Update from the Heartland
No.268
22.1.07 – 28.1.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.268
22.1.07 – 28.1.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Taylor and I saw Clint Eastwood's companion movie, "Letters from Iwo Jima" -- a powerful and dramatic big screen adaptation that humanizes the Japanese side of the famous battle -- a magnificent sample of movie making. Clint did an extraordinary job, using the same cinematic technology, to portray both sides of the human story that was the epic Battle of Iwo Jima. "Letters" should be seen with the opener, "Flags of Our Fathers." [193 & 254] Clint leads us to the true conclusion -- wars are not between people; they are between nations and the leaders that take them to war. Although the current war is not with a nation, we are at war with megalomaniacal men who have led ordinary men to kill. War is never good, but unfortunately, it is necessary to defend freedom and our homes.
For those who remain intrigued by and interested in the TWA 800 incident, I recommend the Discovery Channel program "Best Evidence -- TWA 800," broadcast on January 25th. The producers tried to present a balanced, informed presentation with respect to the continuing conflict between the government's public position and the most plausible scenario derived by connecting the dots. Among other key elements, they showed the details of an experiment to determine the amount of spark energy necessary to ignite a comparable fuel-air mixture existing in the Center Wing Tank (CWT) of the B747 as it took off that summer night in 1996. They started at 5 millijoules across an open spark plug and finally ignited the combustible mixture at 75 millijoules. While the experiment and result were interesting, the essential question remains, what ignited the fuel-air mixture in the CWT? The implication the government continues to espouse is high voltage on a low voltage wire causing the spark. The government's hypothesis still does not float. The program tip-toed around the political aspect and the missile scenario, and tried very hard to remain balanced and fair. The bottom line remains we still do not know the cause of the tragedy.
Our verbally challenged Commander-in-Chief gave his constitutionally mandated State of the Union report to Congress. He delivered perhaps his best speech to date – practice helps, I suppose. I was also impressed with Jim Webb’s rebuttal – his first national political speech. The freshman senator from Virginia chose his words well. Unfortunately, in wartime, we need a master of public rhetoric, but we have what we have. We need a Winston Churchill, but I would be happy with a Franklin Roosevelt or even a Harry Truman. We can hope for a better performer the next time around. I hold no illusions of transformation in the present edition. I can only say, “Let’s get ‘er done.”
Proffered State-of-the-Union comments from other contributors are provided below.
Sadly, as is so often the case with a wounded or diminished President at the end of this tenure, the vultures begin circling. The President had barely taken a breath after concluding his annual State of the Union speech, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the opening shots of what will most likely be a particularly nasty political confrontation regarding the Battle for Iraq. Senator John Warner of Virginia introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution no.4 (S.Con.R.4) that largely says the same thing as S.Con.R.2 [267], and Senator John McCain of Arizona reportedly plans to add another sense-of-Congress resolution for yet one more perspective on how the Senate thinks the Battle of Iraq should be fought. As that famous contemporary philosopher, Yogi Berra, so succinctly stated, "This is like deja vu all over again" -- same tune, different verse. For at least the next two years, our precious troops are going to be expected to bleed, while our politicians play their fiddles as Rome burns. We cannot avoid this soon-to-be-tragic episode. Unfortunately, our children's generation is now going to learn what my generation experienced 35 years ago. So, I shall grieve for our children.
This weekend, we had anti-war protests – the most publicized being in Washington, DC – in an attempt to resurrect the anti-war protests of 40 years ago. They even rolled out that old warhorse of war protesters, the traitor ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda. They lost what scintilla of credibility they may have had. So, a mounting segment of our society has chosen to take an unrealistic, impractical, and self-destructive view of the War on Islamic Fascism. Forty years ago, we were dealing with an ideology that sought to oppress a people who wished to be free. Today, we fight an enemy who seeks to kill us until we submit to their brand of Islamic theocracy. Being a free society, we have choices. We can choose to dream the impossible dream, or we can choose to face life as it is. Lastly, I must say that I would prefer to never see an unpunished traitor ever again.
Some may be asking the question, what do you propose? My recommendation, or solution depending upon your perspective, is to take the political debate private or in secrecy behind closed doors. A public debate regarding the conduct of war can only help our enemies; I see so very little good for us beyond the First Amendment self-gratification. Once Congress passed the Authorizations (2001 [--] and 2002 [50]) and the President pulled the trigger, the time for public political debate passed. Congress, as the elected representatives of the People, must voice their concerns, objections, opinions and recommendations to the President, to influence him in private; and by his actions, he moves the nation in the necessary direction. The public rancor and discord playing out in the Senate is wrong in the worst possible way. Unfortunately, Biden, Hagel and the rest are of my generation; they had the worst possible example; and now, they are repeating the mistakes of my parent’s generation. I, for one, shall not forgive them their folly.
