highest level since before the hard-line Islamic government collapsed after the U.S. invasion: “Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, who heads the Defense Intelligence Agency, called the continuing Taliban attacks aimed at humanitarian and reconstruction efforts ‘a serious threat, potentially eroding commitments to stability and progress in Afghanistan.’ "

Posted by tbrown at 01:57 PM

Congress may go slow on the gay-marriage ban

President Bush favors amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, but he really has no say over what happens beyond lending the prestige of his office to the debate. It’s strictly a matter, first, for Congress, and the GOP leadership there seems somewhat less than enthusiastic about tackling it. It takes a two-thirds majority of each house to pass a constitutional amendment, which then must be sent to the individual states for ratification by at least 38 of them. The two-thirds hurdle is a high one, and it’s clear the GOP leadership has nowhere near the necessary votes at the moment. For one thing, not all Republicans favor an amendment. Even if they did, they’d need support from a significant number of Democrats to get it passed. Democrats are not in a particularly helpful mood these days. “We're looking at other ways of doing it, knowing that it will be very difficult to pass a constitutional amendment both through the House and the Senate," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters. "The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it would be. We're trying to bring them all together and unify them. That's going to take some time." The arguments about same-sex marriage, however, are in full bloom. At the Wall Street Journal (site registration required), Mary Ann Glenndon, a Harvard law professor, claims that extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples would increase taxes (for Social Security) and insurance premiums. Would it? Beats me, but it seems safe to guess that it would in the case of Social Security. No doubt this will be quantified as the debate rolls on. She also asks this somewhat muddled apples-and-oranges question: “How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?” I hope this is a rhetorical question, since in the real world no citizens, other than those who are members of Congress or state legislatures*, will get to vote on this anyway. Columnist Crispin Sartwell’s argument makes a lot more sense to me: “Amending the Constitution is required to ban gay marriage, because the document gives the federal government no jurisdiction whatever over marriage. It shouldn't. It never was meant to. And the proposed amendment fundamentally contradicts other aspects of the Constitution: “The first amendment guarantees of freedom of religion and of association. “The ninth and 10th amendment limitations on the power of the federal government. “The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. “More frightening, it asserts an absurdly intrusive power over the private lives of each of us, whether we are gay or not. …” Indeed. * Footnote: UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh points out that Congress could, if it wanted, require the states to hold constitutional conventions to consider ratification of an amendment, rather than giving state legislators that job. In that case, a few more citizens would be able to vote directly on the amendment. Volokh’s post explores the possible political rationales for choosing one route over the other.

Posted by tbrown at 01:54 PM

‘Manufacturing’ burgers and fries

U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan was not amused when Gregory Mankiw, chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in effect that a) jobs are now just another commodity in international trade and b) definitions of what constitutes manufacturing are rapidly changing. In a letter to Mankiw, Dingell wrote: “I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high-growth manufacturing careers like spatula operator, napkin restocking and lunch tray removal. I do have some questions of this new policy and I hope you will help me provide answers for my constituents: … “Will special sauce now be considered a durable good?” Read it here.

Posted by tbrown at 01:48 PM