“…you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” From the mouths of babes – and Secretaries of Defense. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was roundly criticized for making this far too snappy answer to an enlisted man on his way to Iraq. Initially, I, like most of you – including the press and members of Congress, thought that this was a terrible answer to the young man’s question. On reflection, while the answer was not satisfactory politically, there was something far deeper and more meaningful in the response that when coupled with earlier comments by the secretary is very revealing.
When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, I recall that Mr. Rumsfeld, in the salad days of his modernization program for the military – particularly the army, was unhappy with the nature of the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. He wanted a far more mobile army to deal with the nature of this novel enemy and the terrain we had to deal with. Somewhere along the way, he was reported to have favored Iraq as a proving ground since it offered much better targets than the barren and sparsely populated Afghan mountains.
Mr. Rumsfeld saw that our forces, however outmoded, were better suited to deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein’s army than the horrible conditions of Eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. Mr. Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives had an answer: knock off Saddam as a demonstration to the heads of other Islamic states could conceivably support al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations to show that such action could have dire consequences for their own regimes. Notwithstanding the problems we have created for ourselves in Iraq, you must consider this is a positive outcome of the Iraq War.
Had not the proposition that if you broke the pottery, you own it arisen, the neocon dream of empire might have succeeded – at least for another short while. After the anarchy and nihilism, we could have informed the survivors running the country that they too could join Saddam in the admiral’s lounge at Baghdad International if they didn’t play ball with us and agree to our strategic bases in the Western part of the country.
Sadly for the neocons, it didn’t play out that way. Their dreams of facing Iran from a position of strength and of threatening the other bad boys like Syria have gone awry. American and international politics being what they are, we’re stuck with the B.S. of nation building and spreading Western style democracy and freedom and not the position of checking the Persian mullahs and everyone else who might play footsie with Osama bin Laden.
But as I rail against the stupidity of the War in Iraq, I have to admit this positive, and, while I doubt that Libya coughed up its nuclear program solely as a result of Saddam’s being stuck at the Baghdad airport, it had to play a part in the Libyan decision. Teheran while mighty angry at us is still unlikely to risk Mr. Bush’s wrath by getting caught aiding Osama.
The administration has overreached. The president, Rumsfeld and the neocons are stuck with what they wrought. They played fast and loose with the facts and must suffer for their hubris.
But think about Rumsfeld’s comment in Kuwait. Perhaps he may well have been far more forthcoming than we gave him credit for.
In support of moderation and sanity, I’m no longer signing my pieces with my old moniker, Wild Bill. From now on – or at least until the Holiday Season is past - it’s Mild Bill, ever the voice of reason.
Happy New Year,
Mild Bill
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Blog On
Not so very long ago – by my old man’s reckoning anyway – heads of state were limited in their ability to persuade and coerce through propaganda. Beginning, I suppose, with Roman and Inca runners, the state has worked incessantly to spread the word and sought to centralize its power. My guess is, however, that a Spanish farmer at the height of the Empire intent on living his life as he saw fit probably had little to fear from Rome for the act of wrong thinking. He might even be able to share his views with his neighbors without dread of retribution.
Obviously, the state progressed in its ability to spread policy much more rapidly than did our Spanish farmer, and his descendants working that same land in the time of Franco who loosed comments on the folly of the state might have heard a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
Historically, the Church served as a counter to the state and it too constantly improved in its ability to convey and enforce doctrine and to counter the state. Over time, devices such as the printing press decentralized the power to communicate still farther afield.
In the lifetimes of many of us, states have been captured by outlaws who – be they on the right or left – corrupted the communication systems of their nations and suppressed both the media and the churches and gained a monopoly on what the citizens could read, hear (radio), and see (television) and think.
Technology has made it possible even for governments with no particular intent on such monopoly to gain such overwhelming power of persuasion that coercion is not even considered a necessary part of their arsenals. This is particularly true when the plutocracy is well organized.
Churches now spread mixed messages and work against each other as much as in a concerted fashion for what was once called the body of the church. The media is divided, and the people selected by them to opine are chosen not only for their ability to think and communicate but often from within a pool with a narrow band of views. They also seem to be selected from these same elite schools dear to the hearts of the plutocrats from which the political elite also often arises.
What are we Lilliputians to do? How can we possibly hope to influence the state when the elites have decided on a given course with which we disagree? In most instances, it doesn’t matter much and from that we can take heart. Most policies and laws proposed and enacted in the United States have winners and losers, but usually the stakes are low enough that it isn’t that important. And if the losers scream loudly enough, payback can be expected shortly.
But what of war and peace? Gulliver is in our living room each night explaining why we must have war with a particular nation or collection of states or why we must act in the crisis of the day, and there is no one we can turn to for an independent evaluation. In the most dangerous period in the planet’s history, the president of the United States recognizing full well the peril had to contort our laws and policies to make ready for a war he knew was coming. Still, he had to wait until we were attacked in order to seek a declaration of war.
Our presidency has grown greatly in power since 1941. Precedents have changed and our representatives in Congress have ceded much of their power to the executive. In Vietnam, the nature of the world conflict and the bipartisan support needed to prosecute the Cold War involved us in a conflict almost without end. Only the citizens through direct action could tell our leaders that they had lost confidence in the policy of waging the war. The divisions caused by that crisis will be evident in our society until the last of the generation that fought has abandoned its power positions in our society and largely died off – a long time still to come.
The megaphone available to today’s presidents is far louder than ever before. And President Bush persuaded the people that we had to make war in Iraq. Many of us, certainly a minority, disagreed. The clarity of why we went to war and the focus on the small number of opinion makers and political leaders beating the drums made it far easier to fix responsibility for our course in Iraq. This is the war sponsored by a small group of elitists. President Bush cannot cite previous generations of leaders nor can he name allies who have been threatened by Iraq as it was posited on the day of the attack.
Yet in short order, public opinion has exposed the emperor as a man without raiment as it relates to this adventure. He and his small number of advisors – and the somewhat larger group of drummers outside the government - have had the spotlight directed on them. How did this come to be?
Clearly, the war had few fathers, and the reasons for it have been shown to be badly flawed. Much of the media served us well, but the people too spoke – clearly, moderately, and without having to take to the streets.
Regardless of his mouthings, the president is moving rapidly to extricate us from the battlefield, rebuild cracked alliances, and minimize the power of the neoconservatives who steered him into this mess.
In Vietnam, the Lilliputians had no way of communicating and had to take to the streets.
But a new day has dawned in which we tiny folk can share our views beyond our circle of friends. We can BLOG. In the Vietnam War, our voices were heard only by our closest friends and neighbors. Today, the same technology that permits the largest and loudest megaphone to be centralized can be used by the people to cry out. We Lilliputians can spread our opinions far beyond the small circle that just months ago was so restricted.
As we prepared to move on Baghdad, my circle of friends – certainly fewer than ten of us - spoke and emailed our concerns back and forth. Today, several dozens of people across the country read this message and realize that they are not alone among a tiny grouping. And they blog away, sharing messages and writing farther and farther afield. Columnists in leading newspapers cite bloggers and daily the bloggers become more powerful. Lilliputians threads constrain Gulliver and force him to recognize that he is (like victorious Roman generals of old) but a man.
Blog on! Power to the Lilliputians!
Obviously, the state progressed in its ability to spread policy much more rapidly than did our Spanish farmer, and his descendants working that same land in the time of Franco who loosed comments on the folly of the state might have heard a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
Historically, the Church served as a counter to the state and it too constantly improved in its ability to convey and enforce doctrine and to counter the state. Over time, devices such as the printing press decentralized the power to communicate still farther afield.
In the lifetimes of many of us, states have been captured by outlaws who – be they on the right or left – corrupted the communication systems of their nations and suppressed both the media and the churches and gained a monopoly on what the citizens could read, hear (radio), and see (television) and think.
Technology has made it possible even for governments with no particular intent on such monopoly to gain such overwhelming power of persuasion that coercion is not even considered a necessary part of their arsenals. This is particularly true when the plutocracy is well organized.
Churches now spread mixed messages and work against each other as much as in a concerted fashion for what was once called the body of the church. The media is divided, and the people selected by them to opine are chosen not only for their ability to think and communicate but often from within a pool with a narrow band of views. They also seem to be selected from these same elite schools dear to the hearts of the plutocrats from which the political elite also often arises.
What are we Lilliputians to do? How can we possibly hope to influence the state when the elites have decided on a given course with which we disagree? In most instances, it doesn’t matter much and from that we can take heart. Most policies and laws proposed and enacted in the United States have winners and losers, but usually the stakes are low enough that it isn’t that important. And if the losers scream loudly enough, payback can be expected shortly.
But what of war and peace? Gulliver is in our living room each night explaining why we must have war with a particular nation or collection of states or why we must act in the crisis of the day, and there is no one we can turn to for an independent evaluation. In the most dangerous period in the planet’s history, the president of the United States recognizing full well the peril had to contort our laws and policies to make ready for a war he knew was coming. Still, he had to wait until we were attacked in order to seek a declaration of war.
Our presidency has grown greatly in power since 1941. Precedents have changed and our representatives in Congress have ceded much of their power to the executive. In Vietnam, the nature of the world conflict and the bipartisan support needed to prosecute the Cold War involved us in a conflict almost without end. Only the citizens through direct action could tell our leaders that they had lost confidence in the policy of waging the war. The divisions caused by that crisis will be evident in our society until the last of the generation that fought has abandoned its power positions in our society and largely died off – a long time still to come.
The megaphone available to today’s presidents is far louder than ever before. And President Bush persuaded the people that we had to make war in Iraq. Many of us, certainly a minority, disagreed. The clarity of why we went to war and the focus on the small number of opinion makers and political leaders beating the drums made it far easier to fix responsibility for our course in Iraq. This is the war sponsored by a small group of elitists. President Bush cannot cite previous generations of leaders nor can he name allies who have been threatened by Iraq as it was posited on the day of the attack.
Yet in short order, public opinion has exposed the emperor as a man without raiment as it relates to this adventure. He and his small number of advisors – and the somewhat larger group of drummers outside the government - have had the spotlight directed on them. How did this come to be?
Clearly, the war had few fathers, and the reasons for it have been shown to be badly flawed. Much of the media served us well, but the people too spoke – clearly, moderately, and without having to take to the streets.
Regardless of his mouthings, the president is moving rapidly to extricate us from the battlefield, rebuild cracked alliances, and minimize the power of the neoconservatives who steered him into this mess.
In Vietnam, the Lilliputians had no way of communicating and had to take to the streets.
But a new day has dawned in which we tiny folk can share our views beyond our circle of friends. We can BLOG. In the Vietnam War, our voices were heard only by our closest friends and neighbors. Today, the same technology that permits the largest and loudest megaphone to be centralized can be used by the people to cry out. We Lilliputians can spread our opinions far beyond the small circle that just months ago was so restricted.
As we prepared to move on Baghdad, my circle of friends – certainly fewer than ten of us - spoke and emailed our concerns back and forth. Today, several dozens of people across the country read this message and realize that they are not alone among a tiny grouping. And they blog away, sharing messages and writing farther and farther afield. Columnists in leading newspapers cite bloggers and daily the bloggers become more powerful. Lilliputians threads constrain Gulliver and force him to recognize that he is (like victorious Roman generals of old) but a man.
Blog on! Power to the Lilliputians!
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Through the Looking Glass
My last posting on President Bush and his herring on Social Security that was designed to keep our eyes off the problems in Iraq, the War on Terror, the trade and budget deficits, and our foreign relations was pretty snappy. It mixed a few metaphors and shot a few zingers. This entry is an expansion on my basic thesis that the office of the president is too powerful and dominates the media and the lives of the citizens too greatly.
Blogs are difficult. The writer has to make his points breezy and entertaining yet must be close enough to the truth and facts as to be reasonable and pursuasive.
The modern presidency is too powerful, not just this president but any and all that will succeed Mr. Bush. George Washington had few means to sway the hearts and minds of his countrymen beyond those to whom he could display himself and project his voice – damn few given those wooden teeth. None of this changed greatly until possibly Lincoln and the newspapers that championed or vilified him.
Theodore Roosevelt understood the power of the press and spoke above the heads of office holders and party officials through clever manipulation of the paper medium and by means of speaking to thousands from rail cars in dozens of venues.
TR’s distant cousin was the first to master the radio which permitted entry into almost all homes in the republic. FDR became our first modern media president and those who followed have piggy backed on his gains. Certainly, John Kennedy mastered television and the news conference and achieved and aura of near sainthood that lingers to this day. Ronald Reagan could talk the birds out of the trees and his mastery of all modes of mass communication was nearly perfect. And of course Bill Clinton raised presidential sophistry to an art form. Just what is the meaning of is?
No longer is the presidency in need of such geniuses as these to master the swaying of the masses. The techniques are well known and the successors of the presidents named above are able to sustain what has been codified in the bible of mass communication.
George W. Bush has been derided as an intellectual midget. This is far from true. He has a way with the media that is unique and which gives him power equal to the best communicators of the past. I’d call it a through the looking glass power. Here we have a leader able to redefine issues right before our eyes so effectively that what is important on one day is irrelevant the next and vice versa.
This president defined himself as a wartime president. After the events of September 11, 2001, he rallied the people and drove his approval ratings through the stratosphere by declaring a war on terror in general and al Qaeda in particular. He called upon the Taliban to expel al Qaeda, and when they refused, he sent a force to do it and to capture or kill members of both organizations.
Before this expedition had completed its mission, he decided that Iraq would become the center piece of the war on terror. The drums of war were beaten continuously and demands were made on the United Nations to enforce its resolutions. Failure of the U.N. to acquiesce to U.S. demands would force us to form our own coalition and enforce them in spite of the wishes of other member states to pursue less draconian courses.
We know that our Secretary of State on a world stage was able to show definitively to the tens of millions across the globe who saw his performance that Iraq had active programs of chemical and biological weapons development. Other intelligence available from U.S. and friendly governments confirmed these programs and either an active program to develop nuclear weapons or an intention to pursue one aggressively in the very near term.
We all know that the Security Council, despite such proof - slam dunk quality - failed to enforce its own resolutions and that in order to save the U.N. as a viable world body, America and its coalition of the willing attacked Iraq with the intent of toppling Saddam and stopping these programs. The United States acted preemptively to defend itself and its friends.
Within weeks, the president landed on an aircraft carrier off of San Diego and declared the war had been won. Casualties were minimal and the Iraqis, in addition to happily welcoming our forces as liberators, would soon be members of a democracy espousing Western style government.
The president welcomed the small insurgency that met our forces and urged these foreign fighters “to bring it on.” They did.
That weapons of mass destruction or even programs to develop them were not found was immaterial. Saddam was a vicious tyrant who deserved toppling. That we had acted not preemptively to defend ourselves but rather preventively – an illegal act under international conventions – was immaterial. He was bad and it was done.
The president ran his successful reelection campaign on a three fold strategy: he was war time president and the man to handle the war on terror and the Iraq War; second, he was the candidate of values – the defender of marriage, the foe of abortion, and champion of religion in the country, and he was for cutting taxes and the size of the federal government. He also mentioned – VERY MUCH UNDER HIS BREATH – that he would propose changes in Social Security.
He was reelected by a margin sufficient for him to claim a mandate to do all of those things. Polling and common sense would indicate that some of these issues were far more critical to his victory than others. That he was a wartime leader and the best man to pursue the war on terrorists was by far the one that I drew as the one leading to his win. Obviously, others may differ on this point.
Now within weeks of the election, the president has declared a national crisis in Social Security and is beating the drum for its reform and overhaul. Raising the payroll tax which funds the program is the only alternative that Mr. Bush will not consider – this in advance of the summit of experts on the program that will consider all options except that one.
The war ended when Saddam’s army was disbanded - the occupation in support of the Iraqi interim government will end when the elections are held next month. Our troops will remain as guests of the new Iraqi government for only as long as they are needed.
The war was a success – ending in three weeks. The successful support of the Iraqi interim establishment is about over. We’ve given the Medals of Freedom that attest to the end of all problems. And we look forward to withdrawing our support troops as soon as the new government can maintain its own safety and security. Were it not for gaffes by people such as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Iraq War and indeed the War on Terror itself would be banished from the media and from our homes.
So now our election is past and the conquest and liberation just about complete, Mr. Bush is the president of the poor Baby Boomers whose parents are in the process of robbing their offspring blind and of Xgeners who will get nothing.
This is a national crisis, we have only eighteen years until the Social Security fund will begin paying out more than it takes in and some forty to fifty years before it will be unable to meet its obligations. Clearly, we must act in the next session of Congress or the nation will perish in half a century. Thank God we won the Iraq War. Otherwise one might think it imprudent to take on the additional two trillion dollars in debt that the president’s program will require.
I could go on but you get my point. Lewis Carroll could not have dreamed up anything more bizarre. The president has successfully led a red herring across the path to victory in the war on terror, and millions of citizens are beating the drums to assist him solve tomorrow’s crisis today. All the while Osama bin Laden is calling on disaffected Islamists everywhere to kill me - and you.
America is a conservative country, and communicators from outlets like Fox and individuals like Rush Limbaugh have been able to convince a gigantic portion of the population that good investigative journalism is simply a euphemism for Liberalism.
I moved from being a liberal Democrat in my youth to become a moderately conservative Republican by the time of this president’s first campaign in 2000. In view of the excessive power of the presidency to redefine all issues and policies, I now classify myself simply as an out and intend – at least at this minute - to vote for divided government to check this outsize source of power.
Blogs are difficult. The writer has to make his points breezy and entertaining yet must be close enough to the truth and facts as to be reasonable and pursuasive.
The modern presidency is too powerful, not just this president but any and all that will succeed Mr. Bush. George Washington had few means to sway the hearts and minds of his countrymen beyond those to whom he could display himself and project his voice – damn few given those wooden teeth. None of this changed greatly until possibly Lincoln and the newspapers that championed or vilified him.
Theodore Roosevelt understood the power of the press and spoke above the heads of office holders and party officials through clever manipulation of the paper medium and by means of speaking to thousands from rail cars in dozens of venues.
TR’s distant cousin was the first to master the radio which permitted entry into almost all homes in the republic. FDR became our first modern media president and those who followed have piggy backed on his gains. Certainly, John Kennedy mastered television and the news conference and achieved and aura of near sainthood that lingers to this day. Ronald Reagan could talk the birds out of the trees and his mastery of all modes of mass communication was nearly perfect. And of course Bill Clinton raised presidential sophistry to an art form. Just what is the meaning of is?
No longer is the presidency in need of such geniuses as these to master the swaying of the masses. The techniques are well known and the successors of the presidents named above are able to sustain what has been codified in the bible of mass communication.
George W. Bush has been derided as an intellectual midget. This is far from true. He has a way with the media that is unique and which gives him power equal to the best communicators of the past. I’d call it a through the looking glass power. Here we have a leader able to redefine issues right before our eyes so effectively that what is important on one day is irrelevant the next and vice versa.
This president defined himself as a wartime president. After the events of September 11, 2001, he rallied the people and drove his approval ratings through the stratosphere by declaring a war on terror in general and al Qaeda in particular. He called upon the Taliban to expel al Qaeda, and when they refused, he sent a force to do it and to capture or kill members of both organizations.
Before this expedition had completed its mission, he decided that Iraq would become the center piece of the war on terror. The drums of war were beaten continuously and demands were made on the United Nations to enforce its resolutions. Failure of the U.N. to acquiesce to U.S. demands would force us to form our own coalition and enforce them in spite of the wishes of other member states to pursue less draconian courses.
We know that our Secretary of State on a world stage was able to show definitively to the tens of millions across the globe who saw his performance that Iraq had active programs of chemical and biological weapons development. Other intelligence available from U.S. and friendly governments confirmed these programs and either an active program to develop nuclear weapons or an intention to pursue one aggressively in the very near term.
We all know that the Security Council, despite such proof - slam dunk quality - failed to enforce its own resolutions and that in order to save the U.N. as a viable world body, America and its coalition of the willing attacked Iraq with the intent of toppling Saddam and stopping these programs. The United States acted preemptively to defend itself and its friends.
Within weeks, the president landed on an aircraft carrier off of San Diego and declared the war had been won. Casualties were minimal and the Iraqis, in addition to happily welcoming our forces as liberators, would soon be members of a democracy espousing Western style government.
The president welcomed the small insurgency that met our forces and urged these foreign fighters “to bring it on.” They did.
That weapons of mass destruction or even programs to develop them were not found was immaterial. Saddam was a vicious tyrant who deserved toppling. That we had acted not preemptively to defend ourselves but rather preventively – an illegal act under international conventions – was immaterial. He was bad and it was done.
The president ran his successful reelection campaign on a three fold strategy: he was war time president and the man to handle the war on terror and the Iraq War; second, he was the candidate of values – the defender of marriage, the foe of abortion, and champion of religion in the country, and he was for cutting taxes and the size of the federal government. He also mentioned – VERY MUCH UNDER HIS BREATH – that he would propose changes in Social Security.
He was reelected by a margin sufficient for him to claim a mandate to do all of those things. Polling and common sense would indicate that some of these issues were far more critical to his victory than others. That he was a wartime leader and the best man to pursue the war on terrorists was by far the one that I drew as the one leading to his win. Obviously, others may differ on this point.
Now within weeks of the election, the president has declared a national crisis in Social Security and is beating the drum for its reform and overhaul. Raising the payroll tax which funds the program is the only alternative that Mr. Bush will not consider – this in advance of the summit of experts on the program that will consider all options except that one.
The war ended when Saddam’s army was disbanded - the occupation in support of the Iraqi interim government will end when the elections are held next month. Our troops will remain as guests of the new Iraqi government for only as long as they are needed.
The war was a success – ending in three weeks. The successful support of the Iraqi interim establishment is about over. We’ve given the Medals of Freedom that attest to the end of all problems. And we look forward to withdrawing our support troops as soon as the new government can maintain its own safety and security. Were it not for gaffes by people such as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Iraq War and indeed the War on Terror itself would be banished from the media and from our homes.
So now our election is past and the conquest and liberation just about complete, Mr. Bush is the president of the poor Baby Boomers whose parents are in the process of robbing their offspring blind and of Xgeners who will get nothing.
This is a national crisis, we have only eighteen years until the Social Security fund will begin paying out more than it takes in and some forty to fifty years before it will be unable to meet its obligations. Clearly, we must act in the next session of Congress or the nation will perish in half a century. Thank God we won the Iraq War. Otherwise one might think it imprudent to take on the additional two trillion dollars in debt that the president’s program will require.
I could go on but you get my point. Lewis Carroll could not have dreamed up anything more bizarre. The president has successfully led a red herring across the path to victory in the war on terror, and millions of citizens are beating the drums to assist him solve tomorrow’s crisis today. All the while Osama bin Laden is calling on disaffected Islamists everywhere to kill me - and you.
America is a conservative country, and communicators from outlets like Fox and individuals like Rush Limbaugh have been able to convince a gigantic portion of the population that good investigative journalism is simply a euphemism for Liberalism.
I moved from being a liberal Democrat in my youth to become a moderately conservative Republican by the time of this president’s first campaign in 2000. In view of the excessive power of the presidency to redefine all issues and policies, I now classify myself simply as an out and intend – at least at this minute - to vote for divided government to check this outsize source of power.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Name That Tune
Social Security? Solving a problem that will not become a crisis for forty-two years while Baghdad burns? What gives? Sounds like a Stradivarius to me.
We’re stuck in a quagmire that can be traced directly to one man – and it’s not Osama bin Laden – that is costing Iraqi lives beyond count, troop deaths mounting toward the two thousand mark, tens of thousands of broken American bodies and minds, hundreds of billions in national treasure that could be applied to chasing down and destroying the organization that has already killed three thousand Americans, created – along with a wartime tax cut - a national budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars, and the solution: it’s two fold – extend the tax cuts and borrow trillions so that we can save Social Security which will be in a crisis situation at the half century.
What is George on? I want some of that. My two beers at Happy Hour just don’t hack it. This is real juice that this guy’s found.
Let me get this straight. He wants to divert only a small portion of young workers’ contributions – just two percent by the administration’s reckoning – to be put in private accounts that will save them and America forty years from now? Really? By my reckoning that two percent of one hundred percent is really almost a third of the individual Social Security contribution of six and a half percent of gross income.
Our trade deficit is being financed by some of our world competitors, including China which is doing everything possible to become our military equal. What happens if they decided to stop supporting the dollar? I’ll tell you - chaos in our financial markets and our economy. Oh, are those Social Security accounts that George is pushing for insured against that eventuality? What’s that tune he’s playing on the fiddle?
This ploy on Social Security is the biggest red herring in the history of the country. We’re mired in a war of George’s own making – against a nation that did not threaten us, and all of the excuses for the war have blown up in our faces. We’ve cut taxes in a time of true crisis and created deficits that could break our economy, and he proposes to completely reform the third rail of American politics at cost of trillions.
Keep your eyes on both his hands. While George is dazzling you with changes to the greatest social safety net ever created in this land that he says are vital to our future, our present is in grave danger. And he’s saying look over here – not over there. This guy can fiddle.
I voted for this guy in 2000 thinking we were getting a uniter not a divider. But instead of Cal Coolidge, we get Chauncey Gardiner from Being There. This stuff that’s emanating from the White House is not as profound as it sounds. These are the musings of a rancher if not a gardener.
This is madness, and half the yahoos who voted for him are screaming for more. This guy doesn’t know what to do so he’s shouting to get your attention away from the debacle he’s created in our relations with other nations and a war that is bleeding us dry. All the while the people who really attacked us are gaining recruits for a jihad against us and are issuing regular calls to have their martyrs kill as many Americans as possible. Chance the gardener likes to watch, but you better watch him as he baits and switches us all.
Wildbill944
We’re stuck in a quagmire that can be traced directly to one man – and it’s not Osama bin Laden – that is costing Iraqi lives beyond count, troop deaths mounting toward the two thousand mark, tens of thousands of broken American bodies and minds, hundreds of billions in national treasure that could be applied to chasing down and destroying the organization that has already killed three thousand Americans, created – along with a wartime tax cut - a national budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars, and the solution: it’s two fold – extend the tax cuts and borrow trillions so that we can save Social Security which will be in a crisis situation at the half century.
What is George on? I want some of that. My two beers at Happy Hour just don’t hack it. This is real juice that this guy’s found.
Let me get this straight. He wants to divert only a small portion of young workers’ contributions – just two percent by the administration’s reckoning – to be put in private accounts that will save them and America forty years from now? Really? By my reckoning that two percent of one hundred percent is really almost a third of the individual Social Security contribution of six and a half percent of gross income.
Our trade deficit is being financed by some of our world competitors, including China which is doing everything possible to become our military equal. What happens if they decided to stop supporting the dollar? I’ll tell you - chaos in our financial markets and our economy. Oh, are those Social Security accounts that George is pushing for insured against that eventuality? What’s that tune he’s playing on the fiddle?
This ploy on Social Security is the biggest red herring in the history of the country. We’re mired in a war of George’s own making – against a nation that did not threaten us, and all of the excuses for the war have blown up in our faces. We’ve cut taxes in a time of true crisis and created deficits that could break our economy, and he proposes to completely reform the third rail of American politics at cost of trillions.
Keep your eyes on both his hands. While George is dazzling you with changes to the greatest social safety net ever created in this land that he says are vital to our future, our present is in grave danger. And he’s saying look over here – not over there. This guy can fiddle.
I voted for this guy in 2000 thinking we were getting a uniter not a divider. But instead of Cal Coolidge, we get Chauncey Gardiner from Being There. This stuff that’s emanating from the White House is not as profound as it sounds. These are the musings of a rancher if not a gardener.
This is madness, and half the yahoos who voted for him are screaming for more. This guy doesn’t know what to do so he’s shouting to get your attention away from the debacle he’s created in our relations with other nations and a war that is bleeding us dry. All the while the people who really attacked us are gaining recruits for a jihad against us and are issuing regular calls to have their martyrs kill as many Americans as possible. Chance the gardener likes to watch, but you better watch him as he baits and switches us all.
Wildbill944
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Yin and Yang in Fiction and in Life
Conflict makes fiction interesting. Without stress there are but boring stories. Yin and Yang, Men and Women, Reason and Faith, Secular and Religious and on and on – apparently there is no end to the possibilities for creating powerful conflicted fiction – and real lives.
My primary source of conflict in fiction stems from reason and faith. Obviously this is not unique since throughout history many others have identified the same possibility. Recently, I read an article quoting Mathew Arnold’s analysis of the problem in which he – again almost certainly not uniquely – saw the roots of this conflict in Western Civilization deriving from Greek and Hebrew sources. He wrote the Greeks were guided by right thinking and the ancient Hebrews by right behavior - thought v. morality.
In our time in America, this conflict is playing out again and, rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have been singled out as champions of the secular and the Republicans as paladins of the religious. Sadly, Arnold saw this as a never ending battle between the two. When religion and demands for conformity and adherence to a morality based civic structure are pushed too far, the adherents of reason leap into the breach and beat back what they see as the forces of darkness. Sadly, the struggle seems always to go too far.
Similarly we see in the Muslim world today an even more powerful struggle between these forces is in flux with no winner guaranteed. For example, in Iran the struggle between the theocrats and secularists plays out dangerously before our eyes. Clearly, this is but one such conflict in the Central Civilization, and each of them has the potential to impact and even harm the rest of the world’s peoples
In writing two novels, I sought out such conflicts but was not nearly as conscious of the formality of the struggle as at this time as I am attempting manage such a battle in my latest book. Only in the last several years have have I become able to define the conflict in my own being.
Recently, I prepared a blog posting about Thoreau. Since first reading Walden more than fifty years ago, Transcendentalism has become a major element of my personal belief system, and in the last few years, I have tried to insert that outlook into my writing. Unfortunately, I’m neither a very good Transcendentalist nor much of a philosopher, so my level of understanding of the movement is limited, but, from what I gather, the men and women who developed the concept had an equally hard time agreeing among themselves.
Just as important to this posting, I have been influenced for a number of years by Existentialism. No big deal, except of course in my mind they are just about polar opposites. Thus as I and a number of my characters move confidently in the direction of our dreams, so do I and they recognize the abyss of nothingness.
Obviously, Transcendentalism is faith based – although it is far enough from mainstream Christianity to be roundly condemned by dogmatists as Godless. On the other hand Existentialism is clearly reason and secular in origin, although it’s clear that one can be both an Existentialist and a faithful Christian.
This posting seeks neither advice nor consolation. It simply highlights one more set of possible conflicts facing us as we experience the human condition. How is the dialectic of this conflict to be settled? Which is our thesis and which the antithesis? How can we come to our synthesis? My guess would be that both Thoreau and Sartre, perhaps the best exponent of modern Existentialism, would suggest that we live authentically. But that’s difficult in both life and fiction.
So as we living beings and our near and dear fictional characters struggle with yin and yang or Transcendentalism and Existentialism or any other opposites how are we to get to resolution? Not very easily I’d say, but that’s what makes life and fiction so interesting.
My primary source of conflict in fiction stems from reason and faith. Obviously this is not unique since throughout history many others have identified the same possibility. Recently, I read an article quoting Mathew Arnold’s analysis of the problem in which he – again almost certainly not uniquely – saw the roots of this conflict in Western Civilization deriving from Greek and Hebrew sources. He wrote the Greeks were guided by right thinking and the ancient Hebrews by right behavior - thought v. morality.
In our time in America, this conflict is playing out again and, rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have been singled out as champions of the secular and the Republicans as paladins of the religious. Sadly, Arnold saw this as a never ending battle between the two. When religion and demands for conformity and adherence to a morality based civic structure are pushed too far, the adherents of reason leap into the breach and beat back what they see as the forces of darkness. Sadly, the struggle seems always to go too far.
Similarly we see in the Muslim world today an even more powerful struggle between these forces is in flux with no winner guaranteed. For example, in Iran the struggle between the theocrats and secularists plays out dangerously before our eyes. Clearly, this is but one such conflict in the Central Civilization, and each of them has the potential to impact and even harm the rest of the world’s peoples
In writing two novels, I sought out such conflicts but was not nearly as conscious of the formality of the struggle as at this time as I am attempting manage such a battle in my latest book. Only in the last several years have have I become able to define the conflict in my own being.
Recently, I prepared a blog posting about Thoreau. Since first reading Walden more than fifty years ago, Transcendentalism has become a major element of my personal belief system, and in the last few years, I have tried to insert that outlook into my writing. Unfortunately, I’m neither a very good Transcendentalist nor much of a philosopher, so my level of understanding of the movement is limited, but, from what I gather, the men and women who developed the concept had an equally hard time agreeing among themselves.
Just as important to this posting, I have been influenced for a number of years by Existentialism. No big deal, except of course in my mind they are just about polar opposites. Thus as I and a number of my characters move confidently in the direction of our dreams, so do I and they recognize the abyss of nothingness.
Obviously, Transcendentalism is faith based – although it is far enough from mainstream Christianity to be roundly condemned by dogmatists as Godless. On the other hand Existentialism is clearly reason and secular in origin, although it’s clear that one can be both an Existentialist and a faithful Christian.
This posting seeks neither advice nor consolation. It simply highlights one more set of possible conflicts facing us as we experience the human condition. How is the dialectic of this conflict to be settled? Which is our thesis and which the antithesis? How can we come to our synthesis? My guess would be that both Thoreau and Sartre, perhaps the best exponent of modern Existentialism, would suggest that we live authentically. But that’s difficult in both life and fiction.
So as we living beings and our near and dear fictional characters struggle with yin and yang or Transcendentalism and Existentialism or any other opposites how are we to get to resolution? Not very easily I’d say, but that’s what makes life and fiction so interesting.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
I Remember Pearl Harbor
Sixty-three years ago today, planes of the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. The next day, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, addressing a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives described it as, “- a date which will live in infamy -…”
I was eight years old. My widowed mother had taken me to see a movie – I’ve long forgotten which one, and afterwards we climbed the stairs to our favorite Chinese Restaurant, the Nanking, in our hometown, Brockton, Massachusetts.
As was normal for a Sunday evening, there were few customers in the restaurant but we found it odd that a radio was being played loudly – sufficiently loud for everyone in the establishment to hear. We sat down and, despite the blaring radio, an old waiter served us as if nothing had happened. We had orders of our favorite Chinese Chop Suey. To this day, I have never encountered a recipe that was its equal.
Soon my mother began to listen carefully to the radio announcers and she ordered me to pay attention too. Most of the words meant little, but one phrase was repeated over and over again, “This means war.” Even then I had enough understanding of the language that those words coupled with my mother’s reaction, caused me to become a little alarmed.
After eating, we left for home. How we covered the mile and half escapes me. We often walked and sometimes we rode the bus. I remember vividly entering my uncle’s apartment on the first floor of our house. He was very agitated, and I solemnly told him there could be no doubt after the attack that, “This means war,” as if I understood the magnitude of my pronouncement.
In those days, my mother worked in the Brockton Public Market as a cashier. I often went in to the food store and, as a matter of course, took a long look at the “Jap” who was preparing some form of hot Oriental food. To the everlasting credit of the owner of the market – I believe he was Stanton Davis – no retribution was ever taken against this man.
Our lives were changed after December 7, 1941. My relatives and neighbors went off to war. More than a few of them never came home. By the time the conflict ended, I was almost twelve years old and had some real understanding of what had gone on.
Over the course of my life, I came to be acquainted with numerous Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent. I am pleased that the awful propaganda that I absorbed as a child left little lingering affect, and my relations with all of these people was harmonious.
Today, I am in the midst of writing a novel that I hope will shed new light and understanding on the events that occurred in the months following Pearl Harbor when Japanese aliens and their American descendants were forced from their homes on the West Coast and interned for years. This story was given little publicity when it took place.
I am pleased with the way the book is progressing and hope that it is as good as these unbelievable events deserve.
I was eight years old. My widowed mother had taken me to see a movie – I’ve long forgotten which one, and afterwards we climbed the stairs to our favorite Chinese Restaurant, the Nanking, in our hometown, Brockton, Massachusetts.
As was normal for a Sunday evening, there were few customers in the restaurant but we found it odd that a radio was being played loudly – sufficiently loud for everyone in the establishment to hear. We sat down and, despite the blaring radio, an old waiter served us as if nothing had happened. We had orders of our favorite Chinese Chop Suey. To this day, I have never encountered a recipe that was its equal.
Soon my mother began to listen carefully to the radio announcers and she ordered me to pay attention too. Most of the words meant little, but one phrase was repeated over and over again, “This means war.” Even then I had enough understanding of the language that those words coupled with my mother’s reaction, caused me to become a little alarmed.
After eating, we left for home. How we covered the mile and half escapes me. We often walked and sometimes we rode the bus. I remember vividly entering my uncle’s apartment on the first floor of our house. He was very agitated, and I solemnly told him there could be no doubt after the attack that, “This means war,” as if I understood the magnitude of my pronouncement.
In those days, my mother worked in the Brockton Public Market as a cashier. I often went in to the food store and, as a matter of course, took a long look at the “Jap” who was preparing some form of hot Oriental food. To the everlasting credit of the owner of the market – I believe he was Stanton Davis – no retribution was ever taken against this man.
Our lives were changed after December 7, 1941. My relatives and neighbors went off to war. More than a few of them never came home. By the time the conflict ended, I was almost twelve years old and had some real understanding of what had gone on.
Over the course of my life, I came to be acquainted with numerous Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent. I am pleased that the awful propaganda that I absorbed as a child left little lingering affect, and my relations with all of these people was harmonious.
Today, I am in the midst of writing a novel that I hope will shed new light and understanding on the events that occurred in the months following Pearl Harbor when Japanese aliens and their American descendants were forced from their homes on the West Coast and interned for years. This story was given little publicity when it took place.
I am pleased with the way the book is progressing and hope that it is as good as these unbelievable events deserve.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Good Guys / Bad Guys
DISCLAIMER: I was opposed to the War in Iraq from the beginning, but this paper raises an issue that has little to do with my original position and that is as much a question as an assertion.
As any nation prepares for war, a fundamental decision must be made, a decision that usually gets lost after the hostilities end. The nation must determine how it will treat the enemy population in its propaganda war. In the case of the War in Iraq, a conscious decision was made by the administration in Washington to demonize the regime and to portray the Iraqi citizens as victims of the government. The Kurds and Shiites were oppressed by Saddam and many Sunnis were as well. But today long after formal war related hostilities ceased and we are in the midst of a major insurgency, I wonder if our initial decision in the propaganda war was the correct one.
Just who are our enemies in Iraq? In the run up to war, the president and his surrogates went to great lengths to separate the Saddam’s Baathist regime from the Iraqi people as our enemies on the War on Terror. This approach has been used in other wars in our history, but when it suited American interests and purposes, presidents took the opposite tack. Thus, in Iraq, the general population was not the enemy while in Germany in W.W.II it was.
In thinking about this, it must be acknowledged that millions of Iraqis not in the government were opposed to American policy and supportive of the Saddam regime. Based on our own propaganda, it appears that they were probably – indeed almost certainly – a minority of the people. While in Hitler’s Germany millions – almost certainly a majority – favored the regime’s expansionist adventurism.
Why did we not define all Iraqis as the enemy or the German people as victims of a tyrannical regime and not our enemy? It was a matter of policy for our leaders. From afar it would appear that either approach could have been taken – at least before we knew all of the facts about the cruelties and abuses in Germany that had to have raised suspicions in that country’s general population.
Those of us old enough to remember W.W.II understand that the nation’s propaganda machine must gear up the population for what is coming and that clearly includes how we are expected to view our enemies. The German people in the run up to conflict were the enemy but they were spared the worst of our vilification which was reserved for their Nazis masters.
Quite the opposite, the Japanese people were closely linked to their leaders and all kinds of racial overtones were included in readying the Americans to fight them. Prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, we were conditioned to think negatively about the Russian communists but when Hitler turned on them we were encouraged to think about them more positively since it was likely that they would soon be our allies against the Nazis. I won’t carry that on past 1945 when we had reverse course on them once again, but it’s clear that basic government policy gets translated when we begin to treat nations or governments as adversaries.
Movies made during W.W.II about the Japanese were as crude as possible in the depiction of our enemy. On the other hand, our Chinese allies were portrayed in the kindest possible light. This heavy duality must have been confusing to members of other Oriental ethnic groups.
The basic decision of how the population will be conditioned to view the enemy is made by all warring entities. Thus, under the very cruel regime of Stalin, significant numbers Western Soviets (Ukrainians and others) were more than willing to welcome the German invaders. Hitler’s mad policies on race and ethnicity made this an impossible gesture and the Germans greeted the potential collaborators savagely.
Conversely, the Russian people who had been treated far more cruelly than even Iraqis under Saddam rallied to the cause of the motherland and repelled the Germans. Even today after the all of the exposes on the terror of the Stalin regime, older Russians look back with nostalgia to Uncle Joe, a proven monster. Should not the Russian experience have been a guide for how a repressed population might react to invaders? No matter how cruel the regime, when the country is being attacked will not the citizens react adversely to an invading or occupying force?
How does a national administration make the decision? How do they determine that when they fight a nation its people will be defined as good or bad or willing participants or victims of their leaders? It seems to me that this is a judgment call based on all kinds of factors that include the breadth of perceived popular support for the government, how that decision will influence the outcome or duration of the war, the prospects for an easier settlement when hostilities end, and so on and so forth.
A basic question to be resolved in making the call on defining the population of the likely enemy is its general support for the regime, discounting the difficulties and conflicts that are leading to the war. Another way of determining this is asking whether the regime has the `consent of the governed.’ This concept underlies the basic question and purpose of government. Clearly, while there are deep divisions within democracies such as ours, the social compact is based on such consent.
The United States by its election last month ratified the Iraq War as having the consent of the governed. Many - even most - of us may disapprove of the war. We may see it as a mistake. We may feel it hurts us in the larger War on Terror. But while the Administration knows that there is much unhappiness with this war it is also cognizant that we are backing the government and recognize that we’re all in it together. The government of the Unites States is a government of, by and for the people and operates with the consent of the governed.
The Administration and the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress know well that the War in Iraq has only nominal support and must be resolved sometime in the not too distant future or they are likely to be kicked of office as no longer having the confidence of or the consent of the citizenry.
I have not seen this debated about any war, but it must be done at some level of the government in every conflict. Obviously, its importance varies greatly, depending on the circumstances. After the war is won or lost, the question becomes a minor one since as in a losing effort such as in Germany in W.W.II the regime is destroyed and the question of how they thought about people such as the Russians is no longer material. In a winning effort, an immoral or cruel view of a defeated enemy population also gets lost in the euphoria and to history.
In Iraq, the decision by the Bush Administration was that we would define Saddam and his regime as evil and the people of the country as victims of the government. This, like every other decision was based on intelligence. There was a large Iraqi expatriate community providing input and our own and allied sources were also used. Most important was the idea that we were going to war for a wide variety of purposes, including the noble one of liberating long suffering victims of Saddam.
The decision was made and the propaganda war was set in motion. My guess, based on reading many articles and listening to many interviews was that the regime would collapse and the people of Iraq would welcome us and fall in line with the overthrow and establishment of a regime friendly to America.
In retrospect, this seems to be one of the gravest errors of the war, not because the Iraqis were not victims, not because Saddam did not have the consent of the governed, and not because we weren’t initially hated but because we were soon to be occupiers in another civilization. And in that context we are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to friends and enemies walking the streets of Baghdad..
Our troops are now in the position of not being able to find insurgents who have blended in with the general population. And, of course, since we’ve defined the vast majority of Iraqis as welcoming allies. We’ve exposed our men and women in the military to what may well be an unacceptable risk. Had we gone to war with Iraq instead of just the regime, it would be incumbent upon innocent Iraqis to self identify themselves as our friends instead of placing our troops in the unenviable position of having to pick out the enemy insurgents from the general population.
My reaction is that instead of laughing at the stupidity of the decision which almost all Americans, including late night comedians, do we should be calling for an independent investigation on whether that basic decision was properly made in good faith and not a ploy to garner public support for an ill conceived war. If the latter was the finding, then just how badly has the decision affected our pacification of Iraq and how has it endangered our troops.
Had we defined Iraq as the enemy, we could approach the centers of insurgency in a far more aggressive fashion, and it would be up to far more of the good guys to show their white hats.
I’m no expert but I’d sure like to see an examination of this question and the need to hold people accountable for making a bad decision that may be costing us more in casualties and treasure than the opposite decision would..
