For their second event this semester, the Political Union and Review at New York University wrangled over the resolution: A US troop surge in Afghanistan is the best action to ensure US security. It was a lopsided debate at best. When it came to a show of hands, the surge lost 10 – 4 despite one “ironic” vote and one vote from a guy who arrived five minutes from the end.

Views on Afghanistan were articulated by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and a man simply representing the Left. Republicans argued in favor of a troop surge, Democrats against it mostly because of finite resources, and the Libertarians and the Left agreed that any US presence in Afghanistan is detrimental to national security to begin with.

The most compelling argument for the surge was made by Nicholas Brennan, who said that the Bush administration neglected Afghanistan, which is why US forces could not wipe out the Taliban in the last eight years. Now that Obama is in charge, he can outline a clear mission for the military (focus that it previously lacked, apparently) and provide it with adequate resources to achieve its aims.

Sean W., a Libertarian, argued that the US did have two obvious goals in invading Afghanistan: find Bin Laden and stop Al Qaeda from recruiting more terrorists. Bin Laden is still at large, while, according to Sean, terrorist recruitment has grown in popularity as a result of US presence in Afghanistan. Alex Arnest, of the Left, made a similar argument about US involvement in the region actually increasing the threat to US security, rather an scaling it down. Unlike military wars between nations, terrorists are not associated with a country per se. The US can say it will invade Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda may not necessarily stay there to fight. Terrorist leaders use the US occupation of Afghanistan as an example of its imperialism and threat to Islam. It is easy propaganda.

Chris Kennedy, who spoke from the crowd, highlighted the important distinction between domestic terrorism committed by the Taliban commit and terrorism perpetrated by Al Qaeda. The Taliban didn’t so much attack the US on 9/11 as much as they allowed that attack to be planned on their soil, under their rule. Kennedy referred to a book by Louise Richardson titled, “What Terrorists Want,” that claims terrorists aspire for revenge, renown and reaction — all of which are satisfied by a surge in US troops.

In the same spirit as Chris’s comment on domestic terrorism, Sean characterized Afghanistan as an ethnically diverse country of many competing tribes that are now only united in their aversion for America. If US presence was no longer a burden on the daily life of Afghans, they would more likely return to fighting amongst themselves than planning attacks on US soil.

Josh Schneier for the Democrats argued against the surge based on limited resources. Apparently for every $30 spent on Afghanistan by the US government, $1 was spent on Pakistan. But with an increase in drone attacks that target Pakistan’s controversial border and mountain region under the Bush administration, it seems Obama is already redirecting resources to Pakistan.

Both the Libertarians and Arnest noted that even if the US “wins” the war in Afghanistan, there is no way Russia or China would allow the US to establish itself as a regional hegemonic power. However, Libertarians argued that the US would do well to take a cue from China and develop an interest in Afghanistan’s infrastructure instead of pumping more money into deploying troops.

In his closing remarks for the Republicans, Spyridon Mitsotakis said, “you guys perpetuate a myth that Afghanistan was stable or more stable under Taliban.” I’m not sure there is (or ever was) any sign of stability in Afghanistan, but as a Democrat rightly asked out, is the $50 billion a year to wage that war really worth it?

Sean brought up Afghanistan’s legacy of being the “graveyard of empires.” In the 1980s, Afghanistan was to the Soviet Union what in the early 1970s Vietnam was to the US. Citing Einstein’s definition, he said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.”

Photo by Flickr user KarlMarx used under a Creative Commons license.

The debate will start at 8pm in room 101 of 19 W.4th (that is main lecture hall in the politics building). Speakers for the event have not been announced yet. Participation by those who attend is encouraged, even if you have no formal experience in debating. I will be livetweeting the event on @NYULocal from start to finish.

US strategy in Afghanistan is still largely undefined by the Obama administration. Obama authorized the deployment 21,000 more troops in the region this year, despite a lack of public approval for scaling up the war. Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, requested another 68,000 troops — a move supported by other NATO members. Journalists who reporting from the ground in Afghanistan harbor little hope for a peaceful resolution to the country’s problems. Just this morning, 14 Americans died in Afghanistan in two different helicopter crashes.

Evidently, there are a number strong, well-substantiated stances to take on Afghanistan. Ned’s report and response to PURNYU’s first debate, on health care a fortnight ago, sparked its own riveting discussion of the issue in the comments thread. We are looking forward to more of the same.

One of the first things I noticed about the King arthur download.com/on-campus/2008/12/10/coulter-is-coming-and-shes-as-terrible-as-ever/”>eagerly anticipated Ann Coulter speaking engagement at NYU was that people were dressed up for it. It was almost like this was some kind of surreal College Republican prom night as much as it was a speaking event, but I guess I could understand why they might be excited. They had scored Ann Coulter, the modern conservative icon who had, by her own admission, only ever spoken once in New York City before–and that was during the Clinton years.

And they got what they paid for, I suppose. The thing was more or less your run-of-the-mill Ann Coulter joint, just like when I had seen her at UCONN, back in 2004 or 2005–except this time, to NYU’s credit, the liberals didn’t heckle, and there were no ad hominem attacks during questioning. Based on listening to who applauded to what, I’d guess that the liberals in the room outnumbered conservatives 3-1; but besides a few fumbly, overly earnest attempts at gotcha questions, everyone was on their best behavior.

Coulter herself was pretty much what anyone familiar with her shtick would expect. The opening speech wasn’t really a speech at all, but a series of one-liners and less-than-witty witticisms that ranged from the outrageous (“Where are the thoughtful, reflective Arabs saying, ‘Why do we hate the Jews, anyway?’”) to the mystifying (“Did anyone ever run on a platform of despair, the status quo and keeping people apart? Besides Ralph Nader.”). But there was no coherent idea behind the speech, just a series of right-wing dog whistles.

Once you realize that the dog whistles are really all she has to offer, you finally understand what Ann Coulter’s all about. She’s about as much a serious political commentator as Carlos Mencia is; both go for cheap laughs by playing off of the worst in human nature. And neither of them are worth the time and effort it takes to get offended, because doing that gives them the attention they so desperately crave.

It was fascinating listen to her answer serious questions with completely unrelated tangents on why liberals are shitty. In fact, some of her responses were borderline incoherent, as she tried to figure out how to pivot away from answering a question to just delivering the next clever jab at the left. It’s almost like she had a crypto-fascist magic eight-ball hidden behind the podium, and whenever someone asked a serious question she would spout off whatever tenuously relevant wingnut aphorism came up when she shook it.

I’m glad I was able to ask a question, and even gladder that Cody was on hand to film it, because her response is a perfect microcosm of how she normally operates:

A few things to note here:

1. My question was in two parts. She completely disregarded the first part.

2. Her answer to the second part just reinforced the assumption that my question had been meant to challenge in the first place without explaining where that assumption came from.

3. She really couldn’t think up a single reason why a sensible Jew might vote for a Democrat? Seriously? Anyone who wants to say anything interesting about American politics should at least be able to grasp where the other side is coming from.

4. Did you catch that delightfully condescending part at the end about how Jews might want to “start paying attention?” Of course you did.

5. “The Jews will always break your heart.” Tiny violin.

Besides the part about the tiny violin, she employed all of the tricks you need to know in order to be a shitty conservative pundit: Don’t answer the question except to underscore your previous point (regardless of whether or not the question reveals that point to be a fallacy), take a gratuitous swipe at liberals, and make sure you throw in something about how your opponents (in this case, 78% of those adorable little Jews) are either misinformed or just plain stupid.

Unfortunately, my real question of the night never got asked: What the fuck were the NYU Republicans thinking? Ann Coulter hasn’t been politically relevant since she called Edwards a fag, her self-aggrandizing claim that her support for Clinton in the primaries skewed them in Obama’s favor notwithstanding. People are tired of her song and dance, and not just because it’s intellectually dishonest and contributes nothing to public discourse–it’s also boring and excruciatingly predictable. If I were a conservative who wanted to reach out to moderate and liberal NYU students, this is the last woman I would invite to speak. Why not an actual conservative thinker? Or at least someone who doesn’t define herself entirely by what she thinks will sell books and piss off liberals.

Alas, the fact that College Republicans invited someone as alienating and nakedly anti-intellectual as Ann Coulter is just a metaphor for what you see happening to the Republican Party on the national level: the moderate voices of reason are getting ignored or marginalized, while the true believers burrow further into the warm, velvety soft cocoon of their own assholes.

Photo by Cody Brown

Fifty dead men walking download

Sophomore Lucas Patton (pictured above) moderated last night’s debate. Margarita Nachevnik spoke for the Party of the Left, Pat McClellan spoke for the Democrats, Mike Collins spoke for the Republicans, and Joel Nybeck spoke for the Party of the Right. All speakers were given 5 minutes for opening statements, then the floor opened for a 30 minute discussion, and the speakers concluded with 4 minute closing statements. 

PURNYU kicked off last spring, led by recent NYU graduates Michael Wood and Ed Cadmus. In a series of three debates in April and May, the Political Union gained its popularity by bringing together voices from all sides of US political life. Past resolutions have included “Abortion is a miscarriage of justice” (failed) and “Republican foreign policy will not keep America safe” (passed).

For those looking to check out the Political Union, you can join their Facebook group. The next debate is scheduled for October 20, and the topic will be American foreign policy towards Russia. The International Relations Club has teamed with PURNYU to co-host.

From PURNYU’s mission:

The Political Union and Review at NYU is a student organization dedicated to broadening the political discourse at NYU. We are made up of liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between. Modeled after the unions at Yale and Oxford, we hold regular debates, host guest speakers, and convene panels to discuss the issues of the day.

Photo by Brad Powell