Check out the following graphic from the Pew Research Center:

And not surprisingly, the numbers for those thinking that the Iraq War was worth fighting are even lower.

Today in downtown Los Angeles, 15 people were arrested protesting the war, and in Times Square in New York, about a hundred people protested the anniversary of the Afghanistan War. I suspect that as the Occupy Wall Street protests continue, people will start to weave in a narrative about the cost of the wars in terms of the impact these military adventures have on not just the lives of service members and their families but in terms of how money spent abroad could be spent domestically on infrastructure, schools, etc.

As the Huffington Post reports:

“As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.”

SWAT Teams and their ability to barge into homes as a “no knock entry” is a by product of the War on Drugs. As Kenneth Nunn explains:

“The potential danger of allowing police officers to enter homes and businesses without announcing their identity and purpose has been well-known since colonial times. Officers may startle residents who may seek to defend their homes. Officers may inadvertently harm residents or innocent bystanders by the use of force necessary to effect the sudden entry of targeted buildings. Breaking into buildings through surprise and stealth seems like a tactic better suited to an occupying army, then to civilian peace officers.”

And in Arizona where citizens have recently posed as law enforcement to enter homes (see Brisenia Flores case for in stance), I can understand why someone like Jose Guerena would grab his rifle to protect his family.

And all of these resources being deployed for pot?! The irony here is that it wasn’t Al Qaeda or terrorists who killed Guerena but instead government sanctioned militarized police who were on some sort of marijuana hunt. What are your thoughts?

Blog by David Molina, currently serving on the Oregon Commission of Hispanic Affairs:

Latinos have never shied away from a fight either against the United States (think U.S-Mexico War) or for the U.S. (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan). While SB 1070, signed into law last week by Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, gives law enforcement officials the “green light” to enforce federal immigration policy, as a parallel to 287(g), many speculate the decrease in calling law enforcement to crime scenes particularly with undocumented communities. At the same time, speculation that Latinos will be rounded up after weddings and quinceañeras and at our daily favorite restaurants, we must remember that this new law takes effect in less than 90 days. Latinos have seen this before. Despite massive protests on the streets and letter writing campaigns campaigns, in 1994 California passed Proposition 187 which eliminated public services to undocumented residents and led to major discrimination and hate-crimes against Latinos. In 2007, Pennsylvania made it a crime to rent to undocumented Pennsylvanians leading to a downward economic spiral and an exodus of residents impacting entire cities and county budgets. In 2008, Oregon passed a measure eliminating the issuance and certification of a drivers license to undocumented residents. Obviously, cities and counties are laboratories for the states; the states are laboratories for the federal government. Will SB 1070 language begin seeding in other communities or will it be a wake up call to the serious immigration reform talks that need to happen?

Latinos are the last front in the U.S. By 2040 the U.S. Hispanic population is expected to reach or exceed 100 million when one in four persons will be Hispanic making our group the largest and fastest-growing ethnic/racial minority population group in America. Our purchasing power surpassed $1 trillion dollars in 2006 and is growing at an average rate of four billion dollars per month and 50 billion dollars per year. Some pundits have speculated that SB 1070 is aimed at suppressing Latino voters in the November election. The myth on the street and the cable channels is that Latinos are politically apathetic, while far from it, Latinos are registered to vote at a rate six times greater than the general population and turning out to vote at a rate five times greater than the general population. Giving Arizona law enforcement officials authority to ask for individuals proof of residency may curtail the out-of-control violence on the Mexican side of the border by the drug cartels, but slamming innocent hardworking families in the crossfire, and potentially leading to racial profiling.

If history is any indicator, Latinos are not going away. Piolin Por La Mañana asks his Latino callers every time when they call, why they came to the U.S. and the response is always the same: “a triumfar” or “to triumph, to succeed.” It’s a simple reminder that Latinos aim to be part, contribute and build this country stronger just like African-Americans, the Japanese, the Irish and Italians before. America was founded by hardworking immigrants. As a son of immigrants, from my experience, our family has a love for the United States. I don’t believe we can continue to sacrifice and build this country from the ground up and then tell immigrants that they are welcomed, then compromise that contract as SB 1070 just did.

So where is the America that could be?

1. Boycott Arizona. Avoid traveling there and engaging with business headquartered in the Grand Canyon state.

2. Make sure that you and all of your friends and family are registered to vote and are informed about the upcoming midterm elections — and then get out and vote. Conventional wisdom is that we (Latinos and other Americans) don’t turn out in as large of numbers for midterm elections, but our participation is as crucial as ever.

3. Contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators and ask that comprehensive immigration reform be pursued.

Secretary Clinton is even utilizing GWB rhetoric about not intending to “cut and run” from Afghanistan. Frankly, I’m disappointed in both Obama and Clinton for beating the war drums like this. This isn’t the change I voted for, but I also realize the grip that the military industrial complex has on both parties. The US has been geared for war since WWII, and unfortunately, despite peace movements, we haven’t been able to move away from this reality.

Finally, if you are unsure about the situation in Afghanistan, then I would urge you to not support it. There is no point in supporting something that you don’t wholeheartedly believe in, especially when lives are on the line. The people at Brave New Films have some great resources that are worth examining. Please check them out, and let us know what you think:

This morning I heard this clip on YouTube, where a journalist even suggests that Obama should consider replacing Clinton as Secretary of State because of the mixed signals:

Seneca has offered this in response:

Obama is not going to boot Hillary out over the Honduras fiasco. But the cumulative unsettling evidence of this foreign policy team begins to define the Administration: actions (or pratfalls) in Latin America over the recent Colombian-US agreements on military cooperation have become muddled, the contradictions to 40 years of US policy on the Israeli settlements issue resulted in Hillary backtracking to recover, the Cuba policy was not seriously addressed before the President stumbled onto it at the US-Latin Summit last spring nor has the administration (nor the previous two administrations) ever defined Chavez as a national security threat if in fact he is, the Plan Merida to help Mexico appears to have fallen into the doldrums of policy fatigue, the corrosive effects of the Afghanistan war (“where empires go to die…”) are increasing, the Iraq pull-out has been turned over entirely to Secretary Gates. The most intriguing question is: How can an inspirational and uplifting leader on the world stage choose some of the best and the brightest of Americans to handle foreign policy fall so short too often by carelessness or lack of focus?

Some people have suggested that Latinos are only interested in comprehensive immigration reform or domestic policy matters, but as Seneca has pointed out, we are sorely underrepresented in US foreign policy and aren’t readily perceived as players in that game. Hopefully, with the participation of scholars like Nathan Gonzalez in Middle East foreign policy, we can change that perception and learn more in the process. Check out some of the questions I was able to ask him, and feel free to add your own thoughts:

1. Why should Latinos here in the US be concerned with what is happening in Iran? Some in our community have argued that we should stay focused on the domestic issues at hand and foreign policy as it relates to the Americas.

Luckily, I have not heard anyone wonder aloud why we should care about what is happening in Iran. That would make as much sense as someone saying, “Why should I learn Spanish, I live in America!” However, something I have been asked is why I, as a Latino, spend so much time studying and commenting on Iran. But the beauty of your site, and the various efforts underway to increase Latino participation in politics and civil society, is that they provide avenues for Latinos to take part in the larger social fabric. You have Latino doctors, Latino lawyers, and now we’ll have a Latina Supreme Court justice. Why not have Latinos who study the Middle East?

2. You have been a proponent of engaging with Iran. Some have argued that engaging with the current regime would be like legitimizing the leadership, which is kind of like the arguments that have been tossed around for not engaging with Cuba or Venezuela. Do you think that the Obama administration should be more proactive in its approach with Iran?
 
I would be lying if I said that the current crackdown on protesters doesn’t complicate things politically for President Obama here at home. However, the Bush administration aligned our interests very closely to those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the country with the second greatest influence over Iraq, after the United States. This means that for our troops to come home safely, we need to coordinate closely with the Islamic Republic. The same goes for another one of Iran’s neighbor, Afghanistan. We have no choice but to work with whoever is in power in Iran, and that is one of the unfortunate and seldom-told legacies of the Bush presidency.

3. One of the things that comes to mind in watching the demonstrations is that the US has had problems in claiming the legitimacy of its own elections in recent years (2000 & 2004). Do we appear hypocritical if we start to attack Iran’s electoral process?

I don’t agree with those comparisons, which I’ve been hearing a lot. What we saw in Iran was the Interior Ministry proclaim a winner without even taking the time to count votes. It would be like George Bush convening the Electoral College to vote for him before the states even announced their vote tallies. We only mock the disenfranchisement that took place in Florida and Ohio when we make such a moral equivalence.

4. If the protests continue despite warnings from the Supreme Leader Khamenei, what does this say about his authority or power?

The minute the supreme leader took President Ahmadinejad’s side was the moment he lost his above-the-fray status. As the arrests of key political figures continue, such as those targeting the family members of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and one of the country’s wealthiest individuals, it becomes more likely that a coup will be attempted through the Assembly of Experts. This is the body headed by Rafsanjani which has the constitutional authority to remove the supreme leader.

5. For me, watching the situation unfold in Iran has been a good reinforcement of why we have a separation of church and state here in the US. In light of recent events in the US that have been tinged with religious thought such as the killing of Dr. George Tiller and the gay marriage debate, do you think it is fair to draw parallels or comparisons of what could happen here if we inched toward more converging of religion with public policy?
 
I think it is a fair comparison. For example, there is nothing in Shia Islam, as traditionally practiced, that allows a mere cleric to take executive authority over the state. But this is exactly what Ayatollah Khomeini did following the Iranian Revolution (1978-79). In other words, just because we think we understand how the Bible or the Qur’an works, it doesn’t mean that popular religious figures can’t hijack those Holy texts to advance their narrow political ambitions, and in the process make life miserable for the rest of us. We can avoid this problem by keeping a sturdy wall separating church and state.

6. Finally, what are you thoughts about the use of social media in disseminating information about the situation in Iran?

I have personally learned a lot from what is happening in Iran. I only started using Twitter after seeing how powerful a communication tool it has been for Iranian protesters. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the role of social networking sites. The last time Iran had a revolution there was no Twitter, no Facebook, and no cell phones. Only courage and determination.

Maj. Steven Hutchison, of Scottsdale, Arizona, re-enlisted in the Army in July 2007 after his wife died. He is the oldest Army soldier to be killed in the Iraq War.

I have always maintained that this generation of baby boomers will change the way we as a society “do aging,” and this is evidenced by the service of Maj. Hutchison. I do think that military service is still a valid and honorable way of serving one’s country, as long as those who are serving are healthy and able to do so. In some ways, I have wondered if some of the middle aged (and younger) policy makers would be so inclined to engage in military conflicts if they had the experience of serving in Iraq like Army Maj. Hutchison. This man was willing to do something that so many will not do, even those who are younger and possibly more energetic.

Recent commentary in the aftermath of the recent Obama victory and the 2006 Democratic Congressional win suggests that the country once again has moved noticeably to the Democrats. This stems from the Iraq War and the Katrina debacle coupled with the economic crisis which appear to have firmly routed George W. Bush’s party, the Grand Old Party of Lincoln. The undeclared and unwinnable war in Iraq took its toll, as it became a war of political attrition as most ‘undeclared’ wars have; like Korea and Vietnam. The leadership disaster during Hurricane Katrina was plainly lethal to Bush 43′s second term.

In 2004, it was reported that Bush won up to 44% of the Latino vote…some challenged these figures but it does seem that at least 40% of the nation’s Hispanic vote went to the GOP in that election. Not even the more popular Ronald Reagan was ever able to garner this percentage among Latinos. With George Bush, the GOP achieved the highest percentage or portion of the Latino vote that it had ever won in any national election. Making it more significant was the tightness of the election in several key states like Ohio. Yet, even as the GOP appeared to be confronting it nadir in the 2008 elections, it is safe to say that just over 30% of the voting Latinos stayed with the GOP. This is a remarkable figure given the circumstances. Hence, this political behavior certainly requires deeper examination.

First, it should be noted that historically (beginning with FDR) the Hispanic vote, which was mostly Mexican-American, tended to go massively with the Democrats. The slow political empowerment of Latinos began as FDR and Truman lifted them out of the Great Depression. These defining moments were not as dramatic as Lincoln beating the Slavocracy of the South and emancipating the African-American from the shackles of slavery. As this feat made all Black-Americans overwhelmingly Republican, there was a prevailing GOP ascendancy for the next seven decades. Yet, FDR’s leadership role in the Great Depression and his wife, Eleanor’s continuous efforts to bring social justice to the African-Americans began a slow movement to attract voting Blacks to the Democratic Party, especially in urban areas.

But it must be recalled that before the Civil War to the 1960′s, the Democratic Party was solidly based in the Jim Crow segregated Southern States; these Bourbon or Moss Back Democrats were in coalition with big city party machines in the North; like Tammany Hall. If one looks back at the record we find that, Pres. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist. FDR, though he fully backed his wife’s commitment, was not particularly concerned with the plight of the American ethnic minorities. Yet, President Truman did integrate the Armed Forces after WWII. The record also reflects that during the post war Hispanics, as they became more politically active, tilted toward the Democrats. It should be noted that Eisenhower did draw many Latino votes, but not in significant numbers.

It was the 1960 election of JFK that became the baptism of fire politically for Latino voters nationally. For the first time, the largely Roman Catholic identification of the Latinos with the Democratic candidate was a driving force. Latino elected officials were minimal during the period leading up to the Kennedy-Johnson period. Only New Mexico had elected Hispanics to federal office (US Senator Chavez and Congressman Montoya both Democrats) prior to this. Henry Gonzalez of Texas and Ed Roybal of California were elected in the wake of the JFK-LBJ victory. Subsequently, the assassination of Kennedy, the ascendancy of Lyndon Johnson and his successful accomplishments in civil and voting rights, Martin Luther King’s unspeakable murder and Bobby Kennedy’s assassination solidified both Latinos and Blacks within the Democratic Party.

The first Republican national candidates who truly sought to reach out to Latinos were Nixon and Rockefeller in 1968. The former who came from southern California (and recognized the closeness of his loss to JFK in 1960) acknowledged the potential of the growing Latino vote. Rockefeller, as Governor of New York, had a sizable Puerto Rican constituency which he had courted in his race for governor. He had made several minor appointments within the Puerto Rican community while in state office. Nixon’s awareness of the Latino vote, during his second attempt to become President in 1968, motivated him to make modest efforts to court Latinos in order to avoid all of them going for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Once elected, Nixon began immediately to prepare for his 1972 presidential re-election bid. He made certain that there were Latino groups advocating his re-election. He made high profile appointments and formally created a political position in the White House (although Johnson had done so but not as formally) to have an outreach to the Spanish-speaking groups (as we were referred to before Hispanic became fashionable). Nixon, in his Southern strategy, was focused in winning-over the formerly Democratic South. When President Johnson’s 1965 Civil Rights Public Accommodations Bill was passed into law, he is quoted as saying: “…there goes the South…”  He was referring to the reaction of the southern white Democrats to the empowerment of Blacks and protection of their voting rights. LBJ correctly predicted that the whites in the South would abandon wholesale the Democratic Party. Nixon strategically laid out the plans to permanently capture the South, which had previously hated the GOP for beating the South in the Civil War and imposing Re-Construction.

To be continued…

For Latinos, Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been bandied around as the primordial theme in the Latino agenda as noted in the Latino State of the Union yesterday, which is expected to be positively addressed by President Obama. The fact remains that during the rugged campaign, immigration was patently avoided by both candidates. Hence, there is no electoral mandate to obtain comprehensive immigration reform legislation. However, among some Latino advocacy circles like the National Council of La Raza, the LULAC and MALDEF, immigration reform is being pronounced as a top priority and signaling the Obama team that they must resolve or seek legislation to alleviate the undocumented peoples’ plight . It should be pointed out that the two other significant and somewhat empowered groups of Latinos: the Puerto Ricans and the Cuban-Americans do not have an immigration issue as such. Both groups view immigration not an immediate concern: the Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens and the Cubans are paroled into the U.S. once they touch dry land. Hence, both have no employment issue for their newly arrived migrants or exiles. Mexican nationals in the US, along with numerous Central Americans, are the most anxious to see some movement on the immigration reform front. Mexican-Americans also are sensitive to the issue, but no overwhelming consensus on immigration exists among these Mexican Americans. They, along with other Latinos, often fret over the immigration debate becoming an anti-immigrant and ultimately anti-Latino. The California Latinos saw this happen in 1994 with the propositions to limit or deny services to the undocumented. Thus, it can be readily concluded that the Latino community as a whole may hold different views and priorities in the Latino agenda.

Most voting Latinos appear to be more interested in Obama tackling the current economic crisis, as evidenced by the most recent Pew Hispanic Center survey. It is considered the most menacing crisis since the Great Depression. Jobs, housing, education and health services are all being affected significantly by the crisis. The immigration reform goal is also on the radar, but according to several surveys, it is not the primary issue that is viewed as indispensable for immediate consideration. There is in fact a reasonable national consensus among all sectors of American society that immigration reform must be addressed and resolved. No one who is rational in thinking about or discussing the issue can seek to ignore or obstruct reform, but it is most difficult to see it as a top national priority in the first year of the new Administration. Obama, who during the transition period after the election, has amply demonstrated his pragmatic and middle of the road approach to national problem solving will not commit the same error the Clintons did in attempting early on to pass health reform. Health care, like immigration, is indeed a fundamental goal for this administration. But both involve and require enormous political capital, which will have to be safe guarded to ensure that it is available for addressing the burgeoning budget, massive economic infrastructure programs, jobs creation, and bailing out the automotive and banking sectors. Immigration, as vividly demonstrated almost three years ago in the last round of attempts to get legislation passed, evoked a glandular reaction from the ‘racist nativists’ and an enormous discomfort in many other areas of the economy. Now with the dire economic conditions of the country it suggests that any reform effort to address effectively the almost 12 million undocumented residents in the U.S will provoke a boisterous, sectarian, anti-immigrant backlash in the country. Regularizing (granting permission to work and reside in the US) these hopeful would-be-immigrants will be tantamount to some perceptions of amnesty. Admittedly, to introduce or officially recognize several million new workers under the circumstances would be politically harrowing. This involves officially welcoming several million new workers into an economy which at best is ailing. Therefore, one would require extraordinary political bravery or recklessness if it means jeopardizing other priorities on the Obama agenda.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Latino Advocacy groups like LULAC, MALDEF and NCLR must quickly strategize and meet with the Congressional and administrative leadership to determine the timelines, evaluate the political costs, the horse-trading involved, and be certain that before launching an all out national political effort there is a preliminary nose-count to ascertain the viability of legislative approval of any reform proposal. The Obama Administration will correctly address the economic priority, simultaneously the burning foreign policy issues like extricating ourselves from Iraq and continuing the efforts in Afghanistan will require enormous blood, sweat, tears and toil. In sum, Obama and his team will be most circumspect on when and how to introduce the immigration reform proposals. It will behoove the Latino leadership to assess and gauge the immigration reform efforts. Other items in the Latino agenda like housing, education, health, job opportunity and basic human needs will be included in the overall treatment of the economy. Latin America, as a foreign policy issue and a Latino priority, does not appear to be evident. Opportunities for Latinos in federal employment (civilan or military) also are not readily perceived. It remains to be seen who among the Latinos in Congress who will bear the torch on these issues. Luis Gutierrez, a Puerto Rican legislator from Illinois, has been the standard bearer on immigration. Senator Bob Menendez (a Cuban-American Democrat) has invariably sought to ensure that the State Department recruits and promotes Latinos.

Will someone like Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez or Solomon Ortiz, all senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, seek to lead the efforts to have more Latino general officers selected and promoted? Does Nydia Velazquez, as Chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, become an all encompassing and forceful factor in driving or leading Latino efforts to guide Latino small businessmen to more attractive government help in grants and loans? Also will Nydia Velazquez, as head of the Hispanic Caucus, organize and strategize the Hispanic/Latino Agenda with other Congresspersons to ensure that the Administration does not forsake its Latino constituency? Perhaps more interesting does Congressman Jose Serrano from his perch as Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Services of the Appropriations Committee lookout for the Latino agenda in terms of lending or mortgages? Does Loretta Sanchez, as second ranking majority member of the Homeland Security Committee, oversee and moderate the heavy-handed behavior of DHS/ICE’s persecution of illegal foreign workers in job-sites? Will Joe Baca, as chair of the Agriculture Committee’s Sub-committee on Oversight and Nutrition, use his position to advance the Latino agenda’s possible concern with adequate nutrition? Do Hinojosa, Grijalva and Linda Sanchez all members of the Committee on Education and Labor dwell on the pending Latino concerns on education and perhaps take the lead on the Dream Act? And will they regularly meet with new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to advance Latino labor issues? Perhaps Representative Nydia Velazquez can set up periodic (monthly) meetings with both Labor Secretary Solis and Interior Secretary Salazar to review the bidding on the Latino Agenda and help identify up-and-coming young Latinos among the political and career ranks of the federal bureaucracy. Does the Congressional Hispanic Caucus schedule quarterly meetings with the Latin American diplomatic corps to learn about the region’s problems, needs and desires? Does the Caucus get an initial meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and DoD Secretary Bob Gates to raise issues of policy concern not just in Latin America? Personnel issues should be on the agenda in these meetings. Formulating talking points ahead of time by the appropriate staffers for these meetings would demonstrate seriousness of purpose. Perhaps in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the Caucus should invite and meet with the Republican Latino members like Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the ranking minority member on Rules Committee. Moving the over-all Latino Agenda will be challenging but focus, unity of purpose and excellent organization are imperative to success. The focus of this and several other blogs is to keep tabs and make our elected representatives more accountable.

Martinez, 44, has been in the Army for 23 years and is an alum of Eastern Illinois University. He has been accustomed to being in high profile and hot spots, having recently served in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the personal staff of Dick Cheney and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This man embodies what we can accomplish with education, dedication, and perseverance. The Army was so confident in Lt. Col. Martinez’s abilities that he was assigned to The Old Guard before his cancer treatment was completed. Aside from the ceremonial tasks, this regiment will provide security and medical care for the millions who are expected to gather on the Mall on Tuesday.

Photo Credit: Army Lt. Col. Jamie Martinez 01/16/09, AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari