In their focus on the electoral horse-race, the media have ignored a key difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the positions of their foreign policy advisors on the Iraq war. As political scientist Stephen Zunes points out in Foreign Policy in Focus, Clinton's key advisors overwhelmingly supported it, while Obama's opposed it. The differences in their positions on whether to go to war mirror those of the two candidates. They also give a sense of how Clinton and Obama are likely to deal with the immensely difficult foreign policy challenges they'll face if elected, including dealing with Iraq.

From Zunes's revised version of his article:

The president makes the decisions, but who advises the president? We know Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted to Bush that American forces would be treated as liberators if we went into Iraq. McCain has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a similar disastrous path if he becomes president. But what about Obama and Clinton?

From day-one of the crisis that has gripped Kenya this year, much of the mainstream media has been quick to label the violence “tribal warfare,” while the top US envoy to Africa called the Kenyan clashes “ethnic cleansing.” The problem with those terms is that they don’t actually explain anything. Yet many people hear the words “tribal warfare” or “ethnic cleansing” and assume that people’s identity is the root of the violence in Kenya.

We live in a time when the notion of a “clash of civilizations” passes for political science and an us-versus-them mentality (“you’re either with us or with the terrorists”) is the basis of super-power foreign policy. The crudeness of those ideas makes it hard to remember that, while identity can be mobilized in the service of hatred, a person’s “tribe,” ethnicity, or religion does not cause or motivate violence. 

So what does? In the case of Kenya, tribal categories are a short-hand for describing people’s unequal access to political power and economic resources.

Of course, Americans must be 18 to serve in the military, but much of the military's recruiting work is directed at those who have not yet turned 18.

According to Dave Meserve in Arcata, Calif., localities can avoid the consequences of the No Child Left Behind law (which turns students' names and contact information over to recruiters) not only by helping students and parents to opt out of recruitment lists or by challenging the ability of recruiters to be on school campuses, but also by prohibiting any recruiting activities that involve kids under 18.

Meserve has drafted an ordinance and submitted it to the city clerk and the city attorney in Arcata. They will have 15 days to review it and provide a title and ballot summary for the November 2008 ballot. Then Meserve can begin gathering signatures to get it on the ballot.

Why not do the same thing in your town or major city? Here's the draft ordinance:

ARCATA YOUTH PROTECTION ACT

AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE MILITARY RECRUITMENT OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN

To protect the welfare of our youth, the People of Arcata Ordain as Follows:

The latest job numbers are in. And it isn’t a pretty picture. The overall economy lost jobs last month for the first time in four years. Over the next six months, 1.3 million unemployed men and women will run out of benefits without finding new work. First-time unemployment claims rose a whopping 69,000 in the week ended Jan. 26. It’s the largest one-week jump since Hurricane Katrina.

The numbers confirm what we already know—Congress must act immediately and decisively to head off the worst. The quickest and most effective way to do it is to put money in the pockets of those who need it most—the unemployed. In addition, the U.S. Senate should include additional effective mechanisms for economic stimulus. It can provide for fiscal relief to the states, accelerate ready-to-go construction projects, temporarily increase food-stamp benefits and offer tax rebates to low-income seniors and disabled veterans.