Update from the Heartland
No.333
21.4.08 – 27.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.333
21.4.08 – 27.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President has appointed General David Howell Petraeus, USA (USMA 1974) – Commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (CMNF-I) [301] – to replace Admiral Fallon, who resigned last month [327], as Commander-in-Chief, Central Command. The interim and acting CinC CentCom was Fallon’s deputy, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, USA (USMA 1974), probably ending his career. The President has also appointed Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, USA (USMA 1976), for promotion to replace Petraeus as CMNF-I.
-- The King of Clubs on America's 'deck of cards' most-wanted list of Saddam's cronies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the vice-chairman of Saddam's Ba'ath Party, has apparently and finally been captured. Hopefully, he shall meet his fate as the other's have.
-- The State of Texas increased the count of children removed from the YFZ Ranch from 416 [332] to 462 -- the additions being underage mothers. Apparently, the state intends to prosecute the lifestyle . . . beyond just the protection of the children. There will be many facets to this case. Was the search of the YFZ Ranch legal and constitutional? The state violated the most fundamental of a citizen's rights -- privacy. Thus, the essence of the argument will boil down to what were the legitimate and proper interests of the State in exceeding the fundamental right to privacy of those families -- therein lies the debate.
Several news sources referred to a paper from the National Defense University regarding the decision-making process involved in the Battle for Iraq.
“Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath”
by Joseph J. Collins
Institute for National Strategic Studies; National Defense University
Occasional Paper 5, published: April 2008
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
Collins provides a different view of the process, but limited in scope and quite shallow in depth. The best impartial assessment of the run-up and early years of the Battle for Iraq remains Thomas E. Ricks’ Fiasco – The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006). The Collins paper dealt with the mechanics of the Battle for Iraq without addressing the bedrock foundational issues. We are still missing critical insight into the most basic elements.
1. Mobilization of the People for war – Without the broad support of the People, the President has limited warfighting capability. To fight a global war successively, or even a hot regional war, the economic resources of the Nation must be focused on the logistics of the endeavor. Such focus requires sacrifice at multiple levels, e.g., specific metals like aluminum, titanium and some steels could be diverted to defense purposes, making some materials less or not available for commercial production. Rationing might be necessary to ensure remaining non-defense resources are fairly distributed.
2. Coalition wartime government – Special, unique procedures need to be implemented within the Federal and state governments to allow for critical functions while presenting a united front to the enemy. Dissent, debate, and critical review are vital, essential aspects of any democracy; yet, carrying out those processes in public in wartime hurts the national interests of this Grand Republic.
The follow-up news items:
-- The President has appointed General David Howell Petraeus, USA (USMA 1974) – Commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (CMNF-I) [301] – to replace Admiral Fallon, who resigned last month [327], as Commander-in-Chief, Central Command. The interim and acting CinC CentCom was Fallon’s deputy, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, USA (USMA 1974), probably ending his career. The President has also appointed Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, USA (USMA 1976), for promotion to replace Petraeus as CMNF-I.
-- The King of Clubs on America's 'deck of cards' most-wanted list of Saddam's cronies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the vice-chairman of Saddam's Ba'ath Party, has apparently and finally been captured. Hopefully, he shall meet his fate as the other's have.
-- The State of Texas increased the count of children removed from the YFZ Ranch from 416 [332] to 462 -- the additions being underage mothers. Apparently, the state intends to prosecute the lifestyle . . . beyond just the protection of the children. There will be many facets to this case. Was the search of the YFZ Ranch legal and constitutional? The state violated the most fundamental of a citizen's rights -- privacy. Thus, the essence of the argument will boil down to what were the legitimate and proper interests of the State in exceeding the fundamental right to privacy of those families -- therein lies the debate.
Several news sources referred to a paper from the National Defense University regarding the decision-making process involved in the Battle for Iraq.
“Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath”
by Joseph J. Collins
Institute for National Strategic Studies; National Defense University
Occasional Paper 5, published: April 2008
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
Collins provides a different view of the process, but limited in scope and quite shallow in depth. The best impartial assessment of the run-up and early years of the Battle for Iraq remains Thomas E. Ricks’ Fiasco – The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006). The Collins paper dealt with the mechanics of the Battle for Iraq without addressing the bedrock foundational issues. We are still missing critical insight into the most basic elements.
1. Mobilization of the People for war – Without the broad support of the People, the President has limited warfighting capability. To fight a global war successively, or even a hot regional war, the economic resources of the Nation must be focused on the logistics of the endeavor. Such focus requires sacrifice at multiple levels, e.g., specific metals like aluminum, titanium and some steels could be diverted to defense purposes, making some materials less or not available for commercial production. Rationing might be necessary to ensure remaining non-defense resources are fairly distributed.
2. Coalition wartime government – Special, unique procedures need to be implemented within the Federal and state governments to allow for critical functions while presenting a united front to the enemy. Dissent, debate, and critical review are vital, essential aspects of any democracy; yet, carrying out those processes in public in wartime hurts the national interests of this Grand Republic.
3. Declaration of war – Perhaps, the single most influential missing link in the War on Islamic Fascism remains the President’s failure to seek and the Congress to pass a full and proper declaration of war in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, leaving an extraordinary amount of ambiguity. The uncertainty made the President's task as Commander-in-Chief exceptionally more difficult and created a societal environment where the not-so-loyal opposition quite easily placed partisan party politics above defeating a determined enemy of the Nation and killers of innocent American citizens.
4. Preparation of the international community – Every nation needs allies . . . for support, for intelligence, for contributions, for leverage, for resources, and for all the other things needed to wage war successfully. Winston Churchill espoused a united Europe a decade before the conflagration. Franklin Roosevelt articulated the basis of a free, world community before the United States was forcibly drawn into the war. Both men took the long view and described a peaceful future – a societal objective beyond the sacrifice of war.
These are some of the broader foundational, societal elements of wage war successfully that have been missing from our current endeavor. These are the President’s tasks – no one else’s. If the President had been unsuccessful with any of those foundational elements, then the justification for war was not sufficient. We could have allowed the radical, fundamentalist jihadistanis to continue to attack until they accomplished something of sufficient magnitude to coalesce the American People and the international community. Collins focuses on the mechanics and misses the President’s role and consequences.
One last observation stimulated by the Collins paper involved learning. The military has long held an institutional process that constantly strives to learn. They try to learn what worked and what did not work. The National Command Authority encounters a far more difficult, complex and resistive learning process . . . politicians changes, political appointees change with them, and institutional learning is not an inherent function. Collins tickles the need. His last major section is titled, “Improving the National Security Decisionmaking and Execution Systems” – a reasonable attempt. Nonetheless, he fails to address the President’s role and bedrock elements, and yet the Collins paper is worth the effort.
A timely, companion piece for your consideration:
“The War on Terror Is Not a Crime”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 25, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908451409543573.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
A name we most likely will hear again . . . Ben-Ami Kadish, 84, an American citizen, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. Some have likened Kadish's alleged betrayal of his country to that of Jonathan Pollard [21.11.1985] -- the convicted spy for Israel. Apparently, the FBI was convinced Pollard was not alone; it took them 27 years to find another traitor, or at least one of the them. A traitor is a traitor.
Continuing extended comments from Update no.330:
“I believe possibly, that part of the psychology with the Iranians to call off war with Iraq was the threat of either initial or further use of chemicals by Saddam. I understand Saddam did launch inert rockets/missiles/scuds into Teheran. The sense of danger was extreme as the Iranians were not sure if the next volley might contain chemical weapons into the nation's capital...obviously a potential large loss of life with the Persian populace, something unacceptable for them. Again, I am not certain of this.
“Yes, I agree. I believe PA#103 was very likely an Iranian (Hezbollah?) retaliation, or Libyan blowback. I suppose most experts would support either vector. I use to have a great friend (he has passed on) who was a Clipper B747 captain and by luck, not in charge of PA#103 on that fateful day in history.
“Do you believe that it was primarily our military-residence in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11? The Taliban seemed to have our support in Afghanistan until they went rogue. Of all the various things I read, it is interesting that al-Qaeda's principal opposition was our having the military presence ‘over-stayed’ in Saudi Arabia, after we ousted Saddam's armies from Kuwait. I guess they did not count on us finding a much better place to park our military in their region--Iraq. It sure has been costly though, but maybe I don't know or understand the strategic implications of not doing something. I do though fear what that ex-CIA author has coined as ‘blowback.’ Sometimes when I get a bit emotional about the campaign, I simplify it when in fact I know intellectually, that the pros and cons, pluses and minuses, of going to war, were/are far more complicated a matrix than most Americans (including myself) can appreciate. But generally I think you and I are on the very same paragraph and page, that if there were requirements strategic imperative and moral intervention to revoke Saddam’s current and future capacity to destabilize the Middle East and thus the globe, the plan was not well articulated; The mission not clearly identified; The program’s success milestones-objectives…not calculated/funded/resourced to the military. As you have said, Rumsfeld in modernizing the forces (Rumsfeld Doctrine), may have mucked things up.
“I did not agree on going to Iraq under just-war-theory. However, there was something about Rumsfeld that I almost admired, I may not have liked his doctrines or reasoning, but it was rather interesting to observe him because I think he truly believed wholeheartedly with what he was tasked to do, and tasking others to do. Interesting if Iraq had gone much differently, how Rumseld would now appear (today, it seems he has disappeared).
“I knew they were resource low and if any problems came up (which they did), their margins were too low to continue the mission. I did not know how much Carter had in that, or if it was more Harold Brown and his subordinates that mis-planned that adventure that was most tragic (for the guys conducting it, to our nation).
“A friend of mine called me last night and was telling me right after Carter met with Hamas, and he then left, Hamas started firing rockets onto Israel.
“While I thought Carter taking an initiative to get something done for some Middle East peace was probably well intentioned, going outside the parameters Bush's team is trying to operate in concert of, was probably why Carter gets into more perceived trouble and thus negates any achievable progress. Almost like a rogue ex-president.
“Wow, that is amazing! How did George W. get so far off from the track record and persona that his father H.W. had while serving? What went wrong?
“I heard the conservative Alexander Haig say on a nationally syndicated radio talk show (Michael Savage Show) about 1.5 years go, that the George W. Bush administration ‘hijacked the conservative party...they have nothing to do with being conservatives.’ That was rather damning, coming from Haig.
“If we could pick one item to give Bush-II a failing grade, which one item? On the economy I am sure we could pick the rising fuel prices, compare what they were when he entered office to today. The other item which is probably much higher on the list would be the Iraq War and how it was conducted, not to mention the trillions of dollars that will have been expended (if not already), with a very fuzzy list of objectives achieved. Those are the obvious. The questions of civil liberties breaches and ignoring international treaties would probably be on some folks list. I don't see leadership skills in Bush-II. I am sure he has them but does not project them, especially in a time when they are most needed. Many people I know who originally supported him on at least the first term (and voted for him), are very angry at him now, are pessimistic about our country's course, and they sense we are operating in a vacuum with no perceivable leadership. Just after 9/11, Bush-II had a period where he peaked in perceived leadership, and much of the globe was united to support America and our course on a war on radical extremists and terrorism. Bush-II had incredible political prestige capital handed to him, like a large bank deposit he did not anticipate. And he fumbled that, and then continued over and over, year by year. I knew it was bad when some of my friends who had been strong republicans, pulled out of their party, and are almost in a state of near-depression not knowing who to vote for in '08. The GOP sizzled out.
“When William Buckley passed away, some said so did the conservatives. That is a rather sad reflection. Speaking of Mr. Buckley, I guess he supported the Iraq War on the war's pretext back in '03. I read he reversed course in the last couple of years and said he felt it has been wrong given what he then (‘now’) knew. We're at the aviation spot of 'PNR' or Point of No-Return. Or are we? Maybe a good leader will still emerge and articulate a solid plan for helping Iraq while reducing our military presence. Gosh, it just gets more complicated pondering that too, like what's next, or what will happen with Iran?”
My reply:
Saddam was a very bad man. The World is a better place without him. I believe he used chemical weapons against the Iranians with devastating results, but I have not yet corroborated my belief.
You have a very lucky friend, and the aviation biz is replete with such stories. Even I have a few similar examples of divine providence. We may never know the true story of Pan Am 103 or TWA 800, but I continue to hold hope.