History tells us numerous positive and negative examples regarding the consequences of war and specifically the issue we face today. The Allies did not control the ground in Germany after the Great War, and chose not to intervene when events spiraled out of control in the 1930’s. In contrast, we did control the ground in Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945 and subsequent. Independent of war, we deployed the National Guard and placed elements of the 1st Marine Division on alert to control the ground and quell the anarchy of the 1965 Watts Riot in Los Angeles. I remember vividly the Washington, DC, riots after Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968; the 82nd Airborne Division scrambled for that one. We did not control a goodly portion of the ground in Vietnam; we would “pacify” a village, and then leave, allowing the VC to return and punish the collaborators – a recipe for the disaster it became. We controlled the ground with overwhelming force in Kuwait during Operation DESERT STORM, thus allowing us to rapidly return sovereignty to Kuwait. As we have discussed numerous times, we can argue about the failures of President Bush and the current administration, or we can choose to do what needs to be done to win the peace. My opinion of the administration’s choices remains unchanged; we have insufficient ground combat troops to control the ground. I suspect the 20,000+ troops deployed mostly to Baghdad will demonstrate a positive effect in those areas they control. However, the bad guys are not stupid; they will simply re-deploy to less protected areas, assault and murder more innocent people – the classic bulging balloon scenario. The rule of law must take root in Iraq, not revenge at the barrel of a gun. An iron fist may be required until the sectarian passions are reined in and squelched.
I would like to end this edition with one particular thought. As I have reflected numerous times in this forum, war is an ugly, nasty, disgusting and revolting business, best left to the realm of last resort. However, I must add that war is not the worst condition of mankind; that infamy rests with oppression, subjugation and the void of freedom that comes to all peoples who lose their will to defend Liberty. I can only hope we are not repeating the tragedy – Il fini de Pax Romana.
Comments on the President's State of the Union speech:
"I am sure you watched this evening's address and the response from Jim Webb. George Bush's speech may have been the best I have witnessed from our verbally challenged CinC.
"Ultimately, he cannot fight the reality of Iraqi incompetence to defend ordinary Iraqis against the divisions among the population fomented by Hussein and the protection of innocent Iraqi citizens against escalating ethnic and religious hatred brought to fruition by the American invasion.
"You repeat over and over an observation that the will of the American people lies at the core of success in Iraq. You are mistaken. Only the will of the Iraqi people can turn the tide. As I have said before, democracy cannot be imposed through the barrel of a gun. Mao, rightly pronounced that revolution comes through the end of a gun. But democracy? Never.
"I wish George Bush well in this effort. More importantly, I hope that whatever casualties incurred by Americans and Iraqis alike will be worth the surge. I suspect it is too little, too late, and the American people and the inhabitants of the Middle East will be paying a price for our mistakes for a long time to come.
"Throughout the Middle East, there are rumblings from heads of state about developing nuclear weapons to counter the instability the United States has created. Is this a positive result of the war against terrorism? We may very well reap the whirlwind as a result of our liberation of Iraq. And the living shall envy the dead."
My reply:
You will find no disagreement with me. I have focused my remarks on the will of the American People, because that is who we are. I cannot speak for and do not presume to know the will of the Iraqi people.
As you so accurately note, democracy can only come from the desire of any people to live in peace, to respect one another based on equality, and to accept the rule of law. We like to think of ourselves as the beacon of democracy, and yet the force of arms is woven into the fabric of this Grand Republic – the War of Independence, just to gain our Unalienable Rights; Shay’s Rebellion, a serious challenge to the fledgling and evolving democracy; and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the War between the States. I have faith – perhaps blind faith – that the Iraqi people are just like all other people I have known in my world travels; they want to live in peace, to prosper, to have a safe environment for their children to mature. Our military force is not there for and cannot provide democracy, but they can provide security, just as we did in 1919 and 1946. I believe, perhaps erroneously, that the violence we see is the product of a willful minority, not of the much larger majority.
I have been and continue to be critical of the President regarding our efforts to win the peace. I fear the “too little, too late” hypothesis. My concern for the will of the American People rests on the energy to do what must be done to win the peace. I have tried to articulate from the beginning that we were entering a long war – a generational war, perhaps a war of many generations. The President’s task is, and remains, the mobilization and coalescence of the People to do what must be done to defeat the enemies who threaten us. [I chose those words intentionally. I do not worry about Hugo Chavez; I do worry about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il.]
Nuclear weaponry in the hands of rabid radicals is not an acceptable or stable state. I know what must be done. I have no confidence the UN has the capacity to do what must be done.
. . . along with this follow-up:
“Indeed, this nation's history is inextricably linked to the use of "force of arms" to defend, protect and/or expand all of the liberal principles expounded from the Mayflower Compact on. But I don't see the connection in the examples you cite to the situation in Iraq. All of your examples are purely American conflicts and eventuated in the strengthening of our unique and perhaps unreplicable system.
“Michael Oakeshott, who was probably the preeminent philosopher of British conservatism in the 20th century, warned against imposing the political ideals and institutions of one country whose experience and culture brought civil society to those precepts onto another country whose experience and culture were entirely different. He rejected the hubris of "nation builders" as an exercise in futile and dangerous egomania. Those who attempt to do so often believe they are the only persons with the intellectual qualifications to dismantle public institutions and rebuild them in a more efficient form.
“Iraq's political maturation (under the criteria established by Weber and Huntington) has been stunted by centuries of colonization and brutality. The American presence in Iraq and the foolish policies pursued by this administration only exacerbate those conditions which militate against a secure and stable environment in which political growth can occur.
“The battle of Iraq, as you term it, does nothing to advance the war on terrorism. We have only added fuel to a smoldering conflagration, and in doing so, have exhausted resources on every level that are crucial to any semblance of success against Islamic fascism.
“At present, democracy as Americans understand the system is unworkable in the Islamic Middle East. Democracy, in any case, is only a means to an end, not a first principle in the parlance of Aristotle. What Iraq requires is a benevolent dictator, someone who takes into account fully the needs of all Iraqis and who can stand up to the United States and evict us from the country.”
. . . and my follow-up:
My use of historic examples points to one inviolate axiom – the political process depends directly upon control of the ground, i.e., security and safety. After 1.May.2003, the military offensive mission ended – Mission Accomplished. What should have happened after the Saddam regime was deposed? Sufficient military and police forces should have been deployed to every village, hamlet and city in Iraq, to swiftly and violently eradicate those individuals and groups intent upon disrupting the transition process. We should have closed and controlled the borders. Further, we should have taken a far more aggressive economic recovery path – the modern Marshall Plan, as we have discussed. And lastly, we should have taken a more deliberate and methodical process to help the Iraqis learn and stand up. What made the administration think the Iraqis were going to be significantly more efficient and successful than the Germans, Italians or Japanese?
I am not and never have been an advocate of “nation building.” I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Imposing anything – democracy or otherwise – on anyone is a bad thing; in fact, I cannot think of one good example. The administration moved too fast through the return to sovereignty phase and opened themselves to valid criticism regarding accusations of imposing democracy.
I do not agree regarding the Battle of Iraq. I do not agree that democracy is unworkable in the Middle East. Nonetheless, a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. Unfortunately, men are frail entities who oh so often succumb to the seduction of power, and once contaminated, their benevolence evaporates. If the Iraqis people freely and openly chose a benevolent dictatorship, then I would be fine with it, just as I would have accepted communism, if the South Vietnamese people freely chose to embrace communism. Likewise, I would accept a Shia theocracy if the Iraqi people freely chose that form of government; I would not like it, but I would accept it. I advocated for a slower process, to allow the Iraqis to learn about freedom, about democracy, about self-governance, but none of that could have happened without security on the ground.
Another opinion:
"I saw most of it. I bet GW hated to have to do this address this time because he knew he would not be accepted, and would then be trashed by the Dems. He was. And the American people were, I think, more with the Dems, than GW. Very sad, and very bad news for the 2008 elections. My opinion.
"Bush is in the toilet, and he got Himself there. Unfortunately, he takes a lot of people with him, including military folks who are having to fight his war. They will fight on, though maybe just for their buddies next to them -- something which has Always been in wars. But for Bush, his policies? Fight for him? No. The Active duty Generals and Admirals may hesitate to disagree with their President, but I bet ALL do.
"Not may flag rank officers nowadays are willing to put their own careers in the trash can by openly opposing the Administration. SUCH stuff is left almost always to the recently retired Generals and Admirals. They are safe---as far as pensions, etc are concerned. Many speak out in various forums."That's how it goes in Washington, D.C.
