. . . We’ve brought the economy back from the brink of the worst economic condition since the Great Depression.  Heck, we’ve even already been paid back some of the bailout money so many people, including myself, are generally upset over.

. . . We’ve articulated a plan to withdraw from Iraq.

. . . Our standing in the world has dramatically improved.

. . . We have plans for Afghanistan that help focus [ more . . . ]]]> Let’s not overlook what’s been accomplished over the past year.  Yeah, it’s not sexy.  Yeah, it’s not the kind of thing you want to work on.  But it’s progress nonetheless.

. . . We’ve brought the economy back from the brink of the worst economic condition since the Great Depression.  Heck, we’ve even already been paid back some of the bailout money so many people, including myself, are generally upset over.

. . . We’ve articulated a plan to withdraw from Iraq.

. . . Our standing in the world has dramatically improved.

. . . We have plans for Afghanistan that help focus the tip of the spear on eliminating the real threat of future terrorism (hopefully).

. . . We’ve responded to a near pandemic with regard to Swine Flu (granted, it has not been as bad as it could have been, but we marshalled our resources to be as prepared as possible).

. . . We’ve kept teachers and police officers and firemen and others in their jobs when states were about to effect (sizeable) cuts last year.

. . . We’re helping the people of Haiti.

. . . We’ve done a lot of work toward actual Healthcare Reform.

Don’t be surprised if part of President Obama’s State of the Union speech is framed as having ‘taken care of some (very) serious business’ and that we’ve now ’set the stage’ for a great year of getting the People’s business done.

For more in-depth perspective on Afghanistan, here’s a recent article, “Outside Thinking on the Inside of Afghanistan . . . What To Do?”, that tries to get to the nitty-gritty details of formulating a strategy that works.

I don’t like having troops there, either.  I wish the Bush Administration had not dropped the ball by utterly ignoring its responsibilities in Afghanistan.  But it’s the situation we find ourselves in, and [ more . . . ]]]> Remember, and listen carefully tonight, it’s what the hell we’re doing there in Afghanistan, i.e. the Mission, that’s what’s important, not necessarily whether we pull troops out or put more in.

For more in-depth perspective on Afghanistan, here’s a recent article, “Outside Thinking on the Inside of Afghanistan . . . What To Do?”, that tries to get to the nitty-gritty details of formulating a strategy that works.

I don’t like having troops there, either.  I wish the Bush Administration had not dropped the ball by utterly ignoring its responsibilities in Afghanistan.  But it’s the situation we find ourselves in, and we either have absolutely NO mission in Afghanistan (and / or the immediate region) . . . or we do.  Forced to say one way or the other, I’d fall on the side that we DO have a mission there, no matter how confused, overdue, and largely ignored for years it may be.

But if that yet fails to convince, let’s look at it another way . . .

The reason more troops don’t seem to make sense — even to me — is because we don’t know what strategic objective we’ve been trying to accomplish for years.  (Thank You, George Bush and Dick Cheney . . . You jerks.)  Just like a fever is a symptom of something more serious, it’s the missing objective driving whether more or fewer troops make sense, not the level of troops in and of itself.  Less (or no) troops make sense in the absence of any achievable mission.  But more troops are absolutely worthwhile for an objective worth achieving.

If you’ve already made up your mind — even before hearing the President’s speech — then you’re not giving the matter the time and attention it deserves.  I’m interested in listening to what President Obama has to say.  What are you doing at 8PM?

It’s also in large part why I’ve stayed away from commenting much on Afghanistan here at LittleDEM.  Simply put, it’s too important a problem to be at all casual about.

But now is the time to put forth all ideas, suggestions, and observations to get Afghanistan right (or at least as right as we can make the situation).  It’s [ more . . . ]]]> I don’t know, at least not for certain anyway — And it’s likely no else does for sure, either.  In math-speak, Afghanistan is fairly intractable, meaning very difficult to solve . . . and for a problem of this magnitude, that’s an understatement.

It’s also in large part why I’ve stayed away from commenting much on Afghanistan here at LittleDEM.  Simply put, it’s too important a problem to be at all casual about.

But now is the time to put forth all ideas, suggestions, and observations to get Afghanistan right (or at least as right as we can make the situation).  It’s clear from what’s been reported the past day+ that President Obama may be preparing to (radically) change course.  If that’s at all the case, then the game is not nearly so much about troops, how few or how many, or — writ larger — pure military might as the challenge of Afghanistan may perhaps be recast in a much different and / or broader perspective.

And that spells ‘opportunity’ — And that’s where you and me, your friends, and your family and colleagues come into play.

So here’s some thoughts, observations, and ideas of my own, if just to help get the ball rolling — What are your thoughts?  What ideas do you have?

• Thought: We’re not trying to win a ground war, but ground troops, especially more of them, are only making it look moreso (and putting more American troops at actual risk in contrast to uncertain gains).
• Thought: In 9 years, Soviet forces lost 14,453 personnel with 53,753 wounded or otherwise injured (many, many more — in excess of 400,000 — fell sicks from such illnesses as infectious hepatitis, typhoid fever, and other diseases).  Granted, we’re in a different era, and we’re a very different fighting force.  But are we possibly ahead of the curve, a perspective that might explain why we’re loosing more and more troops, instead of fewer and fewer?
• Observation: When it costs approximately $10 to pay an Afghan to plant an IED that then kills US & NATO troops, how can you defeat that?
• Observation: Don’t forget that it actually has been 8 years and that using the excuse of a ‘Reset’ is to assert false hope that the past 8 years hasn’t existed — They have, and we shouldn’t deny it, not for a second.  In fact, accepting that fact is what will most likely help us best see and built the right strategy.
• Observation: And if you’re not quite convinced on the previous observation . . . Don’t you think the Afghans know we’ve been there 8 years!?!  I mean, how many years past 8 are they going to accept possibly continued protraction of the current situation?
• Idea: Conduct a test.  Seriously — Set the objectives and design two or more approaches . . . and try them.  See what works.  We do it in business all the time, and it’s proven to validate understandings, generate knowledge, and — in the short, medium, and long-term — achieve results.
• Idea: Give the smallest, the most rural, the most isolated communities electricity.  I’m not talking about Kabul, the capital — I’m talking about the places that only the people who actually live there know the names of, let alone how to pronounce.  Accordingly to a quick Google search, only about 7% of the country’s population had access to electricity as of 2007.  If that’s anywhere near the case today, changing that to even 50% would be a tremendous improvement.  And I’m not talking about dams and large-scale power stations here — I’m talking about small to medium generators all over the place and building the infrastructure to deliver fuel.  (Much of Afghanistan is so remote as to make power distribution nearly impractical.)  Rather, use diesel or other forms of power generation . . . and give the generators away.  And here’s why I think it might work — They’ll, meaning Afghans themselves, will want to protect those fuel supply lines knowing what they have to loose . . . and that they have something to fight to keep.  The modus operandi? “Disruptions aren’t our problems — They’re theirs.”  (We deliver generators and supply the fuel — They keep it safe to do so.)

Let’s apply some Blue Ocean strategy to a landlocked mess — Join, Think, Add.

First of all, look at the Republican Party’s infrastructure and what they currently have in place, starting with the Republican National Committee.

There isn’t anything there, at least very little of any actual value. The RNC is a piece of junk and, led by Party Chairman Michael Steele, as apt to say something palatable as it is to say something that gives most Americans the heebie-jeebies. Heck, in a [ more . . . ]]]> Yes, I know — It’s been said before. But I don’t think it’s ever been truer than it is right now, and now is the perfect timing to do it.

First of all, look at the Republican Party’s infrastructure and what they currently have in place, starting with the Republican National Committee.

There isn’t anything there, at least very little of any actual value. The RNC is a piece of junk and, led by Party Chairman Michael Steele, as apt to say something palatable as it is to say something that gives most Americans the heebie-jeebies. Heck, in a Republican stronghold like New York’s 23rd district, the Republican Party couldn’t win, even after fielding and endorsing two candidates. And at a national level, it’s so inept it couldn’t even keep a black man from becoming President of the United States. (It truly bothers me to say that second point, but let’s at least admit that — for at least some portion of the Republican Party — that was their only mission with respect to the 2008 election.)