As any nation prepares for war, a fundamental decision must be made, a decision that usually gets lost after the hostilities end. The nation must determine how it will treat the enemy population in its propaganda war. In the case of the War in Iraq, a conscious decision was made by the administration in Washington to demonize the regime and to portray the Iraqi citizens as victims of the government. The Kurds and Shiites were oppressed by Saddam and many Sunnis were as well. But today long after formal war related hostilities ceased and we are in the midst of a major insurgency, I wonder if our initial decision in the propaganda war was the correct one.
Just who are our enemies in Iraq? In the run up to war, the president and his surrogates went to great lengths to separate the Saddam’s Baathist regime from the Iraqi people as our enemies on the War on Terror. This approach has been used in other wars in our history, but when it suited American interests and purposes, presidents took the opposite tack. Thus, in Iraq, the general population was not the enemy while in Germany in W.W.II it was.
In thinking about this, it must be acknowledged that millions of Iraqis not in the government were opposed to American policy and supportive of the Saddam regime. Based on our own propaganda, it appears that they were probably – indeed almost certainly – a minority of the people. While in Hitler’s Germany millions – almost certainly a majority – favored the regime’s expansionist adventurism.
Why did we not define all Iraqis as the enemy or the German people as victims of a tyrannical regime and not our enemy? It was a matter of policy for our leaders. From afar it would appear that either approach could have been taken – at least before we knew all of the facts about the cruelties and abuses in Germany that had to have raised suspicions in that country’s general population.
Those of us old enough to remember W.W.II understand that the nation’s propaganda machine must gear up the population for what is coming and that clearly includes how we are expected to view our enemies. The German people in the run up to conflict were the enemy but they were spared the worst of our vilification which was reserved for their Nazis masters.
Quite the opposite, the Japanese people were closely linked to their leaders and all kinds of racial overtones were included in readying the Americans to fight them. Prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, we were conditioned to think negatively about the Russian communists but when Hitler turned on them we were encouraged to think about them more positively since it was likely that they would soon be our allies against the Nazis. I won’t carry that on past 1945 when we had reverse course on them once again, but it’s clear that basic government policy gets translated when we begin to treat nations or governments as adversaries.
Movies made during W.W.II about the Japanese were as crude as possible in the depiction of our enemy. On the other hand, our Chinese allies were portrayed in the kindest possible light. This heavy duality must have been confusing to members of other Oriental ethnic groups.
The basic decision of how the population will be conditioned to view the enemy is made by all warring entities. Thus, under the very cruel regime of Stalin, significant numbers Western Soviets (Ukrainians and others) were more than willing to welcome the German invaders. Hitler’s mad policies on race and ethnicity made this an impossible gesture and the Germans greeted the potential collaborators savagely.
Conversely, the Russian people who had been treated far more cruelly than even Iraqis under Saddam rallied to the cause of the motherland and repelled the Germans. Even today after the all of the exposes on the terror of the Stalin regime, older Russians look back with nostalgia to Uncle Joe, a proven monster. Should not the Russian experience have been a guide for how a repressed population might react to invaders? No matter how cruel the regime, when the country is being attacked will not the citizens react adversely to an invading or occupying force?
How does a national administration make the decision? How do they determine that when they fight a nation its people will be defined as good or bad or willing participants or victims of their leaders? It seems to me that this is a judgment call based on all kinds of factors that include the breadth of perceived popular support for the government, how that decision will influence the outcome or duration of the war, the prospects for an easier settlement when hostilities end, and so on and so forth.
A basic question to be resolved in making the call on defining the population of the likely enemy is its general support for the regime, discounting the difficulties and conflicts that are leading to the war. Another way of determining this is asking whether the regime has the `consent of the governed.’ This concept underlies the basic question and purpose of government. Clearly, while there are deep divisions within democracies such as ours, the social compact is based on such consent.
The United States by its election last month ratified the Iraq War as having the consent of the governed. Many - even most - of us may disapprove of the war. We may see it as a mistake. We may feel it hurts us in the larger War on Terror. But while the Administration knows that there is much unhappiness with this war it is also cognizant that we are backing the government and recognize that we’re all in it together. The government of the Unites States is a government of, by and for the people and operates with the consent of the governed.
The Administration and the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress know well that the War in Iraq has only nominal support and must be resolved sometime in the not too distant future or they are likely to be kicked of office as no longer having the confidence of or the consent of the citizenry.
I have not seen this debated about any war, but it must be done at some level of the government in every conflict. Obviously, its importance varies greatly, depending on the circumstances. After the war is won or lost, the question becomes a minor one since as in a losing effort such as in Germany in W.W.II the regime is destroyed and the question of how they thought about people such as the Russians is no longer material. In a winning effort, an immoral or cruel view of a defeated enemy population also gets lost in the euphoria and to history.
In Iraq, the decision by the Bush Administration was that we would define Saddam and his regime as evil and the people of the country as victims of the government. This, like every other decision was based on intelligence. There was a large Iraqi expatriate community providing input and our own and allied sources were also used. Most important was the idea that we were going to war for a wide variety of purposes, including the noble one of liberating long suffering victims of Saddam.
The decision was made and the propaganda war was set in motion. My guess, based on reading many articles and listening to many interviews was that the regime would collapse and the people of Iraq would welcome us and fall in line with the overthrow and establishment of a regime friendly to America.
In retrospect, this seems to be one of the gravest errors of the war, not because the Iraqis were not victims, not because Saddam did not have the consent of the governed, and not because we weren’t initially hated but because we were soon to be occupiers in another civilization. And in that context we are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to friends and enemies walking the streets of Baghdad..
Our troops are now in the position of not being able to find insurgents who have blended in with the general population. And, of course, since we’ve defined the vast majority of Iraqis as welcoming allies. We’ve exposed our men and women in the military to what may well be an unacceptable risk. Had we gone to war with Iraq instead of just the regime, it would be incumbent upon innocent Iraqis to self identify themselves as our friends instead of placing our troops in the unenviable position of having to pick out the enemy insurgents from the general population.
My reaction is that instead of laughing at the stupidity of the decision which almost all Americans, including late night comedians, do we should be calling for an independent investigation on whether that basic decision was properly made in good faith and not a ploy to garner public support for an ill conceived war. If the latter was the finding, then just how badly has the decision affected our pacification of Iraq and how has it endangered our troops.
Had we defined Iraq as the enemy, we could approach the centers of insurgency in a far more aggressive fashion, and it would be up to far more of the good guys to show their white hats.
I’m no expert but I’d sure like to see an examination of this question and the need to hold people accountable for making a bad decision that may be costing us more in casualties and treasure than the opposite decision would..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)