William Fay

my thoughts about the United States and the world we live in

[williamfay-blog]

US too Dependent on Foreign Oil

In an effort to lessen our dependence on a finite resource, President Barack Obama this week called for a repeal of billions of dollars in government subsidies to oil companies. The repealed subsidies amount to $4 billion annually. The president said the money can be invested directly into what he believes is the future of job growth in the United States — alternative energy.

Debate about repealing tax breaks for oil companies is nothing new, though it gained ground over the last few days when House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) demonstrated a willingness to consider repealing some of the big tax breaks enjoyed by companies that, frankly, don’t need them.

Gradually taking money from the oil companies and putting it into clean energy will generate some impact (economically and environmentally) down the road.

Still these discussions between both parties are mere baby steps — if that.

As every day goes by, our economy becomes more dependent on a natural resource that is increasingly becoming a source of insecurity and instability in the United States.

An end to our dependence on foreign oil must come from the bottom up; the consumers who drive the market must push for change.

U.S. defense spending is greater than the next nine countries’ combined. Much of that expenditure is spent securing sea-lanes for oil ships.   Other developing countries that depend on oil and gas for growth should seek to challenge the United States’ naval dominance.

For example, as China seeks natural resources to foster growth, it could come into military conflict with the United States if shipping lanes become areas of contention.

More importantly, though, the world’s dependence on oil empowers foreign leaders who often rule tyrannically and ruthlessly over undemocratic countries.

The transnational sale of oil empowers and enriches a select few within the exporting country.

More often than not, this creates extremely uneven growth and, as is the select group seeks to hold onto power, its members choose not to develop institutions of a free-market economy because they don’t need them to hold onto their power and prosperity. Instead, they use force.

For this reason, governments in Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria, where oil exports account of a significant part of the countries’ gross domestic product, are currently facing strong social opposition.

And since domestic politics and social change now have global repercussions, the United States spends even more money policing and aiding rebellions and revolutions in countries in the Middle East.

American taxpayer dollars help ensure undemocratic and ruthless foreign dictators stay in power, but they also finance their removal and, in the case of Iraq, the nation’s high price reconstruction.

In the short term, the Obama administration should reduce oil imports by increasing domestic oil development and production. It should also develop alternatives to oil to standardize and enforce the production of more efficient cars and trucks.

Undoubtedly, these measures have risks and downsides. Offshore drilling can be extremely detrimental and costly — especially when accidents happen — and expanding biofuels and natural gas markets will have a negative effect on the environment.

On the other hand, putting more fuel-efficient cars and trucks on the road helps, and the Obama administration has already institutionalized a greener auto-market by encouraging the purchase of hybrid cars.

But these changes will neither sufficiently fix the problem nor ensure Americans aren’t funding the disturbing and costly oil-cycle.

To substantially reduce oil consumption, the Obama administration could raise the price of gasoline through either taxing at the pump or removing U.S. subsidies to oil and gas companies.

If the price of gas goes up, Americans should respond by using cars less, and eventually will begin demanding for more fuel-efficient means of transportation.

As a result, carmakers will have an economic incentive to produce fuel-efficient or electric cars and, at the same time, higher gasoline prices would eventually encourage substitution.

Innovation, which relies on funding, is required to substitute our dependence on oil and gas with alternative energy solutions. Money accrued by the government by taxing or removing gas subsidies could be invested in alternative energy and non-oil fuel development and production as well or help reduce the deficit.

But when it comes down to it, the more confident investors become that alternative energy and non-oil fuels will be competitive in the open market, the more they will invest in such projects.

Ultimately, American consumers, as the individuals who by a large margin consume the most oil of any public in the world, will dictate the success of this endeavor — not our politicians.

The Obama administration has a reason and a way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.  Whether or not the American public could accept and endure increased gas prices and thus whether or not raising the price of gasoline is politically viable are separate questions.

Story originally written for the University of Southern California’s Daily Trojan on April 28, 2011

[williamfay-blog]

Robotic Warfare Creates New Challenges

Students who attended the TEDxUSC conference in Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday learned about the power of new technologies and the power of innovation.

Technology influences every aspect of our society — especially the way we conduct war. But we need to keep careful watch over that technology to make sure it doesn’t become dangerous and detrimental.

As our weapons become more advanced, technology is progressively replacing humans on the battlefield, in the sky and in the ocean.

Progress in war technology is neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

The potential for growth is tremendous and exciting, but, as the nature of conflict changes, many challenges await.

One challenge will be addressing concerns about safety.

Last Friday, the Navy released a video of its Maritime Laser Demonstrator firing a laser beam at a motorboat a mile away.

The beam hit the motorboat and set it on fire, disabling it completely.

The Navy has been working on lasers for some time now, but Friday was the Navy’s first successful test of a laser on the water.

The Navy hopes to install lasers like the Demonstrator aboard its ships, with the aim of giving its vessels the capability to destroy enemy ships and even burn incoming missiles out of the sky.

With this ability, the United States would have a significant advantage over other nations in regard to nuclear weapons, as the United States would hypothetically gain the power to incapacitate nuclear-armed missiles midflight.

Still, most technology is far from perfect, and when technology fails on the battlefield, people die.

