Sunday, October 23, 2005

Patriotism

Back in 1975 or so, William Appleman Williams came to give a lecture at Reed College. I only knew that he was a well-known historian, and I wanted to hear him mostly because I hadn't heard many lectures by well-known historians. I didn't know much about his or his writing. I didn't know he was from the South.

When we was well into the talk, he criticized Abraham Lincoln for his war of aggression against the South. Williams didn't mount a lengthy attack, but it was clear that he wasn't mispeaking, that his remarks weren't open to misunderstanding. I had never heard such a thing before.

Naturally in my schooling, Abraham Lincoln was next to God and Jesus in the hierarchy of good people. I hadn't thought that anyone, least of all a thoughtful, well-known historian, could think that Abraham Lincoln was a bad guy. But sectional bitterness persisted, a century after Reconstruction.

I wanted to recall Williams' talk because it's related to current discussions of patriotism. I don't think Williams was unpatriotic to criticize Lincoln's war policy. And it's not unpatriotic to criticize Bush's war policy. When Cheney attacks the war's critics as unpatriotic, he makes a huge error. Patriotism is not what's at issue here.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Bush to Visit Reagan Library

Ventura County Star: "President Bush is scheduled to attend the ribbon-cutting ceremony of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library's Air Force One Pavilion in Simi Valley Friday. Invited by officials at the library, President Bush and his wife plan to attend the 11 a.m. ceremony and a 1 p.m. lunch...."

Look at this one. Recently I read that the Reagan Library sent a cease and desist letter to a political candidate who wanted to display his own photographs of himself with Reagan at his website. The Library forced him to remove the photographs because they implied an endorsement from Reagan, even though they did not hold the rights to the photographs. As the keepers of Reagan's memory and legacy, they reason, they have final say over how Reagan's image is used.

But now look what they've done in connection with an upcoming ceremony at the Library. They think they look good when they have the president of the United States come to the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Air Force One. Instead, they associate Reagan's memory with the living image of the worst president we have ever had. What a double standard! An unknown, aspiring candidate who wants to show a picture of himself shaking hands with Reagan receives a cease and desist order. That's an unauthorized use of Reagan's image, they say? But if the Reagan Library can brush up its own image with a presidential visit, no travesty is too great. Who gave the Reagan Library authority to stain the legacy of this great man with the squalor and crimes of our current president? How can they think that having a president like this one present during this significant ceremony will benefit Reagan's legacy? Bush brings shame with him wherever he goes.

No scandal or neglect of Ulysses Grant or Warren Harding equals the horrible mistake that Bush has made. No paranoid spying or dirty tricks by Nixon approximates the discredit that Bush has brought on this great nation. Certainly no disgrace of Clinton's second term comes close. With one war in the spring of 2003, Bush proclaimed to the world, "We don't care to lead you anymore. We don't even consider you worthy of our leadership. We intend to throw off responsibility for the world system of law and politics we've created. We'll do what we want." The results of that proclamation were predictable enough, and we see the seeds of those results around us now. No country looks to us for leadership now. No country expects us to act in anything but our own interests. No country can feel safe in a system where the powerful attack the weak. In this case, the attacker is not only powerful: the very guarantor of peace and security broke loose and wreaked death out of an elemental surge of fear and a lust for revenge.

I gave a speech at the Reagan Library once. It was in the spring of 2002. Mark Burson, the executive director of the Reagan Foundation, invited me to come to the Library to talk about Reagan. Not so long after that visit, the Library's leadership changed. The current director of the Reagan Foundation is Duke Blackwood. According to the Ventura County Star, he played hardball with the docents that the library dismissed on the grounds that they were too old to carry out their duties. He said in a letter that if they talked with the press, they would suffer consequences. I'm not sure how you can threaten volunteers you've just dismissed, but he did it.

