John McCain Owns Bush's Surge...and Its Consequences

John McCain is claiming personal ownership of the surge, boasting of his advocacy as the central element of his national security credentials. But the wisdom of this strategy depends on the media and the voters having an improbably narrow view of the surge's consequences.

Doubts about the wisdom of McCain's political calculation do not require the standard argument that the surge failed to achieve its political objectives, nor the fact there are several plausible, alternative reasons for whatever reported reductions in violence may have occurred. One can even discount as temporary the dreadful news that violence appears to have increased in recent weeks, with dozens more killed yesterday, and hope that killings of civilians will decline rather than increase.

The strategic choice whether to increase troops or begin withdrawing them always required the Administration to consider what would happen not only in Iraq but everywhere else. And it's clear that since the President's -- now McCain's -- policy choice to surge more troops into Iraq, conditions everywhere else have substantially worsened, with increasingly alarming consequences for US security interests.

Recently the negative consequences of the surge decision have been in full view. The Bush Administration sent Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates and senior military officials to Europe, Afghanistan and Pakistan trying to repair the damage caused by the Administration's neglect of Afghanistan, its neglect of Pakistani democracy and its over reliance on a despised military dictator to cover Afghanistan's southern flank. At the same time, National Security Director McConnell was warning Congress, in effect, that the Afghanistan/Pakistan region has now become the major threat to American security.

Who can doubt these entirely predictable consequences are linked to the preoccupation with Iraq? And whom should we hold responsible for tying up our strategic reserves to that preoccupation? Admiral Mullen and General Casey have been warning the Administration for months that the size of our occupation was unsustainable, weakening the US military and eliminating the nation's strategic flexibility to deal with any other contingency.

ACLU By ACLUSponsored

Imagine you've forgotten once again the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee, so you do a quick Google image search of “gorilla." But instead of finding images of adorable animals, photos of a Black couple pop up.

Is this just a glitch in the algorithm? Or, is Google an ad company, not an information company, that's replicating the discrimination of the world it operates in? How can this discrimination be addressed and who is accountable for it?

“These platforms are encoded with racism," says UCLA professor and best-selling author of Algorithms of Oppression, Dr. Safiya Noble. “The logic is racist and sexist because it would allow for these kinds of false, misleading, kinds of results to come to the fore…There are unfortunately thousands of examples now of harm that comes from algorithmic discrimination."

On At Liberty this week, Dr. Noble joined us to discuss what she calls “algorithmic oppression," and what needs to be done to end this kind of bias and dismantle systemic racism in software, predictive analytics, search platforms, surveillance systems, and other technologies.

What you can do:
Take the pledge: Systemic Equality Agenda
Sign up