Yesterday, on Univision’s Sunday political show, Al Punto, host Maria Elena Salinas asked state Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ) and sponsor of SB-1070 about his immigration views and how they relate to his faith as a member of the Mormon church. For much of the interview, Pearce refused to talk about religion and would not say whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should reject or denounce its undocumented immigrant members. However, Pearce rejected the Mormon church’s teaching of compassion and helping those in need and stated that he would support sanctioning or criminalizing fellow Mormons who “deliberately” aid undocumented immigrants:

[Translated from Spanish]
PEARCE: We [Mormons] believe in the rule of law, All I’m gonna say our church teaches the rule of law, absolutely.

SALINAS: It also teaches compassion, no?

PEARCE: Which compassion, what about the child molesters, should we have compassion for them too?

SALINAS: That’s what the church says, that we should not turn…

PEARCE: Hang on, hang on. We should have compassion with child molesters, burglars, rapists, right? They still go to jail. The laws are going to be enforced. You break the law, there are consequences. Don’t have compassion for people who break the law. There are consequences. We are a nation of laws.[...]

SALINAS: Should the Mormon church be criminalized or sanctioned for helping undocumented immigrants?

PEARCE: If they do it deliberately, treat them as you would treat any other person. I do not support law breakers.

SALINAS: Even if they are Mormons?

PEARCE: I don’t care what church they’re part of. Illegal is illegal. The law is the law.

Watch it [in Spanish]:

Pearce also insisted that undocumented immigrants make up a very small minority of the Mormon Church. While the actual number of undocumented Mormons isn’t really known, it is clear that Mormon Church doesn’t turn people away because of their immigration status. Meanwhile, the church’s international growth has been directly connected to its recruitment of Latinos at home and Latin Americans abroad. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is often said to be the fastest growing religion in Latin America with 5.2 million members and 5,500 chapels. The number of Spanish-speaking Mormon congregations nationwide in the U.S. has grown by 90 percent in the past decade, up to more than 700. For the most part, these new members come from populations that abhor Arizona’s immigration law. Latin American governments have blasted SB-1070 as “racist” and an overwhelming majority of Latinos in the U.S. oppose it and believe it will lead to racial profiling.

Meanwhile, Latinos of Mormon faith are demanding answers from their church. More specifically, they are asking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a position on the immigration issue. While other socially conservative denominations, including the Southern Baptists and Catholics, have come out strongly supporting a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, the Mormon church has remained notably neutral. Mormon Latinos have responded by launching a letter-writing campaign to Latter Day Saints Church President Thomas S. Monson, asking him to define the church’s official position on immigration. “This is affecting our families,” Tony Yapias, who launched the campaign, stated. “Where’s the church in this? The longer they stay quiet, the more political it gets, the more divisive.”

The Mormon church has come under even more pressure in the wake of the disturbing release of the names of 1,300 suspected undocumented immigrants by citizen vigilantes in Utah. In response, the church released a statement simply calling for “careful reflection and civil discourse when addressing immigration issues.” While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lags in defining a position, Pearce is becoming its default poster boy. The Arizona Republic reported that his association with SB-1070 has “tarnished the Mormon Church’s image among many Latinos.” And while he didn’t want to talk to Salinas about religion, he has said in the past that his anti-immigration efforts have been guided by the Mormon Church’s 13 Articles of Faith, which includes obeying the law.

While there is no evidence that the Mormon church has actively aided undocumented immigrants in need, other denominations, most famously the Methodist church, have provided assistance and refuge to undocumented immigrants who seek their help.

Three weeks ago Mitt Romney said hyperbolically that New START was Obama’s “worst foreign policy mistake.” After getting absolutely slammed, Romney is back today with a piece in the National Review that signifies a significant rhetorical retreat. Far from being the “worst mistake,” Romney now merely says there are eight problems and the “Senate should not ratify the treaty until they are resolved.” Romney’s climb down from his hyperbolic and factually flawed op-ed is notable.

Yet he still goes about reiterating the same false and disingenious arguments that have been made before by him and his friends at the Heritage Foundation. There is nothing new to see here. Based on how thoroughly Romney’s laundry list of eight problems have been rebutted and answered again and again, all this issues have in effect been “resolved” and the debate over the treaty specifics is essentially over.

And that in and of itself demonstrates that the claims of Senator Kyl that the Senate is “rushing” START through to be patently absurd. Every one of Mitt Romney’s points have been made and refuted countless times. I have the posts to prove it – on missile defense preamble, on the conversion of missile defense silos, on the bomber counter rule, on rail-mobile missiles, on tactical nuclear weapons, on telemetry, on MIRVing missiles, on verification, on prompt global strike. The debate over START has been exhausted. The facts are out, the Generals, the experts, the lab directors have all spoken in support of the treaty. Nothing new has been revealed, and nothing new is being said.

Since the debate over the specifics of the treaty has been exhausted. Two different approaches toward the treaty are being revealed on the conservative right.

The first is the rationale for the steadfast opposition to the treaty from Mitt Romney, the Heritage Foundation, and Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and DeMint (R-SC) is all about pure ideological extremism. It’s driven by ideology not facts. They simply are opposed to arms-control and view the Russians as out to get us. They don’t want to reduce nuclear arsenals, they want to buld and test new nuclear weapons. They don’t want cooperative relations with the Russians, they want to bury Russian nuclear power status by showing them we are nuclear superior. That is why they harp on the fact that we have to cut a few more weapons and launchers than the Russians as a huge weakness of the treaty. But really the only reason to care about who cuts slightly more is if you are still completely stuck in the Cold War. The fact is that if we were to expand our nuclear arsenal, the Russians would scrounge up the rubles to do the same. It is pointless and would kill off any efforts to deal with nuclear terrorism – something the right seems to totally not comprehend – and would needlessly waste billions on new useless nukes.

The second approach is more practical and is being pursued by nuclear neo-con ideologues like Senator Kyl who, realizing that opposing the treaty is really politically difficult given the overwhelming support for it, are now trying to slow the process down to extract greater concessions from the Administration. This “slow down” approach is a standard GOP obstructionist ploy in the Senate. To Kyl, the START debate isn’t really about START – he even called the treaty “benign” – it is about defeating or doing whatever he can to hamstring further arms-control efforts. Therefore Kyl is needlessly calling for a delay until the next budget cycle, claiming he needs proof that the money will be in the budget. In reality, he just wants to get next year because he thinks there will be more GOP Senators, thereby increasing his leverage.

In the end, even Fred Hiatt’s neoconservative Washington Post op-ed page today is advocating calling Kyl’s bluff and ratifying the treaty this year. The facts are out and the entire US military brass and almost every sensible foreign policy thinker is supportive of the treaty. Mitt Romney is clearly neither of those.

The Wikileaks disclosure of thousands of pages of military documents dealing with the war in Afghanistan today highlight, among other things, “how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents.”

This is a particularly important disclosure in light of a report released earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). NBER’s report, titled “The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq,” studied the blowback among the population from civilian casualties caused by international forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It concludes that blowback is a considerable problem faced by International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. It finds “strong evidence for a revenge effect in that local exposure to ISAF generated civilian casualties drives increased insurgent violence over the long-run.” The BBC notes that NBER’s report finds that “in areas where two civilians were killed or injured by Nato…there were on average an extra six violent incidents between insurgents and US-led troops in the following six weeks“:

They say that in areas where two civilians were killed or injured by Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), there were on average an extra six violent incidents between insurgents and US-led troops in the following six weeks. The report concludes that civilian deaths frequently motivate villagers to join the ranks of insurgents.

“In Afghanistan, when Isaf units kill civilians, this increases the number of willing combatants, leading to an increase in insurgent attacks.” “Local exposure to violence from Isaf appears to be the primary driver of this effect.”

The report also notes that General Stanley McChrystal’s new rules of engagement that he imposed upon soldiers under his command in Afghanistan “led to a decline in attacks by insurgent fighters.” General David Petraeus, who has just taken command of American forces in Afghanistan, is currently reviewing McChrystal’s rules and is considering altering them.

Earlier this month, law professor Marjorie Cohn and Iraq Veterans Against the War board chairman Geoff Millard attended a reception to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam and spoke with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). When Millard introduced himself to the Arizona senator, Cohn reports that McCain dismissed the relevance of Millard’s organization:

When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans against the War, McCain retorted, “You’re too late. We already won that one.”

McCain is now the second U.S. official to declare “mission accomplished” in a war that continues to ravage the people and land of Iraq.

From the run-up to the war through to his 2008 presidential campaign and up to now, McCain has regularly displayed a lack of understanding and shear incompetence about the war he fought so hard to start and continues to defend. Despite the misgivings of his “hero” Gen. David Petraeus, McCain has been quick to declare “victory” in Iraq or say the U.S is “succeeding” or “winning” the war. Just last March, McCain claimed there had not been “a single” American casualty in Iraq in the three months prior despite the fact that 12 U.S. servicemembers had died there and and least 93 wounded.

And in case McCain hasn’t checked, there’s still a war going on in Iraq. Last month, 216 Iraqi civilians died in attacks across the country. And just weeks prior to McCain’s most recent statement, two Americans were killed in an IED attack in Diyala, Iraq and just six days after his comment, 1st Lt. Michael Runyan was killed by an IED. One wonders whether the families of these U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians would consider the war there to be over.

But regardless of the level of violence in Iraq and even long after every last American servicemember withdraws, declaring the debacle that is President Bush’s war in Iraq can never be considered a “victory.” Juan Cole noted last month:

[I]t would be a huge mistake to see Iraq either as a success story or as stable. It is the scene of an ongoing civil war between Sunnis and Shiites that is killing roughly 300 civilians a month. It can’t form a government months after the March 7 elections. … The political vacuum has proved an opening for Sunni Arab insurgents, who have mounted effective bombing campaigns and more recently are targeting the banks.

“Let’s understand,” the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has written, “there is no plausible scenario in which the decision to invade Iraq can or will ever be vindicated. In the best case, we will have simply averted disaster.”