Earlier this week, an American Predator drone accidently killed two American soldiers in Afghanistan, the first instance of friendly fire from an unmanned aircraft.

Unmanned aircrafts have already changed the way wars are fought from the sky.

Drones have increased attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while pilots controlled them from hundreds of miles away.

In this case, the person operating the unmanned aircraft might have confused the American soldiers for Taliban. If that was the case, that person would be the one to blame.

But who bears the responsibility when an unmanned machine malfunctions in a foreign country and kills innocent people?

As robots are becoming more autonomous with advancements in artificial intelligence (Northrup Grumman, one of the leading American defense contractors, has already developed an unmanned, autonomous helicopter that conducts surveillance, designates targets and assesses battlefield damage all on its own) policymakers need to have a long discussion about who bears the responsibility for robots at war.

Policymakers and military strategists also need to address the lack of vision for these new and powerful machines.

The United States must develop a central idea that can guide how American unmanned weapons are used moving forward.

The United States also needs to reform the rules of warfare to, for example, clearly define what constitutes unmanned action abroad.

The United States is attacking Taliban strongholds in Pakistan with drones, but President Barack Obama will never utter the words ‘the War in Pakistan.’

In his book Wired for War, P.W. Singer talks about the point of singularity — the state in which things become so radically different the old rules break down and we know virtually nothing.

To avoid complete confusion, policy makers need to face the challenges technological innovation has created if this paradigm shift is actually coming.

Story originally written for the University of Southern California’s Daily Trojan on April 14, 2011

[williamfay-blog]

Obama Makes Moral Decision to Intervene in Libya

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is now leading the United Nations mandated war effort to protect Libyan citizens from their own government.

Colonel Qadhafi and rebel forces have battled for strategically key cities along the Mediterranean Sea for over a month now.

On Monday, President Obama announced that in Libya, the United States had the unique opportunity to stop the violence and protect the Libyan people from their ruthless and despotic leader.

President Obama is trying to play the middle ground.

Obama is aggressively acting to protect the Libyan people and has changed the course of the conflict, but at the same time, has stated that we will not overextend American resources in Libya.

Despite many uncertainties related to the intervention, the Obama administration is acting both justly and altruistically.   

The US-led war in Libya doesn’t benefit the United States in any tangible way. Libya is not strategically vital to the United States even though it is located in an important region of the world. The war in Libya is thus a war of choice, not a war of necessity or defense.

Despite his address on Monday, President Obama has yet to clearly state the expected length of America’s involvement in Libya. Secretary of Defense Gates recently stated that the US could be engaged in Libya for up to a year.

The costs of this war may be the most unnerving aspect of the intervention. The cost incurred by the Pentagon over the first ten days of the war was $500 million, and the Department of Defense expects the war to cost around $40 million each month. 

The United States cannot afford a long intervention in Libya and the American people will not accept one. If President Obama wants the students who helped elect him in 2009 to vote for him again in 2012, he will have to make sure American resources aren’t overextended like they are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

NATO action in Libya also risks overstepping the U.N. resolution that initially empowered it, which limits action in Libya to the protection of citizens. NATO commanders have targeted Qadhafi forces in an offensive manner already it seems and NATO policymakers are reportedly considering arming the Libyan rebels.

And yet, President Obama’s intervention in Libya is just, courageous, and grandly American.

Colonel Qadhafi is one of the most violent and murderous rulers in the world today. His human rights abuses range from public hangings of civilians to gang rapes of innocent women.

The war in Libya is an idealistic war for the standards of democracy and freedom; the Obama administration is doing right by standing for these ideals in Libya.

In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama preached his Wilsonian worldview, “our own future is safer, our own future is brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.”

The Obama administration appears to be holding its promise to scale back America’s commitment to the war effort as well as it has handed over leadership to NATO.

The war in Libya also demonstrates how the United States can act with other international powers in the protection of human rights. Collective action is essential in humanitarian interventions. American taxpayers cannot afford to bear the full burden of this crisis.

The United States cannot intervene in every foreign country where atrocity takes place. If it did, America would never have the time to care to its domestic affairs.

The war is far from over and like all other conflicts the war in Libya is covered in fog, yet, as long as American troops never step foot in Libya and American resources are not overspent, the Obama administration should be commended for acting against Qadhafi.

When an American President truly upholds the ideals of freedom and democracy, he should be given his due credit. 

[williamfay-blog]

The International Powers Can Stop the Libyan Crisis

The Libyan uprising is turning into a humanitarian crisis. 

Colonel Qadhafi has attacked protestors with a relentless fury in order to hold onto power.

Unlike in Egypt, the opposition is split along tribal lines and will likely fight for power if Qadhafi relinquishes control. In Egypt, the army quickly took control when Mubarak resigned, but a power vacuum is likely to occur if or when Qadhafi leaves or is removed. 

The situation in Libya is extremely delicate and requires a careful international response. 

The international powers have not done enough to end this crisis.

The United States has imposed severe sanctions on Qadhafi’s regime, frozen thirty billion dollars in Libyan assets, moved naval and air forces closer to Libya potentially preparing to impose a no-fly zone over the country, and sent two humanitarian teams to the Middle East to aid the refugees that have been displaced as a result of the bloodshed.