Anyway, Mr. Blackwood now thinks he as a big event going with the opening of the pavilion that houses Air Force One. They've been preparing for this important gathering for a long time. They've raised lots of money for the pavilion, and the opening ceremony is a good way to say thank you for your contributions: and we hope to see more of you and your checkbook. What a victory the Library thought it had achieved when the president accepted its invitation to speak at the ceremony! We are proud to present ...the president himself! The young, vigorous and handsome George W. Bush, president of the United States. The true bearer of Reagan's bright vision into our country's hopeful future.

It's not bright anymore, and hope's going to disappear fast when our citizens discover what this president has done to our reputation. Keep him far away from Reagan and his memory. Keep him far away from the Reagan Library and anyplace associated with Reagan's name. Send a cease and desist letter: no person of such low stature, who brought shame upon his country, shall associate himself with the memory of this great leader. No person who ruined Reagan's strong, hopeful vision, who razed the bright city on a hill and replaced it with pyramids of naked prisoners, shall set foot on the ground where Reagan is buried. It could imply an endorsement.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

What's Wrong With Cutting and Running? - by Gen. (ret.) William E. Odom

What's Wrong With Cutting and Running? - by Gen. (ret.) William E. Odom

The Fallacy of Cut and Run vs. Stay the Course

Well we've heard the president speak again about the war on terror. A couple of days ago he addressed the National Endowment for Democracy about why we should continue the fight. His speechwriter did a good job smithing the words, but he wrote the whole argument based on a false premise. The premise comes in two parts: if we pull out of Iraq, we'll walk away from the war on terror, and if we want to prosecute the war on terror, we have to stay in Iraq.

Why don't the Democrats challenge Bush on this argument? Why won't anyone look closely at the false logic Bush uses to support his claim that we have to fight on in Iraq? Before we look at the premise, we need to get the terms right. Bush's favored phrase is the war on terror. But terror is a method, not an enemy. It's like saying the war on bombing, or the war on stabbing, or the war on subversion. Our enemy is Al Qaeda, not terror. Al Qaeda is a difficult enemy to fight, and it uses a lot of different methods. But at least we should be clear about who we're fighting, and what we're fighting.

Let's return to the president. He does get to set the terms of debate. This president, though, has had a lot of freedom. He's a fear mongerer and a panderer, and his opponents don't call him on it. All of his speeches set up choices and outcomes that make his opponents look terrible if they disagree with him. Rather than forcing him to change the logic of his argument, his opponents just keep quiet and hope people don't notice. They're not quiet all the time, but they don't speak loud enough or long enough. The White House's propaganda operation easily overwhelms the tiny squeaks that occasionally emerge from the opposition.

Having addressed those throat-clearing items, lets return to Bush's bad logic. What's wrong with setting Cut and Run against Stay the Course as the two options available to us now? Cut and Run means we admit defeat and give up the fight. Stay the Course means we show resolve and pursue the fight to the end. But those aren't the only choices, or the only outcomes. Cut and Run actually means we fight where we should be fighting. Stay the Course actually means we continue a futile and weakening struggle amongst a population that does not want us. Bush says that his opponents want to admit defeat, and that his policies are the only road to victory. If you look at what he's done, though, Bush led us into defeat and characterized the calamity as a long hard struggle for democracy.

Here's the problem: if you define your options too narrowly, you essentially operate with blinders on. If you misperceive the structure of your situation, you can't even start to think productively about the best strategy. That's what has happened to our thinking about Iraq. We can't get past timetables, defeat, retreat, morale, credibility, staying the course, and democracy for all in the region. We judge our options as acceptable or unacceptable based on the wrong criteria.

The most general criteria would be: What's in our interests? What's in the interests of the Iraqi people we'd like to help? What's in the interests of the entire region, from Morocco in the west to Pakistan in the east? What's in the interests of the smaller region, Iraq and its neighbors? What's in the interest of world peace and a good life for all of us? Now I know the Republicans say they are asking those questions, but they've had bad results with their actions. So we have to ask if their strategy is any good.

General Odom asks why we don't cut and run. What would be so bad about that? His article is a good one. You can find the link for it above this entry in the weblog. If I had more time, I'd like to summarize his points and offer my own comments on them. Right here, I'll distill the main strategy he suggests: withdraw from Iraq, repair relations with our friends, and fight the war we should be fighting. General Odom's strategy reveals the fallacy of Bush's current argument, that if we withdraw from Iraq, we stop fighting, and if we want to continue fighting, we have to stay in Iraq.

Success in the war against Al Qaeda does not require that we stay in Iraq. Success in the war against Al Qaeda requires that we scale down our operations in Iraq, regroup, and figure out the best way to prosecute the war against our enemies. Iraq has absorbed so much of our energy and resources that we don't even think about the war against Al Qaeda, except in connection with the conflict in Iraq. The administration thinks that winning the war in Iraq and winning the war against Al Qaeda amount to the same thing. But they're not the same thing. If we achieve our goals in Iraq, we will not have won the war against Al Qaeda. It's not clear now how we can defeat Al Qaeda, but we know from experience how not to do it. We know we can't do it by continuing our current operations in Iraq.

Here's a quotation, paraphrased from Einstein: The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have been doing, and expect different results. It's time for a new strategy in the war against Al Qaeda. The beginning of a new strategy is recognition that the war in Iraq and the war against Al Qaeda are not the same thing. Victory in Iraq does not mean victory over Al Qaeda. We have to recognize that, at this moment, Iraq has to solve its own problems. That's what they want to do, and letting them do it serves our own interests. When we recognize that, we'll begin to see how to prosecute the war against Al Qaeda. Until we end this great diversion in Iraq, our blinders will prevent us from seeing the next steps we should take in the real war.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

3rd Party National Conference

3rd Party National Conference

Geography Lesson - Bush plans 'major speech' on Iraq, terrorism - Oct 6, 2005

CNN.com - Bush plans 'major speech' on Iraq, terrorism - Oct 6, 2005:

"It's time the president tells us how he plans on getting us out of the hole he's dug us so deeply into. And just to stop digging, as the old saying goes, is not enough," said Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The senator from Delaware urged Bush to convene a summit of Iraq's neighbors to hammer out a broader peace for the region, as the United States did in Afghanistan and during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

Has Reagan Deserted the Conservatives? - Flashback by NR Editors

Flashback by NR Editors on Reagan on National Review Online

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Quotes on Failure and Adversity - Favorite Quotes - Random Terrain

Quotes on Failure and Adversity - Favorite Quotes - Random Terrain

Center for Small Government: Carla Howell

How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?
Copyright 2001 by Carla Howell
All rights reserved.

I love doing my taxes
when each spring time comes, don't you?
Instead of garden walks and ball games,
I get to work my weekends too.

How could I live without filing taxes?
What would I do with my free time?
Where would I go on a beautiful Sunday?
Good thing there's someone to make up my mind.

Subtract line 6 from line 5, and if that's more than zero.
Then enter the amount from Schedule A line 21.
Multiply line 7 by .03 and if that is smaller than .8 of line 4.
Then deduct that from your deduction. Isn't this fun?

How could I live without filing taxes?
What would I do with my free time?
Where would I go on a beautiful Sunday?
Good thing I won't have to make up my mind.

My favorite part of filling out my tax forms
is when I get to write a check for whatever is due.
'Cuz the government can get such incredible bargains with my money
like a billion-dollar bridge or a forty-dollar metal screw.

How could I live without filing taxes?
What would I do with my free time?
How could I spend all of my money?
Good thing there's someone who can spend it just fine - for me.
Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky me!

Center for Small Government: Carla Howell

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Two Definitions

Callow - Lacking adult maturity or experience; immature.

Clown - a. A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation. b. One who jokes and plays tricks.