Rich Justice vs Poor Justice – Big Bad Bail

It doesn’t take a genius to understand the difference in the quality of legal representation in a criminal matter between a high-powered, intimidatingly successful defense lawyer and an overworked and underpaid public defender. High powered lawyers almost always generate a lower sentence, a better plea bargain or even dismissal when compared with a comparable case represented by a court-appointed public defender who has limited support and way too many cases. If a matter goes to trial, the results are equally skewed.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand the difference in the quality of legal representation in a criminal matter between a high-powered, intimidatingly successful defense lawyer and an overworked and underpaid public defender. High powered lawyers almost always generate a lower sentence, a better plea bargain or even dismissal when compared with a comparable case represented by a court-appointed public defender who has limited support and way too many cases. If a matter goes to trial, the results are equally skewed.

For most criminal defendants, their fate is not determined by a judge or after a trial. Over 90% of state criminal cases and 97% of federal criminal cases are resolved by means of a plea bargain. For all intents and purposes, it is the prosecutor who decides a defendant’s fate. Where a grand jury is the source of the charge, the prosecutor alone makes the presentation to that empaneled body. When the charge emanates from another criminal format, again, it is the prosecutor who makes the call, negotiates the deal and structures the plea bargain. 

Prosecutors know it is very time consuming and expensive fully to try a criminal case, and most defense lawyers know that if there is a trial and a conviction, absent that high powered defense, the defendant is more than aware that he/she will do far more time than if they accept a plea. Hence, the above statistics. Most criminal cases involve a filing of multiple counts and criminal violations. And when a jury or judge convicts, generally all or a number of these ancillary counts and claims result in a unified guilty verdict. 

Even when someone is totally innocent, perpetrators and their defense counsel know the risks, amplified when the defense counsel has limited resources and time. For state court criminals, they know that an earlier release for all but the most heinous crimes is always on the table. Parole. In federal court, the sentence you get – absent a court determination or some form of presidential clemency – is the sentence you will serve… less only up to a 15% reduction for good behavior. There is no parole in the federal system. These factors also impact the attractiveness of a pleas bargain.

It is indeed sad that money, not actual guilt or innocence, seems to be the primary determinant of the likely outcome of a criminal case. You can see that in our system of money bail, this is the “guarantee” of a charged but not-yet-convicted defendant’s appearance for trial. With the exception of cases where the defendant knows they are highly likely to be convicted, preparation for trial takes time and effort. Particularly because of the pandemic’s impact on the availability of courtrooms, justice is frequently delayed in such more complex potential criminal trials. If you are not being held in custody, released on an OR (“own recognizance”) or money bail basis, a defendant can at least work with their lawyer outside the jail where they would otherwise be held. Justice delayed, innocents serving time in jail before a trial, seems to be justice denied.

A bail bond – often secured by real estate or a payment (generally 10% of the posted bond) – generates release in most serious cases, where the defendant can afford to pay the price (or has family or friends willing to take the posted risk). Otherwise, the defendant sits in jail awaiting trial. Unless they plead out, getting punishment for whatever the deal might be. Sitting in jail does seem to fly in the face of “innocent until proven guilty.” It was a lone prosecutor that made the decision to put that defendant in jail (grand juries seldom reject a prosecutor’s wishes), and it is the system that makes bail unachievable for those unable to arrange bail.

There has been increasing pressure against the assessment of money damages and bail against defendants clearly unable to pay the required sums. As a number of red states’ voting laws reflect, even when statutes and judicial rulings have reinstated voting rights for felons who have completed their sentences, those with an inability to pay criminal fines are often denied their purportedly restored voting rights. All these inequities are being challenged in the courts.

The focus today is on our system of bail, where money buys freedom, and poverty often guarantees confinement even before a trial. Recently, California voters did not generate sufficient numbers to overturn the existing money bail system (November’s Proposition 25 initiative). But the glaring inequity of a two-tiered legal system – one for those with money, and another for those without – finally was addressed by that state’s Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. Maura Dolan, writing for the March 26th Los Angeles Times: “On Thursday [9/25], four months after voters rejected such a reform, the California Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require defendants to remain behind bars simply because they cannot afford bail.

“In a unanimous decision, the state’s top court told judges to favor pretrial release and consider a person’s ability to pay before setting bail… [This] ruling is likely to lead to many more people being released without bail before they go to trial. Judges may keep criminal defendants locked up only when ‘clear and convincing’ evidence shows there is no other way to protect the public and ensure the defendants’ return for court appearances.” Only “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the standard for criminal conviction – is a higher standard of proof than “clear and convincing.” For defendants able to afford bail, this ruling will not relieve them of that obligation where bail is at issue. Constitutional equal protection and due process were at issue in the ruling.

“‘The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional,’ Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote for the court, ruling that it violated both state and federal protections… ‘Other conditions of release — such as electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with a pretrial case manager, community housing or shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment — can in many cases protect public and victim safety as well as assure the arrestee’s appearance at trial.’

“The ruling represents a partial victory for criminal justice advocates and a setback for California’s bail industry… Albert Ramirez, general counsel of the Golden State Bail Agents Assn., said the no-bail law voters rejected would have killed the industry, but it could survive the requirements set by the California Supreme Court… Though profits will be reduced, ‘we can live with it,’ Ramirez said.” LA Times. As the cost of incarceration rises, including the demand for more prisons, the true beneficiaries of bail reform are not just the relevant defendants; taxpayers come out better as well. It’s time to widen the application of alternatives to bail nationwide.

I’m Peter Dekom, and such bail reform is a win-win for both justice and taxpayers.

Transition to Multi-Racial, Multi-Ethnic County

“They shall not replace us.” 

“They shall not replace us.”

Chant from the Charlottesville while supremacist marchers in August, 2017

There are many ways to interpret the conviction of Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd. A rogue cop. A unique confluence of ubiquitous video evidence and a rare police force willing to testify against their own. A step forward in the ugly statistic that a Black individual confronting a cop has triple the probability of getting killed vs a White person. Just a speed bump in a society where the majority of America is about to shift to ethnic and racial minorities and away from Anglo-Saxon/White European heritage. Or a tipping point.

As the era of Jim Crow laws prove, Dixiecrats fought solidly against African-American equality for a century, with a wink and a nod or more from Democrats in general. Woodrow Wilson purged the US Civil Service of Black Americans. The Ku Klux Klan rose fiercely in that Wilsonian and post-Wilsonian era. Segregated military units fought in WWII. Civil rights rulings – like the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education pioneer school integration case – and legislation (most in the 1960s) – came later. 

After a three-steps-forward-two-steps-back century of slow recognition of racial justice, here we are. The new banner for official racism was legitimized by Donald Trump, and the idolization of Mr. Trump by the vast majority of elected Republicans has resulted in an almost official “I’m not a racist but…” racist platform that defines the elected GOP in 2021. Indeed, the staunch support of the “big lie” (that Trump was the real winner of the presidential race) immediately followed by a litany of voter suppression legislation actually passed or proposed and likely to pass in Trump-sworn red states is dramatically targeted at voting patterns and election behavior that truly defines Black and Brown voters. 

There is no way to embrace these legislative changes without also embracing the racism that underlies the effort. Trump lost, and Georgia has two Democratic US Senators, Arizona voted blue, because minority-becoming-a-majority voters made it so. To win elections Republicans have determined that Black and Brown voters need to be disenfranchised through voter suppression and gerrymandering so that the results of 2020 will not happen again. 

The pro “law and order” (read: white rule) segment of the GOP is watching popular sentiment turn against what has been routine blue-on-Black-and-Brown brutality for what seems to be an eternity. If that sentiment holds, well, progress will be made. But backing “law and order” – sanctifying even unsavory police actions as long as crimes rates fall – has been and is likely to continue in red state America without substantial pushback from the feds (now possible without Trump) and the “people.” Will disgust – visible on video – finally triumph?

But what was once closet racism has been now legitimized. When you hear that the Black Lives Matter movement (statistically the largest and most peaceful such movement in American history) is “antifa” (a philosophy often mischaracterized as if it were an organization) at work, when you hear politicians’ rail at the removal of monuments to slave owners and those who tortured and murdered their slaves as “cancel culture,” that is racism trying to find justification. 

There are even less subtle forms of racist expression, almost always conducted by individuals who self-proclaim that they are “not racist.” For example, in mid-April, “two of the Trumpiest Republicans in the House of Representatives, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona, said they were forming a new ‘America First Caucus’ to champion former President Trump’s policies during his exile at Mar-a-Lago.

“Among the principles in its draft manifesto was this passage, under the heading of ‘Immigration’: ‘America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.’… It said legal immigration should be curtailed because too many recent immigrants have ‘refused to abandon their old loyalties.’

“House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield quickly disavowed the move. ‘The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln,’ he tweeted, ‘not nativist dog whistles.’ Greene and Gosar abruptly announced that they didn’t plan to form a caucus after all…

“Their views date to an ugly strain in American history, the 19th century nativism that held that the ‘Anglo-Saxon race,’ meaning white Protestants from northern Europe, was superior to all other civilizations.

“As a modern electoral strategy, Anglo-Saxonism falls somewhat short. Taken literally, it excludes not only Black, Latino and Asian Americans, but Irish Americans, Italian Americans and Jewish Americans as well — at least 63% of the population… No wonder McCarthy felt compelled to denounce it; the GOP is small enough without expelling Irish Americans like him.

“Greene and Gosar were right, however, to think they were carrying on the tradition of Trump, who stoked white fear, defended Confederate monuments and called Black Lives Matter ‘a symbol of hate.’... And it’s not a long way from there to Tucker Carlson, the ratings king of Fox News, who has been telling viewers that Democrats want to increase legal immigration to ‘replace’ white voters with ‘new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.’

“That appeal to racism was so blatant that the Anti-Defamation League denounced it as ‘white supremacist’ and demanded that Carlson resign. Fox News, which is owned by an immigrant from Australia, said its executives didn’t see anything racist in the evidence-free conspiracy their star was peddling.” Doyle McManus writing for the Los Angeles Times, April 21st. 

Indeed, that “party of Lincoln” used federal troops to integrate southern schools that refused to accept Black students under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Republicans in Congress frequently voted to support reforms to create or enhance racial equality. Ronald Reagan found ways to bring undocumented workers from south of our border into this country legally and eventually to become citizens. George W Bush unsuccessfully sponsored immigration reform that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented people.

Today, the GOP is counting on the traditional mid-term election in 2022 scenario when normally (but not always), the party controlling the presidency and/or one or both houses of Congress lose seats, often sliding into a minority position. But the GOP is painting itself into a corner. If not directly racists, the GOP has the Trump-generated cast of not rejecting racism. Given the shifting American demographics, that just might be political suicide. Trumpist racism and populism may resonate with the Base and white supremacists, but it cost him the election.

“[Minority leader] McCarthy doesn’t want his party to look racist — but he feels a need to make it welcoming for voters and members of Congress who hold racist views. Whether or not that makes the GOP a racist institution, it has chosen to be racist-friendly. Republican politics, including the noisy version that appears on Fox News, looks like a series of attempts to normalize white nationalism.

“So far, it’s not working very well. One reason Trump lost his campaign for reelection was that his nativist rhetoric drove college-educated white voters away. It may also be one of the reasons the percentage of voters who consider themselves Republicans has sunk to 25% in the Gallup Poll, a nine-year low… As the non-Anglo-Saxon part of the electorate grows, staying cozy with white nationalism will be a losing strategy for the GOP.” Simply put, this rhetoric is on the wrong side of history.

I’m Peter Dekom, and perhaps the recent surfacing of what used to be hidden racism just might be what the doctor ordered to squeeze it out of our nation as much as possible.

Medicine’s Really Big Deal

Take a really good look at the two women above. Together, using breakthroughs like the completion of the human genome map, they may have opened the door to one of the most significant scientific inventions since antibiotics. An international team of sheer brilliance, the American biochemist Jennifer A. Doudna (left) and French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier (right) won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020. Simply, they were awarded this prize for “rewriting the code of life.”  CRISPR. The ability to edit and reprogram genetic code, gene sequencing, a tool that provides infinite variety to address curing diseases, genetic abnormalities and extending life itself. Often referred to as medicine’s golden scissors.

“Officially, CRISPR refers to a DNA sequence found in bacteria called ‘clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.’ But the term has come to represent a process that lets scientists snip out genes in DNA as if they were snags in a strand of yarn. Scientists use a kind of RNA to find offending genetic code and a protein called Cas-9 cuts it out. Guide RNA then puts in a new set of code where the snag was, changing the original DNA sequence. The discovery has given scientists a way to reprogram life.” Ruth Reader writing for the March 16th FastCompany.com.

