Monday, December 27, 2004

Herbert: Shopping for War

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Shopping for War:

"The war in Iraq was the result of powerful government figures imposing their dangerous fantasies on the world. The fantasies notably included the weapons of mass destruction, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the throngs of Iraqis hurling kisses and garlands at the invading Americans, and the spread of American-style democracy throughout the Middle East. All voices of caution were ignored and the fantasies were allowed to prevail.
The world is not a video game, although it must seem like it at times to the hubristic, hermetically sealed powerbrokers in Washington who manipulate the forces that affect the lives of so many millions of people in every region of the planet. That kind of power calls for humility, not arrogance, and should be wielded wisely, not thoughtlessly and impulsively."

Monday, December 20, 2004

Actor, Governor, President, Icon (washingtonpost.com)

Actor, Governor, President, Icon (washingtonpost.com)

CBS News | Ronald Reagan, Master Storyteller | June 7, 2004

CBS News | Ronald Reagan, Master Storyteller | June 7, 2004�15:13:04

President Ronald Reagan: 75 Top Links

President Ronald Reagan RONALD REAGAN ronald reagan biography life links Ronald Reagan Biography Life 100 Top Links regan REGAN

NPR : Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

NPR : Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

Ronald Reagan: Second Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Ronald Reagan: Second Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Ronald Reagan Quotes - Funny Reagan Quotes and Jokes

Ronald Reagan Quotes - Funny Reagan Quotes and Jokes

Ronald "Dutch" Reagan and Eureka College: The Foundations of Leadership

Ronald "Dutch" Reagan and Eureka College: The Foundations of Leadership

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

Ronald Reagan Dies (washingtonpost.com)

Ronald Reagan Dies (washingtonpost.com)

TIME Magazine: Commemorative Issue: Ronald Reagan: 1911 - 2004

TIME Magazine: Commemorative Issue: Ronald Reagan: 1911 - 2004

Remembering Ronald Reagan

Remembering Ronald Reagan

Worldpress.org - Ronald Reagan - The World View

Worldpress.org - Ronald Reagan - The World View

The Phillips Foundation: Ronald Reagan Future Leaders Scholarship Program

The Phillips Foundation

Ronald Reagan - Quotes

Ronald Reagan - Quotes - Ronald Reagan Quotes, Quotations, Ronald Reagan Sayings - Famous Quotes

Ronald Reagan: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Ronald Reagan: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Pictorial History of Ronald Reagan

Pictorial History of Ronald Reagan

The American Experience | Reagan | Timeline (1911 - 1958)

The American Experience | Reagan | Timeline (1911 - 1958)

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan

The Reagan Information Interchange

The Reagan Information Interchange

American President: Ronald Wilson Reagan

American President

American Presidents: Life Portraits

American Presidents: Life Portraits

The American Experience | Reagan

The American Experience | Reagan

The Public Papers of President Ronald Reagan

The Public Papers of President Ronald W

Welcome to the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project's Home Page

Welcome to the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project's Home Page

Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union Homepage

Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union Homepage

Ronald W. Reagan Presidential Library & Museum Bookstore

Ronald W. Reagan Presidential Library & Museum Bookstore

TIME 100: Ronald Reagan

TIME 100: Ronald Reagan

The Ronald Reagan Ranch

The Ronald Reagan Ranch

Ronald Reagan Quotes - The Quotations Page

Ronald Reagan Quotes - The Quotations Page

USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76)

USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76) "PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH"

Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

RonaldReagan.com

RonaldReagan.com

Google Search: Ronald Reagan

Google Search: Ronald Reagan

Operation Truth

Operation Truth

Bob Herbert: War on the Cheap

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: War on the Cheap

How can I get in touch with Operation Truth?

Friday, December 17, 2004

Herbert: Fiddling as Iraq Burns

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Fiddling as Iraq Burns

Tenet, Franks, and Bremer: Honored for their service in the nation's interest in Iraq.

Herbert concludes: "Medals anyone? The president may actually believe that this crowd is the best and brightest America has to offer. Which is disturbing."

The New York Times: Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment

The New York Times > Washington > Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment

Sunday, December 12, 2004

A Further Comment on Friedman

Don't say, "What's done is done. Now we have to make the best of it." The proper attitude now is, "Stay away, and cage or kill this beast." Churchill said after Munich, "We can't do this," and people listened to him at last. What would history's judgment be if any leader had said after Hitler's invasion of Poland, "We have to make the best of it."? Resistance was the only right response to that invasion, and resistance is the only right response to the invasion of Iraq. Accommodation to this evil by the rest of the world will just bring more evil.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Friedman: Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios

NATO won't get involved in Iraq because Europeans don't trust Bush. They are right not to trust him. He is not trustworthy. Never, never, never do anything to support someone who has done what he has done.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Postscript on Civil War

A civil war is different from other kinds of warfare. In a civil war, our opponents' only goal is to make us leave. That's what made Vietnam such a hard war to win. Our opponents were willing to sustain high losses in order to make us leave, and that's what they did. Our goal, which was to keep the country divided, was extremely hard to achieve if we did not have a strong and motivated local force fighting on our side. In fact, we did not have such a force, and we did not achieve our goal.

We can see a similar situation in Iraq: soldiers on the other side who are much more motivated than the soldiers on our side, and a simple goal to make us leave. A difference is that we can carry out ground operations against our opponents more effectively. We can attack Falluja, Najaf, and Baghdad on the ground, but we could not deploy infantry to Hanoi.

We can't lose this war, but it's not at all clear how we can win it, either. The word quaqmire was inappropriate for Vietnam, and it's not helpful for Iraq, either. It suggests that we get sucked in, as with quicksand, and that we have no way to get out: no exit strategy, as they say.

But we can get out easily if we recognize the nature of the situation we're in. In a two-sided war against a unified state, or against an alliance of unified states, one side has to win decisively, or both sides have to agree to stop fighting. It does no good to declare peace if the other side keeps attacking you. In a civil war, where an outside power fights to support the weaker force, the outside power can withdraw any time. The exit strategy is a simple one, if not easy to execute. In this case, we don't even have to admit that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The Iraqis are grateful that we got rid of Saddam Hussein: they were grateful in April 2003 and they still are. We just have to admit that we made mistakes after getting rid of him. Then the path is clear for an honorable withdrawal.

So these reasons - there'll be a civil war, we can't lose the war, we can't appear to lose it - all of these reasons for staying in Iraq are misconceived. The question is, what serves our interests, given the situation that exists right now? The answer now is the same answer that held when we rolled the first tanks over the border: start planning for disengagement. Let the Iraqis build their own state, because they don't want our help. If we let them alone now, they'll be our friends later.

The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?

The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?

I am an outcome oriented person. Results do matter. Everyone is focused on whether we can win the war in Iraq. For the sake of our troops fighting there, I hope we do win. But that neglects the question of whether we ought be fighting the war to begin with. Success in the war does not mean that the war is right.

The fact that the Nazis lost in 1945 does not make their war wrong. It would not have been right if they had stayed in France and Russia, if they had actually built their thousand year reich. And their defeat is not proof of their wickedness. The actions themselves prove it.

Similarly, the Romans weren't right because their attempt to build an empire succeeded. Yes, we remember the winners, and we overlook the bad things that winners do, but the bad things that winners do are still bad. Rape is still rape, torture is still torture, murder is still murder, and cruelty is still cruelty. Success doesn't affect moral judgments at all.

But, you say, ends do justify the means: if we are successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East, that outcome is so significant that all the bad things we had to do will have been worth it. That outcome is so good that we ought to overlook all the bad things we had to do to achieve it. Realizing the utopian vision of a new world order built on a democratic Middle East will make us forget what happened during the war, and we should forget about it.

Most people believe that, but I don't. I believe that we are going to pay for what we did in Iraq. I believe Lincoln when he said that the United States would pay for every lash of the overseer's whip, that it had already paid with every drop of blood shed in the Civil War. I believe the United States is going to pay, no matter how good the outcome in Iraq. It will pay in lost allies, lost respect, lost leadership. It will pay when China overtakes us as leader of the world, and when we struggle in a long war with Islamic militants that we can't win. It will pay when our enemies seek revenge.

So policy makers have to focus on how to resolve this war as successfully as they can. Commentators have to focus on what the policy makers are doing. But the rest of us should focus on the moral nature of our country's actions. The only way out of our current situation, the only way to redeem it at all is to admit to the world that we made a mistake, and to ask for its forgiveness. Richard Clarke did that when he testified before the 9/11 commission several months ago. I don't think John Kerry would have spoken so forthrightly as Clarke if he had been elected, but he did aim to repair our standing somehow. Bush will not do any of these things. He thinks that if we win the war, everything will be okay. The people who voted for him believe that, too. They're wrong.

The only way to win the war we are in is to fight the enemy who attacked us. To think that our enemies will give up because we defeat an enemy who didn't attack us is foolish. The only way to win the war we are in is to set up shop in the country where we had to fight: Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that's not possible any more: a lot of time has passed since 2002, and I don't believe we'd be welcome there anymore. It's hard to tell, though. Other people's reactions are hard to predict.

What does setting up shop mean? Well, some of you have heard me say it so often that you won't need to hear it again: construct air bases, highways and super highways, roads, listening bases, army bases, naval air stations, training centers, supply depots, communications facilities, intelligence centers, humanitarian relief operations, radio and television stations, trade relations, schools, consulates, joint commands with our allies, water projects, fuel depots, armaments depots, and... you have the idea now. After we set all these things up, we should use them. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. Do everything but collect taxes. Make Afghanistan an extension of our own country. Use it as our forward base for operations throughout South Asia and the Middle East.

I honestly don't know if we could do that anymore. We could have done it in 2002. It may be too late, now. But we ought to try. The effort would have some interesting outcomes. The only way we could launch the effort now, given the amount of fear and distrust we've generated with the war in Iraq, is to do what I suggested above: admit our mistake and ask forgiveness. If we did that, I believe we would have a lot of help in whatever we undertook after that. That confession would restore trust with the people's whose help we need. And we do need help to defeat Al Qaeda.

Here is a postscript: Just last night I heard on the radio again the standard thinking. If we leave Iraq now, the country will dissolve into civil war. That was a credible warning a year and a half ago, but how is it a warning now? The country has already dissolved into civil war. It's true that Iraq has no large armies on the march, but most of the civil wars we've seen since World War II have been fought by small bands of soldiers. A key difference between the civil war in Iraq and the other civil wars we've seen is that we're in the middle of it. Our reasoning about what we should do shouldn't be based on what will happen if we get out. The war we fear has already started.

So what should we do? Work with local leaders - local leaders who aren't currently shooting at us. Find out what they want. Do what we can to help them get what they want. Work from those beginnings to communicate with the people who are shooting at us. Some of our enemies won't want to talk with us. Some will. Listen to anyone who wants to talk with us. Find out what they want, think about what serves our interests, and make a plan that helps Iraqis and helps us at the same time. Most Iraqis want us to leave now. Who is to say they are wrong? Who is to say that the country would be so poorly off if it broke into three separate states after we left? We would see some very interesting developments were we to let the Iraqis determine their own future. We think that the January 30 election is the key to self-determination. They believe our departure is the key to self-determination. Perhaps doing both would be a good idea.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Frank Rich: The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun

The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun: "Kevin Sites, the freelance TV cameraman who caught a marine shooting an apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner in a mosque, is one such blogger. Mr. Sites is an embedded journalist currently in the employ of NBC News. To NBC's credit, it ran Mr. Sites's mid-November report, on a newscast in which Mr. Williams was then subbing for Mr. Brokaw, and handled it in exemplary fashion. Mr. Sites avoided any snap judgment pending the Marines' own investigation of the shooting, cautioning that a war zone is 'rife with uncertainty and confusion.' But loud voices in red America, especially on blogs, wanted him silenced anyway. On right-wing sites like freerepublic.com Mr. Sites was branded an 'anti-war activist' (which he is not), a traitor and an 'enemy combatant.' Mr. Sites's own blog, touted by Mr. Williams on the air, was full of messages from the relatives of marines profusely thanking the cameraman for bringing them news of their sons in Iraq. That communal message board has since been shut down because of the death threats by other Americans against Mr. Sites."

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Kristof: China's Donkey Droppings

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: China's Donkey Droppings: "or the last century, the title of 'most important place in the world' has belonged to the United States, but that role seems likely to shift in this century to China."