The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic (Gulf) nations was one of al-Qaeda’s rationales for attacking the West. However, it is the explicit and implicit support for the dictators like the Shah and Saudi King that remains their primary objection. Al-Qaeda and many of the other jihadi groups seek Taliban-like fundamentalist theocratic governments to ‘purify’ the Islamic countries. Being a hedonistic, immoral, secular, Christian-crusader nation trying to ‘impose’ Western immoral principles – free speech, equality, freedom of religion, tolerance, diversity, et cetera – we are the real targets for the fundamentalists. The military presence is just a convenient excuse.
I’m not familiar with the term ‘blowback’ in this context.
As with most leaders, Rummy had his admirable traits, just as Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had their good points. However, the consequence of Rummy’s actions shall not reflect well upon his tenure as SecDef.
I do not think Carter’s initiative with Hamas was a good thing – a former U.S. president in direct opposition to his Country and the sitting President. Just as we did not hear about Henry Kissinger’s early contacts with the PRC, I suspect there have been classified contacts with Syria and Iran, and perhaps even Hamas and Hezbollah, but for the United States to publicly acknowledge or recognize any contact with the two terrorist organizations would be like sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis or il Mafioso. During World War II, generally, the opposition (the Republicans) demonstrated how a loyal opposition should conduct themselves publicly. The British wartime unified government is the gold standard for such conduct. They disagreed; they argued; they resisted; they tried to influence; yet, they carried out their opposition in private and presented a unified front to our enemies.
What went wrong with W’s administration? Historians shall be debating the answer for many decades. I have an opinion, but I am only a humble citizen. If I could simplistically summarize my opinion in one word, that descriptor would be arrogance. In W’s case, there are various colors of even that one word. I would agree with Haig based on one fact alone – W vetoed only one bill (HR 810, the stem cell bill, 24.5.05) [241], and even that was for moral reasons, not financial, while Republicans controlled Congress. My one failing pick on the economy . . . his failure to veto all those damnable, obscene, earmarked, spending bills, taking us deeper into debt during wartime. On the war, his failure to gain a full declaration of war and failure to mobilize the Nation for war. On civil liberties, the grotesque misuse of counter-terrorism tools on non-warfighting, vindictive, politically parochial, witch-hunts (the Spitzer debacle, being one).
I did not always agree with Bill Buckley, but I truly admired his intellect, wit and confidence. I still believe Iraq was the correct and proper battleground, but the plan and execution of the Battle for Iraq were disastrously inadequate. So, in the context of hindsight, yes, the Battle for Iraq has been a terrible tragedy, but that was not because the objectives were not proper and noble.
Comments and contributions from Update no.332:
“I do not view an insidious anti-Semite as a good and decent human being. History is replete with careless actions by people like former President Carter and what they brought upon the Jewish people. If either one of us did what he just did with Hamas, we would be charged with high crimes. It would not bother me for his passport to be revoked the next time he does so, and while he is out of the country.”
My response:
Anti-Semite is a strong accusation, but I shall not argue the point. I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter, and shall leave it at that.
. . . round two:
“Perhaps anti-Semitic behavior is a better description, regardless of what he feels in his heart. A number of Jews left his staff recently over similar behavior and it is hard to ignore his repeated slams against Jews and Israel. So, call it whatever you wish, but it is wrong.”
. . . my response to round two:
Carter has caused me to wonder more than a few times. I still give him the benefit of the doubt. I also see his sometimes awkward statements and actions toward the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a bona-fide effort to find compromise. I have not and do not agree with all the actions of the Israeli government, but I do understand the basis. Yet, until both sides want a solution, there will never be peace, much like an addict or alcoholic who refuses to admit he has a problem. As I’ve stated, I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter.
. . . round three:
“I am comfortable with saying Jimmy Carter's behavior over the years fits the profile of an anti-Semite (prejudice against Jews). I quit giving him the benefit of the doubt about a year ago when a number of Jews on his staff quit for good reason. Regardless, you and I agree in principle. And, no matter what we think, he will pay no price for it. Perhaps he will be awarded another peace prize while the war against terror rages on.”