Without CRISPR, where a genetic model of the shape of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) becomes a teaching tool to our own immune defensive T-cells so the body can attack this horrific invader, none of the current vaccines against the virus would exist today. For details on each of the major vaccines available today, please look at my March 11th Attacking the Spike Proteins blog. From the time that the shape of a toxic virus can be created, it takes literally a couple of days to create the vaccine! The rest of the time is consumed with testing. And while these vaccines represent the first widespread use of CRISPR in the manufacture of a disease-preventing inoculation, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are learning. There are still challenges and cost barriers, but the door to genetic innovation is opening fast.

For example, researchers looking at cancer victims and people with pre-programmed genetic disorders are drilling down on CRISPR’s potential, now that its first widespread “test” has proven so effective. Here is just one innovation that parallels a path that CRISPR has inspired: “[Medical technology company,] Inscripta’s Onyx—a ‘labtop’ gene editor—could democratize an array of breakthroughs promised by CRISPR technology… [It is] a compact gene editor that can make thousands of changes to genomes in millions of cells for $347,000. The initial device will edit yeast and E Coli, but it eventually promises to make large scale gene-altering a reality even in mammalian cells…” Reader. 

That may sound like an insurmountable cost, but for major hospitals and medical schools and research centers, it is quite reasonable. The most interesting aspect of this technology, one that is going to challenge the existing FDA approval process that generally requires economics of massive scale to justify the prohibitive cost of testing, is the ability to create targeted “solutions” to anomalies and limited-reach infectious diseases. Small pockets of pain and suffering that never justified the investment in cures and prevention. And so much more.

 “What could gene editing yield? The list of possibilities is truly endless, but at a minimum it could pave the way for new types of energy and food, as well as unique ways to fight disease… But CRISPR still has limitations. It can make the same repair in lots of different places or it can make several different repairs in one place, but it cannot do both at the same time. CRISPR can also be expensive to license commercially.

“For these reasons, Inscripta doesn’t use CRISPR Cas-9. Its scientists use proteins that act in similar ways, but are proprietary to the company, which charges a 3% licensing fee to commercial users. The goal of the technology is to make biological research as easy as doing a Google search…

“Andrew Garst joined Ryan T. Gill’s Lab at University of Colorado as a [post-doctoral researcher] in 2012… [Two years later, he] made a broad… realization. Instead of bombarding the cell with multiple sets of instructions carried on different RNA strands, he could synthesize the changes he wanted before inserting them into the cell, leading to a more highly efficient integration. This epiphany could make CRISPR useful at a much larger scale.

“Two years later, he published a paper detailing a way to use CRISPR to introduce as many as 500,000 changes to the structure of a genome at the same time. His design made these changes trackable. The paper also included computer code to help researchers reverse engineer the genetic coding in order to get a cell to do what they wanted it to do. The technique was called CREATE, which is shorthand for CRISPR-enabled Trackable Genome Engineering Using Homologous Recombination…

“Seeing the opportunity, Garst co-founded Inscripta around the time the paper was released, hoping to refine the CREATE technology into a more automated system… Over the last four years, Inscripta has company raised $300 million. In October, it hired a new CEO, Sri Kosaraju, who spent 16 years overseeing JPMorgan’s healthcare and technology portfolio, to scale the business. It also launched the Onyx benchtop: a black box roughly the size of a small fish tank with a computer screen front. It’s as slick looking as any digital consumer product, but made for scientists, with an interface that lets them create their experiments. Onyx’s software is designed to then optimize tests for the best possible results… Inscripta has shifted away from using CRISPR Cas-9 to develop its own proprietary DNA cutting nucleases. (As the name “Cas-9” implies, the Cas protein is one of many.)” Reader. 

With its 3% commercial licensing fee, Inscripta is hoping to become ubiquitous in the field. But there are dozens of biotech companies launching CRISPR driven research into new applications and process refinements. Ethical and biosecurity issues have also reared their ugly heads; the ability to create and counter biological weapons is obvious. “This scale of editing also raises questions about what kinds of mutants this technology may ultimately bear. What does democratizing this kind of technology mean for the safety of human health? Just as the automated assembly line can be made to produce cars, it can also be made to produce guns.

“This issue was the subject of a joint hearing on biosecurity convened by both the House Armed Services subcommittee and House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in October. Six committee members sat more than six feet apart at their elevated wooden desk. Ami Bera, a silver haired doctor and representative for California’s 7th District, chaired the meeting.

“‘We’ve not had an aircraft carrier brought to its knee by kinetic force of missile, but what we just saw in this past year was an aircraft carrier brought to port because of a virus—that really underscores what I worry about,’ said Bera. ‘The availability of technologies to alter viruses and do genetic editing, the know-how, and the capabilities are rapidly increasing and that is something that keeps me awake at night.’” Reader. Whatever else is said and done, medical research will never be the same.

I’m Peter Dekom, and this little backstory may someday become a personal medical moment that just might save your own life.

Russia’s Polar-ice-ation

In the summer of 2007, two Russian mini submarines descended 14,000 feet somewhere near and under the North Pole to plant a titanium Russian flag (see above). Moscow claimed the land under the pole as part of an undersea outcropping of a mountainous range that emanated from Russia. As climate change accelerated, Russia was one of several countries benefitting from global warming. Tundra, which otherwise released legions of ultra-heavy greenhouse methane into the atmosphere, became arable farmland. Undersea resources were easier to access. What we call the Northwest Passage began to open up seasonally and threatened to remain open for most of the year. It became a prize that Russia was seemingly beginning to claim and defend. But ice breakers were changing mythology into reality. And that little flag-planting gesture was the beginning of much larger Russian aspirations.

In the summer of 2007, two Russian mini submarines descended 14,000 feet somewhere near and under the North Pole to plant a titanium Russian flag (see above). Moscow claimed the land under the pole as part of an undersea outcropping of a mountainous range that emanated from Russia. As climate change accelerated, Russia was one of several countries benefitting from global warming. Tundra, which otherwise released legions of ultra-heavy greenhouse methane into the atmosphere, became arable farmland. Undersea resources were easier to access. What we call the Northwest Passage began to open up seasonally and threatened to remain open for most of the year. It became a prize that Russia was seemingly beginning to claim and defend. But ice breakers were changing mythology into reality. And that little flag-planting gesture was the beginning of much larger Russian aspirations.

Arctic resources were now being exposed. The ability to transship goods through the Northwest Passage has long since been dreamed about, attempted without success, until 2009, when melting sea ice first made the journey possible. Canada borders most of the passage and maintains that it controls those regions, but Russia had already begun building a fleet of large, nuclear powered ice breakers specifically to control those waters. No other nation was remotely competing in constructing such vessels. Was the race on… or had Russia effectively already won?

Lest we believe that Russian aspirations in the region were benign, satellite imagery focused on Russian Arctic efforts prove otherwise. Military bases were and continue to be expanded and constructed. “Russia is amassing unprecedented military might in the Arctic and testing its newest weapons in a region freshly ice-free due to the climate emergency, in a bid to secure its northern coast and open up a key shipping route from Asia to Europe.

“Weapons experts and Western officials have expressed particular concern about one Russian 'super-weapon,' the Poseidon 2M39 torpedo. Development of the torpedo is moving fast with Russian President Vladimir Putin requesting an update on a ‘key stage’ of the tests in February from his defense minister Sergei Shoigu, with further tests planned this year, according to multiple reports in state media.

“This unmanned stealth torpedo is powered by a nuclear reactor and intended by Russian designers to sneak past coastal defenses -- like those of the US -- on the sea floor… The device is intended to deliver a warhead of multiple megatons, according to Russian officials, causing radioactive waves that would render swathes of the target coastline uninhabitable for decades… In November, Christopher A Ford, then assistant secretary of state for International Security and Non-Proliferation, said the Poseidon is designed to ‘inundate U.S. coastal cities with radioactive tsunamis.’” CNN.com, April 5th. Russia was ready with new large military airbases, missile launching facilities and ice breakers… almost 50 now, and the newest ones are huge and nuclear powered, a vast multiple of any US equivalent. 

“Satellite images provided to CNN by space technology company Maxar detail a stark and continuous build-up of Russian military bases and hardware on the country's Arctic coastline, together with underground storage facilities likely for the Poseidon and other new high-tech weapons. The Russian hardware in the High North area includes bombers and MiG31BM jets, and new radar systems close to the coast of Alaska.

“The Russian build-up has been matched by NATO and US troop and equipment movements. American B-1 Lancer bombers stationed in Norway's Ørland air base have recently completed missions in the eastern Barents Sea, for example. The US military's stealth Seawolf submarine was acknowledged by US officials in August as being in the area.

