Iraq, Where Do We Go From Here?

Withdrawal timing is "not too important," says McCain.

The troops might disagree.

Robert Dujarric and Andy Zelleke’s article, “The Death of US Strategy in Iraq,” in the 17 April csmonitor.com analyzes the implications behind McCain’s recent statement that the timing of troop withdrawals from Iraq is “not too important.”

The authors submit that McCain may believe there is still a political objective, but it will be different from Bush’s only in that it will be more modest.

However, McCain has not given us answers to the most pressing question of “just what are our objectives in Iraq or the Middle East?” They authors break that question into three components:

· What are the political objectives for keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come?

· What plausible outcome would justify the costs (dollars and lives, I would guess)?

· Given one or more objectives, what is the strategy for getting there?

All valid questions and I would add, “What are the measures (metrics) that tell us we are making progress toward those objectives and how will we know we are there?” Dujarric and Zelleke write that slogans such as “winning” and “stability” are just not good enough.

War is a Continuation of Policy

Military folks and other strategic thinkers have brought Sun Tze and von Clauswitz back into  popularity. von Clauswitz’ most famous statement that war is simply a continuation of policy by other means is pertinent here. If there is no policy objective, then there should not be a war.

Personally, I’ve been against this Iraq War since it became obvious that the Bush Administration was bent on war regardless of the facts. However, like many Americans, since we are now there and made a terrible mess, I have believed we need to stay and fix the mess and leave with honor. But I am no longer sure our civilians can define an end, or an objective, and therefore an honorable end is unlikely. And, I’m no longer sure that success in Iraq is necessary to our military’s sense of honor.

ur military has always been self-contained and isolated from the rest of society. Success to our servicemen and their military leaders is gauged within the military, by each other and by military leaders. Civilian opinions matter less. Our servicemen and servicewomen certainly don't want to be pitied as victims of Washington, DC (and I've been guilty of that kind of thinking). They do want to be recognized for their skills and accomplishments, but that's kind of hard when the great bulk of America has little knowledge of the military or its skills.

Going to war is not a military decision and stopping a war is not a military decision. Our civilian leaders start wars and declare when a war is done or when it is time to withdraw without success. One can hope that such wars are the result of defined political objectives. Afghanistan was one such war that had and has a clearly defined political objective – Iraq is not.

A Time to Fight

For a military opinion I turn to Jim Webb, Virginia Democratic Senator, who has written A Time to Fight (2008, Broadway Books, Doubleday, New York). Webb, like several other ex-military folks, ran for Congress, as a Democrat. Webb discusses why the military learned to hate the Democratic Party beginning in the 1960s and why all that is changing today, but that is for another post.

Webb also asks that the political objective(s) for Iraq and the Middle East be clearly defined. Here are some quotes I cherry picked:

· “Their [Bush Administration, extreme elements in Congress, and the RNC] most glaring and crucial failing has been an adamant refusal to match the sacrifices of our military with a sound, regionally based diplomatic strategy designed to take advantage of the military’s performance.”

· “Such a strategy could have, and should have, been in place as early as 2003.”

· “Our military has consistently answered that call, never failing to control its tactical battle space. But over the same span of time the region, from Lebanon to Pakistan, has descended into ever more dangerous instability.”

· “Most military people can see and understand these realities. But rather than openly recognizing them, Republican leaders have for years claimed that any mention of the insults “the troops” and comprises a form of defeatism that will not “let them win” in Iraq.”

· “Except in an Orwellian world, wars are not supposed to be endless. Nor are occupations supposed to last forever.”

· “Those who claim that one cannot oppose the President’s policy and still be supporting the troops should consult the opinions of the troops.”

Is Iraq Worth It? Ask the Troops

With that last point in mind, Webb presents the following poll figures from Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Times and LA Times (and I checked them and they are as Webb stated):

· 2006

o 72% of troops believed we should pull out of Iraq by end of 2006.

o Dec: 60% disagreed with Bush’s Iraq policies.

· 2007

o Dec: 60% of military families believed the war was not worth the cost

o Dec: 58% said US should withdraw within a year or sooner.

from Military Times Poll Dec 29, 2006

egardless of whether our next President defines our objectives for Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, our troops will continue to perform with honor and bravery. But they do deserve to know what they are fighting for.

Webb ends the chapter that I’ve been quoting with his own quote from President Eisenhower in 1952.

“[The Korean War] was never inevitable, it was never inescapable… America … appealed to the heroism of its youth… The answer to that appeal has been what any American knew it would be. It has been sheer valor…

“from these heroic men there comes back an answering appeal… Where do we go from here? When comes the end? Is there an end?

“[These questions] demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib excuses will serve. They will be no better than the glib promises that brought us to this pass….”

Amen

Back from Another Trip

I haven't posted or even thought about posting in the last few days. My wife and I just came back from another trip to northern Virginia with the usual repeated backups at every exit on I-95. I drove those miles daily from 1972 to 1985 but that masochism is now hard to imagine. I can't believe I spent hours in the mornings and evenings, never knowing how long it would take to get to work or home.

This trip was to attend the high school graduation of our third oldest granddaughter. We have four.

Brian informed me by comment that Tom Perriello, who is opposing Virgil Goode for the 5th district Senate seat, is running on a platform that excludes donations from corporations. He is also running as a Christian that believes in the following:

• ensure that all hard-working Americans are guaranteed a living wage and secure retirement
• every American deserves access to a doctor, and none of our elderly should ever have to face the soul-crushing choice of whether to buy medicine for a spouse or put food on the table
• Americans are less safe today than on September 12th because of the decisions made by this Administration and many in Congress.
• our national security, our climate, and our economic competitiveness demand that we achieve independence from fossil fuels during this generation.

To contribute to his campaign, you must, "confirm that the following statements are true and accurate":

• I am not a foreign national who lacks permanent residence in the United States.
• I am not a Federal government contractor.
• This contribution is made from my own funds, and not those of another.
• This contribution is not made from the funds of a corporation or labor organization.
• This contribution is made on a personal credit card or debit card for which I have the legal obligation to pay, and is not made either on a corporate or business entity card or on the card of another person.
• I am at least eighteen years old.

I would like to hear more about other issues from this man, but this is a good start. He seems to believe in personal integrity. His Christianity is refreshingly old fashioned - back to a time when Christianity was in your heart, not in your face.

I can't say, at this time, whether I will vote for him. I need more information. But I've heard enough to contribute to his campaign, and I did. I hope my contribution at least helps Perriello develop his message.

Fix Congress Wrap Up Correction

Brian, also of my area, noted that Tom Perriello is opposing Virgil Goode. I knew that but my mind must have been in neutral on my last post. What I didn't know is that Perriello has taken a pledge not to accept PAC or lobby money. Thanks Brian.

One of my problems with the Change Congress site, is that access to their database of candidates is limited. I tried to locate Perriello and couldn't find him in their database. Perriello might have made his pledge but not at the Change Congress but that site should still know about him. I sent an email to Change Congress asking for better access to their database and some clarification on how to help with their research.

Visiting Change Congress reminded me of an item of note. Most of us know that Obama says he will not accept special interest money of any kind. Few know that the DNC has also pleldged to "not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs..."

That's good but we'll see how far that pledge goes with the candidates for Congress. The Democratic Party is known as, among many other things, a party with little centralized control - perhaps the exact opposite of the Delay/Rove gestapo.

I, for one, would hope the candidates do oppose the DNC, except for the special interest pledge. Democrats have, since the late 1960s, become identified with special interests of just about any minority (gays, etc), but at the expense of the non-special interests of the majority. Democrats also lost their moral compass long before the Republicans did during the Pharaoh Bush years.

In order to get my vote, Democrats needs to regress (as we've blamed Republicans for doing). They need to study FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. They need to remember that addressing the needs of the majority of Americans was once the Democratic platform. And, most of all, Democrats need to remember that the Democratic platform was once a moral one.

Even so, as a retired military guy, I have other issues with Democrats, but that's for another post.

Anniversary and Fix Congress Wrap Up

Sorry about no posts for a week and a half. My wife and I have been away for a 50th wedding anniversary celebration put on my our two sons and their daughters. It was quite an affair a chauffeured (number 1 son) ride to northern Virginia, some visiting, an elaborate and fancy dinner, a reception after the dinner with cake cutting and such, then a chauffeured (number two son) ride back home. We were out of town for four days and I purposely did not take my laptop.

Running Horse, 18x24, charcoal

Fix Congress Wrap Up

Based on the number of readers and the time spent on my blog, my Fix Congress series is not very popular. Perhaps I've not communicated well, perhaps I've not presented it properly, or perhaps you readers are not interested in the problems with Congress. I hope the reasons you readers are not interested in fixing Congress is that I've failed. If it is because you are not interested, then I'm concerned for the nation's future.

Whatever the reason, I'm going to wrap up the series and get on to other things.

My previous posts covered the overall picture of Congress and its problems in a historical context, the failure of the budget process, earmarks, and inaction on entitlement funding. I've also talked about lobbyists, who serve a useful purpose, but serve interests other than our middle and low-income class folks. In fact, many of these lobbyists push interests that are detrimental to the average American (think drug companies, mortgage banking, big oil, etc).

I'll not discuss personal corruption of individual Congressmen. It exists and is detestable. You can't out them without luck and a more general fix to the way Congress does business. A check of web sites that do try to out corruption. I find many wrongs were committed after they served in Congress, and those are not crimes against the voters. And I just do not think personal corruption is serious problem for Congress as a whole.

Pick a Fix

I said I would give a list of different approaches to fixing Congress and their web addresses.

rute Force or Nuclear Option: All members of Congress are bad, or all members of Congress are a permanent political class. All are out of touch with the public. The solution is to get rid of all of them - vote all of them out of officer and get a new, compliant bunch.

I don't like this approach. Not all Congressmen are bad. Most, I believe, start out by wanting to do what's right. It's the system that changes them and it is the system that needs changing. Voting out incumbents does not address the Congressional system. It stay and, sooner or later, the new Congresses will fall into the same abusive routine.

To work, we would have to vote out the majority of incumbents within a few short years, otherwise those who remained would keep the system unchanged and would convert the new members much as is now done. To vote out the majority would require a massive voter movement that's not going to happen. Typically in most democracies folks are elected by small margins of just over 50%, usually less than 60%. Too many voters would not jump on this bandwagon.

Still, if nothing else works and the voters do reach a state of rebellion, this might be the only option. Check out VOID (Vote Out Incumbents Democracy).

ind Better Candidates: Some folks believe that we elect incompetent people. While I would agree that we elected an incompetent (and dishonest) President, I don't think most of our candidates are incompetent. Because our elections have become arenas for character assassination, the candidates are certainly more brave than most of us. How does one determine incompetence? As Republicans, do we tend to Democrats as less competent? As Democrats, do we - you get the idea. As an Independent, I don't like anyone very much anymore (Kingston Trio line).

Check out Vote None of the Above if you think incompetence lies inside the Beltway.

ix the System: Larry Lessig, once an aspiring Congressman, has started a web site that is getting some attention. Lessig believes that our Congressmen should not author earmarks (do away with them completely) and should abjure connections of any kind with lobbyists. While I might quibble with some details, this approach is the only one that has a chance of working and he has set up a program where voters can determine the progress toward the fix.

Lessig says "It's not a dependence that reveals itself in the way evil people act, but a dependence that corrupts even the way good people solve the problems they come to Washington to address," he said. "We need to solve this problem now." Also, "We just need to recognize that money in certain places is destructive of trust."

Lessig has called for a joint effort on the part of Congressmen and voters. Both can visit the sight and sign an oath to support four tenets:

• accept contributions from individuals only, lobbyists excepted.
• support the fundamental reform of congressional earmarks.
• support reform to increase transparency in Congress.
• support public financing of public elections.

There's little fire-breathing rhetoric in these tenets, just clear steps toward changing the way Congress does the business of the people. The tenets are clearly geared to making Congress the prime lobbyist for all of us rather than special interests.

If you are interested visit Lessig at Change Congress. You can view the list of Congressmen who have taken the pledge and you can sign up to take the pledge and donate. You can also view a map, locate your local representatives, and see how much of their financing came from special interests.

I have joined Change Congress, signed the pledge, made my own pledge to contribute a certain amount of money to Congressional candidates who also pledge. Since my own Congressman, Virgil Goode of Virginia receives 43% of his 2008 campaign financing from PACs and he is unopposed, I plan to contribute the money to candidates outside my district.

Goode has supported military and veteran issues important to me, but I believe the greater good is to convince Goode and his pals to think hard about representative the people first.

My list of Fix Congress web sites has not been exhaustive as I first planned. For those who want more info on our government and our elected officials, I found that Sunlight Foundations, Insanely Useful Web Sites is the best list you can find in one place.

