Tag: Syria
Remote war
New America hosted a panel discussion March 21 about twenty-first century proxy warfare with Candace Rondeaux, Senior Fellow at New America’s International Security Program and C. Anthony Pfaff, Research Professor, Strategic Studies Institute at Army War College.
Rondeaux gave an overview of the strategic and tactical changes in twenty-first century proxy war. Proxy warfare is moving away from both Cold War bipolarity and also uni-polarity. The reason for this shift is the proliferation of standoff, remote targeting capabilities, mainly in the Middle East region. Iran and other states in the region have standoff capacity, which means limited war has expanded beyond the great powers. States can limit their direct engagement. There is also the rise of transnational movements and the weakening of nation-states. The decay of multilateral institutions and their power to exert influence over conflict, such as the UN and increasingly NATO, has also become quite remarkable. The situation in Syria would be different without the log jam among the permanent members of the Security Council, with Russia always objecting to resolutions that seek to contain conflict.
At the tactical level, Rondeaux argues the nation-states that are struggling internally with their own domestic order often look to conflict beyond their borders as a means to signal cohesion at the national level. That is quite apparent in Iranian support to Hizballah, which helps to contain domestic challenges. Also, there is an increasing appetite within autocracies, particularly Russia, for a “military sugar rush” of instant victory on the battlefield, even if it causes big diplomatic trouble. It has been hard to make the Minsk agreement for Ukraine work so far. The last tactical concern is the way in which communication technology has connected social networks in ways never seen before. The rapid transit of ideas and national, ethnic and political identities in Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen has been a big factor in the availability of proxies.
Pfaff stated that proxies not only are not well understood but also under-regulated. The world is becoming multi-polar with state actors who can serve as benefactors and proxies and also a proliferation of non-state actors who can do the same thing. This comes with increasingly fragmented and contested sovereignty, which changes the security calculations of all actors as well as the options they have for pursuing their security goals. According to Pfaff, the inclusion of benefactors won’t make an unjust cause just, or illegitimate authority legitimate, but their involvement can make the disproportionate proportionate, and alternatives to fighting less appealing. Work still needs to be done in terms of international law to hold benefactors responsible for the illegal actions of their proxies .
Pfaff argues that international law does not address proxies. There are no norms in this situation. There isn’t any problem with having a proxy relationship, but the question is whether this relationship is stabilizing or destabilizing. States should be held responsible for the acts they sponsor remotely.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks March 25-29
1.The Contours of global security: Border line, critical security | Tuesday, March 26, 2019 | 1:30 am – 3:45pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
As debate rages in Washington over President Trump’s characterization of the situation at the southern U.S. border as a national security emergency, the risks and stakes in several hot-spot regions around the world are far less open to question.
Agenda
1:30-2:30 pm: Borders as a National Security Crisis
Laura Dawson, Director of Canada Institute at Wilson Center
Rachel Schmidtke, Program Associate, Migration Policy, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center
Duncan Wood, Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center
Moderator:
The Honorable Earl Anthony Wayne,Public Policy Fellow; Advisory Board Co-chair, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center
2:45-3:45 pm: Hot-Spot Security Round-Up
Venezuela: Cynthia J. Arnson, Director, Latin American Program, Wilson Center
North Korea: Jean H. Lee,Director, Hyundai Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy, Wilson Center
Iran and Syria: Robin Wright, USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow
Moderator: John Milewski, Director of Digital Programming, Wilson Center
2. Constraining Iran’s nuclear and Missile capabilities| Thursday, March 28, 2019 | 2:00 am – 3:30pm | Brooking Institute |1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here|
The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” is putting Iran under great stress, but it is unlikely to compel Tehran to accept its far-reaching demands. The United States needs a new strategy for constraining Iran’s future nuclear capabilities as well as its missile program. Two new Brookings monographs—“Constraining Iran’s Future Nuclear Capabilities” by Robert Einhorn and Richard Nephew, and “Constraining Iran’s Missile Program” by Robert Einhorn and Vann Van Diepen—provide recommendations for addressing the challenges to regional and international security posed by Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Agenda
Speakers
Vann H. Van Diepen, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Nephew, Nonresident Senior Fellow at Center for 21st Century
Discussant
Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow – Center for Middle East Policy
Moderator
Robert Einhorn, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy,Center for 21st Century
3. The MENA Region: from Transition to Transformation | Thursday, March 28, 2019 | 4:00 am – 5:30pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here |
Eight years after the Arab Spring and the collapse of commodity prices, full stabilization in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region remains elusive. Many countries have yet to enact the deep structural reforms deemed necessary to achieve economic transformation that yields sustainable, inclusive growth and employment opportunities.
Through its updated MENA strategy, the World Bank Group aims to pursue a two-pronged approach to promote peace and stability through economic and social inclusion. This approach builds on the four pillars of the World Bank’s 2015 MENA strategy, which includes renewing the social contract, strengthening resilience to shocks, supporting regional cooperation, and supporting recovery and reconstruction in conflict-affected countries.
Speakers
The vice president for the Middle East and North Africa at the World Bank Group.
Maha Yahya, Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center.
Rabah Arezki, Chief economist for the Middle East and North Africa at the World Bank.
4. A New Parliament in Iraq | Friday, March 29, 2019 | 11:30 am – 12:30pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
| Register Here |
As Iraq’s new parliament and government come to power, the country has seen significant political, social, and economic pressures. While challenges remain, fresh leadership presents Iraq with the opportunity to overcome these obstacles and make progress by developing its economy, increasing security, and strengthening governance and social services. Speaker al-Halbousi, who will be meeting with senior Trump administration officials and Congressional leaders during his visit to Washington, will lead the Council of Representatives as it grapples with all of these issues and navigates the many challenges of Iraq’s democratic process.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace
His Excellency Mr. Mohammed Al-Halbousi, Council of Representatives, Republic of Iraq
5. The Outlook for Europe after EU elections| Tuesday, March 26, 2019 | 2:30 pm – 3:30pm | The Heritage Foundation |214 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002 | Register Here |
Europe remains in flux. The implications of populism, political fragmentation, and the upending of traditional political paradigms in many countries are not yet fully understood. The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, and the continent continues to grapple with the repercussions of large-scale migration and the return of great power competition. Threats from Russia and terrorism remain potent, while Europe has only begun to grapple with rising Chinese assertiveness and economic investments. Upcoming European Parliamentary elections in May could be a defining moment. Join us as our panelists assess how EU elections could affect the future of Europe. How are shifting political dynamics in the EU influencing competing visions for Europe’s future? How will the role of the nation state in Europe likely evolve? What do changes to Europe’s political makeup mean for transatlantic relations? What areas of synergy should U.S. policymakers focus on for maximum impact?
A panel discussion featuring
Zsolt Németh, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee Parliament of Hungary
Nile Gardiner, Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Peter Rough, Fellow, The Hudson Institute
Hosted by
James Jay Carafano, Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
6.The Case for US Foreign Assistance | Thursday, March 26, 2019 | 1:30 am – 3:00pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Marshall Plan and other initiatives that followed (such as the Alliance for Progress and USAID) were created in the context of great power competition. We are perhaps returning to an age of renewed great power competition. The developing world today is much richer, freer, and has more options. In this context, American foreign assistance is still needed, but in a radically changed world.
Foreign assistance in the United States has always operated in the context of enlightened self-interest. In Senator Vandenberg’s time there were significant critics of assistance who doubted the effectiveness of foreign aid just as there are today. How do we make the case for American foreign assistance in this new era? What are the major global challenges and opportunities that we might take advantage of by investing U.S. foreign assistance dollars?
Speakers
Senator Thomas A. Daschle, Former U.S. Senator (D-SD)
Senator Norm Coleman, Former U.S. Senator (R-MN)
Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President; William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks March 18-22
1. Women Leading Nonviolent Movements | Friday, March 22, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:30pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here |
Women’s leadership in nonviolent movements creates opportunities for new and diverse tactics and often ensures a diversity of participation, increasing a movement’s power. But, women also face specific challenges, such as balancing their activism with their roles at home and the workplace, their vulnerability to sexual abuse, and challenging perceptions of powerlessness.
To celebrate National Women’s History Month, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the 2020 One Woman, One Vote Festival will host an intergenerational discussion among women nonviolent activists. To strengthen future nonviolent movements, leaders must learn from the past challenges and successes. Women leaders from Libya, Syria, Uganda, Afghanistan, the U.S. and Venezuela will speak from their experiences as activists for social change on the challenges they faced as women and how they organize to overcome them.
This event will be moderated by Marie Berry, University of Denver, Kathleen Kuehnast, Director of Gender Policy and Strategy at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Maria Stephan, Director of Nonviolent Action at the U.S. Institute of Peace
Agenda
speakers:
Scovia Arinaitwe, Team Leader, Rhizing Women Uganda
Palwasha Hassan, Afghan Women’s Educational Center
Mariam Jalabi, Founding Member, Syrian Nonviolence Movement
Zahra’ Langhi, Co-Founder and CEO, Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace
Isabella Picón, Founding Member, LaboCiudadano – Venezuela
Judy Richardson, Producer of “Eyes on the Prize”
2. The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Stimson Center |1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
The Trump administration and the Kremlin have given notice of intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. New START may be next on the chopping block. Even if New START can be extended, what steps might usefully follow? Are numerical constraints still feasible? Stimson is convening a series of brainstorming sessions on our nuclear future and how best to shape it.
Panelists
Ambassador Linton Brooks, Distinguished research fellow at the National Defense
University
Dr. Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, MacArthur Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Dr. Brad Roberts, Director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Heather Hurlburt, Director of the New America Foundation’s New Models of Policy Change project.
Moderator:
Michael Krepon, Co-founder of the Stimson Center.
3. Religious authority in the Middle East: Implications for U.S. policy The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Tuesday, March 19, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here |
In a project supported by the Henry R. Luce Foundation, this study maps religious authority and the channels of influence between religious actors in the region and broader populations using a 12-country public opinion survey throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The survey data provides a snapshot of religious authority in various contexts, supplemented by fieldwork that examines specific mechanisms that build and maintain religious authority.
The Baker Institute Center for the Middle East and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace present a daylong conference during which leading Middle East and North Africa experts discuss the implications of the study’s findings.
Conference Agenda
8:00 – 9:00 a.m.
Registration & Breakfast
9:00 – 9:10 a.m.
Welcome
Sarah Yerkes
9:10 – 9:20 a.m.
Introduction
A.Kadir Yildirim
9:20 – 10:00 a.m.
Keynote Address
Shaun Casey
10:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Panel I: The State, Religious Authority, and Legitimacy
Chair:
Nathan Brown
Panelists:
Courtney Freer, Annelle Sheline, Scott Williamson
11:00 – 11:10 a.m.
Break
11:10 a.m. – 12:25 p.m.
Panel II: Non-state Religious Actors and Authority
Chair:
Sarah Yerkes
Panelists:
Sharan Grewal, Mirjam Künkler, Tarek Masoud, Yusuf Sarfati
12:25 – 1:00 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Keynote Address
Peter Mandaville
2:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks
A.Kadir Yildirim
4. Geopolitics, Energy Security, and the US-Japan Alliance | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 11:00 am – 12:30pm | Atlantic Council Headquarters|1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Japan’s newest strategic energy plan promises to address long-running domestic structural issues in the context of broader shifts in global trends. If successful, the new strategy will deliver significant improvements in efficiency, emissions, cost, and self-sufficiency by 2030, and again by 2050. However, during a period of rapid change in the Indo-Pacific, how will geopolitical currents shape Japan’s goals, methods, and ultimate outcomes? How will developments in global energy markets and shifting regional security calculations shape Japan’s future? How is Japan going to diversify its portfolio, both in terms of suppliers and sources, to meet its enhanced demands for energy security? Given that Japan still relies heavily on the Middle East, what role can US-Japan cooperation play? Ultimately, how do these all of these questions fit into the broader strategic picture taking shape in the region?
Agenda
Speakers:
Prof. Jun Arima, Professor of Energy & Environmental Policy
Mr. Shoichi Itoh, Manager and Senior Analyst
Ms. Jane Nakano, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
Mr. Alan Yu, Senior Fellow and Director, International Climate Policy
Moderator
Dr. Miyeon Oh, Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative
5. The aftermath of president Bolsonaro’s visit to Washington and prospect of economic reform| Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 2:30 am – 5:00pm | The Wilson Center |1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 | Register Here |
President Jair Bolsonaro will make his first official visit to Washington as president from March 17-19, as the government looks to fulfill its promise of strengthening relations with the United States. Yet the most promising area of bilateral dialogue—economic and commercial relations, including greater U.S. investment in Brazil—will depend heavily on the new government’s capacity to deliver much-needed reforms at home, particularly the approval of meaningful pension reform in the Brazilian National Congress. Talk of a looming China-U.S. trade rapprochement could also create challenges during the presidential visit, not only for the new Brazilian government’s pro-Western agenda, but also because Brazil emerged as one of the largest beneficiaries of the China-U.S. trade dispute.
AGENDA
Panel I: The View from the IMF: Boom, Bust, and the Road to Recovery in Brazil
Antonio Spilimbergo, Assistant Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF and Mission Chief for Brazil
Krishna Srinivasan, Deputy Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF
Moderator: Anna Prusa, Associate, Brazil Institute
Panel II: Assessment of President Bolsonaro’s Visit to Washington and the Political Environment Back Home
Roberto Simon, Senior Director of Policy, Council of the Americas
Nicholas Zimmerman, Consultant, Macro Advisory Partners
Thiago de Aragão, Partner and Director of Intelligence, Arko Advice
Mauricio Moura, Founder and CEO, IDEIA Big Data
Moderator: Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The state of State
President Trump’s FY2020 budget cuts the foreign affairs budget by 23%, while significantly boosting the Pentagon. The cut is mostly from Overseas Contingency Operations (wars and post-war stabilization and transition), which is zeroed out. Trump expects America’s future wars to be fought entirely without the civilian component that helps to fix the damage after the military is done. Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, South Sudanese, Ukrainians and others can expect little or no civilian assistance once their wars are over, if Trump gets his way.
The Administration also anticipates no need for international disaster assistance and a small fraction of what was spent in the past on refugees and migration. Big percentage cuts also hit the already very small National Endowment for Democracy (almost 2/3, to $67 million and change) and United States Institute of Peace (almost 50% to $19 million), which both engage in trying to prevent wars and in post-war efforts stabilization, the former by promoting democracy and the latter by promoting conflict resolution.
This presidential budget has little practical significance, since it will be dead on arrival in Congress, but it signals the Administration’s priorities all too clearly: it intends to continue to overuse the military instrument and to forget about civilian contributions to the projection of American power. Conventional diplomacy of the embassy/cocktail party type is not cut. In fact, the “representation” budget for that activity is increased. You wouldn’t want your big campaign contributors not to get reimbursed for entertaining foreigners. Trump is saying he doesn’t need state/nationbuilding, conflict prevention, post-war stabilization and reconstruction, countering violent extremism, refugee protection and repatriation, and response to emergencies abroad. In short, all the most pressing needs of the past two decades and more.
He is not alone in thinking we can ignore civilian commitments to national security. A good part of America believes Washington spends more than one-quarter of the national budget on foreign aid, apparently because they think it includes military spending abroad. If I thought that, I’d want to cut the foreign affairs budget too. In fact the non-military figure is around 1%, counting not only foreign aid but also all operations of State, AID and related agencies, including international organizations. I’ve had people tell me the reason we have a big national debt is foreign aid, which in fact accounts for an infinitesmal portion of it.
Congress fortunately has been fairly supportive of foreign affairs in recent years. The one virtue of this presidential proposal is that it is guaranteed to arouse opposition. Most members travel abroad and know what embassies, consulates, aid workers, and other civilians do. Most Americans do not, despite my efforts. At least 64% of Americans do not have a passport and therefore do not travel abroad or care much about what happens there, though they believe the U.S. should play a strong international leadership role. I imagine the Congress will save the day, as it did last year, and restore a lot of the funding the President would like to cut. Leadership depends as much on civilians as on the military.
Restoring the foreign affairs budget will depend however on a broader budget agreement, since sequestration will come back for 2020 if there is none. Trump will not want that, since sequestration would cut Defense back 13%, instead of the increase he is proposing. So yes, there is likely to be a compromise. But getting there will not be easy.
The state of State is weak, and getting weaker.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Insincerity and mendacity
President Trump’s State of the Union address, delivered last night, was the opening salvo in his re-election campaign, as Mara Liasson put it on NPR this morning:
Trying to appear calm and “presidential,” Trump appealed for unity while doubling down on some of the most divisive issues in American politics: his proposed extension of the wall on the Mexican border, his appeal to the Democrats not to investigate his campaign and administration, and his attempt at rapprochement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The calm delivery from the Teleprompter won’t last past his next tweet.
Some of what he said was downright scary: he suggested the US could have peace only if the investigations stop. The logic is all too clear: if the Democrats and Special Counsel pursue wrongdoing, the President might respond by taking the country to war. Is this what he intended? Impossible to tell, since he is anything but logical. But lots of leaders do go to war to distract from domestic difficulties, and Trump is a master of distraction. He also often says what others never vocalize. Was he threatening war as a response to domestic political challenges?
Trump doubled down on some other bad ideas: he vowed to stick with the tariff war against China, he pledged to outspend Russia in developing intermediate range nuclear forces, and he announced 3750 more troops will be sent to the southern border to meet a non-existent flood of illegal immigrants. The tariff war is clearly a violation of America’s World Trade Organization commitments, a nuclear arms race with Russia is not where America needs to go, and the use of the US Army to roll out barbed wire (it is prohibited from law enforcement functions) is one of the most expensive and useless ways to protect the border, apart from the border wall. There is no sign whatsoever that Trump has moderated his radical and unfounded approaches to trade, defense, and immigration.
Syria and Afghanistan, America’s two biggest wars at present, got short shrift. Trump reiterated his commitment to bringing the troops home from Syria without however any idea of what will happen after they leave. In Afghanistan, he referenced the negotiations with the Taliban but also gave little idea of the strategy for what happens after withdrawal. Trump is in effect declaring victory and getting out of both wars–the uproar such an approach would have caused were a Democratic president pursuing it would be deafening. The Senate has objected on a bipartisan basis to these announced withdrawals, but there is little indication Trump is listening.
The misstatements and abuses of facts were legion. The most egregious surround his claim of credit for the reasonably good state of the US economy. In fact, average monthly job growth has declined slightly from President Obama’s second term. Ditto his claim of credit for the increase in US oil and gas production, which started under Obama. He even boasted that there are more women in Congress than ever before but failed to note that they are mostly Democrats. The number of Republican women in Congress has actually declined.
For me, perhaps the iconic mendacity of this State of the Union is contained in this sentence:
If I had not been elected president of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea.
There is of course no way of knowing how Hillary Clinton might have handled Pyongyang, but we do know that the only President who has loudly threatened war against North Korea is Donald Trump. And we also know that there is no sign whatsoever that Kim is giving up either his nuclear weapons or his intercontinental ballistic missiles, despite the blandishments Trump is offering. Trump failed to get anything substantial from Kim at, and since, their first meeting. So what is he doing? Scheduling another meeting late this month. Trump is a great flim flam salesman but a truly terrible negotiator.
Forty per cent of the American public is still fooled, even if the insincerity and mendacity are obvious.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My State of the Union
My fellow Americans,
The state of our union is confused and uncertain. Our economic recovery is aging and shaky. The rich are getting a lot richer while American workers struggle. Government revenue is insufficient. Medicare and Social Security are at risk. The national debt is growing by leaps and bounds. Our future is mortgaged to the hilt.
We no longer have a clear idea of what we stand for or how to deal with the poverty, drug abuse, obesity, gender bias, and racism that infects much of our population. One of our major political parties has committed itself to voter suppression, sharply curtailing immigration, and courting white supremacists. A $25 billion wall on the Mexican border is their totem, despite its predictable ineffectiveness in blocking undocumented entries and drug trafficking.
Our institutions are not functioning well. The Justice Department and FBI are struggling to maintain their professionalism. The State Department has been eviscerated and marginalized. The courts are being politicized. Big parts of the Federal Government–Interior, EPA, HUD, Education, Commerce–are headed by people who oppose the missions Congress has given them. The Congress itself is polarized and only occasionally able to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis.
Abroad we have surrendered our leadership role. Withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate change agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty have signaled disdain for our friends, weakness to our enemies, and lack of confidence in our ability to cooperate with others to mutual advantage. It will be very difficult to convince anyone to enter into a future agreement with the United States, as we have proven unreliable and unpredictable. Our only friends abroad are the would-be autocrats of the world: Xi, Putin, Kim, Duterte, various Crown Princes, and Netanyahu.
We continue to rely excessively on military instruments to try to shape the world to our liking. Unwise threats of military intervention in Venezuela and an ill-considered declaration that we would use the American troops remaining in Iraq to counter Iran have cast long shadows on otherwise reasonable propositions. Precipitous withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan announced without laying the required diplomatic basis threaten to end in debacle. We are unable to calibrate the use of our superb military so that it serves the national interest.
Current American weakness comes at a moment of revived, if still far from existential, threat. Russia is challenging US hegemony in Europe and the Middle East. China is challenging US hegemony in the Asia Pacific and in global markets. We are unwilling, though perhaps not unable, to counter Moscow’s roguish behavior. Our response to China has precipitated a tariff war that is as harmful to the US economy as it is to the Chinese.
My fellow Americans, the pace and direction of our Union are speeding us to where we should not want to go. We need to stop the downward spiral before it becomes irreversible. We need to point ourselves in the direction of restoring American ideals. We need to once again show leadership on the international stage and willingness to sacrifice for the common good.
The sooner we do it, the better. The longer we wait, the harder it gets.
The state of our Union is bad. Let’s make it better.
RSS - Posts