“A senior State Department official told CNN: ‘There's clearly a military challenge from the Russians in the Arctic,’ including their refitting of old Cold War bases and build-up of new facilities on the Kola Peninsula near the city of Murmansk. ‘That has implications for the United States and its allies, not least because it creates the capacity to project power up to the North Atlantic,’ the official said.” CNN.com Protests from the United States, Canada and several impacted European nations against such Russian expansion were simply ignored.

“The satellite images show the slow and methodical strengthening of airfields and ‘trefoil’ bases -- with a shamrock-like design, daubed in the red, white and blue of the Russian flag -- at several locations along Russia's Arctic coast over the past five years. The bases are inside Russian territory and part of a legitimate defense of its borders and coastline. US officials have voiced concern, however, that the forces might be used to establish de facto control over areas of the Arctic that are further afield, and soon to be ice-free… ‘Russia is refurbishing Soviet-era airfields and radar installations, constructing new ports and search-and-rescue centers, and building up its fleet of nuclear- and conventionally-powered icebreakers,’ Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell, a Pentagon spokesman, told CNN.” CNN.com.

In January, one of Russia giant ice breakers, the 50 Let Pobedy (50 years of victory) braved the Northwest Passage… in the dead of winter, a first. Here’s the problem: there is no nation or consortium of nations that can match the Russian presence in the Arctic. No one else has as many ice breakers… and there are not enough of these unique vessels being manufactured outside of Russia. What about the food potential, mineral wealth and petroleum reserves – coupled with the potential of the severe ecological risks associated with harvesting/extracting these assets – that lie within this fragile northern environment? Russia claims those too.

Simply put, Russia’s overwhelming military presence in the Arctic may just represent de facto control of the Northwest Passage and its regional resources. Absent a very nasty military confrontation, which could trigger a shooting war, the other regional powers (including the United States) are woefully underprepared to mount a counterclaim or to neutralize what really should be international waters. Can this be resolved within the framework of the United Nations… or is this a bigger version of the Russian grab of Ukraine’s Crimea. Standby!

I’m Peter Dekom, and it is stunning to me that during the last four years, the Russian Arctic build-up was simply ignored by the United States… a product of a misaligned “bromance” between Russian and American leaders?

For What

“We have won the war, America has lost.” 

“We have won the war, America has lost.”

Taliban spokesman hearing Biden’s Afghan withdrawal statement

 

We began retaliation against Taliban-held Afghanistan two decades ago because they harbored the terrorists who took down the World Trade Center in 2001. Our efforts seem to have succeeded relatively quickly as we imposed a profound and ultimately super-corrupt “democracy” on that tiny mountainous nation, purportedly pushing the former ruling Sunni extremist Taliban regime into oblivion. Our attention was soon distracted in our “fake war,” a pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the ouster of former ally Saddam Hussein in Iraq, another interminable war that sort of ended, as that nation’s newly installed Shiite majority began to lean heavily into the camp of its Shiite neighbor, Iran.

 

We succeeded in destabilizing Iraq, empowering Iran, abandoning the Sunni minority in Iraq as well as the Shiite-governed Sunni majority in Syria, just as the worst levels of a continuing drought in Sunni dominated regions of Syria and Iraq turned farms into unproductive dust. The Shiite governments in Syria and Iraq turned a cold shoulder to those farmers’ desperate pleas for assistance… and ISIS stepped into battle, ostensibly in support of those Sunni farmers, but ultimately for regional domination and control. ISIS lost its territory. Pro-Iran Iraq survived in shambles, and Shiite Syrian strongman, Bashar al-Assad, maintained his grip on his decimated people. Russia picked and supported the Shiite cabal. The United States lost, although to this day we pretend that Iraq is an ally.

 

While we focused on Iraq, slowly the Taliban came out of the shadows and began a systematic hit-and-run asynchronous war against the American forces in Afghanistan and the US-imposed government in Kabul. It was a slow war of attrition, filled with IEDs (improvised explosive devices), guerilla tactics, and AK-47s and RPG launchers. The Afghan government, wildly corrupt, never really ever consistently held much more than Kabul and the surrounding areas. Every other part of the nation was “in transition,” a constant give and take with the US and its allies and the Taliban. By then, the world knew from our Vietnam War experience that the American people had no appetite for a struggle that even the local Taliban knew would never end. Unless America replicated its Vietnam experience and just left. It was inevitable. Afghanistan brought such a war to the Soviet Union, which helped unravel that communist nation. America was the next loser-in-training.

 

Although a cornerstone of Donald Trump’s very limited populist platform, withdrawal from those never-ending wars, became virulently opposed by the Republicans in Congress evident in their partisan responses after President Biden’s announcement that we would bring all our troops in Afghanistan home by 9/11/21. Biden noted that we needed to refocus on our true and direct foes, particularly Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

 

Even as the few remaining US troops are engaged in training and support of local Afghan troops, their presence in the region is a political statement of support for the “democratically-elected” government in Kabul. The reality in the rest of the country is that the Taliban are in effective control: “The militants assert their authority through sporadic checkpoints along key roads. As Taliban members stop and question passing cars, Aamir Sahib Ajmal, the local head of the Taliban's intelligence service, tells us they're searching for people linked to the government… ‘We will arrest them, and take them prisoner,’ he says. ‘Then we hand them over to our courts and they decide what will happen next.’

“The Taliban believe victory is theirs. Sitting over a cup of green tea, Haji Hekmat [the Taliban's shadow mayor in Afghanistan's northern Balkh district] proclaims, ‘we have won the war and America has lost.’ The decision by US President Joe Biden to delay the withdrawal of remaining US forces to September, meaning they will remain in the country past the 1 May deadline agreed last year, has sparked a sharp reaction from the Taliban's political leadership. Nonetheless, momentum seems to be with the militants.

“‘We are ready for anything,’ says Haji Hekmat. ‘We are totally prepared for peace, and we are fully prepared for jihad.’ Sitting next to him, a military commander adds: ‘Jihad is an act of worship. Worship is something that, however much of it you do, you don't get tired.’” BBC.com, April 15th. Transparency International’s corruption index, where the bigger the number, the more corrupt the country, places Afghanistan 165th out of the 180 nations it tracks. It is exceptionally unlikely that the existing government can sustain or that the Taliban can be contained by treaty or the Kabul government’s access to its US-supplied military. No matter their pledges. No matter their statements to the contrary. And we know that reality. The BBC continues:

“For the past year, there has been an apparent contradiction in the Taliban's ‘jihad.’ They stopped attacks on international forces following the signing of an agreement with the US, but continued to fight with the Afghan government. Haji Hekmat, though, insists there is no contradiction. ‘We want an Islamic government ruled by the Sharia. We will continue our jihad until they accept our demands.’… On whether or not the Taliban would be willing to share power with other Afghan political factions, Haji Hekmat defers to the group's political leadership in Qatar. ‘Whatever they decide we will accept,’ he repeatedly says.

“The Taliban don't see themselves as a mere rebel group, but as a government-in-waiting. They refer to themselves as the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,’ the name they used when in power from 1996 until being overthrown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks… Now, they have a sophisticated ‘shadow’ structure, with officials in charge of overseeing everyday services in the areas they control. Haji Hekmat, the Taliban mayor, takes us on a tour.

“We're shown a primary school, filled with young boys and girls scribbling in UN-donated textbooks. While in power in the 1990s, the Taliban banned female education, though they often deny that. Even now, there are reports that in other areas older girls are not allowed to attend classes. But here at least the Taliban say they're actively encouraging it… ‘As long as they wear hijab, it's important for them to study,’ says Mawlawi Salahuddin, in charge of the Taliban's local education commission. In secondary schools, he says, only female teachers are allowed, and the veil is mandatory. ‘If they follow the Sharia, there is no problem.’” Seriously? 

Whatever the result, expect religious extremism and a continuing perception in the decay of American power and influence in the world. But that just might a lesson we must learn in lieu of fighting a perpetual war that we can never win. Despite accounting for over 40% of the world’s military expenditures, we still have not learned how to fight and win an asynchronous war against powerful local incumbent force. Will we ever learn? Should we even try?

I’m Peter Dekom, and with only very minor and military exceptions, the United States has not won a real war since our victory in World War II three quarters of a century ago.

Repression PRC Style

 From BusinessInsider.com

The world watched (and continues to watch) as ethnic Uighurs – a Muslim minority concentrated in China’s western Xinjian Province – were purged of their language, vestiges of their faith and sent to as many as 500 “re-education camps” (see above map) to be force-integrated into mainstream government approved Chinese political culture. As many as three million “detainees.” 

Most believe that “re-education” was simply a euphemism for forced labor in prison-like concentration camps. The world screamed, China denied, and those camps just rolled along. Tales of torture and random brutality spilled out. The new rising forces in our traditional world power enemies are autocrats with intense personal power, eliminating opposition, who impose their vision where dissent might arise, while finding ways to do away with term limits on their highest office. Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China Xi Jinping. 

Our annual trade imbalance with the People’s Republic has stayed pretty much in the $300 billion a year range (plus or minus) even during the trade war and the pandemic. About $5 billion worth of PRC good enters the U.S. every day, despite tariffs, sanctions and highly strained relations. And still these autocrats oppress and repress in ways reminiscent of the height of Mao’s China and Stalinist Russia. 

In 1997, Hong Kong formally left the British Empire to joint the PRC as a special administrative zone, pledged to adhere to a British legal system until 2047. One nation, two systems. But President Xi could not wait. As my March 12th Hong Kong Gone blog detailed, the PRC has taken away political liberty and free expression from the form British Crown Colony, severely contracted and restricted the local governing body and which candidates were acceptable to China, sending police and military forces to stamp out dissent, creating new laws against free speech and subjecting violators to unfriendly courts and sometime length prison terms. The trials of anti-repression activists and protest participants, even for relatively minor infractions, have been accelerating, and on April 16th, the sentences for some of those minor offenders were announced.

“A Hong Kong court Friday [4/16] sent five leading pro-democracy advocates, including media tycoon Jimmy Lai, to prison for up to 18 months for organizing a march during 2019 anti-government protests that triggered an overwhelming crackdown from Beijing… A total of nine activists were given jail terms, but four of them, including 82-year-old lawyer and former lawmaker Martin Lee, had their sentences suspended after their age and accomplishments were taken into consideration.

“They were found guilty earlier this month of organizing and participating in a massive protest in August 2019, at which an estimated 1.7 million people marched in opposition to a bill that would have allowed suspects to be extradited to mainland China for trial. The protest was not authorized by the police… Their convictions and sentencing were the latest blow to the city’s flagging democracy movement amid an ongoing crackdown by Beijing and Hong Kong authorities on dissent.

“The court suspended the 11-month prison sentence of Lee, who is known for his advocacy of human rights and democracy, for two years because of his age… Lai, the founder of Hong Kong’s Apple Daily tabloid, was sentenced to a total of 14 months in prison Friday for charges related to the demonstration on Aug. 18, 2019, and a separate unauthorized march on Aug. 31, 2019…

“Beijing had pledged to allow Hong Kong to retain civil liberties not permitted in mainland China for 50 years after the former British colony reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, but recently has ushered in a series of measures, including the national security law and electoral reforms, that many fear are a step closer to making Hong Kong no different from cities on the mainland.

“Under the new rules, Hong Kong residents can be held liable for any speech or action deemed secessionist, subversive, terrorist or perceived as colluding with hostile foreign political groups or individuals. The electoral changes mean that just 20 out of 90 Legislative Council members will be directly elected, and Beijing will retain even tighter control over the body that picks Hong Kong’s top leader…

“Most opposition figures in Hong Kong have now been jailed, intimidated into silence or have sought asylum abroad, and authorities have decreed that only those considered to be true Chinese patriots will be allowed to hold office in future… Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific regional director, Yamini Mishra, said the sentences handed down Friday underlined the government’s intention to ‘eliminate all political opposition’ in Hong Kong… ‘Having arrested the majority of Hong Kong’s most prominent dissidents using the repressive national security law, the authorities are now mopping up remaining peaceful critics under the pretext of bogus charges related to the 2019 protests,’ Mishra said.” Los Angeles Times, April 16th. 

China is openly challenging the United States as the premiere superpower on earth. The evidence is clear: Her military exploits in the Spratly Islands, her massive flotillas of military aircraft increasingly moving closer and closer to Taiwan, her Belt and Road initiative to lure smaller developing nations into a uniquely powerful aggregation of trade infrastructure that clearly favors China and her ignoring human rights violations to cement Xi’s power remain unchecked by trade sanctions and verbiage… with the firm knowledge that the United States is unlikely to initiate military confrontation.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as President Joe Biden moves to counter these rising autocrats, the question remains if he can accomplish this challenging feat with only a carrot and no stick.