Neocon Phoenix

In Greek mythology, the phoenix is a bird that dies by fire and a new phoenix regenerates from the ashes of the old bird. Most of us remember this from somewhere, but we often forget that the fire that consumes the phoenix was built and lit by the phoenix.

Such may be the fate of the neocons, or at least their political philosophy. After the Bush Administration failed so miserably in pursuing a neocon path, it is hard to find a group of folks more reviled than neocons. Yet, John McCain has chosen Robert Kagan, a neocon par excellence, as his foreign policy advisor. McCain has hinted at more of the same in Iraq. Does he now want to start with a failed neocon team so the he can also repeat the original mistakes of the Bush team?

ctually I don't believe McCain would follow in Bush's footsteps. I think he's more intelligent than that, but I do find his adoption of the neocon philosophy to be troubling for a variety of reasons. I tend to agree (mostly) with the neocon view of the world situation, but I do not agree with their concept of using America's power to remake the world in our image.

Get Acquainted with Neocons

For those who are not familiar with the neoconservative (neocon) movement, I invite you to the following sites:

• Neo-consertive, SourceWatch give a quick rundown on the history and status of the movement.
• Neoconserviatism, Wikipedia is a much longer and very complete presentation on the movement.
• Empire Builders, Christian Science Monitor Online reports on the key neoconservatives and where they were in 2005.
• All in the Neocon Family, AlterNet is an interesting article showing that many of the top neocons are related by family or marriage.

hether the neocons are primarily responsible for the Iraq War debacle is debated. Some of the neocons who were once calling the shots now say that the Iraq War disaster was not their fault but was the result of bungled mismanagement of the war by their bosses. This implies that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al were the mismanagers and that they were not neocons.

The organization most closely associated with the neocon movement is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Founding members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Libby. Wolfowitz was considered the ideological leader of PNAC. Other members of note included Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams and Jeb Bush.

Neocons and Cons

Some say Cheney and Rumsfeld were never neocons but used the neocons' philosophy to further their own aims; especially Cheney in his pursuit of an imperial presidency. That's drawing a pretty fuzzy line and one I think is misleading. For all practical purposes, Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons. Here's how I see the neocon Bush cabinet

• Cheney, VP: Definitely neocon with help from Libby.
• State: Rice; political persuasion unknown but in tune with Bush and she avoided confrontation with Rumsfeld and John Bolton
• National Security Council: Abrams, definite neocon; convicted for part in Iran-Contra Affair.
• Defense: Secretary Rumsfeld, card carrying neocon. Under Secty for Policy Doug Feith, also card carrying neocon.
• Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle and members too many to list here.

could go on but the point is that prominent neocons had key appointments in all areas of defense and foreign policy. It is no accident that White House statements and actions have following the neocon approach almost to the letter. Whether Bush was a closet neocon, was duped by the neocons, or just liked their world view is beside the point. The point is that Bush acted like a neocon and he acted very well.

Robert Kagan, Brilliant Idealist

PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine that is, in my opinion, a top notch magazine with well-reasoned articles. I often don't agree with the articles but their quality is far above what usually passes today as Republican thinking. If you need some real news about the Iraq War, check out the Weekly Standard.

Robert Kagan, Warsaw, April 17, 2000 from Wikipedia, Robert Kagan

obert Kagan is an author of several books and writes columns for The New Republic, Policy Review (Hoover Institute), the Weekly Standard, and that venerable liberal rag (or so my ultra-conservative relative tells me) The Washington Post. He is also a foreign policy advisor on Senator McCain's campaign staff. Here is list of some Kagan writings:

• " End of Dreams, Return of History," at Real Clear Politics
• "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776," at World Affairs
• "Power and Weakness," at Policy Review, Hoover Institute

If you want a more complete taste of Kagan's brand of neoconservatism, I recommend The Return of History; and the End of Dreams, ( 2008, Knoph division of Random House, New York, NY; $19.95). Since Kagan writes very lengthy articles, you'd think this book would be huge, but it isn't. The book is short (and small page format), but extremely well written and Kagan makes a lot of good points.

The World According to Neocons

Basically, here is the neoconservative talking points, per my interpretation of Kagan:

• The U.S. is the sole remaining superpower with extensive military capabilities.
• The U.S. is a moral country, capable of leading the democratic/liberal world, and of promoting democracy throughout the world.
• The U.S. should spread democracy because democracies make the world safe for other democracies.
• Peace and the growth of democracy happened during only a brief period after the Soviet Union collapsed. This left many liberals and other misinformed folks in the U.S. and Europe believing in the "end of history" and a new world order wherein nations competed economically, not by war.
• After the short-lived peace period, Russia and China found ways to return to, or retain, autocracy and still improve the prosperity of their peoples.
• The world is now aligning into two camps: one of democracies, and one of autocrats.
• Autocrats may not like other autocrats, but they must support each other or the democracies, especially the U.S., will force democracy on countries where it wouldn't work. Autocrats often tell their people that democracy is evil mob rule. Also, autocrats want to stay in power.
• India and other democracies are aligning more with the U.S. than in earlier years. EU, finally seeing the truth as Russia controls their energy and rattles their many nuclear sabers, is also moving toward the U.S.
• The world still works on the "sovereignty of nations" principal and balance of power remains the operative policy concept.
• Muslim extremists can never be satisfied because the West cannot give them what they want.
• The proactive policies of the Bush Administration are not new. America has pursued invasions and "preventative" foreign military actions throughout its history, especially during the Cold War.
• The UN Security Council is deadlocked with roughly equal representation from autocracies and democracies, and has no power.

All the above is, I think, mostly true. But none of the above points mention any action to be taken because of this world view. And that is where I have problems with the neocons.

Neocons versus Realists

I've always considered myself in the realist foreign policy camp. I revere George F. Kennan, architect of the Cold War containment policy. I also believe Henry Kissinger was one of our most brilliant policy experts. As I read Robert Kagan, I am struck by how closely his neoconservative view comes to a realist view for the post peace dividend world. But there is a difference.

n America that pursues a realist foreign policy would promote democracy and block autocrats where it served our interests. That America would also deal with autocrats if those autocrats could also serve America's needs and interests. That America would also promote democracy but would not invade a sovereign states unless the state posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States.

he neoconservative would invade and go to war with a lot less reasons - something like Cheney's 1% doctrine wherein one can take action if there is only a 1% chance of a threat to the U.S. Kagan doesn't really address the degree to which the neoconservatives would advise aggression. And that is where we need to be concerned when neoconservatives gain power in our government. What conditions are sufficient for a neocon to go to war? You will find nothing specific in their writings but you can find indicators when you think about how the U.S. might flex its sole superpower role to promote democracy. One way is by invading or otherwise forcing regime change (sorry, regime change is a dirty word/phrase and I should have called it something else). Other ways are less warlike. We need to look at the neocon track record to discover how they might promote democracy.

Regime Change by Force

The Iraq War was badly bungled and that bungling may not be the neocons fault, but the war was started by neocons or folks who thought like neocons. If we go back a little in history, to the 1990s, we find a steadily increasing neocon drumbeat for a greater U.S. presence in the Middle East. The idea was to promote democracy, support Israel, and guarantee our oil supplies. There were many candidate countries but Iraq, once America's friend against Iran, was high on the list. Iraq was threatening the area, had a brutal dictator, and had lots of oil. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait finally marked Iraq for regime change. But American's aren't comfortable with creating democracies by force, so other reasons for war were necessary. September 11, 2001 provided the avenue, if not the answer to invading Iraq. If some insiders are to be believed, the neocons even advised invading Iraq instead of Afghanistan after 9/11. WMDs and support of terrorists became the excuse to invade Iraq. As those reasons proved false, the neocons returned to the original concept of a democratic Iraq.

This latter drive to invade Iraq when the threat was in another country is indicative of an idealist-driven agenda wherein the ideals override reality. The Iraq War has accomplished none of America's goals and has even made us less secure, jeopardized our national defense, plundered our treasury, and made us a hated sole superpower. As bad as the Iraq War is, the neocons seem ready to try it again.

do not disagree much with the neocon world view. The world remains a dangerous place and America needs to remain strong and guarded. What concerns me is when these political philosophers are put in charge of the implementation of that philosophy. These folks are idealists and as idealists, they do not respond well to the reality of facts. As idealists they are prone to seeing a world that proves their ideals rather than as it really is. I think this is how our White House saw WMD when there weren't any and saw a Saddam-terrorist connection when there wasn't any.

hey say that the neocons began as Trotskyites. Trotsky was that nice communist that opposed Stalin and was assassinated in Mexico for his troubles. But he was still a communist and he was an idealist. Lenin was an idealist. bin Laden is an idealist. Woodrow Wilson was an idealist. I think neocons are idealists. I am not fond of idealists running a country. Give me a pragmatist anytime.

McCain, if elected, might benefit from neocon advice, alongside other advice. The danger would be when the neocon advice drives foreign policy. If McCain remains as independent as his reputation has it, then I wouldn't see a problem. But he has a recent record of courting the more radical elements of the so called conservative wing of the Republican base. I'm no longer sure of his independence.

Fix Congress - Earmarks, Update

Senator John McCain is going to veto all earmarks and save us $100B annually.

Most experts use a total of between $16B and $18B for all earmarks, so I find it difficult to see how one can get $100B out of that. Even the Center for American Progress Action Fund, with their own ax to grind, estimates only $52B.

I just don't know about McCain. I haven't decided on my Presidential vote and I have always respected McCain as one of us retired military, one who has integrity, and one brave enough to buck his own party. But he sure is losing me with this apparent drive to self-destruct.

First there was walk in an Iraqi market, sans body armor, to show that Iraq was safe. It turned out to be staged, something I would expect from Clinton but not McCain. Then came his mistaking Sunnis for Shiites in a speech about progress in the Iraq War. You simply cannot understand even the basics about Iraq (or all of the Middle East for that matter) if you can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite. But that was not the only gaffe on Iraq, just the most blatant.

Is my hero going senile? More likely it's his handlers. If they come from the RNC training camp, then I don't hold much hope for McCain unless he decides that he must run his own campaign. If that letter I received from the RNC is any gauge, the RNC is far removed from the voting public with the exception of that 30% that still thinks Bush is doing a good job.

Fix Congress - Lobbyists

Say the word "lobbyists" in just about any group and you get universal agreement that these folks are bad. It conjures an image of money passing from the fat cats to our Congressmen in a dark, smoke filled room. We see record gasoline prices and we all "know" that Exxon is lobbying for more government subsidies in addition to record profits. Our mortgage-backed financial markets are in meltdown and we do know that their lobbyists convinced Congress to reduce regulation of that industry in previous years.

There are lobbyists for any special interest that each of, us personally, support or need. Lobbyists also represent big businesses, foreign interests, and single-issue organizations. All are "special interests" and that phrase also conjures a nasty image, unless the named special interest is your own special interest.

There are many problems with the whole nature of lobbyists and lobbying, but the most unforgiving problem is the same as earmarking the federal budget - and that's secrecy. The most blatant example of such secrecy was early in the Bush Administration when Cheney met with energy executives to set America's energy and environment policies. What went on in that meeting remains secret these years later.

McCain Rids His Staff of Lobbyists

I doubt there is any candidate who has a record of trying to improve government ethics through campaign finance and lobbying reforms than John McCain. Yet, even McCain has lobbying problems. The New York Times, "McCain Finds a Thorny Path in Ethics Effort," has a good rundown on the fact that McCain has removed a number of his staff because they were lobbyists. I don't know the number but the Monday Houston Chronicle's "Texan's lobbying success becomes liability for McCain" notes Tom Loeffler was the fifth to leave.

The NYT article notes that the leaving staff members lobbied for customers including foreign governments, foreign companies, and rich foreigners; and large US corporations. The punch line comes early in the article but it is a good one. The responsibility for removing these lobbyists from McCain's staff falls on Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, and Davis is himself a prominent lobbyist.

Davis did take leave from his lobby firm two years ago. I don't think that taking leave is not the same as quitting. His company has started specializing in the interests of foreign politicians and businessmen.

Most of these lobbyists/campaign staff members are friends of McCain. The NYT gives an indication of why this is so. The entire lobbying industry cycles between campaign work in the even numbered years and lobbying in the odd years. To me, this is an indicator of just how entwined are the Congress and lobbyist.

I saw one article indicating that Obama also has lobbyist on his staff, but I doubted its veracity so I won't repeat it. However, I would guess that Obama did have lobbyists on his staff until he decided to make McCain's lobbyists an issue. I assume Clinton has lobbyists since she is probably more of the Beltway establishment than either McCain or Obama.

Lobbying is a Billion Dollar Industry

Lobbying is pervasive. We all know it exists, but that's about all we know. Ask any Congressman if his or her vote is ever affected by lobbyists and you'll get a strong no with a pained look that you could even suggest such a thing. If that were so, then lobbying must be a dumb industry that spends billions of dollars ($2.8 billion in 2008) but gets no results.

Lobbying is successful. This chart from the Center for Responsive Politics shows how this industry continues to grow.

Of course lobbying affects how our Congressmen vote. That relationship is incestuous and involves what's called the revolving door wherein people move back and forth between the work of Congress and the work of lobbying. Members of Congress who either lose or give up their seats often move over to lobbying to make use of all their personal contacts in Congress, and to get a piece of that billion dollar industry.

While it is easy to point to specific lobbyists and the Congressmen they lobbied, it is difficult to get your hands around the whole lobbying industry. The Center for Responsive Politics' web site, Open Secrets, gives about the best overall picture I could find. Go to their Industries tab. This list shows the top industries' contributions to each political party and to the current Presidential candidates (Ignore the different colors. I clipped the table as an image and the colors change are for links that I visited.).

I wouldn't put too much stock in the relative amounts given to each political party since lobbying is an opportunistic endeavor. Lobbyists have agendas and they will support whichever party, candidate, or elected official that will further their agendas. There has recently been a shift in lobby monies to Democrats which shows how they see coming power shifts.

One can guess at the agendas behind the above list. Lawyers (mostly trial lawyers) would like to stop any legislation that limits liability of big business; securities and investment firms would oppose any regulation of the mortgage industry; health professionals, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and hospital industries will want their say in any effort to fix Medicare or provide national health care; and electric utilities and oil and gas industries can effectively block environmental legislation and keep subsidies to oil companies flowing.

Where's the Smoking Gun?

But in all of the above, I find no smoking gun. That some industries spend lots of money lobbying our leaders is interesting but it is not even circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing. I had to look elsewhere.

Traditionally, "legal" monies get to Congress and candidates by soft money, individual contributors, and PACs. In 2002, soft money was banned which leaves money from individuals and PACs. There is not much to say about individual donors; you get the same lack of hard data as in the above case.

We all hear about the more notorious PACS such as those single issue PACs that oppose gay rights and abortion and purportedly support family values. There are also PACs that follow an extreme right or left political agenda. But none of these appear in the list of top PAC monies .

As in the list of top lobbying industries, the Republicans are not well represented. That's another indication that the influence industry sees the Democrats as the current winners. In this case, however, we see that the list is also filled with PACs that have traditionally favored Democrats.

Half of the PACs in this top 20 list are labor unions or worker organizations. Only three are single corporations: AT&T, UPS, and AFLAC. This list doesn't strike me as one of nefarious special interests. Labor unions and workers associations certainly represent a special interest but even that is an interest of very large groups of mostly average John and Jane Does.

Given that lobbying really is a problem, where is the smoking gun? Part of the problem is defining the problem. All of the data at OpenSecrets depends on disclosure via Senate rules. The disclosure is not all-encompassing nor is it perfect. Some data is simply not reported.

Peddlers of Influence and Other Friends

More importantly, I believe, the influence industry may not depend so much on money as we might think. Note that in the current case of John McCain's removing lobbyist from his campaign staff, most of these lobbyists were personal friends of McCain. Such friendship is, I believe, the key to effective influence peddling. How does this begin?

First, Congressmen collect friends sometimes just like ordinary citizens do, but mostly they collect friends more like business leaders collect business friends and contacts for networking. The friends usually have similar ideas about running the country, And they can be helpful in a variety of ways. In return, the Congressman can often help the friends.

There is also the revolving door process noted above. A typical case is one wherein a young staffer performs well for a Congressman. The Congressman contacts a friend and gets the staffer a good job in private industry, usually in an industry of interest to the Congressman. A few years later, the staffer leaves his industry job for another staff position, possibly with the same Congressman, maybe another but certainly to a higher staff position. The staffer now has several valuable friends/contacts in both Congress and industry. Then, a few good performance later years, the staffer returns to industry, probably in a very high position. And so the cycle continues upward. Eventually the staffer ends up as a corporate officer, or maybe a Cabinet position, or similar. The Congressman now has many high-level contacts in industry and has a good job waiting for the time he leaves Congress.

The process is not inherently incestuous or evil, but it certainly provides plenty of opportunity for influencing the votes of our Congressmen. But we don't know and that is our problem that Congress must fix. Transparency is the term most often used as the opposite of secrecy. That's good. I'll use it.

Since this post has become quite long, I'll leave the possible solutions to another post.