SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2010 DAVID S. BRODER
The real Tom Vilsack
ver the years, reporters learn that there are a relative handful of the public officials with whom we deal who can be counted on to expand our un- derstanding of events. These are the men and women who have probed deeply into the forces shaping the country — or their part of it — and often anticipate the chal- lenges still to come.
O During the eight years he was governor
of Iowa, Tom Vilsack came onto my radar as one of those rare individuals — a man who planted useful thoughts every time I interviewed him. So I was surprised when Vilsack was cast as the fall guy in the ugly incident last month involving the forced resignation of an African American government employee who was accused by a blogger of reverse dis- crimination against a white farmer. As you may remember, Shirley Sher- rod, the Agriculture Department official, was shown by conservative activist An- drew Breitbart in a brief excerpt from a speech she had made in which she seemed to suggest she had held back on helping the white farmer. When the full speech was released, it became clear she was telling the story to illustrate how she had overcome any racial animus she might have harbored. And the farmer praised her for her exceptional help. Vilsack, who had acted on the basis of
partial and misleading information in fir- ing her, called and offered his apologies and another job, which she has not yet accepted. Talking with friends about him, I real- ized that they were oblivious to the con- text of the exceptional public official I had known — a man who was a perfectly plausible presidential aspirant in 2007 until he ran out of money. I also realized that I had no idea what Vilsack had been up to in the 18 months since President Obama appointed him agriculture secre- tary.
An hour’s conversation last week dem-
onstrated that he is as deeply engaged as ever — and working on a variety of fronts. His chief concern, as it was as governor, is the condition of rural America, which is facing challenges not so much because of the Great Recession but as a result of long-term trends. Ninety percent of the counties faced with persistent poverty are in rural America, Vilsack says. Those trends — an aging, less educated and declining population with an average annual income $11,000 below that of their urban neighbors — are not because farmers are hurting. Indeed, farm in- come is up 9 percent over last year, and farm exports are at nearly record levels. But most of those living in rural Amer- ica are not farmers. And so the formula for boosting those counties includes an emphasis on exploiting their energy re- sources, creating local food markets for local products, expanding broadband and promoting outdoor recreation. One feature Vilsack brought from Iowa is his plan to set aside a small portion of the economic development funds to be channeled into eight or 10 counties that have done their own bottom-up planning and to come up with a blueprint embrac- ing all elements of the community. “We did it in Iowa,” Vilsack says, “so I know it works.” That is the main game, but there are other projects as well, from the improve- ment of the nutritional value of school lunches to the assistance that he is providing to Afghanistan’s ministry of agriculture. Vilsack has 64 of his people working in that ministry, trying to con- vince Afghan farmers that, rather than growing poppies for the opium trade, they can find more profits in pomegran- ates and grapes. Ironically, far from being insensitive to
racial issues, as Breitbart implied, Vil- sack has worked assiduously to clean up the remnants of the historic lawsuits filed against his department by blacks, His- panics, Native Americans, farmers and female employees. If the Senate ever clears the appropriation, that goal, too, may be part of his worthy legacy.
davidbroder@washpost.com
KATHLEEN PARKER
Low grades on the basics for colleges I
t is generally true that you get what you pay for, but not necessarily when it comes to higher education.
A study scheduled for release Monday about the value of a college education, at least when it comes to the basics, has found the opposite to be true in most cases. Forget Harvard and think Lamar. Indeed, the Texas university, where tui- tion runs about $7,000 per year (Harvard’s is $38,000) earns an A to Harvard’s D based on an analysis of the universities’ commitment to core subjects deemed es- sential to a well-rounded, competitive education. In other words, Lamar requires courses
that Harvard apparently considers of less- er value. These include six of the seven subject areas used in the study to gauge an institution’s commitment to general edu- cation: composition, literature, foreign language at the intermediate level, U.S. government or history, economics, math- ematics, and natural or physical science. Harvard has comprehensive require- ments for only two of these subjects — composition and science. The study was conducted by the non-
profit American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) to help parents and stu-
dents determine where they might get the best bang for their buck. It was timed to coincide with the release ofU.S. News and World Report’s annual evaluation of the “best” colleges and universities, which is based primarily on various statistical data, reputation and prestige. ACTA focused on requirements as a measure of what an institution actually delivers. Anne Neal, ACTA president, is quick to point out that the grading system doesn’t tell the whole story about an insti- tution but does offer a crucial part that has been missing.
On a user-friendly Web site, www.
whatwilltheylearn.com, which is being updated on Monday, visitors can compare the major public and private universities in all 50 states. Of the 714 four-year insti- tutions reviewed, more than 60 percent received a grade of C or worse for requir- ing three or fewer of the key subjects. Only 16 received an A, among them: Baylor Uni- versity, City University of New York — Brooklyn College, Texas A&M University, the U.S. Military Academy, the University of Arkansas and St. Thomas Aquinas. In other findings, public institutions are doing a relatively better job than private schools of ensuring that students receive
A deadly ‘peace’ for Afghan women by Tom Malinowski
do first?” This was Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s reply when I asked him last month if the rights of Afghan wom- en might be sacrificed for a peace settle- ment with the Taliban. While real peace talks may not begin for a long time, it was clear to me on a recent trip to Kabul that the political and intellectual groundwork is being laid for “reconciliation” with insur- gents. Karzai seems tired of the war’s carnage and uncertain of the interna- tional community’s staying power. Many of his foreign allies, meanwhile, have become so cynical about Afghani- stan’s present state that they can’t imag- ine how a deal with the Taliban could make it worse. Yet the prospect is deep- ly unnerving to those Afghans who suf- fered most under Taliban rule — wom- en and ethnic minorities, above all. Afghan women have fought with some success — and strong support from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — to be included in discussions about reconciliation with the Taliban. But the Obama administration has not ruled out supporting a process in which Tali- ban commanders who have a track rec- ord of atrocities against Afghan women and men are offered government posi- tions or even de facto control over some areas, so long as they have no ties to al- Qaeda and promise to respect the Af- ghan constitution. As one Western dip- lomat recently told Time magazine: “You have to be realistic. We are not go- ing to be sending troops and spending money forever. There will have to be a compromise, and sacrifices will have to be made.” If we’re going to be realistic, let’s at least face what those sacrifices would be. The Taliban is not just another war- lord militia fighting for a piece of the action; it is an ideological movement whose leaders believe they were right to plunge Afghanistan into darkness when they ruled in the 1990s. In many parts of the country where they hold sway, they continue to kill women who go to school, work or participate in the political process, as well as the men who support them. If a Taliban pro- vincial shadow governor with such a history were made the real governor of a province, the “night letters” the Tali- ban now delivers to threaten women would become daytime edicts. Perhaps that should not be enough to
“I
determine America’s strategy for end- ing the war. But before resigning our- selves to compromising our principles for peace, we must ask: Would such a
f you had to choose between sav- ing a girl’s life or enabling her to go to school, which would you
KLMNO
K R
A13 GEORGE F. WILL
Israel’s best defense
W NIKKI KAHN/THE WASHINGTON POST Afghan girls at a rally in Maymana during the presidential election a year ago.
trade-off bring the security it promises? This is where the realist argument col- lapses. The same argument, after all, was made by Pakistan when it negotiated its 2008 settlement with the Taliban, giv- ing it control of Swat Valley in exchange for pledges to recognize the writ of the central government and let women work without fear. The Taliban broke those promises; Pakistanis were horri- fied by images of women being whipped and schools being torched. Within months, the Pakistani army launched a massive military operation to retake what it had given away. Much the same happened when Co- lombia ceded territory to the FARC in- surgent group in 1999 (the FARC con- tinued its kidnappings and killings, and war resumed); when Angola brought the UNITA party of brutal warlord Jo- nas Savimbi into its government in 1994 (the deal collapsed, and UNITA went back to fighting); when the inter- national community helped broker a peace deal in Sierra Leone in 1999 that gave Foday Sankoh’s vicious rebel group a share of power (Sankoh’s forces con- tinued to conduct attacks until a British intervention restored order). Each time we were shocked to learn that abusive, predatory movements, when given power, continue to behave in abusive, predatory ways. The same is likely to happen in Af- ghanistan if those Taliban leaders who have committed the worst atrocities are given control over the communities they terrorized. Images of abuses against women are likely to be broad- cast around the world, raising the pain- ful question of whether this is what for- eign and Afghan troops sacrificed for.
There could be retribution against per- ceived U.S. and government collabora- tors and against people fleeing areas where insurgents are given power. Af- ghanistan’s ethnic minorities (who to- gether constitute a majority) are espe- cially fearful of a deal that increases the Taliban’s influence; many Afghans be- lieve that a hasty process could lead to a broader civil war. None of these appalling consequenc- es would speed a U.S. withdrawal. Quite the opposite. And it is not realism, but a leap of faith born of desperation, to think they could be avoided simply by requiring “reconciling” Taliban forces to renounce violence and support Af- ghanistan’s constitution. Some suspect that talking about
women’s rights is a pretext for keeping the United States in Afghanistan forev- er (ironically, the part of President Oba- ma’s constituency that would normally be most concerned about defending women in Afghanistan is also the part most wary of the U.S. commitment there). But whether one believes in Gen. David Petraeus’s strategy of counterinsurgency for as long as it takes, or a more limited counterterror- ism mission with fewer troops, there is no need for hasty deals that give the Tal- iban a share of power. Whatever one’s vision of the way for- ward in Afghanistan, the answer to Kar- zai’s heartfelt question must be: You must help that girl stay alive and go to school at the same time. For if you try to settle the conflict in a way that sacrific- es human rights in the name of peace, you will end up with neither.
The writer is Washington director for Human Rights Watch.
POST PARTISAN Excerpts from The Post’s opinion blog, updated daily at
washingtonpost.com/postpartisan
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL
The ‘principled left’ Obama needs
When Barack Obama embarked on his presidential campaign, the question was whether Democrats would consider a con- tender other than a former first lady who would be the first female president and a former vice presidential nominee who was highlighting America’s economic divide. What ultimately won Obama the Demo- cratic nomination was a decision by the principled left — professional and ama- teur — that the candidate who had ex- pressed blunt opposition to the war in Iraq before it began had shown better judg- ment than Hillary Clinton and John Ed- wards. Now that Obama is president, how- ever, his press secretary derides the “pro- fessional left” for being too pure in its demands.
First, Robert Gibbs is wrong; at the
most critical point in Obama’s presidency so far — when Congress was weighing a health-care bill that Republicans predict- ed would be his “Waterloo” — the most left-wing lawmakers and their allies (pro- fessional and amateur) across America rallied to support a measure that deeply disappointed many of them. It is staggeringly simplistic for Gibbs to
blame the “professional left” for the slew of troubles this White House confronts. The left isn’t responsible for the adminis- tration’s insufficient response to the eco- nomic and social challenges posed by the financial crisis; for a dysfunctional system that allows the minority party to obstruct with impunity; or for the fact that a major- ity of Americans no longer believe the Af- ghanistan war is worth fighting. Maybe Gibbs needs a history lesson on
the relationship of the left to presidential administrations. Both FDR and LBJ, for example, had to respond to insurgencies on their left — labor and civil rights move- ments — and in so doing were pushed to adopt bold, progressive reforms.
The left I know is not some monolithic
entity. There are debates and divisions. I am of the school that believes the system is rigged against progressive change and that great periods of change — the New Deal and the Great Society — took place af- ter years of effort and many setbacks. I also believe that we on the left need to be as clear-eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he and his team are about us. And ceaseless denunciations of the admin- istration’s failures and missteps simply promote disappointment, disempower- ment and despair — what our adversaries on the right seek. In the past 18 months, the left has learned the hard way that it needs to be more independent of the White House and organize to realize the change we’re seek- ing: taming corporate power, filibuster re- form, Medicare-for-all at the state level, stronger consumer protection and more. Gibbs might stop lashing out, consider what the left is talking about — and start a conversation with a constituency that helped bring his boss to the White House.
jerusalem
hen Israel declared independ- ence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel at-
tacks by six Arab armies. Today, how- ever, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, prob- ably within two years. To understand the man who will
make it, begin with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s belief that stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons pro- gram is integral to stopping the world- wide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to “put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn’t defend himself — a perfect victim.” Today’s Middle East, he says, reflects
two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Ha- mas and Hezbollah. The other devel- opment is the multiplying threat of missile warfare. Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, “the capacity for self- defense restored to the Jewish people.” But note, he says, the reflexive world- wide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from south- ern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.” From 1948 through 1973, he says, en- emies tried to “eliminate Israel by con- ventional warfare.” Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other ter- rorism. “We put up a fence,” Netanya- hu says. “Now they have rockets that go over the fence.” Israel’s military, which has stressed offense as a solu- tion to the nation’s lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense. That, however, cannot cope with
Hamas’s tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah’s up to 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. Res- olution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farci- cal. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River. Since 2006, Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock Resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Is- rael’s next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggres- sors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportion- ate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran. Last year was Barack Obama’s wast- ed year of “engaging” Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever be- come sufficiently potent. With Russia, China and Turkey being uncoopera- tive, Iran is hardly “isolated.” The Ira- nian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran’s. Hillary Clinton’s words about ex- tending a “defense umbrella over the region” imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed re- gime steeped in an ideology of martyr- dom, remember that in 1980, Ayatol- lah Khomeini said: “We do not worship Iran, we wor- ship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” You say, that was long ago? Israel
says, this is now: Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khame-
basic skills and knowledge — and at a con- siderably lower price. But both public and private universities are failing to ensure that students cover the important sub- jects, notably economics and U.S. govern- ment or history.
Among the reasons for this void in “the basics” is that many professors prefer re- search to teaching, and course content of- ten reflects that. There’s no paucity of sub- jects to choose from, which is part of the problem. More courses equals more ex- pense equals higher tuition. The question is whether the offerings are of any value. At Emory University, for example, to
fulfill a “History, Society and Culture” re- quirement, students may choose from about 600 courses, including “Gynecology in the Ancient World.” At the University of Wisconsin at Madison, a “Humanities, Lit- erature and Arts” requirement may be met by taking an introduction to television. Neal, herself a graduate of Harvard Col- lege and Harvard Law School, doesn’t dis- pute that these may be excellent classes. “But the question being asked is whether this is the only exposure a student is get- ting when going to university.” Students given so many choices aren’t likely to select what’s good for them. Given
human nature, they’ll choose what’s fun, easy or cool — and not early in the morn- ing or on Fridays. It’s up to universities to guide them away from the dessert tray to the vegetable courses they need to develop healthy minds. Neal says that colleges have abdicated that responsibility. “It’s ludicrous to take an 18-year-old and give them hundreds of choices when they don’t have any basis for making a deci- sion.”
At a time when the cost of higher educa- tion is increasingly prohibitive — and em- phasis tends to focus on status — students and parents can find solace in the possibil- ity that a better education can be found in one’s own back yard. This doesn’t neces- sarily mean that a student at Lamar will learn more than one at Harvard. As some argue, intellectually motivated students indeed may find what they need any- where. And students properly guided may fail to absorb what is offered. But the study and Web site do fill a gap
so that parents and students can make better choices. As a consequence, colleges and universities may be forced to examine their own responsibility in molding an educated, well-informed citizenry.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
nei, says that Israel is the “enemy of God.” Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vow- ing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran’s former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is consid- ered a “moderate” by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a “one- bomb country.” If Iran were to “wipe the Zionist en-
tity off the map,” as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional “dominance not seen since Alexander.” Netanyahu does not say that Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he? He says that CIA Director Leon Pa-
netta is “about right” in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says that 1948 meant this: “For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack.” And he says: “The trag- ic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-de- fense.” If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
georgewill@washpost.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148