The CMC Celeb section features interesting personal stories and there is no better celeb to start with than Isaac Goldberg. Isaac, a senior from Scarsdale, NY, is a passionate Democrat. He is majoring in Government with a sequence in Leadership. Isaac spends his free time playing on the CMC Regulators baseball team. He is the President of the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges and has political experience that would make most CMCers drool. Isaac has worked a number of internships. Notably, he has worked for two Congressional campaigns and on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C. Most impressive of all, Isaac was offered the unique opportunity to work on Barack Obama’s 2008 bid for the White House.

To get to know Isaac better, the Forum asked him a set of six questions that can be found in all future CMC Celeb articles:

“The Six”

1. What are the top 5 most played songs on your iTunes?

1. Thunder Road, Bruce Springsteen
2. Cotton Fields, Credence Clearwater Revival
3. The Weight, The Band
4. You Don’t Know How it Feels, Tom Petty
5. Perfect Gentleman, Wyclef Jean

In light of the complexity and weight of the situation, it is reasonable for Obama to take time to carefully consider America’s options.  Although McChrystal’s report is rife with language declaring that we must act decisively and act now, it is crucial that Obama avoid an “LBJ moment” and rush headlong into Afghanistan without carefully weighing the consequences.  For this reason, accusations of “dithering” by detractors like Dick Cheney is nothing more than sound-byte flak.  Mind you, Cheney’s expertise in the careful planning and successful execution of war has been called into question by recent history.

What is troubling about the deliberation process is that it seems to be a major reversal of Obama’s policy on a number of levels.  Essentially, McChrystal is making the case for a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy which would require a substantial increase in the number of US and allied troops in Afghanistan.  McChrystal’s recommendations are specific, down to the minimum number of additional troops required for success, and in keeping with the administration’s assertion that securing Afghanistan is a “vital security interest” of the US.  Moreover, McChrystal was handpicked by Obama after the President made it clear that he wanted a counterinsurgency strategy like the one McChrystal is proposing, rather than a counterterrorist strategy favored by people such as Vice-President Biden.  Therefore, it seems that Obama has been committed to the type of plan outlined by McChrystal from the very beginning.  In light of the protracted deliberation now occurring in the White House, however, something has changed.  Most observers do not believe that Obama will grant McChrystal the number of troops the General says is necessary for victory.

Why is Obama hesitating when his handpicked military expert has clearly outlined the road to victory?  Perhaps, faced with the actual numbers in the general’s report, Obama has decided to rethink the cost-benefit balance of this war.  A counterinsurgency campaign, which is usually measured not in months but in years or even decades, will be an extremely costly addition to what has already been a long and deadly war.  In light of the billions of dollars, thousands of men, and many years of war required to achieve what he originally declared necessary, Obama may now be more tempted by the alternative of occasional predator drone strikes against al-Qaeda operatives.

As an Obama supporter who  largely agrees with Obama’s Afghan policy, I would find it hard to reconcile such a shift from counterinsurgency to counterterrorist methods. All along, winning in Afghanistan has been defined as the creation of a stable government that is able to suppress or expel the terrorists operating in its territory.  A counterinsurgency campaign could achieve this goal.  A counterterrorist campaign will not only fail to achieve this goal, but does not conceive of these conditions as goals in the first place.   Which of the two approaches is more likely to succeed in Afghanistan?  In the administration’s conception, at least up to now, the only possible answer is counterinsurgency.  For this reason, a full shift from “COIN” to “CT” operations is highly unlikely; it would simply be too inconsistent with the administration’s idea of US security interests in the region.  Consequently,  stuck with a winning strategy that is simply too costly to enact, Obama will probably move forward with half-measures.  The results could be disastrous.