Another contribution:
“Just a note from a former prosecutor (and judge and defense counsel, as well) regarding the 'Liberty City Seven'- the prosecution doesn't appear to have a case. It doesn't matter whether you 'know' somebody committed a crime, you have to be able to prove it with admissible evidence. This is a long ways from another OJ trial.
“Unfortunately, this follows other cases where the Federal government has prematurely trumpeted up the solution of a case and the arrest of would-be perpetrators, only to have the case dissolve before trial or at trial. Perhaps they should have let the would-be perps do more (while being monitored) before making the arrest and going public. They could have obtained more evidence. Sadly, DOJ spokesmen have done that as well to the Brits and other foreign police -- spoken out on a case too soon (usually for political reasons) and thereby blow the case. As noted in the excerpt below, the FBI even was wary about the case.
“From a Miami paper (before the 2nd trial):
“The arrests made for a sensational sound bite - and a temporary diversion for the administration, a moment of seeming victory in the war on terror, a fleeting quiet place in the growing public clamor about illegal wiretaps and the growing disaster in Iraq. But FBI brass was a bit more realistic. They cautioned that the ineffectual group was ‘more aspirational than operational.’ Today that even seems a bit overstated. Forget about America; this was a ragtag group that couldn't wage a ground war on a jar of peppercorns.
“The question at the heart of the farce: Was the group's leader, Narseal ‘Brother Naz’ Batiste, really bent on destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago, or was he simply trying to beat a couple of government informants posing as al-Qaeda operatives out of $50,000?”
My reply:
I suppose there is more than a little commonality between prosecution of crimes and the execution of the War on Islamic Fascism -- reactive versus preemptive action. I do not have access to the details in the Liberty City 7 -- only that which has been in the Press. As a citizen, I am not willing to let them commit their crimes. Like making a joke about explosives at a TSA security screening station, I could care less what their true intentions were; they made threats we cannot afford to allow them to enter the execution phase. Yet, with the demonstrated performance of this administration, the supposition of the unspecified Miami newspaper bears some credence. I still hope these yayhoos get prosecuted and punished for their foolishness.
A different contribution:
“Great calls on the FAA and the population problems. The FAA is probably the worst road block to aviation progress in the world from what I can see.
“Re: population: I wonder when the tree huggers will finally recognize that pressure on the environment is really caused by the rapidly growing world population. Guess it will last out my lifetime and I'm not sure why I really care but I seem to.”
My response:
Not just the tree-huggers but the entire uber-Left who are quite comfortable with redistributing everyone else’s wealth to satisfy their sense of compassion. We confine nomadic tribes who moved for survival, and then we are shamed to give money for food, when they starve. We convince aboriginal folks to put clothes on and embrace Western ways, and then we are condemned for our heartlessness when they die of alcoholism. The confrontation is coming, and we may be feeling the opening volleys as we speak.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
4. Preparation of the international community – Every nation needs allies . . . for support, for intelligence, for contributions, for leverage, for resources, and for all the other things needed to wage war successfully. Winston Churchill espoused a united Europe a decade before the conflagration. Franklin Roosevelt articulated the basis of a free, world community before the United States was forcibly drawn into the war. Both men took the long view and described a peaceful future – a societal objective beyond the sacrifice of war.
These are some of the broader foundational, societal elements of wage war successfully that have been missing from our current endeavor. These are the President’s tasks – no one else’s. If the President had been unsuccessful with any of those foundational elements, then the justification for war was not sufficient. We could have allowed the radical, fundamentalist jihadistanis to continue to attack until they accomplished something of sufficient magnitude to coalesce the American People and the international community. Collins focuses on the mechanics and misses the President’s role and consequences.
One last observation stimulated by the Collins paper involved learning. The military has long held an institutional process that constantly strives to learn. They try to learn what worked and what did not work. The National Command Authority encounters a far more difficult, complex and resistive learning process . . . politicians changes, political appointees change with them, and institutional learning is not an inherent function. Collins tickles the need. His last major section is titled, “Improving the National Security Decisionmaking and Execution Systems” – a reasonable attempt. Nonetheless, he fails to address the President’s role and bedrock elements, and yet the Collins paper is worth the effort.
A timely, companion piece for your consideration:
“The War on Terror Is Not a Crime”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 25, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908451409543573.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
A name we most likely will hear again . . . Ben-Ami Kadish, 84, an American citizen, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. Some have likened Kadish's alleged betrayal of his country to that of Jonathan Pollard [21.11.1985] -- the convicted spy for Israel. Apparently, the FBI was convinced Pollard was not alone; it took them 27 years to find another traitor, or at least one of the them. A traitor is a traitor.
Continuing extended comments from Update no.330:
“I believe possibly, that part of the psychology with the Iranians to call off war with Iraq was the threat of either initial or further use of chemicals by Saddam. I understand Saddam did launch inert rockets/missiles/scuds into Teheran. The sense of danger was extreme as the Iranians were not sure if the next volley might contain chemical weapons into the nation's capital...obviously a potential large loss of life with the Persian populace, something unacceptable for them. Again, I am not certain of this.
“Yes, I agree. I believe PA#103 was very likely an Iranian (Hezbollah?) retaliation, or Libyan blowback. I suppose most experts would support either vector. I use to have a great friend (he has passed on) who was a Clipper B747 captain and by luck, not in charge of PA#103 on that fateful day in history.
“Do you believe that it was primarily our military-residence in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11? The Taliban seemed to have our support in Afghanistan until they went rogue. Of all the various things I read, it is interesting that al-Qaeda's principal opposition was our having the military presence ‘over-stayed’ in Saudi Arabia, after we ousted Saddam's armies from Kuwait. I guess they did not count on us finding a much better place to park our military in their region--Iraq. It sure has been costly though, but maybe I don't know or understand the strategic implications of not doing something. I do though fear what that ex-CIA author has coined as ‘blowback.’ Sometimes when I get a bit emotional about the campaign, I simplify it when in fact I know intellectually, that the pros and cons, pluses and minuses, of going to war, were/are far more complicated a matrix than most Americans (including myself) can appreciate. But generally I think you and I are on the very same paragraph and page, that if there were requirements strategic imperative and moral intervention to revoke Saddam’s current and future capacity to destabilize the Middle East and thus the globe, the plan was not well articulated; The mission not clearly identified; The program’s success milestones-objectives…not calculated/funded/resourced to the military. As you have said, Rumsfeld in modernizing the forces (Rumsfeld Doctrine), may have mucked things up.
“I did not agree on going to Iraq under just-war-theory. However, there was something about Rumsfeld that I almost admired, I may not have liked his doctrines or reasoning, but it was rather interesting to observe him because I think he truly believed wholeheartedly with what he was tasked to do, and tasking others to do. Interesting if Iraq had gone much differently, how Rumseld would now appear (today, it seems he has disappeared).
“I knew they were resource low and if any problems came up (which they did), their margins were too low to continue the mission. I did not know how much Carter had in that, or if it was more Harold Brown and his subordinates that mis-planned that adventure that was most tragic (for the guys conducting it, to our nation).
“A friend of mine called me last night and was telling me right after Carter met with Hamas, and he then left, Hamas started firing rockets onto Israel.
“While I thought Carter taking an initiative to get something done for some Middle East peace was probably well intentioned, going outside the parameters Bush's team is trying to operate in concert of, was probably why Carter gets into more perceived trouble and thus negates any achievable progress. Almost like a rogue ex-president.
“Wow, that is amazing! How did George W. get so far off from the track record and persona that his father H.W. had while serving? What went wrong?
“I heard the conservative Alexander Haig say on a nationally syndicated radio talk show (Michael Savage Show) about 1.5 years go, that the George W. Bush administration ‘hijacked the conservative party...they have nothing to do with being conservatives.’ That was rather damning, coming from Haig.
“If we could pick one item to give Bush-II a failing grade, which one item? On the economy I am sure we could pick the rising fuel prices, compare what they were when he entered office to today. The other item which is probably much higher on the list would be the Iraq War and how it was conducted, not to mention the trillions of dollars that will have been expended (if not already), with a very fuzzy list of objectives achieved. Those are the obvious. The questions of civil liberties breaches and ignoring international treaties would probably be on some folks list. I don't see leadership skills in Bush-II. I am sure he has them but does not project them, especially in a time when they are most needed. Many people I know who originally supported him on at least the first term (and voted for him), are very angry at him now, are pessimistic about our country's course, and they sense we are operating in a vacuum with no perceivable leadership. Just after 9/11, Bush-II had a period where he peaked in perceived leadership, and much of the globe was united to support America and our course on a war on radical extremists and terrorism. Bush-II had incredible political prestige capital handed to him, like a large bank deposit he did not anticipate. And he fumbled that, and then continued over and over, year by year. I knew it was bad when some of my friends who had been strong republicans, pulled out of their party, and are almost in a state of near-depression not knowing who to vote for in '08. The GOP sizzled out.
“When William Buckley passed away, some said so did the conservatives. That is a rather sad reflection. Speaking of Mr. Buckley, I guess he supported the Iraq War on the war's pretext back in '03. I read he reversed course in the last couple of years and said he felt it has been wrong given what he then (‘now’) knew. We're at the aviation spot of 'PNR' or Point of No-Return. Or are we? Maybe a good leader will still emerge and articulate a solid plan for helping Iraq while reducing our military presence. Gosh, it just gets more complicated pondering that too, like what's next, or what will happen with Iran?”
My reply:
Saddam was a very bad man. The World is a better place without him. I believe he used chemical weapons against the Iranians with devastating results, but I have not yet corroborated my belief.
You have a very lucky friend, and the aviation biz is replete with such stories. Even I have a few similar examples of divine providence. We may never know the true story of Pan Am 103 or TWA 800, but I continue to hold hope.
The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic (Gulf) nations was one of al-Qaeda’s rationales for attacking the West. However, it is the explicit and implicit support for the dictators like the Shah and Saudi King that remains their primary objection. Al-Qaeda and many of the other jihadi groups seek Taliban-like fundamentalist theocratic governments to ‘purify’ the Islamic countries. Being a hedonistic, immoral, secular, Christian-crusader nation trying to ‘impose’ Western immoral principles – free speech, equality, freedom of religion, tolerance, diversity, et cetera – we are the real targets for the fundamentalists. The military presence is just a convenient excuse.
I’m not familiar with the term ‘blowback’ in this context.
As with most leaders, Rummy had his admirable traits, just as Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had their good points. However, the consequence of Rummy’s actions shall not reflect well upon his tenure as SecDef.
I do not think Carter’s initiative with Hamas was a good thing – a former U.S. president in direct opposition to his Country and the sitting President. Just as we did not hear about Henry Kissinger’s early contacts with the PRC, I suspect there have been classified contacts with Syria and Iran, and perhaps even Hamas and Hezbollah, but for the United States to publicly acknowledge or recognize any contact with the two terrorist organizations would be like sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis or il Mafioso. During World War II, generally, the opposition (the Republicans) demonstrated how a loyal opposition should conduct themselves publicly. The British wartime unified government is the gold standard for such conduct. They disagreed; they argued; they resisted; they tried to influence; yet, they carried out their opposition in private and presented a unified front to our enemies.
What went wrong with W’s administration? Historians shall be debating the answer for many decades. I have an opinion, but I am only a humble citizen. If I could simplistically summarize my opinion in one word, that descriptor would be arrogance. In W’s case, there are various colors of even that one word. I would agree with Haig based on one fact alone – W vetoed only one bill (HR 810, the stem cell bill, 24.5.05) [241], and even that was for moral reasons, not financial, while Republicans controlled Congress. My one failing pick on the economy . . . his failure to veto all those damnable, obscene, earmarked, spending bills, taking us deeper into debt during wartime. On the war, his failure to gain a full declaration of war and failure to mobilize the Nation for war. On civil liberties, the grotesque misuse of counter-terrorism tools on non-warfighting, vindictive, politically parochial, witch-hunts (the Spitzer debacle, being one).
I did not always agree with Bill Buckley, but I truly admired his intellect, wit and confidence. I still believe Iraq was the correct and proper battleground, but the plan and execution of the Battle for Iraq were disastrously inadequate. So, in the context of hindsight, yes, the Battle for Iraq has been a terrible tragedy, but that was not because the objectives were not proper and noble.
Comments and contributions from Update no.332:
“I do not view an insidious anti-Semite as a good and decent human being. History is replete with careless actions by people like former President Carter and what they brought upon the Jewish people. If either one of us did what he just did with Hamas, we would be charged with high crimes. It would not bother me for his passport to be revoked the next time he does so, and while he is out of the country.”
My response:
Anti-Semite is a strong accusation, but I shall not argue the point. I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter, and shall leave it at that.
. . . round two:
“Perhaps anti-Semitic behavior is a better description, regardless of what he feels in his heart. A number of Jews left his staff recently over similar behavior and it is hard to ignore his repeated slams against Jews and Israel. So, call it whatever you wish, but it is wrong.”
. . . my response to round two:
Carter has caused me to wonder more than a few times. I still give him the benefit of the doubt. I also see his sometimes awkward statements and actions toward the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a bona-fide effort to find compromise. I have not and do not agree with all the actions of the Israeli government, but I do understand the basis. Yet, until both sides want a solution, there will never be peace, much like an addict or alcoholic who refuses to admit he has a problem. As I’ve stated, I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter.
. . . round three:
“I am comfortable with saying Jimmy Carter's behavior over the years fits the profile of an anti-Semite (prejudice against Jews). I quit giving him the benefit of the doubt about a year ago when a number of Jews on his staff quit for good reason. Regardless, you and I agree in principle. And, no matter what we think, he will pay no price for it. Perhaps he will be awarded another peace prize while the war against terror rages on.”
Another contribution:
“Just a note from a former prosecutor (and judge and defense counsel, as well) regarding the 'Liberty City Seven'- the prosecution doesn't appear to have a case. It doesn't matter whether you 'know' somebody committed a crime, you have to be able to prove it with admissible evidence. This is a long ways from another OJ trial.
“Unfortunately, this follows other cases where the Federal government has prematurely trumpeted up the solution of a case and the arrest of would-be perpetrators, only to have the case dissolve before trial or at trial. Perhaps they should have let the would-be perps do more (while being monitored) before making the arrest and going public. They could have obtained more evidence. Sadly, DOJ spokesmen have done that as well to the Brits and other foreign police -- spoken out on a case too soon (usually for political reasons) and thereby blow the case. As noted in the excerpt below, the FBI even was wary about the case.
“From a Miami paper (before the 2nd trial):
“The arrests made for a sensational sound bite - and a temporary diversion for the administration, a moment of seeming victory in the war on terror, a fleeting quiet place in the growing public clamor about illegal wiretaps and the growing disaster in Iraq. But FBI brass was a bit more realistic. They cautioned that the ineffectual group was ‘more aspirational than operational.’ Today that even seems a bit overstated. Forget about America; this was a ragtag group that couldn't wage a ground war on a jar of peppercorns.
“The question at the heart of the farce: Was the group's leader, Narseal ‘Brother Naz’ Batiste, really bent on destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago, or was he simply trying to beat a couple of government informants posing as al-Qaeda operatives out of $50,000?”
My reply:
I suppose there is more than a little commonality between prosecution of crimes and the execution of the War on Islamic Fascism -- reactive versus preemptive action. I do not have access to the details in the Liberty City 7 -- only that which has been in the Press. As a citizen, I am not willing to let them commit their crimes. Like making a joke about explosives at a TSA security screening station, I could care less what their true intentions were; they made threats we cannot afford to allow them to enter the execution phase. Yet, with the demonstrated performance of this administration, the supposition of the unspecified Miami newspaper bears some credence. I still hope these yayhoos get prosecuted and punished for their foolishness.
A different contribution:
“Great calls on the FAA and the population problems. The FAA is probably the worst road block to aviation progress in the world from what I can see.
“Re: population: I wonder when the tree huggers will finally recognize that pressure on the environment is really caused by the rapidly growing world population. Guess it will last out my lifetime and I'm not sure why I really care but I seem to.”
My response:
Not just the tree-huggers but the entire uber-Left who are quite comfortable with redistributing everyone else’s wealth to satisfy their sense of compassion. We confine nomadic tribes who moved for survival, and then we are shamed to give money for food, when they starve. We convince aboriginal folks to put clothes on and embrace Western ways, and then we are condemned for our heartlessness when they die of alcoholism. The confrontation is coming, and we may be feeling the opening volleys as we speak.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment