Now that our economy is once again in a crisis, John McCain proposes more of the most abusive theory of economics as the solution. Make the rich richer, he contends, and they will take this additional wealth and create more jobs through their investing, trickle down in action. What trickles down is debt and disappointment.
The bitter reality is our system socializes losses by bailing out corporations whose unrestricted greed has created the problem by having the taxpayers absorb the down side, pledging billions of dollars in bailout, swelling the national debt, thus preserving the advantageous positions of the wealthy. It is, in effect, a subsidy for the stockholder class.
More medicine necessary ? Why bigger tax breaks for corporations and those in the higher income brackets.
To be avoided at all costs? Tax breaks for the working class, increases in minimum wage, and health and retirement benefits for employees since these costs contribute to out sourcing, flight of capital, unemployment and reduce entreprenuial profits.
Socialize losses and privatize profits, Republican economics at their best.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Bulldogs and Baggywrinkles
In search for the similes two images with respect to McCain and Palin occur. Sarah Palin contends that hockey moms are indistinguishable from bulldogs except for lipstick. Her self characterization demonstrates she would perform as a vicious canine and little else could be expected. The quality of her governance would be a disaster.
Baggywrinkle an old sailboat devise to protect sails from being chaffed by rigging lines. It also aptly describes John Mc Cain’s visage and is prophetic as to what kind of performance might be expected of him. The same old sorry tired stuff. “Stay the course” in a new guise. Tax breaks for the rich, trickle down, socialize losses and individualize profits. Slogans instead of solutions and the mendacity to call it change.
Baggywrinkle an old sailboat devise to protect sails from being chaffed by rigging lines. It also aptly describes John Mc Cain’s visage and is prophetic as to what kind of performance might be expected of him. The same old sorry tired stuff. “Stay the course” in a new guise. Tax breaks for the rich, trickle down, socialize losses and individualize profits. Slogans instead of solutions and the mendacity to call it change.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Under the Radar
While most of American is being entertained and diverted by the more trivial and mundane aspects of the election campaign, President Bush, VP Cheney, and Sec. State Rice are busily stirring up as much controversy as possible in eastern Europe and the middle East. Arguing for an immediate admission of the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, they are creating the most volatile instability imaginable, a bold faced neocon attempt to re ignite the cold war and bring us back to a scenario where the next minor episode in the region will necessitate NATO and all of its members, to meet their treaty obligations by going to war against Russia. Not content to let things cool during their last three months in power and leave the future to the next duly elected government of the U.S., the Bushicons are setting as many traps as possible, limited the choices of the next administration and committing the world to yet another period of impending disaster, despite the fact that our forces are at a perilous low.
We are now on the verge of regressing into the same “balance of powers” diplomacy which prevailed in 1914 and precipitated the world into World War I after the assassination of a minor official set into motion a series of treaty commitment which brought the major powers into immediate armed conflict.
Added to the mix is the heightened tensions with Iran caused by years of Bush’s refusal to engage in any dialogue whatsoever, unless as a precondition, Iran agrees to capitulate on all issues. A sure formula for diplomatic success.
Now some of the surrounding circumstances of the much ballyhooed “surge” are coming to light. How Bush advised only by his coterie of civilian experts and the policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute, decided to ignore his generals on the ground, the joint chiefs and others who urged caution and committed the entire reserve force of the U.S. Military into a grand push in Baghdad. Browbeating Maliki into acceptance. he next went cherry picking for a military front man settling on an under gualified divisional commander, Petreus, promoting him over the heads of more experienced officers, so long as he remained in lockstep with Bush’s policies, reminiscent of the way Alexander Haig was jumped over the entire senior general staff to provide the precise coloration required by the politicians. What was overlooked in all of this was the extreme jeopardy created by leaving the military totally devoid of any significant reserves; leaving our forces in Afghanistan slowly twisting in the wind, undermanned and undersupplied while pouring 30,000 troops into policing a city which by now should be largely an Iraqi responsibility. Clearly, Bush’s only concern was to assure the success of the centerpiece of his middle east policy, the “jewel in his crown” so to speak. Regardless of the great risks involved in committing the entire reserve, Bush was “doubling down” , in gamblers parlance, doubling his bet, without regard to Afghanistan and other vital interests. Once again concern for his personal legacy trumped the country’s vital interests
The current crisis climate in Pakistan is a direct result of our untimely undermining of General Musharaf, failing to recognize the precarious nature of his position and promoting the reintroduction of Behazir Bhutto into the volatile politics of Pakistan. Rather than improving our attempts to quell the Taliban on the Afghan border, we have lost ground and placed our forces in Afghanistan in further jeopardy.
Now, despite the alleged success in Iraq, Bush and Petreus now announce that due to the fragility of the surge success, we can only bring home 8,000 troops out of Iraq to beef up our forces in Afghanistan, and that our force of 150,000 troops is still required in Iraq. It would appear that the purpose of the policy is to make Bush’s judgments appear to be correct rather than to forward the interest of the United States.
Certainly as the senior generals of the joint chief’s retire and are thusly relieved of their current inability to speak the truth will come out, unfortunately by then, Bush will have painted us into a corner, with the world’s largest embassy ever in Baghdad, and miles and miles of concrete runways poured in Iraqi airfields. A so-called “status of forces” agreement, really a long term treaty commitment to Iraq is being negotiated and will not be submitted to the Senate as the constitution requires. The final Bush’s thumbing his nose at our laws and traditions.
We are now on the verge of regressing into the same “balance of powers” diplomacy which prevailed in 1914 and precipitated the world into World War I after the assassination of a minor official set into motion a series of treaty commitment which brought the major powers into immediate armed conflict.
Added to the mix is the heightened tensions with Iran caused by years of Bush’s refusal to engage in any dialogue whatsoever, unless as a precondition, Iran agrees to capitulate on all issues. A sure formula for diplomatic success.
Now some of the surrounding circumstances of the much ballyhooed “surge” are coming to light. How Bush advised only by his coterie of civilian experts and the policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute, decided to ignore his generals on the ground, the joint chiefs and others who urged caution and committed the entire reserve force of the U.S. Military into a grand push in Baghdad. Browbeating Maliki into acceptance. he next went cherry picking for a military front man settling on an under gualified divisional commander, Petreus, promoting him over the heads of more experienced officers, so long as he remained in lockstep with Bush’s policies, reminiscent of the way Alexander Haig was jumped over the entire senior general staff to provide the precise coloration required by the politicians. What was overlooked in all of this was the extreme jeopardy created by leaving the military totally devoid of any significant reserves; leaving our forces in Afghanistan slowly twisting in the wind, undermanned and undersupplied while pouring 30,000 troops into policing a city which by now should be largely an Iraqi responsibility. Clearly, Bush’s only concern was to assure the success of the centerpiece of his middle east policy, the “jewel in his crown” so to speak. Regardless of the great risks involved in committing the entire reserve, Bush was “doubling down” , in gamblers parlance, doubling his bet, without regard to Afghanistan and other vital interests. Once again concern for his personal legacy trumped the country’s vital interests
The current crisis climate in Pakistan is a direct result of our untimely undermining of General Musharaf, failing to recognize the precarious nature of his position and promoting the reintroduction of Behazir Bhutto into the volatile politics of Pakistan. Rather than improving our attempts to quell the Taliban on the Afghan border, we have lost ground and placed our forces in Afghanistan in further jeopardy.
Now, despite the alleged success in Iraq, Bush and Petreus now announce that due to the fragility of the surge success, we can only bring home 8,000 troops out of Iraq to beef up our forces in Afghanistan, and that our force of 150,000 troops is still required in Iraq. It would appear that the purpose of the policy is to make Bush’s judgments appear to be correct rather than to forward the interest of the United States.
Certainly as the senior generals of the joint chief’s retire and are thusly relieved of their current inability to speak the truth will come out, unfortunately by then, Bush will have painted us into a corner, with the world’s largest embassy ever in Baghdad, and miles and miles of concrete runways poured in Iraqi airfields. A so-called “status of forces” agreement, really a long term treaty commitment to Iraq is being negotiated and will not be submitted to the Senate as the constitution requires. The final Bush’s thumbing his nose at our laws and traditions.
THE ARROGANT AMERICANS
Somewhere along the line the people in the White House decided that we
would make all the rules for people to live by since we were the sole
super power. Rules of International law, formerly observed by
virtually all states, were flaunted or observed by us at our whim.
Attempts to kill heads of state of whom we disapproved were open and
notorious. Condemning aggression we nevertheless indulged in
anticipatory incursions, invading Panama, Granada and Iraq in
contravention of the law of nations. In other cases we openly fomented
revolution and furnished material support to revolutionary groups. All
of this we did because we knew that we would not be held to account.
The CIA sent poison cigars to Castro and financed other attempts to
kill him. We supported a military junta in Chile and were complicit in
the assassination of its head of state. Bombed Libya in an attempt to
kill Kadafi, kidnapped Noriega after invading Panama and invaded
Iraq, allegedly based on faulty intelligence when in fact the plan had
been in effect for over a year before the actual incursion. An
alleged attempt on the life of one of our former presidents is however
advanced as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
Abandoning our earlier commitment to self determination by sovereign
states, recognizing their right to a form a government of their
choosing, we announced a policy of supporting regime change,
influencing or actually participating in the overthrow of governments
of which we did not approve. When not actually using force to effect
such change we engaged in economic warfare by means of imposing
embargoes and contributing financially and materially to internal
revolutionary movements. Totalitarian states which chose to cooperate
with us were exempt from such treatment and enjoyed both economic and
diplomatic support from the United States. Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
we declare to be our steadfast friends, never mind the oppressive
aspects of their regime. Cuba, on the other hand is hammered with
sanctions for 50 years due to the political usefulness of a small
group of emigres in Miami.
We urge the establishment of democracies with broad participation of
its citizens in their affairs, yet when we dislike their policies we
withhold recognition.
Our recent heads of state are known more for their swagger than their
statesmanship. Threats of armed intervention, both express and
implicit, are preferred to diplomatic dialogue. The ultimate
arrogance, "we don't talk to evil " seems to be the mantra of our
current diplomacy.
Yet we wonder, why are we no longer loved and respected as we once
were ? At the end of World War II, we were all but universally
regarded with admiration and affection, the bastion of democracy which
saved the civilized world. This attitude continued for a long time,
through the Korean War era and beyond.
In traveling abroad in the late 1960's and early 1970's I was struck
by how readily foreigners who disagreed with aspects of our
governmental policies always held the American people in high esteem.
Having little difficulty in distinguishing between individuals and
their government. Unhappily, several generations of insensitive,
boorish American tourists have done much to destroy this perception.
Too often, American tourists either uninformed or indifferent to the
customs and manners of other cultures have acted poorly abroad,
behaving with a total lack of concern or sensitivity for the
impression they were creating. The insults did not go unnoticed !
Behaving like the lords of creation and immune from the requirements
of civility they have created great damage to the American image
abroad and the healing will take much time.
Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, many Americans wonder why
we are not appreciated for all the good we have achieved, why we are
so roundly disliked in most parts of the world. A bit of
retrospection would supply most of the answer.
would make all the rules for people to live by since we were the sole
super power. Rules of International law, formerly observed by
virtually all states, were flaunted or observed by us at our whim.
Attempts to kill heads of state of whom we disapproved were open and
notorious. Condemning aggression we nevertheless indulged in
anticipatory incursions, invading Panama, Granada and Iraq in
contravention of the law of nations. In other cases we openly fomented
revolution and furnished material support to revolutionary groups. All
of this we did because we knew that we would not be held to account.
The CIA sent poison cigars to Castro and financed other attempts to
kill him. We supported a military junta in Chile and were complicit in
the assassination of its head of state. Bombed Libya in an attempt to
kill Kadafi, kidnapped Noriega after invading Panama and invaded
Iraq, allegedly based on faulty intelligence when in fact the plan had
been in effect for over a year before the actual incursion. An
alleged attempt on the life of one of our former presidents is however
advanced as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
Abandoning our earlier commitment to self determination by sovereign
states, recognizing their right to a form a government of their
choosing, we announced a policy of supporting regime change,
influencing or actually participating in the overthrow of governments
of which we did not approve. When not actually using force to effect
such change we engaged in economic warfare by means of imposing
embargoes and contributing financially and materially to internal
revolutionary movements. Totalitarian states which chose to cooperate
with us were exempt from such treatment and enjoyed both economic and
diplomatic support from the United States. Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
we declare to be our steadfast friends, never mind the oppressive
aspects of their regime. Cuba, on the other hand is hammered with
sanctions for 50 years due to the political usefulness of a small
group of emigres in Miami.
We urge the establishment of democracies with broad participation of
its citizens in their affairs, yet when we dislike their policies we
withhold recognition.
Our recent heads of state are known more for their swagger than their
statesmanship. Threats of armed intervention, both express and
implicit, are preferred to diplomatic dialogue. The ultimate
arrogance, "we don't talk to evil " seems to be the mantra of our
current diplomacy.
Yet we wonder, why are we no longer loved and respected as we once
were ? At the end of World War II, we were all but universally
regarded with admiration and affection, the bastion of democracy which
saved the civilized world. This attitude continued for a long time,
through the Korean War era and beyond.
In traveling abroad in the late 1960's and early 1970's I was struck
by how readily foreigners who disagreed with aspects of our
governmental policies always held the American people in high esteem.
Having little difficulty in distinguishing between individuals and
their government. Unhappily, several generations of insensitive,
boorish American tourists have done much to destroy this perception.
Too often, American tourists either uninformed or indifferent to the
customs and manners of other cultures have acted poorly abroad,
behaving with a total lack of concern or sensitivity for the
impression they were creating. The insults did not go unnoticed !
Behaving like the lords of creation and immune from the requirements
of civility they have created great damage to the American image
abroad and the healing will take much time.
Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, many Americans wonder why
we are not appreciated for all the good we have achieved, why we are
so roundly disliked in most parts of the world. A bit of
retrospection would supply most of the answer.
Liberalism and Change
The theory of Divine Right was the bedrock of monarchy, the concept that the monarch was chosen by God to rule. This concept of arrogance, in watered-down form was the basis for class superiority, that the order of things was predestined, therefore proper and not to be questioned. For millennia, those at the bottom accepted this explanation, supported by governmental power and religion, as the reason for their condition. Complacency was the order of the day, in knowing and keeping your place there was at least safety. Calvinism enshrined the status quo as God’s plan, not to be questioned. The prospects for change in status were small to none.
When the prospects for change arrived with the age of enlightenment, the ground shook ! Questioning, not acceptance, became the order of the day and philosophies based on ideas of fairness began to flourish. The suggestion that everyone, not just the privileged classes, had fundamental entitlements began to gain acceptance, though by no means was such acceptance universal.
The establishment of democracy in America was a giant step forward, although the privileged classes held fast to their superior advantages, although fear of “mobocracy” as they viewed popular government, forced them to resist changes despite some necessary compromises. Concern for property rights trumped the rights of ordinary people and it was a slow climb to develop social conscience and equitable treatment for all people.
The French Revolution toppled the concept of Divine Right and destroyed the complacency of the privileged. Political reforms and the industrial revolution had destroyed the old order and in 1848 a series of revolutions swept across Europe changing the balance between haves and have-nots. De Tocqueville observed “Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror.” In the United States the Civil War brought about the previously unheard of result of converting property into people. The unbridled power of capitalism resulted in a new kind of slavery, with the working class being exploited and made to suffer appalling conditions, while the propertied wealthy grew richer.
What followed was a period of great unrest while the labor movement struggled to attain decent living and working conditions for ordinary people while the privileged struggled to maintain the status quo and put the progressive genie back in the bottle. The muckrakers, as some authors were known, brought workplace abuses to light, the labor movement achieved recognition for unions and protection for the rights and safety of the laboring class.
The progressives, later called liberals, fought for social change. They favored the abolition of slavery while the conservatives defended it as a property right. They opposed child labor while the conservatives defended it as a property right. The conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week as an infringement of property rights.
Liberal became the label applied to those who sought a more tolerant and open society tolerant of other points of view and supporting reform and change while those who opposed any change and defended the status quo came to call themselves conservatives.
For a time the liberal viewpoint prevailed, bringing about better working conditions, improvement in public health, regulation of trusts and corporate abuses, social security, public education and a host of social benefits.
Following W.W.II. the G.I. bill brought about a renaissance in public education and a new generation of well educated, well informed citizens which brought American Society to a new pinnacle of prosperity. We were the nation who saved the world from fascism, helped rebuild war torn Europe with the Marshall Plan, then set about helping the underprivileged peoples of the world with Point Four and the Agency for International Development.
When the Republic of South Korea was invaded by its neighbor to the north we responded by fighting a costly war to rescue the young republic. Although there is an ongoing debate about whether we won that war since no formal peace was ever achieved, the continued existence of South Korea as a prosperous, independent country seems answer enough.
Our initial involvement in Vietnam was an unwise attempt to assist the French in reestablishing their colonial empire in the face of a growing independence movement and an incipient civil war between the communist north and the francophile south. The ambiguity of our involvement tore a generation of Americans apart and cost the lives of tens of thousands of American youth. The effects of this conflict still echo in our body politic and serve as a divisive force in our country to this day. Part of the reaction in the post Vietnam war era was a retreat from the optimism of the immediate post W.W.II period. Confidence in our government and social institutions waned.
The reaction was to bring forth a wave of conservatism, to seemingly reduce the role of government while cynically rolling back the clock of progress. Social programs were canceled, and a slandering of things liberal commenced, Reagan making the use of the term the “L” word to connote something undesirable. While Reagan was smearing liberal causes he sold guns to Iran, and used the funds to oppose a revolution in Nicaragua, sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq as a special envoy to facilitate the supplying of weapons to Saddam Hussein, invaded Granada for the hell of it, and turned America into a debtor nation. For this and other dubious achievements, the conservatives wanted to add his visage to Mt. Rushmore.
Another wrinkle added to the mix was that of privatization, the suggestion that the private sector could better administer the responsibility of government than could a beauracracy. The falsity in this suggestion is that it failed to take into account the introduction of a profit center into the cost of performing governmental functions. Certainly with the awarding of non-competed, cost-plus contract, replete with renegotiating possibilities and a lack of oversight supervision, the argument cannot be tested. The entrepreneurial mystique continues as if seeking profit at public expense will be, a priori, more economical that performing of a governmental function by government.
Meanwhile the conservatives dismantled civil service, bust unions, revamp the bankruptcy courts to accommodate the destruction of pension plans for the benefit of corporate stock holders, reduce aid to students and try to turn social security into a bonanza for the stock market. Corporations shift their operations overseas in search of cheap labor and American jobs are lost.
Liberalism is now a dirty word while the institutions created by liberals are dismantled, the poor remain poor, the middle class is disappearing and the rich become richer everyday.
Meanwhile the deficit and national debt climb to record heights. We have even seen the privatizing of the military by shifting the many functions of the Quartermasters Corps to corporations like Halliburton to their immense profit and our immense cost.
Perhaps the recent elections which changed the Congressional balance of power will be the beginning of a new enlightenment, where government will protect the rights of all people and preserve justice rather than pander to a political “base” and lade out profit and privilege to the few. The “L” word will once again be the badge of those who sponsor responsible government and an open society, the people who brought greatness to America.
When the prospects for change arrived with the age of enlightenment, the ground shook ! Questioning, not acceptance, became the order of the day and philosophies based on ideas of fairness began to flourish. The suggestion that everyone, not just the privileged classes, had fundamental entitlements began to gain acceptance, though by no means was such acceptance universal.
The establishment of democracy in America was a giant step forward, although the privileged classes held fast to their superior advantages, although fear of “mobocracy” as they viewed popular government, forced them to resist changes despite some necessary compromises. Concern for property rights trumped the rights of ordinary people and it was a slow climb to develop social conscience and equitable treatment for all people.
The French Revolution toppled the concept of Divine Right and destroyed the complacency of the privileged. Political reforms and the industrial revolution had destroyed the old order and in 1848 a series of revolutions swept across Europe changing the balance between haves and have-nots. De Tocqueville observed “Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror.” In the United States the Civil War brought about the previously unheard of result of converting property into people. The unbridled power of capitalism resulted in a new kind of slavery, with the working class being exploited and made to suffer appalling conditions, while the propertied wealthy grew richer.
What followed was a period of great unrest while the labor movement struggled to attain decent living and working conditions for ordinary people while the privileged struggled to maintain the status quo and put the progressive genie back in the bottle. The muckrakers, as some authors were known, brought workplace abuses to light, the labor movement achieved recognition for unions and protection for the rights and safety of the laboring class.
The progressives, later called liberals, fought for social change. They favored the abolition of slavery while the conservatives defended it as a property right. They opposed child labor while the conservatives defended it as a property right. The conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week as an infringement of property rights.
Liberal became the label applied to those who sought a more tolerant and open society tolerant of other points of view and supporting reform and change while those who opposed any change and defended the status quo came to call themselves conservatives.
For a time the liberal viewpoint prevailed, bringing about better working conditions, improvement in public health, regulation of trusts and corporate abuses, social security, public education and a host of social benefits.
Following W.W.II. the G.I. bill brought about a renaissance in public education and a new generation of well educated, well informed citizens which brought American Society to a new pinnacle of prosperity. We were the nation who saved the world from fascism, helped rebuild war torn Europe with the Marshall Plan, then set about helping the underprivileged peoples of the world with Point Four and the Agency for International Development.
When the Republic of South Korea was invaded by its neighbor to the north we responded by fighting a costly war to rescue the young republic. Although there is an ongoing debate about whether we won that war since no formal peace was ever achieved, the continued existence of South Korea as a prosperous, independent country seems answer enough.
Our initial involvement in Vietnam was an unwise attempt to assist the French in reestablishing their colonial empire in the face of a growing independence movement and an incipient civil war between the communist north and the francophile south. The ambiguity of our involvement tore a generation of Americans apart and cost the lives of tens of thousands of American youth. The effects of this conflict still echo in our body politic and serve as a divisive force in our country to this day. Part of the reaction in the post Vietnam war era was a retreat from the optimism of the immediate post W.W.II period. Confidence in our government and social institutions waned.
The reaction was to bring forth a wave of conservatism, to seemingly reduce the role of government while cynically rolling back the clock of progress. Social programs were canceled, and a slandering of things liberal commenced, Reagan making the use of the term the “L” word to connote something undesirable. While Reagan was smearing liberal causes he sold guns to Iran, and used the funds to oppose a revolution in Nicaragua, sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq as a special envoy to facilitate the supplying of weapons to Saddam Hussein, invaded Granada for the hell of it, and turned America into a debtor nation. For this and other dubious achievements, the conservatives wanted to add his visage to Mt. Rushmore.
Another wrinkle added to the mix was that of privatization, the suggestion that the private sector could better administer the responsibility of government than could a beauracracy. The falsity in this suggestion is that it failed to take into account the introduction of a profit center into the cost of performing governmental functions. Certainly with the awarding of non-competed, cost-plus contract, replete with renegotiating possibilities and a lack of oversight supervision, the argument cannot be tested. The entrepreneurial mystique continues as if seeking profit at public expense will be, a priori, more economical that performing of a governmental function by government.
Meanwhile the conservatives dismantled civil service, bust unions, revamp the bankruptcy courts to accommodate the destruction of pension plans for the benefit of corporate stock holders, reduce aid to students and try to turn social security into a bonanza for the stock market. Corporations shift their operations overseas in search of cheap labor and American jobs are lost.
Liberalism is now a dirty word while the institutions created by liberals are dismantled, the poor remain poor, the middle class is disappearing and the rich become richer everyday.
Meanwhile the deficit and national debt climb to record heights. We have even seen the privatizing of the military by shifting the many functions of the Quartermasters Corps to corporations like Halliburton to their immense profit and our immense cost.
Perhaps the recent elections which changed the Congressional balance of power will be the beginning of a new enlightenment, where government will protect the rights of all people and preserve justice rather than pander to a political “base” and lade out profit and privilege to the few. The “L” word will once again be the badge of those who sponsor responsible government and an open society, the people who brought greatness to America.
The Surge
I am frankly mystified at the endless palaver concerning the surge which according to my recollections was an infusion of some 25,000 additional troops into Iraq last year. Such a decision was not a change in tactics nor certainly not a new strategy yet it is currently a subject of political debate as if such a decision was a stroke of military genius as to warrant a complete rewrite of the curriculum at West Point.
Surely using more soldiers to do more of the same thing with more emphasis had some foreseeable consequences, but the current crowing about it at least baffling.
Whether the “surge” was a late blooming recognition of the correctness of General Shinshecki’s opinion that our forces were greatly undermanned from the beginning, and the root cause of why things had gone badly for so long, or an inspired decision to provide a push to improve our military posture and at the same time motivate the Iraqis to move toward a reconciliation of their differences is largely academic. The latest spin on this issue is to characterize any suggestion that the surge was anything less than brilliant is to disparage the sacrifice of our troops and is fundamentally unpatriotic. What a cheap way to avoid analysis and criticism.
The Iraqis will solve their political differences at their own speed, irrespective of the numbers of American troops present. The big issue for the Americans to come to grips with is whether we will control conditions on the ground or let circumstances dictate our posture. It seems clear that decisive leadership compels the former.
Surely using more soldiers to do more of the same thing with more emphasis had some foreseeable consequences, but the current crowing about it at least baffling.
Whether the “surge” was a late blooming recognition of the correctness of General Shinshecki’s opinion that our forces were greatly undermanned from the beginning, and the root cause of why things had gone badly for so long, or an inspired decision to provide a push to improve our military posture and at the same time motivate the Iraqis to move toward a reconciliation of their differences is largely academic. The latest spin on this issue is to characterize any suggestion that the surge was anything less than brilliant is to disparage the sacrifice of our troops and is fundamentally unpatriotic. What a cheap way to avoid analysis and criticism.
The Iraqis will solve their political differences at their own speed, irrespective of the numbers of American troops present. The big issue for the Americans to come to grips with is whether we will control conditions on the ground or let circumstances dictate our posture. It seems clear that decisive leadership compels the former.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Petraeus’s “Hedge ”
After watching General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker twist and turn through two congressional hearings the essence of their collective recommendations is to “stay the course.” The long anticipated plan for a military roll back is to reduce the troop level to a little higher than their pre-surge level and then stand fast. The experts then requiring a period of at least 45 days to consider whether any further force reduction is advisable. Shades of General Patton; that good soldier must be turning over in his grave at the lack of decisiveness in current military planning.
After quelling a near case of “mal de mer” when Senator Lindsay Graham declared his regret at his inability to award Petraeus a fifth star, I watched with interest as General and Ambassador dodging questions did a two step worthy of Astaire and Rogers.
Displaying an array of charts and graphs worthy of a sales campaign kickoff, the duo attempted to graphically demonstrate a myriad of reasons why Iraq remains unstable and the outcome unpredictable. Declaring that we have not turned any corners and he could not see any light at the end of the tunnel, the General and Ambassador are busily assisting State in crafting an agreement with the Iraqi’s government which will commit as to an ad infinitum support for the regime, but bypass the required senatorial ratification for treaty commitment.
Essentially, Petraeus argues for a reactive rather than a pro-active policy, contending that conditions on the ground should control policy rather than policy determine future actions. In effect, the general would rather “hedge” his bets by not taking a position.
Somehow, one is reminded of Lincoln’s barb at General McClelland’s failure to take any action with the Army of the Potomac, when he asked the General if he could borrow the Army since the General wasn’t using it.
Precisely why Petraeus was selected for his command from among a galaxy of other four stars in the Pentagon is unclear, but his advise seems always to be in lock step with President Bush’s inspired leadership with respect to Iraq.
After quelling a near case of “mal de mer” when Senator Lindsay Graham declared his regret at his inability to award Petraeus a fifth star, I watched with interest as General and Ambassador dodging questions did a two step worthy of Astaire and Rogers.
Displaying an array of charts and graphs worthy of a sales campaign kickoff, the duo attempted to graphically demonstrate a myriad of reasons why Iraq remains unstable and the outcome unpredictable. Declaring that we have not turned any corners and he could not see any light at the end of the tunnel, the General and Ambassador are busily assisting State in crafting an agreement with the Iraqi’s government which will commit as to an ad infinitum support for the regime, but bypass the required senatorial ratification for treaty commitment.
Essentially, Petraeus argues for a reactive rather than a pro-active policy, contending that conditions on the ground should control policy rather than policy determine future actions. In effect, the general would rather “hedge” his bets by not taking a position.
Somehow, one is reminded of Lincoln’s barb at General McClelland’s failure to take any action with the Army of the Potomac, when he asked the General if he could borrow the Army since the General wasn’t using it.
Precisely why Petraeus was selected for his command from among a galaxy of other four stars in the Pentagon is unclear, but his advise seems always to be in lock step with President Bush’s inspired leadership with respect to Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)