Most observers agree that Obama will characteristically  find a “middle way,” providing some but not all of the troops McChrystal has requested.  This is a terrifying prospect.  If Afghanistan is truly the must-win that Obama has characterized it, then under-resourcing the war will be a sure fire way to waste American blood and treasure in a losing effort that will ultimately make us less secure and result in yet another loss in international prestige.  If the costs of McChrystal’s plan are too high, we must think of another acceptable way to achieve our ultimate end, which, it is sometimes hard to remember, is the destruction of al-Qaeda.  If that means switching to counterterrorist operations so be it.  But Obama absolutely should not send an arbitrary number of soldiers to be fodder in a war that, McChrystal has already told us, we will lose– we need to send the troops the general has requested, or none at all.  To be fair, it must be mentioned that military thinkers are hard at work on a “middle way” that might be viable.  Among them, John Nagl, one of the minds behind the military’s successful shift in focus to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, has suggested a “triage” approach that may be promising.  This plan, however, largely reads as a “counterinsurgency redux” option and does not offer fundamentally different plans for Afghanistan other than asserting that an operation with fewer troops could theoretically be successful.

Henry Kissinger, rather ironically, once said, “That which must be done ultimately should be done immediately.”   At the end of the day, Obama needs to decide not what number of troops to send or how much funding the war requires, but whether or not winning in Afghanistan, as it is currently conceived, is truly essential to US security.  If it is, then let us hope that Obama acts decisively on McChrystal’s recommendations and commits fully to a winning effort.  If not, let’s get the hell out.

[2] ibid. Sec 1-4

It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies.   This job is harder than people think.  Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool.  That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.

An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time.  We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.”  (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved.  I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)

Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.  How else do you explain articles like this?  Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up?  For some reason these people want to relive that.  They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse.  It’s immature and childlike.

What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:

“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn

With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle.  You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and   wrote this.  No one cares about how you and Andrew work together.  You’re supposed to act professionally.  The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI.  This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.

I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:

“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”

A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds.  I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded.  Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.

Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging.  You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

P.S. Refreshments (pizza?) will be served.

(Photo Credit: LA Times)

The Claremont Political Union was created as a confluence of the Claremont Democrats and Claremont Republicans clubs, and CMC’s two partisan newspapers, the Claremont Port Side, and the Claremont Independent. According to President of the Claremont Democrats, Elaine Maloney (SC ‘08), “People might be involved in politics, but might not be allegiant to a party. But this is a good place to start for the same goal.” Mike Whatley (CMC ‘11), Vice-President of Operations for the Claremont Republicans, echoed this goal: “It is a good thing to come together, and hold events together in a friendly environment.”

Yet, the debate over the choice of TV channel almost turned the event hostile. A half-dozen Republicans charged the party’s organizers with partisanship because they chose CNN over Fox News. To appease both sides, the CPU decided to switch between channels every 30 minutes. Yet, Mr. Whatley told me that “CNN was better anyway.”

By 6 PM, The Hub was full of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and voting in California was still open for another two hours. Sometime after 6 p.m., CNN made a projection—Barack Obama had won Delaware. The crowd of Obama supporters was glowing and cheering. On the other side, the response was more hushed during Republican projections—when John McCain won New York, the crowd remained mostly unmoved with a few scattered claps and boos.

None of the organizations in the CPU endorsed a candidate as a club, and are now focused on future events and funding. They are planning an “unconventional partisan debate” during Alumni Weekend, and are seeking funding as an organization (a consortium within a consortium?), instead of using funds from each member club. This time, club funds bought sets of red, white, and blue balloons and a handy delegate chart that was much easier to follow than that of the Situation Room at CNN.

Breaking from the usual CMC party scene, the clubs did not buy alcohol with their funds. “No one here is looking to get smashed on a Tuesday night,” said Ms. Maloney. Still, a few students improvised with Chardonnay (Obama supporters).

In CMC’s community of political involvement and partisanship, many students loved the bipartisan atmosphere. Molly Doyle (CMC ‘09) said, “I’m just so excited to be here. This event would only happen at CMC.”