In short: Tom Cotton is one of the best candidates running for Congress this election cycle–and possibly ever.

If he wins the Republican primary on May 22, 2012, he will likely go on to win the seat–and he will likely serve for a very long time. Given the fact that Cotton is only in his mid-30s, and with his impressive record, he is likely to be a force in Republican politics for many decades, shaping the future of the party and the country.

I first met Tom in college when I was a rampaging lefty on a liberal campus and he was one of the sole conservative voices on the op-ed page of the Harvard Crimson. When I interviewed him recently, I reminded Tom that he and Eric Nelson (now a professor of government at Harvard) had represented the conservative wing of a panel discussion I convened as part of something called the “Democracy Teach-In” in the spring of 1998.

Subsequently, I discovered an argument Tom and I once had, an exchange over Jürgen Habermas in which I offered this pretentious critique (but also this, perhaps redemptive, parody). Tom puzzled me, not just because he was conservative but because he had a rare, humble confidence in his views. What Jed Purdy (now a law professor at Duke) was to liberals on campus, Tom was to conservatives: a leader, present and future.

My own views have changed markedly since then, while Tom’s have been strengthened by his unique experiences. On September 11, 2001, Tom recalls, he stood around a television with his law school classmates and watched the World Trade Center fall. “At that time,” he says, “I was not driven to be a lawyer anymore, but a soldier.” He worked for a couple years to pay off his student loans, then walked into an Army recruiting office.

Rather than seek direct commission as a JAG officer, handling legal affairs, Tom joined the infantry. “I wanted to do the activity at the very core of combat and warfare: closing with and destroying the enemy with fire and maneuver,” he recalls. “I had the desire to fight, find, and kill the bad guys.” After training for several months, Tom deployed to pre-surge Iraq in 2006, where he commanded a platoon patrolling southern Baghdad.

“I was there for a little over six months, when everything seemed to be spiraling out of control–if you believed the media,” he recalls. “We were holding the line but not advancing–and therefore losing. We didn’t have enough troops. We weren’t focused on separating the militia from the civilians, because we didn’t have enough faith and confidence from the people. They liked us, but they were too scared to side with us.

“We were out on patrol six hours every day. My vehicle hit three different bombs in the first two weeks, so the other guys called me ‘Magneto.’ Most of the firefights we had were shorter than what you see in the movies, because by that time the bad guys understood our capability. All of our guns could penetrate their buildings. When they attacked, it was mostly snipers or long-range rifles that could break contact right away.”

Tom stayed in touch with debates back home, and while on a distant patrol, he sent a letter to the editor of the New York Times that became a political sensation. “We were out on patrol for ninety-six hours at a time, with eighteen hours of relative down time in between. I had just returned to base, and during the previous ninety-six hours the company lost a soldier.” It was then that Tom read a Times article on terrorist financing.

The article, which disclosed a secret Treasury Department program to monitor and stop the money flows to terror organizations, touched a nerve with Tom. An earlier article by the same authors had exposed the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, and though it earned the authors a Pulitzer Prize, the article also drew criticism from those who worried that it would alert terrorists and make stopping future attacks more difficult.

Tom believed the Times scoop on terrorist finance posed similar risks, wrote a quick  letter to the editor, and sent a copy to the editors of the conservative Powerline blog:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government’s highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato’s guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months’ salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion — or next time I feel it — I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton

Baghdad, Iraq

Tom’s letter was hailed by conservatives and denounced by liberals who wondered openly whether a “Lt. Cotton” actually existed. The military was flooded with emails, many of them angry. Meanwhile, Tom was on patrol again, unaware of the reaction. He was due for a dressing-down by his commanders when he returned–until the letter was praised in an email from the Army Chief of Staff, earning Tom a pat on the back instead.

While the controversy put Tom on conservatives’ radar, it has also remained a red flag for the left. A recent Mother Jones attack piece called him “The GOP Candidate Who Wants Journos Jailed.” In any event, there would be more to Tom’s military career, including service at the Arlington National Cemetery, and a tour in Afghanistan, which he describes as “helping the good guys,” as opposed to “getting the bad guys” in Iraq.

His vast and variegated military experience has given him clear insights on President Obama’s policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he calls “misguided” and “driven by political considerations and the 2012 calendar.” He adds the U.S. may be “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” in Afghanistan, with Afghans less likely to cooperate with American troops on their way out. “It feeds an impression of us as an unreliable ally.”

Whatever evidence of “isolationism” may have appeared in the Republican presidential debates has yet to surface on his home turf in rural Arkansas. “The vast majority of all the audiences with whom I’ve spoken do strongly support the traditional Reaganite view,” Tom relates. “That’s true whether they’re Republican Party or Tea Party. There’s not any desire to withdraw precipitously. Americans are against defeat–not against war.”

Tom also opposes Texas governor Rick Perry’s suggestion that the U.S. start all foreign aid at zero–particularly in the case of Israel, with which the U.S. has a close alliance and long-standing agreements. His pro-Israel stance, he says, draws applause at local gatherings–though the main issues in his campaign are jobs and economic growth in a district whose economy is dominated by timber; oil and gas; agriculture; and an ailing small business sector.

“Ninety percent of the questions are bread-and-butter, kitchen-table issues, especially on spending and debt,” Tom says. “There’s a sense that money is being wasted, being paid out to the president’s friends and cronies. The new regulations he’s imposed have a huge impact on small businesses, which is pretty much all we have here in south and west Arkansas. Big business can comply with it, but small businesses just can’t.”

Arkansas congressional districts, 2011

Tom is traveling throughout the vast fourth district–“burning tire rubber rather than shoe leather,” he says–as he prepares for a primary contest that will begin in earnest with the first debate in mid-January. His opponents are Beth-Anne Rankin, who ran in 2010 but lost to the incumbent Democrat, Mike Ross, who is now retiring; and Marcus Richmond, a retired Marine officer. As of last quarter, Cotton is out-raising both rivals combined.

The fourth district includes Tom’s home in Dardanelle, Yell County (of True Grit fame), where he grew up on the family cattle farm. His parents “were not a political family by any means,” and he jokes that they are putting up political signs for the first time. It can’t hurt that the Arkansas Razorbacks are heading to the Cotton Bowl or that Cook recently moved his district from “likely Democratic” in June to “leans Republican” today.

GOP leaders had asked him to run in 2010, but Tom had just returned from Afghanistan and the timing felt rushed. “Now, I feel prepared, mentally and professionally,” he says. “It’s a critical moment for the country. I’m running for the same reasons that I joined the Army.” Tom reports that President Obama’s approval ratings in the district are at 31%, well below his national ratings–a good portent of Republican victory next fall.

If Tom wins, he’ll represent Bill Clinton’s hometown of Hope, Arkansas. It’s particularly ironic, since Clinton’s victory in 1992 was the reason Tom took an interest in politics. He recalls how the curiosity over “my governor” being elected soon faded into disappointment after Clinton’s first year in office.

Tom’s not opposed to “hope”; he simply believes in facing up to tough choices–in his words: “The hard right over the easy wrong.” In 2012, the choice is easy.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Pejman Yousefzadeh and Kevin Holtsberry are joined by Ken Ballen to discuss his book Terrorists in Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals, which provides case studies of individual extremists, their life histories, and their personal perspectives, in the context of showing how the United States can better understand the Islamic world.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Buy Terrorists in Love: The Real Lives of Islamic Radicals on Amazon
Terrorists in Love
TerrorFreeTomorrow.org

Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Kevin on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by John Yoo, former Department of Justice official under President George W. Bush to discuss how enhanced interrogation techniques lead to Osama bin Laden’s death, how Bush administration policies have helped the war on terror, and what missteps lie ahead for Obama.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Robert Gates on America’s Role in the World
Robert Gates: ‘If America Declines to Lead in the World, Others Will Not’
John Yoo: Tough interrogations worked
From Guantanamo to Abbottabad
Libya and the War Powers Abdication
John Yoo’s Book – Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush
John Yoo at AEI

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Questions about how the death and burial of Osama bin Laden came about are mounting. It is becoming increasingly evident that the White House is now backing off, changing details, and spinning to its political advantage an event that should primarily celebrate a decade of U.S. policies of intelligence-gathering and military strategy, as well as the strength and competence of the best-trained military in the world.

CIA Chief, Leon Panetta, now appears to be at odds with the White House, regarding both the release of photos of bin Laden’s body and whether waterboarding was used to extract intelligence information from detainees of Guantanamo.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, and now the president himself, has said that the White House is reluctant to release the photos of the body because of concern about “sensitivities.” The question is, whose “sensitivities?” Other radical jihadists who may be enraged further with the United States? American citizens who have already witnessed gruesome photos of dead civilians- courtesy of the main stream media- in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, the liberal base of the Democratic party, who can’t quite get their heads around the fact that their president- who is supposedly of such superior moral character, and has already done such a thorough job of apologizing to the world for the “transgressions” of the United States- actually made a decision to kill the apparently unarmed terrorist within sight of his wife (or child), to defend and preserve American freedom and security?

Already, the complicit media is, as expected, ignoring some of the “hot spots” of how the information, regarding bin Laden’s whereabouts, was brought to light, such as through the use of waterboarding. What a dilemma for them and the White House! The same policies, initiated by the Bush-Cheney administration, relied upon by President Obama?

While many have wondered if Mr. Obama will be more inclined to win re-election in 2012 because of the killing of bin Laden, the fact is that his decision to act was a good one, but, unfortunately, uncharacteristic of his presidency. The truth is that most Americans do not approve of the president’s performance because most of his decisions carry with them a sea of controversy and distrust regarding his aspirations for the nation and desire to fulfill the will of the American people.

As details of Osama bin Laden’s killing continue to emerge, will his liberal base be turned off because of their “sensitivities” to the realities of keeping the country safe, or will conservatives ultimately see another confused, inconsistent mass of details coming from an administration that is still not courageous, still not decisive, and still not trusted?

Rosen’s comments were most likely directed at Lara Logan in retaliation to her defending General Stanley McChrystal last year after a controversial Rolling Stone interview. After looking into what he has done in the past and given his past statements, it is actually not surprising that he would make such horrendous comments. He has appeared on many TV shows essentially defending Al Qaeda against the United States.

Here is Rosen appearing on Russia Today saying that Al Qaeda’s threat to the U.S. is a lie.

Oh, and this little tidbit as well: (h/t diggrbiii)

Good for Dave Dilegge for speaking out in Small Wars Journal about the October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. “They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks,” he wrote, “…. once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us.”

Having told the reader what his intent was, Rosen described the Taliban as “religious students who knew little about the rest of the world and cared only about liberating their country from oppressive warlords.” Rosen concluded his piece by declaring that the war was lost – unless we negotiated an ending with the Taliban.

Rosen has also made these comments in the past directed at Israel:

Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise. The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.

The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. “All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks,” as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.

There is probably a lot more to him than the above, but this can give you a better understanding of why he most likely made the comments directed at the atrocious act commited on Lara Logan. Comments directed out of sheer spite of her defense of a General in a war he is greatly opposed to. For reasons I’ll let you gather.

Now, because of this, he has resigned and NYU has accepted his resignation. To read the response from NYU, head on over to the Eyeblast blog.

Cameron Poe is back, and he’s getting an enhanced pat down (just like you).

This holiday travel season, we’re all convicts.

Approximately 30 seconds.

“Con Air 2010 (TSA Remix)” is written and produced by Ted Balaker.

Related video: Coming Soon to an Airport Near You: Prison-style strip searches?

Visit Reason.tv for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

You’ve heard about the passenger who opted out of a full-body scan (a.k.a. “a virtual strip search”) and was subjected to an intrusive and humiliating pat down. “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested,” passenger John Tyner told Transportation Security Administration workers in San Diego.

Well, rest easy, John—and other passengers offended by both full-body scans and hands-on searches.

TSA won’t touch your junk—or your breasts or buttocks. If they begin to strip search passengers as if they’re prison inmates, they’ll do just what correctional officers do: They’ll make you do all the nasty work.

What follows is an excerpt from a training video for prison guards on how to make sure that inmates aren’t hiding contraband.

The video makes for extremely uncomfortable watching and viewer discretion—and outrage—is advised. After all, this may well be the next step in how the TSA, one of the least effective and efficient government agencies of all time, goes about its daily business.

Approximately 2.43 minutes.

Written and produced by Ted Balaker and Nick Gillespie.

Visit Reason.tv for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.