The European Union, which buys eighty-five percent of Libyan oil exports, has also imposed serious sanctions on the regime, issued travel bans to Libyan leaders and the Qadhafi family, and proposed a sixty-day economic embargo on the regime to prevent Qadhafi from using oil and other revenues to repress his people.

The United Nations has also sanctioned the Qadhafi regime, imposed an arms embargo on Libya, frozen the assets of its leaders, referred the case to the International Criminal Court’s lead Prosecutor for possible crimes against humanity, and most recently suspended Libya from the UN Human Rights Council. 

Unfortunately, these measures take time to have a real effect; time that the Libyan people are quickly running out of.

To this point, the death toll in Libya remains unconfirmed, but the estimates are around one thousand dead. And on Tuesday, the UN Refugee Agency reported that 140,000 people fled Libya to Egypt and Tunisia. 

Stronger unified action from the international community is necessary to prevent a further escalation of this humanitarian crisis. Many innocent lives are at stake.

On Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphatically urged the world to act against the repressive Libyan regime, “history’s most tragic chapters are written when we fail to heed that call. Let us not fall short. Together, let the world speak loud and clear—through action.”

As students, we should condemn leaders who use deadly force against their own people. 

The United Nations can lack international authority because UN-led action depends on the solidarity and agreement between, at the very least, the permanent members of the UN Security Council:  the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China.

On the other hand, UN-led action would be the extremely effective and pragmatic if the members of the Security Council can agree on a stronger response to Qadhafi.

This may be a utopian thought. It may be impossible to coalesce Russia and China into escalating their response.

Russia supports the UN sanctions against Libya although it could loose up to four billion dollars in arms trade with Libya, but on Wednesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the idea of implementing a no-fly zone over Libya.

China, which recently succeeded in evacuating 35,000 Chinese nationals working in Libya, has commonly turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in its interactions with foreign countries, especially in the Middle East and Africa. It would be very surprising if China committed its military to the defense of foreign citizens. 

Getting Russia and China to agree to a multilateral response that includes military involvement may be what’s necessary to simultaneously stop the humanitarian crisis and prevent overextending the United States’ influence, reach, and financial limitations.

In today’s fragile economic climate, the last thing the United States needs is a unilateral, open-ended foreign engagement.

The international community needs to mount a stronger response to Qadhafi though.

Imposing a no-fly zone could be an effective measure to stop Qadhafi from attacking his people from the air.

Enlisting regional organizations in Africa and the Middle East such as the African Union or the Arab League to aid a military move would also uproot the notion that western democracies are manipulating the Libyan crisis.

Having said this, neither the United Nations nor the United States can rebuild Libya. That burden rests solely on the shoulders of the Libyan people.

Any plan of action should abide by this simple truth. 

Originally written Thursday 3 March 2011

[williamfay-blog]

A Long Path to Democracy

It took the people of Egypt eighteen days to unseat their former leader autocratic President Hosni Mubarak, but it will likely take many more before the protestors get what they want: a true democracy.

The Egyptian revolution has just begun and many questions remain unanswered.

Led by virtually no one in particular, organized through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and empowered by a fearless and determined spirit of hope, Egyptian protestors remarkably overcame thirty years of oppression and tyranny on February 11, 2011.

The 80 million people of the most populous country in the Arab world are writing a new chapter in Egyptian history.

The proponents of Egypt’s “Revolution 2.0,” as Wael Ghonim— secretly imprisoned, but recently released Egyptian Google executive and Internet activist who reignited the Egyptian protestors in a passionate interview with Egyptian state television on February 10th— tweeted the day Mubarak stepped down, must continue their inspired acts of civil disobedience in order to produce lasting democratic changes.  

For eighteen days, the key player the Egyptian Army remained relatively neutral, protecting the protestors at some points, but not entirely stopping the former regime’s police and thugs either.

The Egyptian Army has assumed power, but many issues, such as the unjust emergency law, the presence of corruption, the opposition’s lack of leadership, and in regards to the United States the future civilian government’s stance on Egypt’s geopolitical role, still exist. 

Unfortunately, unseating a deeply corrupt and despotic ruler is not enough for the opposition to claim liberal victory when elements of the former system are still in place.

Though Egypt’s Supreme Military Council has already dissolved parliament, suspended the constitution, and called for elections in six months, it has remained unclear on the current status of Egypt’s infamous emergency law, which allowed Mubarak’s regime to imprison anyone it liked to without charge or legal trial.

The Egyptian Army should quickly put an end to the emergency law and make plans to empower its judicial system to act as a legitimate check and balance power over the future executive and legislative bodies.

It is also very likely that Mubarak has amassed a huge fortune as a result of his corrupt financial practices during the past thirty years all the while twenty percent of the population lived under the poverty line, according to the Fund for Peace.

Corruption serves to upset and deteriorate a government’s ability to perform its role as servant to the public, entrusted to develop and strengthen its country in a proper and just manner. 

Transparency International, a non-governmental organization which has been credited for taking the issue of corruption to the forefront of many policy agendas, publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, in which it ranks 180 countries “by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.”

In 2010, Egypt ranked ninety-eighth on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

“The apparatus of repression and corruption in Egypt is much bigger and much deeper [than just Mubarak], and to root it out and have a hope for a more participatory democratic society is a huge, huge task,” asserted Laurie Brand professor of international relations at the University of Southern California in a recent interview.

For this reason, Egyptians should be wary of the Egyptian Army, which controls a significant part of Egypt’s business sector and economy and was likely involved in corrupt practices under Mubarak’s regime. 

The protestors who marched on Tahrir Square for eighteen days will make progress in establishing democratic values and practices in Egypt insofar as they are able first to organize themselves and find legitimate leaders within their youthful ranks.

In support of this goal, the United States Department of State announced that it was preparing new aid packages to opposition groups in Egypt; which groups would receive the undisclosed amounts remain unclear though, likely because the citizens who the United States would like to support remain unorganized.

The civilian leaders who emerge from the fray and assume roles in Egypt’s new government will need to show as much sophistication and vigor in providing stability to the Middle East as they did demonstrating in the streets of Cairo. 

In order to receive continued economic and military support from the United States, the civilian government will at the very least need to uphold its Peace Treaty with Israel as well.

None of these challenges should take away from what the Egyptian people have just accomplished. As Americans, we should enthusiastically support those who seek to remove the shackles of repression in search of self-determination and recognize that the United States should not always dictate the events in foreign countries. 

Still, the civilian leadership that assumes power in six months will need to overcome significant challenges before Egypt becomes truly democratic. 

[williamfay-blog]

Our Economic and Educational Success (or failure) Will Define the Future of American Power

America is not the same international power it once was, but that is not to say the United States is on the decline. Rather, several factors have altered Washington’s control over the international system.

Most importantly, globalization has redefined competition at the international level.

The nature of global competition is significantly different than it was half a century ago. Economic power is beginning to play a greater role than military strength in defining a state’s position in the international system because major powers and emerging powers are extremely unlikely to go to war against one another.

As a result, states will need to focus on growing their economies and improving their education systems to become or remain major powers.

In other words, guns and nukes are being replaced by GDP and test scores as the drivers of international success.   

This change directly affects the United States, which in the past has used its economic strength to support and build a dominating military force.

Now and into the future, Washington should refocus its economic energy towards achieving economic ends. That means reducing the deficit, stimulating the economy and bolstering international trade and investment. No easy task.

Two critical arenas—our education system and our economy—are no longer independent of one another. Never in the past has the success of our economy, in terms of GDP and job creation, depended more on our education standards.

Economic success will become more and more dependent on high education standards because the global economy has become a knowledge-based economy.

“Nowhere does low performance acutely affect the health of the U.S. economy than in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

So far, the United States isn’t performing well enough.

In fact, the NBER reported that American 15-year-olds scored well below the average for science literary and placed behind most developed nations on critical skills and competencies.

The U.S. school system is stagnating rather than moving forward.

Globalization has changed the nature of global competition forever, but not all of the changes are bad. In fact, there are reasons to be optimistic about the United States’ economic future.

The unlikelihood of great power conflict makes economic cooperation between great powers far more likely.

In another time, for example, China’s rise could result in direct military conflict with the United States. Today, on the other hand, President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China just finished a week-long state visit during which each president happily expressed their commitment to establishing a peaceful bilateral trade, economic, and investment relationship that follows a ‘win-win strategy’ for both countries.

In this sense, China’s growth is actually good for the U.S. economy as a wealthier Chinese middle class would be able to buy more American goods.

The future is still in our hands.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced that American students have to be able to compete with workers anywhere in the world. To do that, “we need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” he stated emphatically.

Success under Obama’s ambitious but necessary goal will significantly depend on whether or not Washington is able to elevate American standards of education and it will also require very hard and politically charged decisions regarding government spending and economic recovery.

Revamping our education system so that more young Americans graduate from college is one of the most important ways the United States can remain competitive in the international system.

In June 2010, Georgetown’s Center for Education and the Workforce reported that by 2018, 64 percent of job openings will require workers with at least some college education or better.

Jobs in manufacturing, farming, fishing, and forestry will be permanently replaced by jobs in industries such as computer and data processing, the latter of which often require a college education.

In the coming months, and especially leading up to the 2012 election, there will be a tremendous debate in Washington about government spending in regards to America’s economic recovery.

In the current financial climate, the government needs to make cuts. It will be extremely difficult for the Obama administration to gain bi-partisan support as to where those cuts should be made though.

Lacking a major power threat, Washington might be advised to make cuts in the defense budget and avoid cuts in education.

Ultimately, the United States faces a significant up-hill climb in order to remain the world’s superpower. The Obama administration will need to think long and hard about the interrelated nature of both the economic and educational problems that have caused our nation to fall behind as other countries move forward. 

[williamfay-blog]

The New START Treaty and the future of US non-proliferation

Over break, the New START Treaty was approved in the United States Senate, overcoming what was widely considered its last hurdle.

New START limits the amount of strategic nuclear weapons both the United States and Russia are allowed to have deployed at any given time. 

The treaty fostered a contentious debate in Washington. 

Opponents feared the treaty would ultimately prevent the United States from building strategic missile defense systems in Europe and have argued that there wasn’t enough time to resolve this issue.

“When majority leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame-duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization,” Senator Kyl (R- Arizona) said in a written statement on November 16, 2010.  

The next day, Senator Lugar (R- Indiana), leader of the Foreign Relations Committee, spoke out passionately against the idea of avoiding a vote during the lame-duck session.

“Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty,” he said.

In the end, the treaty rightfully received 71 of 97 votes, passing the Senate and marking a significant political victory for the Obama administration.

The treaty is good for the United States and its allies for several reasons. 

First, the treaty symbolically and diplomatically strengthens the US-Russia relationship.

The Russian Federation still has important political, economic and military influence around the globe. Moreover, Russian aggression to the current framework of the international system could have greater impact as US foreign policy diminishes in reach. 

In the second decade of the 21st century, Russia’s international role will be significantly defined by its coalescence or its divergence with the United States and its allies. New START helps strengthen a relationship under which the former enemies can work together on security issues such as Iran.   

Second, the treaty ensures that all US and Russian nuclear materials are accounted for and under safeguards because it re-establishes continued on-site inspections and verification procedures of each sides’ nuclear facilities.

Inspections allow each side to be fully aware of their counterpart’s nuclear arsenal. And they also provide greater assurance that all nuclear materials are accounted for.

During his press conference on Decemeber 22, 2010, Obama announced that US inspectors would be back on the ground at Russian nuclear bases with the passing of New START. 

Third, the treaty sets the precedent that the reduction of nuclear stockpiles is a practical and realistic goal. 

The international non-proliferation regime led by the International Atomic Energy Agency has moved slowly in implementing lasting changes beyond establishing a norm against the development and use of nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, reductions—which lessen the international threat level— from the most powerful can in turn lessen a non-nuclear weapons state’s desire to proliferate.

“The START Treaty is an important message to non-nuclear weapons states that the world’s two nuclear super powers are ‘working on it,’” Professor Wayne Glass of the School of International Relations of University of Southern California noted in a written statement.

Last, it demonstrates how the US can effectively dictate the international system to the benefit of the majority of its actors.

With the end of the Cold War, the United States assumed the international role as global moderator. Balancing its own self-interest and attempting to protect foreign citizens, the United States has asserted itself militarily, exerting an unprecedented level of power around the globe for many years.

The United States’ current economic struggles promise a much more diminished and restrained US foreign policy. In the future, the United States will rely on others to help moderate the international system.

New START reflects this change. The Obama administration, along with the United States Senate, has acknowledged the need to strengthen global relationships. 

In terms of non-proliferation, the United States should now focus its efforts on safeguarding Pakistan’s nuclear materials and facilities. 

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is an extremely volatile state that possesses an adequate nuclear program that features 70-90 nuclear weapons. 

Hostility between the secular and Islamic communities within Pakistan has reached a recent high with the assassination of Salman Taseer, former secular governor of the Punjab province. 

Also, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (its most powerful intelligence agency) is known to have links to terrorist organizations including Lashkar-e-Taiba—the terrorist organization responsible for the three day Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008.

The most dangerous threat to the United States and its allies is a terrorist organization getting its hands on a nuclear weapon. The place where that is most likely to happen is Pakistan. 

The United States and its allies must carefully press Pakistan to improve the security of its nuclear facilities while considering the desires and motivations of both the government and rising Islamic extremists. 

The United States may need to call on its allies to help secure, not eliminate, Pakistan’s potentially dangerous nuclear program. 

[williamfay-blog]

What the Wikileaks Afghan war logs leak means for and about us

The controversy surrounding the recent Wikileaks leak of classified United States’ military documents doesn’t appear to be all that controversial.  The leaked documents describe in detail certain elements of war normally reserved to those fighting or suffering first hand in combat.  The story of a lost drone, the uncertain and alarming relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban, and the incident reports describing the inhuman actions of both NATO and Afghan forces alike among many other leaked documents tell vivid stories of the War in Afghanistan.

But, according to most experts, these accounts reveal little to nothing new regarding the nine years of fighting in the troubled country.  Rather, Wikileaks has revealed some simple truths of war that the average person either chooses not to think about or accepts as a necessary evil.  These are the stories that explain why the fog is never far from the fighting.  Wikileaks and its creator Julian Asange have brought the fog onto our computer screens, into our homes, and onto our minds.  The fog of war is a term used to describe the uncertainty and ambiguity of war.  Anyone who has seen the length of the leaked documents realizes how often unplanned or unforeseen events occur in the heat of conflict.   

These are the events that make up the painfully heroic stories that captivate us in books like Generation Kill by Evan Wright, movies like Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola) and TV series like Band of Brothers.  The difference is that the classified documents haven’t moved us, despite the fact that the War in Afghanistan has been one of the most talked about and debated issues over the past decade.  Does this apathy signal a loss of interest or enthusiasm for the war?  Are we just sick of hearing about this seemingly endless and futile conflict?  Or do we no longer care that the men who planned and orchestrated the attacks on the Twin Towers are still alive today?  I don’t think so.  What I do think though is that as a self-interested nation, we’ve become too accustomed to the harsh and devastating realities of war.  We’ve accepted the fact that we can’t control everything, that things will go wrong, and that it shouldn’t be a surprise if the fog takes over.   

I think most Americans rightfully felt a need or desire to support the initial surge into Afghanistan as our response to 9/11.  The events of that horrific day brought the line between us and them to the forefront of all of our minds.  In my lifetime, there hasn’t been a clearer justification for declaring war.  And yet, a war that seemed so clear and straightforward has failed to escape the ambiguity and uncertainty of fighting.  Wikileaks has helped to make that painstakingly clear.

President Obama has condemned Wikileaks as having threatened our troops abroad and our national security.  Others have praised the actions of Wikileaks as helping to make our government and armed forces more transparent and accountable.  I have a hard time believing that the leaking of these documents is inherently a good or bad thing.  As citizens of the United States, we have a right to know how our tax dollars are spent.  Consequently, the effects and repercussions, both positive and negative, of our actions are revealed.  At the same time, there are absolutely aspects of our national security and defense that need to be kept secret to protect our troops, and our country.  As previously mentioned, the Wikileaks leak didn’t reveal elements of the war that the world wasn’t already aware of.  However, our apparent indifference to the leaked reports speaks to a much graver and important issue concerning our willingness to accept the fog of war. 

Originally written on August 3, 2010

[williamfay-blog]

Financial insight into the 2010 elections

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the disturbing influence money, in the form of campaign contributions, has over politics. Today’s campaign finance system is flawed and legal loopholes have eroded even the most determined attempts at campaign finance reform. 

However, until policymakers improve the system, knowing where campaign contributions are coming from should be a priority for the voting public.

Transparency and accountability need to be integrated to a greater degree within the campaign finance system.

A detailed inquiry into every race of the 2010 elections is far beyond the scope of this piece. Instead, the following will seek to understand how much money was provided to the winners of some of the more noteworthy Senate and gubernatorial races, who provided this money and why it all matters.    

In her winning bid for California’s Senate seat, Barbara Boxer raised about 26 million dollars and spent just under 25 million dollars of that amount. Her top contributor was EMILY’s List (an acronym for Early Money is Like Yeast), which is a national political action committee, or PAC, that works to elect pro-choice female Democrats. Second was an L.A. based personal injury and financial harm law firm called Girardi & Keese. And third, was the University of California school system.

Republican and Tea Partier Rand Paul who won Kentucky’s Senate seat raised just under seven million dollars and spent just over six million of that amount. His top contributor was health insurance giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is currently lobbying Congress to make it more difficult for the government to sanction companies that get caught defrauding Medicare or filling false claims. Second was the American Bankers Association, which is currently lobbying for a bankruptcy bill that would force people in debt to repay a portion of their dues. And third was the Credit Union National Association, which represents credit unions nationwide.

Gubernatorial candidates around the country also collected large amounts of cash for their campaigns.

Veteran democratic politician Jerry Brown raised just over 37 million dollars for his winning campaign for California governor. His top contributor was Brown for Attorney General 2010, a candidate leadership committee. Next was the California Democratic Party and third was the Food & Commercial Workers Region 8 States Council, a worker’s union whose parent company is the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union.

Rick Perry, republican who won Texas’ gubernatorial race raised more than 28 million dollars during his campaign. His top contributor was Bob J. Perry, a businessman from Houston, Texas and major campaign contributor to Americans Crossroads a tax-exempt and unlimited organization that helps Republican candidates win elections. Second was George Ryan, the 39th governor of Illinois whose political career abruptly ended when he was convicted of widespread corruption during his administration. Third was Harold Simmons, an American businessman and billionaire who made significant contributions to American Crossroads as well.

More generally, California’s Fair Political Practices Commission has stated that the total amount spent during the 2010 campaigns is roughly four billion dollars. This enormous sum should shock and alarm the average voter who most likely gave nothing to any political candidate, party or organization.

Unfortunately, we are currently being forced to stomach this reality.

Dan Schnur, Director of the Jesse M. Unruh institute of Politics and Chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, identifies another significant problem though; “increasing amounts of those contributions were from anonymous sources.”  His solution is simple; “the sources of that money should be publicly available to voters.”

Money has attained such a tremendous depth within our political campaign system, making the knowledge of where all this money comes from essential to the average American voter.

The figures above are open to the public because of organizations such as The Center for Responsive Politics, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and California’s Fair Practices Commission. However, as Mr. Schnur acknowledges, anonymous donations are a growing problem.

What good is this information if all we see and hear from candidates comes from the advertisements they exhibit on television?

The public needs to know which individuals, organizations and corporations are funding a candidate’s campaign because a politician’s financial base may be the most important indicator of his or her political and ideological beliefs. 

Originally written on November 11, 2010

[williamfay-blog]

Campaign contributions growing in size, power

If you’ve watched more than an hour of television since the beginning of October, it’s likely you’ve seen an advertisement either praising or bashing one of California’s two gubernatorial candidates: Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown.

This election — like many of the current local, state and national elections — features two particularly antithetical candidates.

The one thing every candidate in every election has in common, however, is that none would be running for his desired position if it weren’t for campaign contributions.

The power of money in politics is not a modern phenomenon, and campaign finance reform has been an endeavor as old as politics itself, the most recent example of which is the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Nevertheless, legal loopholes have effectively mitigated even the most powerful campaign finance reform laws.

For example, there is a cap on the amount individuals can give directly to a candidate’s campaign, but labor unions, corporations and individuals have circumvented this law with “soft-money” contributions, which are paid to national parties and then used to finance state elections, with no limit.

Money will likely influence politics forever, but today’s campaign finance system has serious flaws.

Total contributions to all candidates in the 2008 presidential election reached more than $1.7 billion, triple the total amount raised in the 2000 presidential election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

And the total spent by presidential candidates during the 2008 presidential campaign reached more than $1.3 billion, almost four times the total amount spent during the 2000 presidential campaign.

If you didn’t count, that’s nine zeros. We’re talking about upwards of a billion dollars just in one year’s presidential election.

Money can’t buy votes, but it can buy voter influence. With effective political advertising, candidates and the parties, unions and corporations financially supporting them can impact and mobilize voters.

In effect, politicians with deep pockets or influential fundraisers have a significantly greater chance of being the candidate representing the Democratic or Republican Party in an election and winning that election.

The most important player in campaign finance isn’t the powerful lobbyist, mighty labor union, prosperous corporation or wealthy individual. Rather, it is the fundraiser or solicitor who has a large Rolodex with endless names of people willing to donate the maximum directly to a particular candidate.

These individuals are the unsung heroes who politicians flock to and serenade come campaign time.

Aside from the inherently uneasy feeling people have toward this more unsavory side of politics, there are many reasons why we should care about campaign contributions.

Fewer people are voting, while more and more money is being raised and spent during campaigns.

As a result, the small group of political donors and fundraisers is gaining power, while average Americans sit on the sidelines unaware of the rules and results of these political contests.

Moreover, candidates need outside money to run for office; Meg Whitman has raised $18,000,000 outside of what she’s pulled from her own wallet.

As a result, candidates themselves must spend a tremendous amount of time begging the rich or well connected, instead of promoting themselves to the ordinary voter.

Unfortunately, campaign finance reformers, while valiant in their efforts, have fallen short of success.

Lawmakers and citizens alike must ask themselves if the current system is fixable or beyond repair. But either way, something needs to be done.

Two advocates for recreating a new campaign finance system are Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres.

Their 2002 book Voting With Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance Reform describes and promotes a system with two distinctly new components: a mechanism to blind candidates from the names of their private contributors and a program that gives every voter a monetary credit of equal value to be deposited at secret donation booths.

Shielding candidates from their contributors eliminates the potential for quid pro quo dealings if a candidate is elected but still allows individuals to financially support candidates they believe are best fit to run a local, state or national office.

The monetary credit — or what Ackerman and Ayres call “Patriot dollars” — levels the playing field allowing all citizens to get involved, and the secrecy of the ballot box impedes special-interest dealings.

We need to find an answer to the problem of what is essentially legalized corruption in political campaigns throughout the United States.

The Ackerman and Ayres reform proposal offers a pragmatic solution that promises a significant reduction of private, self-interested contributions while opening campaign finance to all.

Removing money entirely from politics seems unrealistic, but institutionalizing a democratic form of campaign finance is a matter of will.

Story originally written for the University of Southern California's Daily Trojan on October 25, 2010

[williamfay-blog]

Pledge should inspire students to give

College students are often in a position to be the loudest voice promoting humanitarian and charitable endeavors. Still, it’s only natural that the academic environment is equally infused with students’ own self-interests. In college we’re so intensely focused on our majors, internships, finances, networking and futures that it’s easy to forget about any sort of philanthropy.

It’s especially important in this setting to recognize the benefits of altruism, especially when those practicing it are some of the wealthiest and most successful in our country. What we need is a role model or an organizational guideline from which we can learn how to incorporate philanthropy into our daily lives, and, as we leave college and become more independent, how to carry it with us into our futures.

In May 2009, highly successful investor Warren Buffett, business magnate Bill Gates and his wife Melinda Gates, a noted philanthropist, gathered a dozen of the wealthiest Americans to discuss their experiences with philanthropy. None of the participants (who included David Rockefeller, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, media mogul Ted Turner, real estate tycoon Eli Broad and TV host Oprah Winfrey) could have known quite what to expect of the gathering.

Over the course of the three-hour summit, 12 stories about philanthropy were told by 12 different individuals.

As each person recalled his own experiences, all parties, Bill Gates  began thinking about expanding the concept. Buffet and the Gates held two more dinners, one in Seattle and another in Menlo Park, Calif. At some point during these gatherings, the idea of the Giving Pledge was born.

Since then, Buffet and the Gates have been on a recruitment search to fulfill the Pledge’s mission — to “invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropy,” according to givingpledge.org.

As of Aug. 4, 2010, 40 American families and individuals have pledged to give the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. The Giving Pledge is not a legal contract. Rather, it is a moral commitment. There aren’t any guidelines or a mandatory set of causes. The pledge encourages participants to contribute to causes that they personally believe are the most worthwhile.

Describing the motivation for the openness of the Giving Pledge, Melinda Gates cited the words of Australian philosopher and Princeton professor Peter Singer: “we do what our reference does” — meaning, what we see determines how we act.

The lesson that needs to be drawn from the Giving Pledge is not that one should make so much money that the only thing to do with it is give it away, or that one must be a billionaire — the Pledge’s target demographic — before one can give to a cause.

Instead, as students still building our futures, we should be aware of our own pre-existing capacity to give.

Through donations and volunteering, engaging in philanthropy “(sensitizes you) to what you can do in this world,” said Buffet in a June interview with Charlie Rose.

Moreover, thinking about philanthropy on such a level as the Giving Pledge now will prepare students for when they are in a better position to give in the future. What people are driven by in life is what drives them to give. Thinking about how and why to give back now ensures that one is able to do so effectively later.

The decision to give back in any form requires taking a leap of faith, which is often hampered by the apparent enormity of some of today’s greatest world problems.

But, according to Bill Gates, ours is  the “first generation that these issues are solvable … these things are within reach.” The money accumulated by the Giving Pledge might become the tipping point, both in how philanthropy is perceived and in its return on investment.

The families and individuals who have made this pledge deserve recognition and greater publicity so that more might follow in their footsteps. Their stories will hopefully inspire other billionaires — and even a few college students —  to think about their own capacity to give.

Story originally written for the University of Southern California's Daily Trojan on September 27, 2010

[williamfay-blog]

10 Years Removed, the War Remains

Saturday marked the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that shook our nation. All of us, whether freshmen or seniors, international students or native Angelenos, know where we were the moment we saw the falling towers for the first time. That day should always be remembered. Unfortunately, Sept. 11 continues to burden us today in Afghanistan.

The United States is beginning to close the door on the war in Iraq. Troops are being withdrawn and the country’s security is now being turned over to the Iraqi government. This means that the main focus now shifts back to the war in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama wants to downsize the military operation in Afghanistan by July 2011, setting a soft deadline much like the one in for Iraq. According to The New York Times, about 50,000 troops of United States’ military force will remain in Afghanistan through 2011, but will aim at assisting rather than superseding Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

Ten months isn’t far from now, but the goals laid out by Gen. David Petraeus and Obama for Afghanistan remain aggressive and idealistic. American causalities are increasing. The Taliban has an unflinching grip over its stronghold in the region of Kandahar, which is thought to be where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned. The Afghan government and army have showed limited progress in their lackluster attempt to take over.

In the United States, public support for the war is at an all-time low.

And yet, the goals of the updated strategy in Afghanistan are to bring a strategic defeat to Al Qaeda by rolling back the Taliban from its strongholds, building Afghan capacity to secure its own territory, and in doing so, denying terrorists a safe haven.

This last goal brings us back to the reason the United States is in Afghanistan in the first place — the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Unfortunately, what might have been a justified and necessary response has evolved into an enduring conflict, one that seems destined to fall short of its goals.

Two of the defining elements of the war are the nature of our opponents: a non-state terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and an overthrown political and military movement vying for a return to power (the Taliban).

The result has been an awkward and complex situation in which the United States is responsible for defeating those guilty for the attacks and ensuring that Afghanistan doesn’t become a hotbed for terrorists.

Therein lie the complications.

Only a small number of Al Qaeda members (fewer than 100, according to the CIA director Leon Panetta in June) still operate in Afghanistan. Whether Osama Bin Laden is even in Afghanistan remains uncertain. Also, American support of the Afghan government entrenches Washington in an internal struggle for power in a foreign nation. It is a mistake to overlook the fact that there are still Afghans who support the Taliban.

Still, the mission pulls at the emotional and ideological heartstrings  of Americans and Westerners alike. During an interview conducted by NATO TV, Petraeus described the new strategy as “a concept of reintegration, a tactical directive to ensure there is sufficient focus on reducing the loss of civilian life in the conduct of our operations, counter-insurgency guidance, a civil-military campaign plan — not just a military operational plan.” Petraeus attempts to show the American people not only that progress is being made but that a moral air to caution and transitional development are now priorities.

None of the goals outlined above have been accomplished to an acceptable extent. Indeed, success feels elusive and faraway.

For these reasons, the July 2011 deadline is looking more and more like an impeding date of failure.

Though Taliban and Al Qaeda causalities far outnumber American causalities, by next July Al Qaeda will remain a key player throughout the world: The Afghan government will struggle to prove its ability to control the violent ambitions of the Taliban and terrorist organizations will continue to operate in the region.

Ideologically, this scenario poses an unnerving threat in the minds of Americans. Pragmatically, there are other mechanisms besides this war that are capable of preventing a future terrorist attack akin to Sept. 11, the Madrid train bombings or the London bus attacks.

A reinvigorated emphasis on finding objective, coordinated and confident intelligence, especially in regard to nuclear proliferation, should be a priority. Thorough internal policing and strong border inspection also need to be emphasized.

On a wider spectrum, the United States and its allies need to be active in financially supporting foreign governments who are committed to keeping terrorists out of their countries.

The final act of the war in Afghanistan has just begun. Unless the narrative takes a dramatic turn for the better before next summer, our troops will be welcomed home by overjoyed friends and family but will be leaving behind a persisting arena of uncertainty.

Story originally written for the University of Southern California's Daily Trojan on September 16, 2010