Moving on . . . In an age where most people — even if they don’t quite believe in Climate Change — at least believe that we should control ourselves, in an age like the one we’re in, Republican’s best chant at the Republican National Convention was “Drill Baby Drill!” morning, noon, and night. Is there some grand scheme I’m not getting?!?

How about the Republican Party’s legacy? There’s not much point in hitching your trailer to a legacy of things like Ronald Reagan if you can’t do anything with it. (Wasn’t Abraham Lincoln the first Republican president!?! Lot a’good it’s doing for the Party right now, huh.) And hasn’t the far Right so twisted whatever was any good in most of that legacy that it doesn’t mean much anymore?

Oh, the Republican stronghold on National Security? That’s even worse. How about starting two wars, one of which a Republican President walked away from (Afghanistan) in favor of starting a second one we never needed to fight in the first place (Iraq)? That’s a blunder of, dare I say, biblical proportions that raises yet another issue of the Bush Administration having actually started one of these wars under veiled religious pretense. (Remember the original Iraq war name, Operation Infinite Justice?)

And domestic issues? Republicans best stance on the leading topic of the day, Healthcare Reform, is to do nothing and obstruct progress, all on an issue that’s only gotten much, much worse over the past two Republican administrations (and largely Republican-held Congress). Huh, I’m supposed to do what?!? Beg my neighbors and bake brownies to raise the $600 / month my health insurance is going to cost me starting December 1st!?! I don’t think so — I think solving problems like this one is exactly why we have government to begin with (and most Americans get that).

But let’s look on the bright side of moderate Republicans breaking away and forming their own Party. Perhaps most important? The amount of credibility, attention, and plain-old Oomph! moderate Republicans would most certainly get would be amazing, if just to see it. We’d all here stereo concussions of both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh’s heads exploding. Think about it . . . A new party borne out of fiscal conservatism, laissez-faire economics, small government, and responsible spending. Heck, throw in strong military.

Moderate Republican would throw Tea Baggers into a tizzy — Tea Baggers would probably be confused whether ‘laissez-faire’ is something of a hidden agenda of Gay Marriage that they should be opposed to. I mean, c’mon, how hard would it be to confuse and circumvent people who stand there yelling at their Representative or Senator saying, “Keep your hands off my Medicare!”, not quite seeming to get that Medicare is a government program to begin with.

And, get this, moderate Republican would finally be able to stand for some actual values and civility. You know what would catch my attention? How about actually calling out the Birthers, acknowledging Barack Obama’s election, and making it a point to call him President Obama. If for nothing else, do it just for class.

I’m not sure it would work nationally, but it certainly would work in certain regions, and much more importantly, it would reclaim a true set of principles that have been so watered down, abused, and tortured as to put the current Republican Party on the same track as the dodo bird.

As encouragement . . . There actually used to be Republicans that I liked and respected, even agreed with. They’re virtually all gone now, and that’s not because I’ve changed — It’s because they’ve simply ‘left the building’. The door’s open, moderate Republicans — Walk back in.

But what’s the best reason? The United States faces serious challenges at the moment . . . and we need every reasonable-minded person we can marshal to help solve them. While we’re better off without a Crazy Republican Party, we would be much better off with a Moderate one.

There is legitimate debate as of late — as there always should be — on how to proceed with respect to Afghanistan.  We should always have debate on such topics.  But let us not loose sight on the objective, that of disabling and dismantling Al-Qaeda.  They are the ones that attacked us, and it’s them and their affiliates [ more . . . ]]]> As we remember 9-11, let us not forget those who attacked us.  And let us not loose our resolve to — however we can, however we need to, abiding by our values and code — to make sure it does not happen again.

There is legitimate debate as of late — as there always should be — on how to proceed with respect to Afghanistan.  We should always have debate on such topics.  But let us not loose sight on the objective, that of disabling and dismantling Al-Qaeda.  They are the ones that attacked us, and it’s them and their affiliates that pose a legitimate threat to the United States.

Again, remember the anger you felt on this day and reaffirm your resolve to make sure no one has to live through such an event again.  I know I do.