"Both Bushes -- Sr. & Jr. -- have screwed themselves politically because they did not really listen to the pulse of America when they needed to. It cost Bush Sr. a second term. That gave us Clinton. Bad enough. OK. Survivable though. Even though 8 years."It has perhaps cost Bush Jr. a whole 'nother 4 or 8 years of Democratic Party dominance. A much bigger blunder this time I think! That could Really do America in. Think of Hillary as Pres, or Obama. Or any Democrat running. Other than maybe Guliani who has no world experience. Same for most Republican hopefuls. Exception maybe McCain.
"Think of what the Dems have always stood for and now will be able to do. Or what the Republicans have always promised but rarely done.
"Politics is a nasty business, suited only for those who have a glib tongue and want power, $$$, position, etc. Not a place for Ordinary people. But in the beginning it was envisioned by our forefathers that ordinary folks might take some time out of their lives to serve the country. Then go back home. It didn't work out that way. As we too well know."It's sad, and it's scary -- to me at least."
Comments and contributions from Update no.267:
"We have had an interesting development here in SD that seems to be spreading to the rest of the country. Our local U.S. Atty, Ms. Lam has been forced out after a highly successful tour of duty. She basically "got" Rep. Randy Cunningham and the underlying rumors have the current administration going after her for opening that Pandora’s Box. I have read of other 'resignations' in the U.S. Attorney positions but I haven't seen anyone in the national press picking up on this possibly disturbing rumor.
"Any knowledge?"
My reply:
Short answer, no; I’ve not heard anything. I would be suspicious in that vindictive retribution is a rather risky proposition, e.g., Nixon’s infamous 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. That said, I would not put it passed this administration to attempt such a foolish endeavor. I’ll poke around to see what I can turn up.
My follow-up contribution:
Senator Diane Feinstein of California rose on the floor of the Senate this week to illuminate this curious occurrence within the Justice Department. It seems as many as ten U.S. attorneys, apparently in the West mostly, have been asked to leave or have left their posts in short order. Among those affected U.S. attorneys are:
Carol Lam of San Diego (extracted guilty plea from “Duke” Cunningham),
Kevin Ryan of San Francisco (investigating numerous stock-options backdating cases),
Daniel Bogden of Nevada,
David Iglesias of New Mexico,
Paul Charlton of Arizona,
John McKay of Seattle,
along with perhaps four additional U.S. attorneys, as yet unidentified, in similar circumstances. Whether they were fired, left by their choice, or just coincidence is unknown, as yet. Nonetheless, the occurrence is quite odd. I hope the Press and/or the Bloggers can illuminate the details and help us connect the dots. If this is W’s version of the Saturday Night Massacre, the bill will come due, as it usually does. While the President as well as any employer has the right to dismiss employees for whatever reason they wish, the consequences for those in public service, especially those elected by the People, are usually quite unforgiving. These departures may well be coincidental, but there are more than a few oddities. This administration has chosen to do the People’s business with a greater amount of secrecy and opacity than other administrations, and as a result, they have left themselves open to charges of arrogance, unilateral action, vindictiveness, and highly biased conduct. While I have not seen anything illegal as yet, the implications of impropriety are strong.
Another contribution:
Re: “Maybe Bush Has Found His Gen. Grant” by Sgt. Michael Hall, published Thursday, January 11, 2007.
“That is a well written piece. Not sure I totally agree with every nuance of it, but close. Several things hit me. We need Lt’s on the ground leading troops in combat, not more senior staff officers out to get some more ribbons. We need Iraqis with jobs too, as the man says.
“The writer puts a lot of faith in LtGen Peteraus, but from what I've seen in what little I do know about that General, he may actually be just the man for the job. At least he did not shy away from it, as many career minded Generals might have and perhaps/probably Did do. He has the knowledge, background, experience and on the ground combat experience to do it -- if anyone can. Very big IF!!
“The American Congress, and more and more the American people themselves may make it impossible for him. Shades of Vietnam all over again.
“Dejavue. God that is sad. I hate dejavues!
“It means to Me that we had the opportunity to learn from past experience and did not!
“I'm sure I could comment more but will not here. Except to repeat that now very old more or less quote from Somebody that said basically that ‘Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.’
“Study History, my friends. And Geopolitics, Geography, Sociology, Languages, Logic, Math, and Psychology. Among many Other disciplines I do not name here.
“You can't learn them all of course. But you CAN get a bit of knowledge in most if not all of them.“They used to call THAT a classical education. And it's a good one! Prepares you in a basic way for almost Anything in life.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Taylor and I saw Clint Eastwood's companion movie, "Letters from Iwo Jima" -- a powerful and dramatic big screen adaptation that humanizes the Japanese side of the famous battle -- a magnificent sample of movie making. Clint did an extraordinary job, using the same cinematic technology, to portray both sides of the human story that was the epic Battle of Iwo Jima. "Letters" should be seen with the opener, "Flags of Our Fathers." [193 & 254] Clint leads us to the true conclusion -- wars are not between people; they are between nations and the leaders that take them to war. Although the current war is not with a nation, we are at war with megalomaniacal men who have led ordinary men to kill. War is never good, but unfortunately, it is necessary to defend freedom and our homes.
For those who remain intrigued by and interested in the TWA 800 incident, I recommend the Discovery Channel program "Best Evidence -- TWA 800," broadcast on January 25th. The producers tried to present a balanced, informed presentation with respect to the continuing conflict between the government's public position and the most plausible scenario derived by connecting the dots. Among other key elements, they showed the details of an experiment to determine the amount of spark energy necessary to ignite a comparable fuel-air mixture existing in the Center Wing Tank (CWT) of the B747 as it took off that summer night in 1996. They started at 5 millijoules across an open spark plug and finally ignited the combustible mixture at 75 millijoules. While the experiment and result were interesting, the essential question remains, what ignited the fuel-air mixture in the CWT? The implication the government continues to espouse is high voltage on a low voltage wire causing the spark. The government's hypothesis still does not float. The program tip-toed around the political aspect and the missile scenario, and tried very hard to remain balanced and fair. The bottom line remains we still do not know the cause of the tragedy.
Our verbally challenged Commander-in-Chief gave his constitutionally mandated State of the Union report to Congress. He delivered perhaps his best speech to date – practice helps, I suppose. I was also impressed with Jim Webb’s rebuttal – his first national political speech. The freshman senator from Virginia chose his words well. Unfortunately, in wartime, we need a master of public rhetoric, but we have what we have. We need a Winston Churchill, but I would be happy with a Franklin Roosevelt or even a Harry Truman. We can hope for a better performer the next time around. I hold no illusions of transformation in the present edition. I can only say, “Let’s get ‘er done.”
Proffered State-of-the-Union comments from other contributors are provided below.
Sadly, as is so often the case with a wounded or diminished President at the end of this tenure, the vultures begin circling. The President had barely taken a breath after concluding his annual State of the Union speech, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the opening shots of what will most likely be a particularly nasty political confrontation regarding the Battle for Iraq. Senator John Warner of Virginia introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution no.4 (S.Con.R.4) that largely says the same thing as S.Con.R.2 [267], and Senator John McCain of Arizona reportedly plans to add another sense-of-Congress resolution for yet one more perspective on how the Senate thinks the Battle of Iraq should be fought. As that famous contemporary philosopher, Yogi Berra, so succinctly stated, "This is like deja vu all over again" -- same tune, different verse. For at least the next two years, our precious troops are going to be expected to bleed, while our politicians play their fiddles as Rome burns. We cannot avoid this soon-to-be-tragic episode. Unfortunately, our children's generation is now going to learn what my generation experienced 35 years ago. So, I shall grieve for our children.
This weekend, we had anti-war protests – the most publicized being in Washington, DC – in an attempt to resurrect the anti-war protests of 40 years ago. They even rolled out that old warhorse of war protesters, the traitor ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda. They lost what scintilla of credibility they may have had. So, a mounting segment of our society has chosen to take an unrealistic, impractical, and self-destructive view of the War on Islamic Fascism. Forty years ago, we were dealing with an ideology that sought to oppress a people who wished to be free. Today, we fight an enemy who seeks to kill us until we submit to their brand of Islamic theocracy. Being a free society, we have choices. We can choose to dream the impossible dream, or we can choose to face life as it is. Lastly, I must say that I would prefer to never see an unpunished traitor ever again.
Some may be asking the question, what do you propose? My recommendation, or solution depending upon your perspective, is to take the political debate private or in secrecy behind closed doors. A public debate regarding the conduct of war can only help our enemies; I see so very little good for us beyond the First Amendment self-gratification. Once Congress passed the Authorizations (2001 [--] and 2002 [50]) and the President pulled the trigger, the time for public political debate passed. Congress, as the elected representatives of the People, must voice their concerns, objections, opinions and recommendations to the President, to influence him in private; and by his actions, he moves the nation in the necessary direction. The public rancor and discord playing out in the Senate is wrong in the worst possible way. Unfortunately, Biden, Hagel and the rest are of my generation; they had the worst possible example; and now, they are repeating the mistakes of my parent’s generation. I, for one, shall not forgive them their folly.
History tells us numerous positive and negative examples regarding the consequences of war and specifically the issue we face today. The Allies did not control the ground in Germany after the Great War, and chose not to intervene when events spiraled out of control in the 1930’s. In contrast, we did control the ground in Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945 and subsequent. Independent of war, we deployed the National Guard and placed elements of the 1st Marine Division on alert to control the ground and quell the anarchy of the 1965 Watts Riot in Los Angeles. I remember vividly the Washington, DC, riots after Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968; the 82nd Airborne Division scrambled for that one. We did not control a goodly portion of the ground in Vietnam; we would “pacify” a village, and then leave, allowing the VC to return and punish the collaborators – a recipe for the disaster it became. We controlled the ground with overwhelming force in Kuwait during Operation DESERT STORM, thus allowing us to rapidly return sovereignty to Kuwait. As we have discussed numerous times, we can argue about the failures of President Bush and the current administration, or we can choose to do what needs to be done to win the peace. My opinion of the administration’s choices remains unchanged; we have insufficient ground combat troops to control the ground. I suspect the 20,000+ troops deployed mostly to Baghdad will demonstrate a positive effect in those areas they control. However, the bad guys are not stupid; they will simply re-deploy to less protected areas, assault and murder more innocent people – the classic bulging balloon scenario. The rule of law must take root in Iraq, not revenge at the barrel of a gun. An iron fist may be required until the sectarian passions are reined in and squelched.
I would like to end this edition with one particular thought. As I have reflected numerous times in this forum, war is an ugly, nasty, disgusting and revolting business, best left to the realm of last resort. However, I must add that war is not the worst condition of mankind; that infamy rests with oppression, subjugation and the void of freedom that comes to all peoples who lose their will to defend Liberty. I can only hope we are not repeating the tragedy – Il fini de Pax Romana.
Comments on the President's State of the Union speech:
"I am sure you watched this evening's address and the response from Jim Webb. George Bush's speech may have been the best I have witnessed from our verbally challenged CinC.
"Ultimately, he cannot fight the reality of Iraqi incompetence to defend ordinary Iraqis against the divisions among the population fomented by Hussein and the protection of innocent Iraqi citizens against escalating ethnic and religious hatred brought to fruition by the American invasion.
"You repeat over and over an observation that the will of the American people lies at the core of success in Iraq. You are mistaken. Only the will of the Iraqi people can turn the tide. As I have said before, democracy cannot be imposed through the barrel of a gun. Mao, rightly pronounced that revolution comes through the end of a gun. But democracy? Never.
"I wish George Bush well in this effort. More importantly, I hope that whatever casualties incurred by Americans and Iraqis alike will be worth the surge. I suspect it is too little, too late, and the American people and the inhabitants of the Middle East will be paying a price for our mistakes for a long time to come.
"Throughout the Middle East, there are rumblings from heads of state about developing nuclear weapons to counter the instability the United States has created. Is this a positive result of the war against terrorism? We may very well reap the whirlwind as a result of our liberation of Iraq. And the living shall envy the dead."
My reply:
You will find no disagreement with me. I have focused my remarks on the will of the American People, because that is who we are. I cannot speak for and do not presume to know the will of the Iraqi people.
As you so accurately note, democracy can only come from the desire of any people to live in peace, to respect one another based on equality, and to accept the rule of law. We like to think of ourselves as the beacon of democracy, and yet the force of arms is woven into the fabric of this Grand Republic – the War of Independence, just to gain our Unalienable Rights; Shay’s Rebellion, a serious challenge to the fledgling and evolving democracy; and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the War between the States. I have faith – perhaps blind faith – that the Iraqi people are just like all other people I have known in my world travels; they want to live in peace, to prosper, to have a safe environment for their children to mature. Our military force is not there for and cannot provide democracy, but they can provide security, just as we did in 1919 and 1946. I believe, perhaps erroneously, that the violence we see is the product of a willful minority, not of the much larger majority.
I have been and continue to be critical of the President regarding our efforts to win the peace. I fear the “too little, too late” hypothesis. My concern for the will of the American People rests on the energy to do what must be done to win the peace. I have tried to articulate from the beginning that we were entering a long war – a generational war, perhaps a war of many generations. The President’s task is, and remains, the mobilization and coalescence of the People to do what must be done to defeat the enemies who threaten us. [I chose those words intentionally. I do not worry about Hugo Chavez; I do worry about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il.]
Nuclear weaponry in the hands of rabid radicals is not an acceptable or stable state. I know what must be done. I have no confidence the UN has the capacity to do what must be done.
. . . along with this follow-up:
“Indeed, this nation's history is inextricably linked to the use of "force of arms" to defend, protect and/or expand all of the liberal principles expounded from the Mayflower Compact on. But I don't see the connection in the examples you cite to the situation in Iraq. All of your examples are purely American conflicts and eventuated in the strengthening of our unique and perhaps unreplicable system.
“Michael Oakeshott, who was probably the preeminent philosopher of British conservatism in the 20th century, warned against imposing the political ideals and institutions of one country whose experience and culture brought civil society to those precepts onto another country whose experience and culture were entirely different. He rejected the hubris of "nation builders" as an exercise in futile and dangerous egomania. Those who attempt to do so often believe they are the only persons with the intellectual qualifications to dismantle public institutions and rebuild them in a more efficient form.
“Iraq's political maturation (under the criteria established by Weber and Huntington) has been stunted by centuries of colonization and brutality. The American presence in Iraq and the foolish policies pursued by this administration only exacerbate those conditions which militate against a secure and stable environment in which political growth can occur.
“The battle of Iraq, as you term it, does nothing to advance the war on terrorism. We have only added fuel to a smoldering conflagration, and in doing so, have exhausted resources on every level that are crucial to any semblance of success against Islamic fascism.
“At present, democracy as Americans understand the system is unworkable in the Islamic Middle East. Democracy, in any case, is only a means to an end, not a first principle in the parlance of Aristotle. What Iraq requires is a benevolent dictator, someone who takes into account fully the needs of all Iraqis and who can stand up to the United States and evict us from the country.”
. . . and my follow-up:
My use of historic examples points to one inviolate axiom – the political process depends directly upon control of the ground, i.e., security and safety. After 1.May.2003, the military offensive mission ended – Mission Accomplished. What should have happened after the Saddam regime was deposed? Sufficient military and police forces should have been deployed to every village, hamlet and city in Iraq, to swiftly and violently eradicate those individuals and groups intent upon disrupting the transition process. We should have closed and controlled the borders. Further, we should have taken a far more aggressive economic recovery path – the modern Marshall Plan, as we have discussed. And lastly, we should have taken a more deliberate and methodical process to help the Iraqis learn and stand up. What made the administration think the Iraqis were going to be significantly more efficient and successful than the Germans, Italians or Japanese?
I am not and never have been an advocate of “nation building.” I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Imposing anything – democracy or otherwise – on anyone is a bad thing; in fact, I cannot think of one good example. The administration moved too fast through the return to sovereignty phase and opened themselves to valid criticism regarding accusations of imposing democracy.
I do not agree regarding the Battle of Iraq. I do not agree that democracy is unworkable in the Middle East. Nonetheless, a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. Unfortunately, men are frail entities who oh so often succumb to the seduction of power, and once contaminated, their benevolence evaporates. If the Iraqis people freely and openly chose a benevolent dictatorship, then I would be fine with it, just as I would have accepted communism, if the South Vietnamese people freely chose to embrace communism. Likewise, I would accept a Shia theocracy if the Iraqi people freely chose that form of government; I would not like it, but I would accept it. I advocated for a slower process, to allow the Iraqis to learn about freedom, about democracy, about self-governance, but none of that could have happened without security on the ground.
Another opinion:
"I saw most of it. I bet GW hated to have to do this address this time because he knew he would not be accepted, and would then be trashed by the Dems. He was. And the American people were, I think, more with the Dems, than GW. Very sad, and very bad news for the 2008 elections. My opinion.
"Bush is in the toilet, and he got Himself there. Unfortunately, he takes a lot of people with him, including military folks who are having to fight his war. They will fight on, though maybe just for their buddies next to them -- something which has Always been in wars. But for Bush, his policies? Fight for him? No. The Active duty Generals and Admirals may hesitate to disagree with their President, but I bet ALL do.
"Not may flag rank officers nowadays are willing to put their own careers in the trash can by openly opposing the Administration. SUCH stuff is left almost always to the recently retired Generals and Admirals. They are safe---as far as pensions, etc are concerned. Many speak out in various forums."That's how it goes in Washington, D.C.
"Both Bushes -- Sr. & Jr. -- have screwed themselves politically because they did not really listen to the pulse of America when they needed to. It cost Bush Sr. a second term. That gave us Clinton. Bad enough. OK. Survivable though. Even though 8 years."It has perhaps cost Bush Jr. a whole 'nother 4 or 8 years of Democratic Party dominance. A much bigger blunder this time I think! That could Really do America in. Think of Hillary as Pres, or Obama. Or any Democrat running. Other than maybe Guliani who has no world experience. Same for most Republican hopefuls. Exception maybe McCain.
"Think of what the Dems have always stood for and now will be able to do. Or what the Republicans have always promised but rarely done.
"Politics is a nasty business, suited only for those who have a glib tongue and want power, $$$, position, etc. Not a place for Ordinary people. But in the beginning it was envisioned by our forefathers that ordinary folks might take some time out of their lives to serve the country. Then go back home. It didn't work out that way. As we too well know."It's sad, and it's scary -- to me at least."
Comments and contributions from Update no.267:
"We have had an interesting development here in SD that seems to be spreading to the rest of the country. Our local U.S. Atty, Ms. Lam has been forced out after a highly successful tour of duty. She basically "got" Rep. Randy Cunningham and the underlying rumors have the current administration going after her for opening that Pandora’s Box. I have read of other 'resignations' in the U.S. Attorney positions but I haven't seen anyone in the national press picking up on this possibly disturbing rumor.
"Any knowledge?"
My reply:
Short answer, no; I’ve not heard anything. I would be suspicious in that vindictive retribution is a rather risky proposition, e.g., Nixon’s infamous 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. That said, I would not put it passed this administration to attempt such a foolish endeavor. I’ll poke around to see what I can turn up.
My follow-up contribution:
Senator Diane Feinstein of California rose on the floor of the Senate this week to illuminate this curious occurrence within the Justice Department. It seems as many as ten U.S. attorneys, apparently in the West mostly, have been asked to leave or have left their posts in short order. Among those affected U.S. attorneys are:
Carol Lam of San Diego (extracted guilty plea from “Duke” Cunningham),
Kevin Ryan of San Francisco (investigating numerous stock-options backdating cases),
Daniel Bogden of Nevada,
David Iglesias of New Mexico,
Paul Charlton of Arizona,
John McKay of Seattle,
along with perhaps four additional U.S. attorneys, as yet unidentified, in similar circumstances. Whether they were fired, left by their choice, or just coincidence is unknown, as yet. Nonetheless, the occurrence is quite odd. I hope the Press and/or the Bloggers can illuminate the details and help us connect the dots. If this is W’s version of the Saturday Night Massacre, the bill will come due, as it usually does. While the President as well as any employer has the right to dismiss employees for whatever reason they wish, the consequences for those in public service, especially those elected by the People, are usually quite unforgiving. These departures may well be coincidental, but there are more than a few oddities. This administration has chosen to do the People’s business with a greater amount of secrecy and opacity than other administrations, and as a result, they have left themselves open to charges of arrogance, unilateral action, vindictiveness, and highly biased conduct. While I have not seen anything illegal as yet, the implications of impropriety are strong.
Another contribution:
Re: “Maybe Bush Has Found His Gen. Grant” by Sgt. Michael Hall, published Thursday, January 11, 2007.
“That is a well written piece. Not sure I totally agree with every nuance of it, but close. Several things hit me. We need Lt’s on the ground leading troops in combat, not more senior staff officers out to get some more ribbons. We need Iraqis with jobs too, as the man says.
“The writer puts a lot of faith in LtGen Peteraus, but from what I've seen in what little I do know about that General, he may actually be just the man for the job. At least he did not shy away from it, as many career minded Generals might have and perhaps/probably Did do. He has the knowledge, background, experience and on the ground combat experience to do it -- if anyone can. Very big IF!!
“The American Congress, and more and more the American people themselves may make it impossible for him. Shades of Vietnam all over again.
“Dejavue. God that is sad. I hate dejavues!
“It means to Me that we had the opportunity to learn from past experience and did not!
“I'm sure I could comment more but will not here. Except to repeat that now very old more or less quote from Somebody that said basically that ‘Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.’
“Study History, my friends. And Geopolitics, Geography, Sociology, Languages, Logic, Math, and Psychology. Among many Other disciplines I do not name here.
“You can't learn them all of course. But you CAN get a bit of knowledge in most if not all of them.“They used to call THAT a classical education. And it's a good one! Prepares you in a basic way for almost Anything in life.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment