Update from the Heartland
No.345
14.7.08 – 20.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.345
14.7.08 – 20.7.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Our youngest son, Taylor, completed his training at the Kansas State Law Enforcement Center and returns to his duties as a deputy sheriff of Butler County. My sister Melissa, on an extended stay to assist with our ailing mother, added her effervescent nature to the celebration. Our oldest son, Courtney, made back to Kansas as well. Tyson and Melissa were not able to join us. Jacy could not make the ceremony in Hutchinson due to a crisis at work, but we all gathered at our home for a celebratory BBQ dinner, and the following night at the home of Taylor’s girlfriend, Sherri. I have inserted an image of the ceremony attendees – family and friends (minus yours truly); FYI, the three on the left are active police officers.
Our youngest son, Taylor, completed his training at the Kansas State Law Enforcement Center and returns to his duties as a deputy sheriff of Butler County. My sister Melissa, on an extended stay to assist with our ailing mother, added her effervescent nature to the celebration. Our oldest son, Courtney, made back to Kansas as well. Tyson and Melissa were not able to join us. Jacy could not make the ceremony in Hutchinson due to a crisis at work, but we all gathered at our home for a celebratory BBQ dinner, and the following night at the home of Taylor’s girlfriend, Sherri. I have inserted an image of the ceremony attendees – family and friends (minus yours truly); FYI, the three on the left are active police officers.
Taylor’s Law Enforcement Academy Graduation
[Taylor graduation 080718.jpg]
[Taylor graduation 080718.jpg]
On an incidental note, during the drive to Hutchinson, Kansas, I was amazed by the near dominance of corn in the enroute farm fields. In normal times, the fields would have been freshly harvested wheat. My observation: the price of corn is sufficiently high enough to entice Kansas farmers to switch from traditional wheat to corn; alternative fuel production demands can be felt in unusual areas.
A relevant quote from The Patriot Post:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
-- James Madison (letter to W.T. Barry, 4 August 1822)
The follow-up news items:
-- In the wake of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 [PL 110-261] becoming law [344], the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Service Employees International Union, and The Nation magazine filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – Amnesty v. McConnell – claiming the new law violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The dirge continues.
-- On 23.November.2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) no. 05-14 – Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes – a consequence of the TWA 800 incident. On Wednesday, the FAA made the new regulation – FAR Part 25.981 – effective, which will require transport category airplanes (Part 121) to reduce the fuel tankage combustible atmosphere, generally by installation of nitrogen-inerting systems on new airplanes. What all this technical mumbo-jumbo means is the FAA is using the TWA 800 tragedy to add requirements on manufacturers and operators. Would nitrogen-inerting has prevented the TWA 800 event? Probably. Will nitrogen-inerting make transport aircraft safer? Yes, without question. Where my beef comes is ‘requiring’ more unjustified burdens that further reduce the operating efficiency of airliners. Aircraft design is an intricate exercise in compromise. The examples used by the NTSB and FAA to rationalize this change are insufficient to warrant such a dramatic new requirement. I am constantly reminded of the old adage, “A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is hardly the purpose of the ship.”
-- It seems even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is signing onto my Energy Project proposal [335, 339].
“Do It All, Do It Now, Do It For America”
by Newt Gingrich
Newt.org
Posted: 07/15/2008 ET; Updated: 07/15/2008 ET
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3575/Do-It-All-Do-It-Now-Do-It-For-America.aspx
-- I try to keep up with my reading of both uber-Right and uber-Left journals as well as a myriad of diverse, professional and journeyman, news sources in my continuing struggle to find a reasonable balance and stability. One of the uber-Right variants proclaimed pending electoral vindication and retribution against an “arrogant act of judicial tyranny” in reference to the California Supreme Court’s In re Marriage Cases [CA SC S147999] decision [336]. They refer to California’s Proposition 8 constitutional amendment – “California Marriage Protection Act.” The uber-Right is mobilizing for the occasion, and they say “This is a fight we must win” (emphasis from the original). Well, I wonder, what if they lose? Perhaps that is a path to back into a rationale – cogent or otherwise. Also, judicial activism, or in this instance judicial tyranny, is the epithet spat upon the Judiciary when one side or the other does not agree with the ruling. This coming November, we shall see whether California residents choose to defend the rights of all citizens in good standing or impose the weight of the State on a private choice. To me, the true tyranny rests with the State or any gaggle of citizens who believe they have the duty, nay obligation, to impose their will upon the Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of ALL citizens – there is the true tyranny. Is the uber-Right that insecure and devoid of confidence in their marriages that they find validation in forcing everyone to live by their rules? I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the State’s proper interest is in marriage?
-- On Wednesday, the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands – the U.N.’s highest court – ordered the United States of America to stay the execution of José Ernesto Medell¿n, a convicted and sentenced, illegal alien who raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas, and the Petitioner in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-984] [329]. The Mexican government appealed to the World Court as a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Medell¿n decision. The Supremes were clear in the 6-3 opinion; they affirmed the sovereignty of Texas and rejected the authority of the President, the UN or other international entities. This could get quite interesting.
Given the previous news item, an Op-Ed article worthy of your time and interest:
“Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech”
by [Senators] Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 14, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
On Thursday’s episode of The View, the group jumped on the hot mike comments of Reverend Jesse Jackson . . . something disparaging about Barack Obama’s genitalia and his use of the racial slur word ‘nigger.’ Whoppi Goldberg (AKA Caryn Elaine Johnson) defended the use of the word by a segment of our population with dark skin pigmentation and certain facial features. Elisabeth DelPadre Hasselbeck (née Filarski) argued the use of the word perpetuates the hatred, anger and injustice of that sordid era of this Grand Republic. The word turns my stomach no matter who uses it. As is often the case with controversial topics, we discussed the issue. Jeanne hit upon a magnificent point. If it is OK for Whoppi to use the word ‘nigger,’ is it OK for Barack Obama to use it? After all, he is half of African heritage. What about a person who is one quarter, or one eighth, or one one-hudredth of African descent? Evolution claims we are ALL of African descent, so why would Whoppi object to the Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney using the word? If Americans with dark skin pigmentation truly seek equality, as opposed to wallowing in the muck of hatred from a bygone era, then I respectfully encourage them to shed those shackles of the past. Let us move on to a brighter tomorrow.
A regular contributor and fellow aviator drew my attention to an interesting essay on the Battle for Afghanistan and the challenges of that arena.
“Afghanistan on the Edge – A World at Risk of Winning the Urban Battle, Losing the Rural War, Abandoning the Regional Solution”
By John Godges
RAND Review
Summer 2007 — Vol. 31, No. 2
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/afghan1.html
The essay’s Figure 2 is probably the best summary of what we have experienced with this administration’s inadequate prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. Side note: there are two distinctive omissions – Korea and Vietnam; and, I wonder where those two conflicts lay on the chart? Beyond the resources aspect of both the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wild card in Iraq has been Iran, and in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Afghanistan would be manageable if it was not for Pakistan. I am afraid the issue of the tribal region will explode before this is all over. And, if the Pakistani military chooses the wrong side, it could get nasty. Then, of course, we have the clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So far, Iran has been focused on Iraq and they have kept their border with Afghanistan calm, but that could change if things turn hot in the tribal area of Pakistan.
Another consistent contributor and intellectual foil in this humble forum offered up the following essay for our critical review.
“Ghosts of Our Past – To win the war on terrorism, we first need to understand its roots”
by Karen Armstrong
Modern Maturity
Published: January February 2002
http://www.wolaver.org/peace/ghosts.htm
Here is my review:
In the main, I think Karen gave us a fair and reasonable portrayal of the genesis of Islamo-fascism in the modern sense. Also, broadly, she implies an impending Islamic Renaissance, as I have written. Unfortunately, in a short essay, it is hard to render such a complex issue. I do have a few quibbles or perhaps refinements to her hypothesis.
One of the great failings of Western civilization has been the root assumption that modernization is good. We destroyed the native cultures in our country by such arrogance. The European colonial powers did their share of the same process. We assumed modernization was goodness by definition. Where we failed miserably stems from that assumption and not recognizing the Bedouins, Australian Aborigines, Amazon natives, Mongols and such were and in some instances still are perfectly happy living simple, isolated or nomadic lives. Regardless, as if to validate our values, we ‘forced’ them to become Westernized, without the education or cultural foundation to support such democratic concepts. Whether Western failure can be corrected is a question with no clear answer, but clearly we bear some culpability in such ‘forced’ transition.
Another key element Karen does not address is the inherent tension between public versus private, or in similar terms, State versus Individual. Further, she does not touch upon the corrosion of local culture by capitalist forces and motivations. Business is not a social welfare entity, and generally cares only about the bottom line rather than the consequences of its actions, e.g., the 1984 Bopal disaster or the Kimberly diamond mines of South Africa.
While Armstrong points a heavy, accusatory finger at the West, she ignores the oppression of Islam manifest in the Persian, Moorish and Ottoman Empires. They were not kind or tolerant rulers . . . just oppressors of a different persuasion.
I did appreciate and note one particular paragraph. “The vast majority of fundamentalists do not take part in acts of violence, of course. But those who do utterly distort the faith that they purport to defend. In their fear and anxiety about the encroachments of the secular world, fundamentalists—be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—tend to downplay the compassionate teachings of their scripture and overemphasize the more belligerent passages. In so doing, they often fall into moral nihilism, as is the case of the suicide bomber or hijacker. To kill even one person in the name of God is blasphemy; to massacre thousands of innocent men, women, and children is an obscene perversion of religion itself.”
As I have proposed and continue to advocate, we must assist the Islamic World through their Renaissance, but most importantly, to allow them the freedom to find enlightenment, tolerance and respect for others.
Postscript:
Democracy cannot exist without education. If citizens cannot read, they cannot evaluate multiple, varied sources of information and arrive at an independent opinion, i.e., they cannot intelligently participate in the voting process. If society does not have a free, unfettered Press, and I might add multiple delivery means, then the available information will be constrained to that which the State, or religion, or diluted, hearsay, word-of-mouth offers up. One of many reasons we have radical fundamentalists, they only hear ever more radicalized clerics who pollute their minds and corrode their humanity.
The political scare mongering of the current silly season on both sides has but one purpose . . . get their boy elected. Odd thing is, both major political parties seem to have at least two primary elements in common. They both love big government and spending the public treasury. The only difference in that regard is what they want to spend it on. Democrats tell us Republicans seek perpetual war. Republicans tell us Democrats want communism, or at least deep socialism. We, the People, are left with nothing substantive or rational upon which to judge. The emotional motivations of political dogma fill the voids. From my perspective, I want parts and pieces of each, but in the main, none of the above. I am finding little socially redeeming value in either of the main political parties. They both say what they believe will get them elected.
The last item and big news this week was The New Yorker magazine, 21.July.2008 cover– Michelle and Barack Obama in blatantly derogatory garb and circumstance. The bevy of talking heads went crazy over a satirical comic magazine cover. We defend the Danish political cartoon of Mohammed [218] and condemn the Islamists who bayed for violence, and then we take the inverse in the present example. Hypocrisy? I think so. I think the Obama cartoon was at worst in poor taste, just as the Mohammed cartoon was; but both are worthy of our defense. The sensitivities surrounding the Obama cartoon flourish in the hyper-charged political environment of the presidential election and the raw dichotomy of race relations in the United States. While the cover may have been a bit crass and plays to the bigotry of a significant portion of our population, it did what it was intended to do, brought race, xenophobia, and bigotry to the fore of our political intercourse.
Comments and contributions from Update no.344:
“When I first read thru some comments by ‘others’ on subjects in your blog this week, REALLY doing so for the first time, spoken by ‘some contributor,’ but then much later as I went thru them recognized as being my Own words, I began to think that ‘this guy---whoever he/she is’ really knows about and cares about things going on in the world and here at home. And he/she has straight-forward, no nonsense, no bullshit, no long time waiting out bureaucratic or debating Congressional solutions to a very ‘Present Danger.’ He knows what we first need----a real leader who will do it now, and do it in no uncertain terms. One able to articulate to the people What he is doing, and Why. Then the American people will take it from there.
“He/she must have a Clear definable objective of winning quickly and totally, how to do that, what it will take, and then a Very clear strategy for what comes afterward both for us and the former enemy For an enemy defeated does not have to be and Should not be an enemy afterwards, If that can be accomplished, such as us and the Japanese and Germans after WW2. THAT, however, takes men and women in HIGH places, who have a TRUE VISION of what Can be.
“I am not a Democrat politically, but I like a statement Robert Kennedy made on the very night, I think, that he was assassinated, which quote comes from his Eulogy at his brother John's funeral:
‘My brother need not be idealized, or
enlarged in death beyond what he was
in life, to be remembered simply as a
good decent man, who saw
wrong and tried to right it, saw
suffering and tried to heal it,
saw war and tried to stop it.
"Those of us, who loved him and who
take him to his rest today pray that
what he was to us and what he
wished for others will someday
come to pass for all the world.
"As he said many times, in many parts
of this nation, to those he touched and
who sought to touch him:
'Some men see things as they are
and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.’
-- Edward Kennedy
“Me? Should I be running for President? I have maybe not Quite as many authentic credentials as Obama, though I almost think Nearly, plus he's a bit better speaker than I ever was, (and I was pretty damn good), plus I'm the same age as McCain.
“But I'm busy right now, pontificating on all the various things I see going on which I don't believe in, don't like, and cannot for the life of me figure out why they seemingly can't get solved, and also a few of the things I wish I'd been of the right age (year groups maybe) to take part in over the years. Though I did have my times.
“BUT---We do need the Congress, and the people's approval to train, equip, and man (and KEEP that way) the world's most powerful deterrent to terrorism and true assault on people's God given rights around the world. You have to first train what you have and recruit more if needed, then equip them, and then make Sure their numbers are sufficient to do the job. That takes $$$, and the will of the people to spend those $$$ to accomplish the mission of making and keeping intact, the ultimate war machine---for both their own protection, and the protection of true freedom seeking peoples throughout the world. For even One forgotten and struggling people, can become a real threat to ALL peoples in this so highly advanced (overall) world.
“A LEADER can make that happen. No wimpy leader, no negotiator, no sanctions oriented leader, no leader with an eye more to his/her second term, no "Better Red than Dead" leader, (such as some people, including my paternal grandmother were back in the Cold War times). We have to have a leader who is able to see the problems clearly, knows the consequences of non-action and or procrastination, can judge the threats accurately, and then WILL act, Immediately. He/she can't do that alone. And so they need around them ‘The Best and the Brightest.’ Such as the late David Halberstrom used as the title to his very perceptive book about Vietnam and how we got into it and then prosecuted it. Doing so with ‘The Best and the Brightest’ of the time supposedly, who turned out to be----in many cases NOT so. We can't make THAT mistake ever again.
“I believe a world at peace, all peoples, countries, nations, entities all willing to consult about, discuss about, be creative about peaceful and productive decisions----to respect each others differences, beliefs, and values, and know that war between them is never the best way to obtain objectives, then becomes a world much more likely to be prosperous, happy, free, and productive. I believe in strong countries helping emerging countries who want what we (for instance) want and have. But only to get them started. They then Have to make it on their own. The strong can be, when it's appropriate, the protectors of the weak, but they cannot be, in the end, the saviors of the weak. They can provide seed money, and the talent of experts to Help a country get going, but they cannot, as I said, save the country.
“It is not Justice Kennedy's job to make any decision based even a bit on ‘evolving standards of law,’ unless those standards are law in Fact at the time of the crime. His job is to determine whether or not, by EXISTING law, the penalty assigned was legal.
“In MY opinion he and the other 4 justices with him failed! Laws can be changed, by appropriate legislative authority-----NOT by the Supreme Court members!”
My response:
Well said regarding leadership. POTUS does not don a suit of armor, mount his trusty steed, and lead the army of warriors in close combat. POTUS sees the big picture, defines the objective for the armed forces, and uses his rhetorical skills to focus the energy and capacity of the Nation to wage war successfully. His job is to mobilize the Nation for war, not lead the troops in battle.
Good observation on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]. I registered my objections to that ruling by the Supremes [344]. Justice Alito’s dissent was exceptional and masterful.
. . . a follow-up:
“I like Your description of POTUS's job. You're right. But I think it DOES have benefit for all of us if POTUS has seen combat himself. There is a big, though not necessarily crucial difference between those who have and those who have not. And I have no way to tell you what is is. Maybe I remember you telling me you saw a tiny bit back in Vietnam. It doesn't take much---for sure---to know. Like no one back home CAN know, and likely does not want to know. Maybe even actively worked to ESCAPE war, as two of our late POTUS's have done who were eligible and in the age range to serve. And at least one VP also. Not sure if more than one VP.
“I agree with you on Your thoughts on Justice Kennedy in the K[ennedy] vs L[ouisiana] [344] case. I at the moment do not remember what Justice Alito said, if it was in your blog. I don't save blogs after I've had a chance to go over them and either respond or not. I will see if I still have that issue of your stuff. Probably not. I think.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Yes, I agree, combat experience does have value for anyone in a leadership position, especially POTUS or SecDef. However, to me, that is not a requirement or prerequisite. I am far more interested in leadership skills, oratorical ability, how they deal with people, and intangibles like adaptability, affability, and such. I want a POTUS who has strong principles but knows that compromise and negotiation are absolute essentials in a democracy. I want someone who knows how to find solutions in a broader diverse society and political environment.
As a side note, I failed in my election decision assessment in 2004. I weighted national security in wartime too heavily. The cost incurred as a consequence of Dubya has simply been too great.
BTW, the Update is available on-line after you’ve deleted the eMail, including back issues to no.256. URL: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
A relevant quote from The Patriot Post:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
-- James Madison (letter to W.T. Barry, 4 August 1822)
The follow-up news items:
-- In the wake of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 [PL 110-261] becoming law [344], the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Service Employees International Union, and The Nation magazine filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – Amnesty v. McConnell – claiming the new law violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The dirge continues.
-- On 23.November.2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) no. 05-14 – Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes – a consequence of the TWA 800 incident. On Wednesday, the FAA made the new regulation – FAR Part 25.981 – effective, which will require transport category airplanes (Part 121) to reduce the fuel tankage combustible atmosphere, generally by installation of nitrogen-inerting systems on new airplanes. What all this technical mumbo-jumbo means is the FAA is using the TWA 800 tragedy to add requirements on manufacturers and operators. Would nitrogen-inerting has prevented the TWA 800 event? Probably. Will nitrogen-inerting make transport aircraft safer? Yes, without question. Where my beef comes is ‘requiring’ more unjustified burdens that further reduce the operating efficiency of airliners. Aircraft design is an intricate exercise in compromise. The examples used by the NTSB and FAA to rationalize this change are insufficient to warrant such a dramatic new requirement. I am constantly reminded of the old adage, “A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is hardly the purpose of the ship.”
-- It seems even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is signing onto my Energy Project proposal [335, 339].
“Do It All, Do It Now, Do It For America”
by Newt Gingrich
Newt.org
Posted: 07/15/2008 ET; Updated: 07/15/2008 ET
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3575/Do-It-All-Do-It-Now-Do-It-For-America.aspx
-- I try to keep up with my reading of both uber-Right and uber-Left journals as well as a myriad of diverse, professional and journeyman, news sources in my continuing struggle to find a reasonable balance and stability. One of the uber-Right variants proclaimed pending electoral vindication and retribution against an “arrogant act of judicial tyranny” in reference to the California Supreme Court’s In re Marriage Cases [CA SC S147999] decision [336]. They refer to California’s Proposition 8 constitutional amendment – “California Marriage Protection Act.” The uber-Right is mobilizing for the occasion, and they say “This is a fight we must win” (emphasis from the original). Well, I wonder, what if they lose? Perhaps that is a path to back into a rationale – cogent or otherwise. Also, judicial activism, or in this instance judicial tyranny, is the epithet spat upon the Judiciary when one side or the other does not agree with the ruling. This coming November, we shall see whether California residents choose to defend the rights of all citizens in good standing or impose the weight of the State on a private choice. To me, the true tyranny rests with the State or any gaggle of citizens who believe they have the duty, nay obligation, to impose their will upon the Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of ALL citizens – there is the true tyranny. Is the uber-Right that insecure and devoid of confidence in their marriages that they find validation in forcing everyone to live by their rules? I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the State’s proper interest is in marriage?
-- On Wednesday, the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands – the U.N.’s highest court – ordered the United States of America to stay the execution of José Ernesto Medell¿n, a convicted and sentenced, illegal alien who raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas, and the Petitioner in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-984] [329]. The Mexican government appealed to the World Court as a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Medell¿n decision. The Supremes were clear in the 6-3 opinion; they affirmed the sovereignty of Texas and rejected the authority of the President, the UN or other international entities. This could get quite interesting.
Given the previous news item, an Op-Ed article worthy of your time and interest:
“Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech”
by [Senators] Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 14, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
On Thursday’s episode of The View, the group jumped on the hot mike comments of Reverend Jesse Jackson . . . something disparaging about Barack Obama’s genitalia and his use of the racial slur word ‘nigger.’ Whoppi Goldberg (AKA Caryn Elaine Johnson) defended the use of the word by a segment of our population with dark skin pigmentation and certain facial features. Elisabeth DelPadre Hasselbeck (née Filarski) argued the use of the word perpetuates the hatred, anger and injustice of that sordid era of this Grand Republic. The word turns my stomach no matter who uses it. As is often the case with controversial topics, we discussed the issue. Jeanne hit upon a magnificent point. If it is OK for Whoppi to use the word ‘nigger,’ is it OK for Barack Obama to use it? After all, he is half of African heritage. What about a person who is one quarter, or one eighth, or one one-hudredth of African descent? Evolution claims we are ALL of African descent, so why would Whoppi object to the Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney using the word? If Americans with dark skin pigmentation truly seek equality, as opposed to wallowing in the muck of hatred from a bygone era, then I respectfully encourage them to shed those shackles of the past. Let us move on to a brighter tomorrow.
A regular contributor and fellow aviator drew my attention to an interesting essay on the Battle for Afghanistan and the challenges of that arena.
“Afghanistan on the Edge – A World at Risk of Winning the Urban Battle, Losing the Rural War, Abandoning the Regional Solution”
By John Godges
RAND Review
Summer 2007 — Vol. 31, No. 2
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/afghan1.html
The essay’s Figure 2 is probably the best summary of what we have experienced with this administration’s inadequate prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. Side note: there are two distinctive omissions – Korea and Vietnam; and, I wonder where those two conflicts lay on the chart? Beyond the resources aspect of both the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wild card in Iraq has been Iran, and in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Afghanistan would be manageable if it was not for Pakistan. I am afraid the issue of the tribal region will explode before this is all over. And, if the Pakistani military chooses the wrong side, it could get nasty. Then, of course, we have the clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So far, Iran has been focused on Iraq and they have kept their border with Afghanistan calm, but that could change if things turn hot in the tribal area of Pakistan.
Another consistent contributor and intellectual foil in this humble forum offered up the following essay for our critical review.
“Ghosts of Our Past – To win the war on terrorism, we first need to understand its roots”
by Karen Armstrong
Modern Maturity
Published: January February 2002
http://www.wolaver.org/peace/ghosts.htm
Here is my review:
In the main, I think Karen gave us a fair and reasonable portrayal of the genesis of Islamo-fascism in the modern sense. Also, broadly, she implies an impending Islamic Renaissance, as I have written. Unfortunately, in a short essay, it is hard to render such a complex issue. I do have a few quibbles or perhaps refinements to her hypothesis.
One of the great failings of Western civilization has been the root assumption that modernization is good. We destroyed the native cultures in our country by such arrogance. The European colonial powers did their share of the same process. We assumed modernization was goodness by definition. Where we failed miserably stems from that assumption and not recognizing the Bedouins, Australian Aborigines, Amazon natives, Mongols and such were and in some instances still are perfectly happy living simple, isolated or nomadic lives. Regardless, as if to validate our values, we ‘forced’ them to become Westernized, without the education or cultural foundation to support such democratic concepts. Whether Western failure can be corrected is a question with no clear answer, but clearly we bear some culpability in such ‘forced’ transition.
Another key element Karen does not address is the inherent tension between public versus private, or in similar terms, State versus Individual. Further, she does not touch upon the corrosion of local culture by capitalist forces and motivations. Business is not a social welfare entity, and generally cares only about the bottom line rather than the consequences of its actions, e.g., the 1984 Bopal disaster or the Kimberly diamond mines of South Africa.
While Armstrong points a heavy, accusatory finger at the West, she ignores the oppression of Islam manifest in the Persian, Moorish and Ottoman Empires. They were not kind or tolerant rulers . . . just oppressors of a different persuasion.
I did appreciate and note one particular paragraph. “The vast majority of fundamentalists do not take part in acts of violence, of course. But those who do utterly distort the faith that they purport to defend. In their fear and anxiety about the encroachments of the secular world, fundamentalists—be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—tend to downplay the compassionate teachings of their scripture and overemphasize the more belligerent passages. In so doing, they often fall into moral nihilism, as is the case of the suicide bomber or hijacker. To kill even one person in the name of God is blasphemy; to massacre thousands of innocent men, women, and children is an obscene perversion of religion itself.”
As I have proposed and continue to advocate, we must assist the Islamic World through their Renaissance, but most importantly, to allow them the freedom to find enlightenment, tolerance and respect for others.
Postscript:
Democracy cannot exist without education. If citizens cannot read, they cannot evaluate multiple, varied sources of information and arrive at an independent opinion, i.e., they cannot intelligently participate in the voting process. If society does not have a free, unfettered Press, and I might add multiple delivery means, then the available information will be constrained to that which the State, or religion, or diluted, hearsay, word-of-mouth offers up. One of many reasons we have radical fundamentalists, they only hear ever more radicalized clerics who pollute their minds and corrode their humanity.
The political scare mongering of the current silly season on both sides has but one purpose . . . get their boy elected. Odd thing is, both major political parties seem to have at least two primary elements in common. They both love big government and spending the public treasury. The only difference in that regard is what they want to spend it on. Democrats tell us Republicans seek perpetual war. Republicans tell us Democrats want communism, or at least deep socialism. We, the People, are left with nothing substantive or rational upon which to judge. The emotional motivations of political dogma fill the voids. From my perspective, I want parts and pieces of each, but in the main, none of the above. I am finding little socially redeeming value in either of the main political parties. They both say what they believe will get them elected.
The last item and big news this week was The New Yorker magazine, 21.July.2008 cover– Michelle and Barack Obama in blatantly derogatory garb and circumstance. The bevy of talking heads went crazy over a satirical comic magazine cover. We defend the Danish political cartoon of Mohammed [218] and condemn the Islamists who bayed for violence, and then we take the inverse in the present example. Hypocrisy? I think so. I think the Obama cartoon was at worst in poor taste, just as the Mohammed cartoon was; but both are worthy of our defense. The sensitivities surrounding the Obama cartoon flourish in the hyper-charged political environment of the presidential election and the raw dichotomy of race relations in the United States. While the cover may have been a bit crass and plays to the bigotry of a significant portion of our population, it did what it was intended to do, brought race, xenophobia, and bigotry to the fore of our political intercourse.
Comments and contributions from Update no.344:
“When I first read thru some comments by ‘others’ on subjects in your blog this week, REALLY doing so for the first time, spoken by ‘some contributor,’ but then much later as I went thru them recognized as being my Own words, I began to think that ‘this guy---whoever he/she is’ really knows about and cares about things going on in the world and here at home. And he/she has straight-forward, no nonsense, no bullshit, no long time waiting out bureaucratic or debating Congressional solutions to a very ‘Present Danger.’ He knows what we first need----a real leader who will do it now, and do it in no uncertain terms. One able to articulate to the people What he is doing, and Why. Then the American people will take it from there.
“He/she must have a Clear definable objective of winning quickly and totally, how to do that, what it will take, and then a Very clear strategy for what comes afterward both for us and the former enemy For an enemy defeated does not have to be and Should not be an enemy afterwards, If that can be accomplished, such as us and the Japanese and Germans after WW2. THAT, however, takes men and women in HIGH places, who have a TRUE VISION of what Can be.
“I am not a Democrat politically, but I like a statement Robert Kennedy made on the very night, I think, that he was assassinated, which quote comes from his Eulogy at his brother John's funeral:
‘My brother need not be idealized, or
enlarged in death beyond what he was
in life, to be remembered simply as a
good decent man, who saw
wrong and tried to right it, saw
suffering and tried to heal it,
saw war and tried to stop it.
"Those of us, who loved him and who
take him to his rest today pray that
what he was to us and what he
wished for others will someday
come to pass for all the world.
"As he said many times, in many parts
of this nation, to those he touched and
who sought to touch him:
'Some men see things as they are
and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.’
-- Edward Kennedy
“Me? Should I be running for President? I have maybe not Quite as many authentic credentials as Obama, though I almost think Nearly, plus he's a bit better speaker than I ever was, (and I was pretty damn good), plus I'm the same age as McCain.
“But I'm busy right now, pontificating on all the various things I see going on which I don't believe in, don't like, and cannot for the life of me figure out why they seemingly can't get solved, and also a few of the things I wish I'd been of the right age (year groups maybe) to take part in over the years. Though I did have my times.
“BUT---We do need the Congress, and the people's approval to train, equip, and man (and KEEP that way) the world's most powerful deterrent to terrorism and true assault on people's God given rights around the world. You have to first train what you have and recruit more if needed, then equip them, and then make Sure their numbers are sufficient to do the job. That takes $$$, and the will of the people to spend those $$$ to accomplish the mission of making and keeping intact, the ultimate war machine---for both their own protection, and the protection of true freedom seeking peoples throughout the world. For even One forgotten and struggling people, can become a real threat to ALL peoples in this so highly advanced (overall) world.
“A LEADER can make that happen. No wimpy leader, no negotiator, no sanctions oriented leader, no leader with an eye more to his/her second term, no "Better Red than Dead" leader, (such as some people, including my paternal grandmother were back in the Cold War times). We have to have a leader who is able to see the problems clearly, knows the consequences of non-action and or procrastination, can judge the threats accurately, and then WILL act, Immediately. He/she can't do that alone. And so they need around them ‘The Best and the Brightest.’ Such as the late David Halberstrom used as the title to his very perceptive book about Vietnam and how we got into it and then prosecuted it. Doing so with ‘The Best and the Brightest’ of the time supposedly, who turned out to be----in many cases NOT so. We can't make THAT mistake ever again.
“I believe a world at peace, all peoples, countries, nations, entities all willing to consult about, discuss about, be creative about peaceful and productive decisions----to respect each others differences, beliefs, and values, and know that war between them is never the best way to obtain objectives, then becomes a world much more likely to be prosperous, happy, free, and productive. I believe in strong countries helping emerging countries who want what we (for instance) want and have. But only to get them started. They then Have to make it on their own. The strong can be, when it's appropriate, the protectors of the weak, but they cannot be, in the end, the saviors of the weak. They can provide seed money, and the talent of experts to Help a country get going, but they cannot, as I said, save the country.
“It is not Justice Kennedy's job to make any decision based even a bit on ‘evolving standards of law,’ unless those standards are law in Fact at the time of the crime. His job is to determine whether or not, by EXISTING law, the penalty assigned was legal.
“In MY opinion he and the other 4 justices with him failed! Laws can be changed, by appropriate legislative authority-----NOT by the Supreme Court members!”
My response:
Well said regarding leadership. POTUS does not don a suit of armor, mount his trusty steed, and lead the army of warriors in close combat. POTUS sees the big picture, defines the objective for the armed forces, and uses his rhetorical skills to focus the energy and capacity of the Nation to wage war successfully. His job is to mobilize the Nation for war, not lead the troops in battle.
Good observation on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana [552 U.S. ___ (2008)]. I registered my objections to that ruling by the Supremes [344]. Justice Alito’s dissent was exceptional and masterful.
. . . a follow-up:
“I like Your description of POTUS's job. You're right. But I think it DOES have benefit for all of us if POTUS has seen combat himself. There is a big, though not necessarily crucial difference between those who have and those who have not. And I have no way to tell you what is is. Maybe I remember you telling me you saw a tiny bit back in Vietnam. It doesn't take much---for sure---to know. Like no one back home CAN know, and likely does not want to know. Maybe even actively worked to ESCAPE war, as two of our late POTUS's have done who were eligible and in the age range to serve. And at least one VP also. Not sure if more than one VP.
“I agree with you on Your thoughts on Justice Kennedy in the K[ennedy] vs L[ouisiana] [344] case. I at the moment do not remember what Justice Alito said, if it was in your blog. I don't save blogs after I've had a chance to go over them and either respond or not. I will see if I still have that issue of your stuff. Probably not. I think.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Yes, I agree, combat experience does have value for anyone in a leadership position, especially POTUS or SecDef. However, to me, that is not a requirement or prerequisite. I am far more interested in leadership skills, oratorical ability, how they deal with people, and intangibles like adaptability, affability, and such. I want a POTUS who has strong principles but knows that compromise and negotiation are absolute essentials in a democracy. I want someone who knows how to find solutions in a broader diverse society and political environment.
As a side note, I failed in my election decision assessment in 2004. I weighted national security in wartime too heavily. The cost incurred as a consequence of Dubya has simply been too great.
BTW, the Update is available on-line after you’ve deleted the eMail, including back issues to no.256. URL: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment