Dogs, Not Barking

Right to it:

1. Ross Douthat mentioned this one today: as far as we know, it turns out that employers are not dumping their employees on the exchanges. At least so far. I do think it's likely that over time the ACA will wind up pushing people out of employment-linked insurance, but it appears that a fast, destabilizing dump isn't happening. Good Douthat piece, by the way, especially in that he's absolutely right that the best way to think about the ACA now is in terms of potential outcomes and the future policy questions they will raise, not "success" or "failure."

2. I talked about this yesterday...this one is less a dog not barking than a dog barking in the wrong direction, or something like that. Republican Senators are apparently doing a "filibuster" stunt today to protest the nuclear option (or maybe it's more of a "what have you got?" protest)...but they're really not shutting down the Senate. @Mansfield2016 nailed this one (and really, follow if you're interested in judicial nominations at all, including Senate procedure and reform issues): Republicans haven't objected to overnight time counting towards post-cloture time, something they could do. The same was true yesterday for the recess for party meetings. In addition, Republicans haven't objected to having committees meet. And as other have noted, the budget wars have semi-thawed, with Senate nukes apparently having no effect at all. Yes, they have forced a few votes which weren't necessary, and by not yielding back post-cloture time (so far!) they're definitely delaying and obstructing. But remember that GOP obstruction of nominees has been the norm for years now. This very much appears to be ordinary delay, not nuclear fallout. I'm increasingly confident that I was right on this one.

3. Afghanistan casualties continues to be, in my view, a very big and very undercovered story -- especially when troop deaths aren't happening. The last coalition troop death was back on November 17, and there were only four in November (3 US deaths). For the year, the coalition total is 148 (118 US), down from 402 (310) last year. This year will be the fewer coalition troop deaths in Afghanistan since 2005 (US since 2007); it will be fewest combined (Afghanistan plus Iraq) troop deaths since before the Iraq war began. I don't think we've really spent enough time thinking about how being at war for over a decade matters, or how it will matter when the Afghanistan adventure ends, or at least mostly ends, in just a few more months.

4. And the real reason I did this one today: the Fairness Doctrine is back! Well, not the Fairness Doctrine itself, of course, but conservative paranoia that it's coming back any second now. Via friend-of-blog John Anderson.

Sunday Question for Liberals

Same one that I used for conservatives. What are you hoping for on Afghanistan? Is the agreement to keep the US there (in a non-combat role) after 2014 a good idea? Bad idea?

Sunday Question for Conservatives

What are you hoping for on Afghanistan? Is the agreement to keep the US there (in a non-combat role) after 2014 a good idea? Bad idea?

Coalition Deaths Still Declining in Afghanistan

As war talk continues about Syria, it's still the case that the US is at war in Afghanistan -- remember that one? And odds are that the US will still suffer more casualties in Afghanistan than anywhere else over the next several months.

Still, it's worth noting that coalition casualties continue to decline sharply. 

There were 13 coalition fatalities in Afghanistan in August, following on 14 in July. That compares with 52 in August 2012 and 46 in July 2012; it's the lowest combined total for July and August since 2005 (and the lowest August since 2004). For the year, the total is 122 coalition fatalities (96 US fatalities), down from 320 through the end of August last year. It may also be worth noting that fatalities for July and August this year were only half as many as in May and June, which hasn't been the pattern over the years and may indicate that the trend is still very much continuing. 

I don't really have much to add; I mostly just think it's an important and massively underreported set of facts. I do continue to believe it provides evidence that Barack Obama is unusually quagmire-averse. That doesn't mean one should support a Syria strike, of course; one can certainly believe that the 2009 Obama surge in Afghanistan was a mistake, regardless of his willingness to abandon it after a while (although I don't know if that's the case). 

On the other hand, there could easily be another 100 or more coalition fatalities between now and the end of 2014, and still more after that, depending on how many US troops wind up remaining. It's also fair to ask exactly what the point of that is. Yes, some of it is baked in (withdrawal is complicated and can't be done overnight), but some is certainly a cost of continuing operations. And of course there's always the question of what policy gains (if any) were abandoned when Obama decided to end it. Lists of fatalities only indicate (one of the) costs of a policy, not whether it is wise. One more thing: these stats are fatalities only. Full casualties statistics would capture even more of the costs.

At any rate, I do think the information about this is important and undercovered. 

What Mattered This Week?

Afghanistan: reports are that civilian and Afghan army deaths are up, while coalition deaths are way down. Coalition deaths over the last five Julys, starting with 2009: 76, 88, 53, 46, 14. Theory: the backlash on NSA and other such issues this year has less to do with any specific revelations, and more to do with a turn towards peacetime. Not there yet, but it's easier to see now than it used to be. I'd like PPP or someone to do a poll, by the way -- I'd love to know how many people know the was in Afghanistan is going on...and how many know that the US is no longer at war in Iraq.

What didn't matter? The GOP talking points bills they passed on the IRS scandal. It's gonna take more than that, folks.

What do you have? What do you think mattered this week?

Memorial Day

I'll mostly be over at Greg's place today, but wanted to pop in at least once to wish everyone a nice Memorial Day.

I'll contribute one item, really a follow-up to the weekend questions. There was one new coalition death in Afghanistan recorded yesterday. It was the first one in ten days -- ending a streak which had dramatically improved the pace of May casualties after a very disappointing first half of the month. The death yesterday put this month's coalition total up to 25. That's the highest this year (and in fact the highest since September), but that's to be expected given the seasonal nature of the war in Afghanistan. More promising is that May will wind up down from the 45 coalition deaths last year. There have been 67 coalition fatalities to date in 2013; last year, there were 183 through the end of May. There's still a plausible chance that coalition deaths will wind up under 200 for 2013.

There are (at least) two obvious interpretations of Barack Obama's policy with respect to all of this. The negative one is to question whether any of these deaths are in the service of anything more than a graceful exit; given that Obama continues to define the mission down, John Kerry's famous question would seem to apply here just as much as it applied to Iraq.

The positive interpretation would be that Obama has shown a solid pattern of actually following up on his stated plans to withdraw, even if it opens him up to criticism for "retreating" or for losing a war which (supposedly) was about to be decisively won. That interpretation would also give Obama credit for how difficult it is to turn the boat around, and stress that at least for now it appears that the Obama Administration will have successfully ended two wars and started no new ones. Remember, a lot of people in 2008-2009 believed that the US would find a way to keep a major troop presence in Iraq; that didn't happen.

(Yes, Libya, and yes, drone wars...but even there Obama displays an impressive ability to avoid escalations and to move to end things).

Is one of these interpretations correct? I don't know; perhaps they both are.

What Mattered This Week?

I'm going to list two. One is the Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act.

The other is another month of reduced casualties in Afghanistan. Only one coalition death in Afghanistan in February, an American; that means there have been 9 coalition deaths, 4 of them Americans, so far this year. Last year through February there had been 59 coalition troop deaths, including 42 Americans. Remember, fighting in Afghanistan is seasonal, so there's every reason to expect that casualties will rise in the spring. Still, it's a pretty dramatic drop, worth noting just for itself as well as what it suggests about the future.

What didn't matter? Oh, you knew I was going to say the Bob Woodward flap. You are correct.

That's what I have. What do you think mattered this week?

Dogs, Not Barking

Things not in the news, which makes them newsworthy.

1. I often stick news about American and coalition war casualties in these items; the news media constantly ignores fluctuations that I certainly think are pretty important. The news here dates back to last week. There were only 8 coalition troop deaths, and 3 US deaths, in Afghanistan  in January. That's the fewest for coalition deaths there since February 2008, and the fewest for US deaths since December 2008; in fact, it's the first time that  US number dropped below 10 since April 2009.

Also: that means it's the lowest combined Afghanistan plus Iraq totals for both coalition and US deaths since before the Iraq War began in March 2003. In other words, this makes the fewest coalition troop deaths from these wars since February 2003, and the fewest US troop deaths since December 2002.

Now, part of that is that fighting in Afghanistan is highly seasonal, with far fewer casualties in winter, but it's still down quite a bit from recent Januaries. Oh, and so far, zero coalition troop deaths in February; there were 24 last year.

2. Minimum wage.

3. I think it's enough of a thing to count: lesser cabinet appointments. The big one here is Commerce, vacant since June. The rest just opened up, but surely those who are leaving gave the president some notice, no?

4. Ummmm...I don't know what goes here any more. I certainly can't do Obama Administration gun control attempts. There's still no sign of a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, but alas it seems that conservatives have accepted that the Fairness Doctrine is really, truly dead. I suppose I could include wild fringe conspiracy theories of stuff the government is supposedly going to do any minute now and note they haven't happened, but it's not really any fun unless it's less on the fringe. Anyone have any ideas? I'll take lefty fringe, too, but only (on both sides) if there's some sign that elected officials and other regular party actors embrace it.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to John Hurt, 73.

And some good stuff:

1. A few basic facts about the US in Afghanistan, from Paul Waldman.

2. Voteview on the ideological placement of US presidents. Worth looking at, but I'm far from convinced that what it's tapping into really measures something we're very interested in.

3. Arizona, (perhaps) making trouble again with the presidential nomination calendar. Josh Putnam has it, of course.

4. Sarah Binder looks ahead to the 113th.

5. While John Sides says that partisanship is what works.

6. And Joe Sheehan on Lance Armstrong -- and Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey, and the rest of the gang.

Dogs, Not Barking

Items that are not in the news, which is newsworthy.

1. I did an item on this last week, but I'll repeat it here: the debate over debates. Didn't happen this time, or at least whatever did happen didn't get any publicity. Didn't really happen last cycle, if I recall correctly. It used to be a huge deal; it still is, in many statewide races. It's just amazing how institutionalized the presidential general election debates have become.

2. Coalition deaths are way down in Afghanistan. I can't recall any reporting on this at all. The end of the surge received some publicity, but not casualty rates dropping. Through the end of September last year there had been 470 coalition fatalities; that's down to 345 at the same point this year. It was 547 in 2010. This year will almost certainly have the fewest American and coalition deaths combined for Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002. No, it's not peace, and the drone war continues, but it strikes me as something worth noting.

3. A double one, in opposite directions. On the one hand, there was very little evidence of a surge for Democratic House candidates during  the post-convention period when Barack Obama and Democratic Senate candidates were doing very well. On the other hand, so far there's been no evidence of Republican Senate candidates benefiting from Romney's post-debate bounce. In both cases, note that it might be happening but we just don't know it.

4. I'm beginning to think that conservatives have really given up on the idea that Democrats are hell bent on bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. I guess there's more exciting stuff out there. I have to say I'm disappointed.

Sunday Question for Liberals

If Barack Obama is re-elected, what do you expect him to do in Afghanistan? In Iran?

Sunday Question for Conservatives

If Mitt Romney wins, what do you expect him to do in Afganistan? In Iran?

Dogs, Not Barking

Haven't done one of these for a while...these are items not in the news, which itself makes them newsworthy:

1. Citizen vetting: it seemed that we were going to get lots of ordinary citizens who made important opposition research finds. Were there any so far this year? Maybe we'll get more in Congressional contests.

2. Afghanistan casualties. Through the end of June, coalition deaths are down a bit over 20% from last year. US deaths are down just a hair below 20%. The people at icasualties credit one US death from Iraq this year; that puts total US deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan so far this year at 165, down from 243 through June last year. It seems likely that 2012 will be the "best" year for US and coalition casualties since 2002. That's still a lot of deaths, of course.

3. Well, the obvious one: third party candidates. Major ones, that is. It really was possible we could have had one this time around.

4. Either way: gun control or the old favorite, Fairness.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

If Mitt Romney becomes president: how many US deaths do you expect in Afghanistan in 2015? (It was 418 last year, dropping from a high of 499; note that the highest death toll in that country under Bush was 155).

Catch of the Day

A rare positive catch. Brendan Nyhan notes that the NYT and reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Alliison Kopicki do a great job in writing up the latest Times/CBS survey about Afghanistan -- by placing the results in the context of other recent surveys by other news organizations and Pew.

I want to chime in here with the coveted CotD to Brendan for noticing it, and for the NYT for doing it. Good job, and nice catch!

Elsewhere in the story...

They quote Peter Feaver of Duke (and the George W. Bush administration) saying that approval of the administration's Afghan policy might be higher if Barack Obama was saying more positive things about it (possible, I suppose), but also that:

He doesn’t talk about winning in 2014; he talks about leaving in 2014. In a sense that protects him from an attack from the left, but I would think it has the pernicious effect of softening political support for the existing policy.

The thing is -- whether Obama is more worried about attacks from those who want out of Afghanistan or those who want US forces there long after 2014 depends almost entirely on what Obama really wants, doesn't it?

Suppose, however, that what he really wants is the maximum possible flexibility. In that case, I suspect his best bet would be to play it as he is now. Don't sell the policy too much. If, at some point, he chooses to stay longer, I suspect he would still have both Republican and Democratic allies on the Hill who would support it (at the very least, John McCain almost surely would). On the other hand, if he wants to accelerate withdrawal, he can already claim numerous Republicans as supporters. The trick is to keep it as low-key as he can. That keeps it relatively far away from partisan craziness, and also prevents setbacks from being tied to  him.

Granted, if his goal is to build support for a long-term occupation, then it's possible that a higher-profile, more positive selling job might be a good idea (although not necessarily; it didn't help Bush much in Iraq).

At any rate, nice catch!, and a good job by the NYT.

What Mattered This Week?

Will the massacre by an American in Afghanistan have long-term consequences? I sort of doubt it...it might accelerate what was already going to happen, but I sort of doubt that much of the coming withdrawal will really be caused by this latest disaster.

The situation in Syria remains grim.

Back home...the GOP nomination contest continued basically unchanged, with Romney losing another possible opportunity to shut things down without harming his lock on the nomination at all.

I'm not sure what to make of the deal over judges. I guess it depends on what comes next.

What else? What do you think mattered this week?

Elsewhere: More Santorum Fun, ACA Effects, and Afghanistan

At PostPartisan, I have some fun at the expense of a Santorum campaign strategy memo. Over at Salon, I look at the results of the Nyhan et al. article about the effects of ACA on the presidential election, and argue that ACA won't have a similar effect on Barack Obama.

And at Greg's place, I argue that deteriorating support for the Afghanistan war effort works well for Barack Obama. Alex Massie today gave the crucial question for policy makers: "Do the unknown costs of leaving Afghanistan trump the known costs of staying in Afghanistan?" He's talking about policy costs, but politicians must (and I would argue should) consider electoral costs for themselves and their parties. As support for the war fades, and particularly as GOP support splinters (perhaps as a result of having a Democrat in the White House, perhaps just based on how things are going over there), the unknown costs in domestic politics surely decrease as well.

What Mattered This Week?

I'm just way behind in reading things that I'm not going to write about immediately, but I better get this up now rather than wait until I get caught up. So here goes, but I probably need more help than usual for things I totally missed.

International: Syria, again, and Afghanistan, again.

Back home...the jobs numbers are certainly important, both in themselves and as a hint of what's to come. I suppose it was a very big week in the GOP race, but I'm not sure how much of it mattered...I suppose the biggest thing there that didn't happen that mattered was the lack of a Santorum breakthrough. No surprise, but had he won big in Ohio and, say, Alaska...maybe that would have indicated something significant was going on? As it is, they're still just playing out the string there.

Two Members were defeated in Ohio, one in a Member-Member contest after redistricting, and another by a challenger.

So, what else? What am I missing? What do you think mattered this week?

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to the great Maura Tierney, 47. You know, I think I've seen almost nothing she's done other than, of course, NewsRadio. Except, that is, for something else I can highly recommend: Scotland, Pa. Great idea, great execution, especially for the first first hour or so -- and she's terrific throughout.

OK, the good stuff:

1. Katie from Feministing on Susan G. Komen. Excellent. For more on that and other things, by the way, I did the roundup over at Greg's place yesterday evening, so lots of links there.

2. Larry Bartels checks out how those lucky "very poor" are getting along. Someone better tell Mitt Romney that he doesn't quite have it right.

3. If you ask me, sane conservatives are nuts to embrace (or in any way tolerate Ann Coulter just because they happen to agree with her on Romneycare; sane conservative David Frum obviously disagrees.

4. Spencer Ackerman on Afghanistan, 2013, and Mitt Romney.

5. And I think Ezra Klein has much the better of the argument about budget deficits, Obama, and George W. Bush, but I think he's overly generous to Keith Hennessey.

Dogs, Not Barking

Most of these are repeats, but still significant stories that have not been in the news, which is itself newsworthy.

1. It's really strange, still, how little we're hearing about 2012 Appropriations and the (still) possibility of a government shutdown. Does it mean that there's really a deal to somehow get around the seemingly obvious trouble with policy riders? That Republicans want to sneak it all past Tea Partiers, and so far they haven't noticed? That reporters are just missing the story?

2. I've seen quotes from Robert Walker and Vin Weber about Newt Gingrich, but nothing yet from either Dick Armey or Tom DeLay. Armey, of course, is still quite relevant. Neither is thought to be exactly a huge fan.

3. Repeating and updating the numbers I tweeted Wednesday late night. Allied and US casualties are down. Note that casualties in Afghanistan are highly seasonal, so what matters is year-to-year same month totals, and of course that can be skewed for any number of reasons. Still, and with further revisions are still possible but based on what's reported so far:

November coalition deaths in Afghanistan were at 27. That's the lowest since May, 2009. US troop deaths were 17, also lowest since May 2009.

One US death in Iraq in November.

Combined coalition deaths (Afghanistan and Iraq) in November were at 28. That's the lowest since February 2004 (25) and the second-lowest since the Iraq war began.

And combined US deaths were 18, lowest since December 2008 (17), and tied for second-lowest with November 2008 since the Iraq war began.

Again, it's not surprising that there are lows in this part of the year. But the trend is pretty clearly down, now, in Afghanistan. Coalition deaths there are well below 2010, breaking the string of six consecutive record years, and the last five months are well  below the 2009 level.

Of course, what anyone makes of all this is open for argument, but at least in my view it's a significant story, and it hasn't been getting much if any attention.

4. You know, I've watched every GOP debate and they just aren't talking about how Obama is certain to revive the Fairness Doctrine as soon as the election is over. I may have to finally give up on this one.