Measuring Victory In The War On Terror

With casualty reports indicating a recent decline in losses for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, how will we now move into determining the success or failure of the "War on Terror" for those two countries? Will we measure it by the number of surviving Al Qaeda forces that we know about? Will we measure it by the stability of the Iraqi government? How long will it take to see if there has been real success on either front?

The answer to the question of our success or failure may not be known for decades. Considering that there are scores of unknown ramifications that could result from our efforts in the Middle East it will be nearly impossible to tell if we have had a positive or negative impact on the expansion of extremism globally. Some could argue that we will be able to track the movements of known terrorists through our intelligence networks worldwide. The counter to that argument is that nobody is born a terrorist and there is no way to know which personal tragedies will inspire what children to decide that they must destroy America or any other nation or group of people when they grow up.

When Yasser Arafat was born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini in Egypt in 1929, Palestine was still a nation and he was nothing more than a newborn baby with no hatred or resentment towards anyone. He came to his beliefs about the fight for Palestinian causes through his experiences growing up in and out of Palestine and observing the unfolding of the dismantling of his mother’s homeland. Who can say what he would have become if he had not witnessed British forces abusing his uncle in Palestine or if the United Nations had not decreed that the land once called Palestine would be turned over to Jewish forces to facilitate the birth of the state of Israel? He might have become something wholly different than what he became and the PLO might never have existed.

The long-term impacts of the "War on Terror" may not be known in my lifetime. Children born today who grow up without a father or mother because of an American bomb could grow up to be the world leader that ultimately destroys the U.S. out of sheer hatred for us. We could also have a stolen nuclear warhead go off in an American city tomorrow with a claim of responsibility coming from a wholly new terrorist group born out of our actions against a nation that harbors our current enemies. On the other side we could have some child of war in one of these countries turn out to be the leader who unites the people of the world under one banner of humanity.

The truth of the matter is that measuring success in something like a war against an invisible enemy with unknown reach is a futile attempt to quantify the unknowable. We can claim victory or admit defeat and be equally accurate in our assessment of the situation. Politicians ride wars on this or that to the polls because a war on this or that is a decisive act that conveys the idea of leadership. The "War on Drugs" has neither been won nor lost despite over two decades of rhetoric about it and billions of dollars being spent to fight it. There are still illegal drugs flowing on the streets of America and there are still people dying of addiction related illness every day. Sure, some major dealers and suppliers have been put away but there has always been someone there to take their place when we put them away. It is a symbolic war with no definitive outcome possible. There will always be those who want to take something to escape their reality and there will always be someone willing to find them that high. Likewise in the "War on Terror" there will always be those who feel that violent acts of large scale will be the only way to bring about the changes they seek. No military force can destroy an idea. No bullet can stop a philosophy in the larger sense.

In light of the knowledge that these wars cannot be won no matter how long they are fought, perhaps the wisest thing to do is to reexamine the idea of launching "wars on" anything so nondescript as drugs or terrorism. Perhaps we need to think of new ways not involving guns and bombs to address societal ills whether local or international in scope.

Has the Electoral College Become Obsolete?

In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election. Since then many have said that the Electoral College system was the problem. Most States (48) have a winner-take-all system of awarding the Electoral votes for their States in national elections. Nebraska and Maine do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. The NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) website explains their system of proportional voting like this:

“For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.”

In California, Republicans are currently trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot to convert California to a proportional voting State in order to split the electoral votes in the richest prize in the national election. With over 10% of the nation’s Electoral votes, California can either make or break an election. While some would argue that this would make the election fairer, they fail to point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pushing for ballot measures in all 48 States that follow the winner-take-all method to change their policy. California is being targeted because it has historically voted Democrat and by changing the system in California alone the Republicans could win a virtually permanent advantage in the Electoral College. The likely resulting shift of 22 Electoral votes would be the equivalent of giving the Republicans an additional Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. Splitting the Electoral votes in only California without splitting the other States would give them the equivalent to a seven State bump in Electoral votes.

So what is the solution? Do we continue to allow national elections to take place where the winner loses or should we ask all 50 States to decide if they want to abandon winner-take-all or something in between? It seems the logical answer is that, in the interest of fairness, it should be all or nothing with changing the Electoral College system. If you pick and choose which States change then you are giving an unfair advantage to one party over another based on the voting tendencies of the rest of the States who still use the winner-take-all system of allocating Electoral votes. On the flip side, if we went to a proportional system in all 50 States where votes were awarded based on Congressional Districts, Independent candidates would almost surely begin to have better showings in the national elections. This would lessen the stranglehold that the two major parties have on national politics and more than likely serve the American people more effectively.

For now there is not likely to be wholesale change in the Electoral College so voters have to be wary of any movements to manipulate the Electoral College by trying to change the system in only certain States. If either major political party is serious about changing the Electoral College system to better serve the American people they have the resources to push for ballot measures in all 48 States not currently using proportional allocation. To blame it on the lack of ability to have a single ballot petition for a national referendum on the matter is a deceptive argument meant to mislead the voters. Pushing for change in only Electoral vote rich States that have historically gone to their opponents is a transparent attempt to manipulate the outcome of national elections.