Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The American Thinker
If you like to find thoughtful discourse on the web, try this site: The American Thinker. Here is the site introduction on The American Thinker's home page:
The American Thinker is devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
There is no limit to the topics appearing on The American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist, and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.
The American Thinker is devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
There is no limit to the topics appearing on The American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist, and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Success
"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others, to leave the world a little bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
View from Lebanon
"Politics is a contact sport."
- Publisher of an English language newspaper in Lebanon.
- Publisher of an English language newspaper in Lebanon.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Scale of International Morality
We're all so happy that Bush was right about promoting democracy in the Middle East. He was right to go to war, because look what a lot of good resulted.
On the scale of international morality, only one thing is worse than massacring thousands of your own civilians. That's what Hussein did. Worse than preying on people in your own country is massacring thousands of civilians in another country. That's what Bush did.
He said he did it for good reasons, and so far a lot of people have believed him. The Iraqis themselves are grateful that Bush rid them of Hussein, and only the most militant Iraqis would say that Bush is a tyrant. But we shouldn't forget about the crime he committed. He attacked another country without provocation: a weaker country that did not threaten us. Since Germany did it to Belgium in 1914, in the Great War that marked the advent of modern atrocities, we have regarded such attacks as crimes.
We aren't the first country to commit this crime, and we aren't the first country in a dominant position to do it. We could be the first democracy ever to have done it, though.
Americans don't do things like that. Not for any reason.
On the scale of international morality, only one thing is worse than massacring thousands of your own civilians. That's what Hussein did. Worse than preying on people in your own country is massacring thousands of civilians in another country. That's what Bush did.
He said he did it for good reasons, and so far a lot of people have believed him. The Iraqis themselves are grateful that Bush rid them of Hussein, and only the most militant Iraqis would say that Bush is a tyrant. But we shouldn't forget about the crime he committed. He attacked another country without provocation: a weaker country that did not threaten us. Since Germany did it to Belgium in 1914, in the Great War that marked the advent of modern atrocities, we have regarded such attacks as crimes.
We aren't the first country to commit this crime, and we aren't the first country in a dominant position to do it. We could be the first democracy ever to have done it, though.
Americans don't do things like that. Not for any reason.
Ronald Reagan's Biggest Mistake: Response from Sam Goldman
Like you, I remember the Reagan years and the Ford years before them. Your facts may, indeed, be correct, but whatever went on inside Reagan's mind, I doubt that Jack Kemp was included in the ganglia.
As I see it, he had NO CHOICE but Bush. As you say, Ford was a long shot and reluctant. It never would have worked any more than any president taking a lower leadership role, even in a company. The case of JQ Adams is different as he went to the legislative branch---we may yet see Bill Clinton there, no?
Jack Kemp was on a conservative tear, particularly on abortion. The women's groups were, and are, quite strong and there is little chance that he'd have escaped lacerating attacks; those, then, rub off an Reagan and his charm and good looks go down the drain along with millions of female votes, along with men who viewed, and still do, the abortion issue as important.
Barry Goldwater? Too old.
Any senator? None were outstanding and California, to the rest of the country, still had a taint of Nixon as being kooky, almost criminal. RR needed a mid-west or eastern person.
Bush's qualities on paper are admirable. Like George McGovern, he has a weak-sounding voice, but fighter-pilots aren't weak, nor are oil-men in the patch, nor are Maine sailors.
The fact that W came along is a quirk of history. The fact that Albert Gore eschewed the support of Bill Clinton ranks as the stupidest act in American campaign history. He deserved to have lost, even with my vote in his pocket. I blame Gore for W, not RR and not GF.
Bring back Bill, I say.
All the best,
Sam
As I see it, he had NO CHOICE but Bush. As you say, Ford was a long shot and reluctant. It never would have worked any more than any president taking a lower leadership role, even in a company. The case of JQ Adams is different as he went to the legislative branch---we may yet see Bill Clinton there, no?
Jack Kemp was on a conservative tear, particularly on abortion. The women's groups were, and are, quite strong and there is little chance that he'd have escaped lacerating attacks; those, then, rub off an Reagan and his charm and good looks go down the drain along with millions of female votes, along with men who viewed, and still do, the abortion issue as important.
Barry Goldwater? Too old.
Any senator? None were outstanding and California, to the rest of the country, still had a taint of Nixon as being kooky, almost criminal. RR needed a mid-west or eastern person.
Bush's qualities on paper are admirable. Like George McGovern, he has a weak-sounding voice, but fighter-pilots aren't weak, nor are oil-men in the patch, nor are Maine sailors.
The fact that W came along is a quirk of history. The fact that Albert Gore eschewed the support of Bill Clinton ranks as the stupidest act in American campaign history. He deserved to have lost, even with my vote in his pocket. I blame Gore for W, not RR and not GF.
Bring back Bill, I say.
All the best,
Sam
Ronald Reagan's Biggest Mistake
Most people would say that Iran-Contra was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake. Certainly from the limited perspective of his own administration, and of Reagan's own goals, it was that. From the longer perspective of American political history, though, Reagan's biggest mistake was his selection of George Bush as his running mate in Detroit at the 1980 Republican National Convention.
We can't lay at Reagan's door all the bad consequences of this decision. No one would expect him to see what would happen a generation later because he put George Bush on the ticket that year. In the summer of 1980, Reagan wasn't even sure he could unseat a sitting president. His main concern was to select someone who could help him win. So let me tell you how this choice turned out wrong, how for want of a vice-presidential nominee, the republic was lost.
The usual story is that Reagan and Ford talked about a Dream Ticket in 1980, a former president and a popular candidate teaming up to make the Republican ticket unbeatable. Then the talks failed when Ford suggested something like a co-presidency. Reagan didn't like the sound of that, so in the middle of the convention he turned to George Bush, his strongest opponent in the primaries. Gerald Ford had overreached, the story went, and Reagan chose a natural alternate when he couldn't agree to Ford's terms.
That version tells part of the story, but it overlooks some interesting nuances. Those nuances explain why Reagan, usually so astute about things political, made a decision that he might not have made if he had spent more time on it. As it turned out, his choice of a running mate was more consequential than he might have guessed at the time.
Anne Edwards recently published a book called The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage. She takes us to the spring of 1980, when Reagan is wrapping up the delegates he'll need to gain the his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in August. Reagan first approaches Ford about the vice-presidency in March 1980, five months before the convention. "Will you help the Republican party out and be my running mate?" Reagan asks.
They'd mended their fences from the 1976 battle for the Republican presidential nomination, but Ford politely turned Reagan down. Vice-president isn't a role you take on readily after you've been president. Reagan, however, isn't one to take no for an answer, especially if he sees any possibility at all of success. He asks Ford to reconsider, and asks him again, until Ford agrees to talk about it. These talks become intense during the convention in Detroit, Michigan. Then Ford goes on live television...
The interview with former President Ford is part of CBS's broadcast from the convention hall. Walter Cronkite asks Ford about his role as vice-president. Ford answers in a way that seems to put him on an equal footing with Reagan. That raises doubts for Reagan, so he places a phone call to Ford's room in the hotel. Reagan presses Ford's representative for an answer. No more complications and negotiations - and I need your answer in three minutes! Ford doesn't come through with a positive reply within the time limit, so Reagan calls George Bush. Bush accepts immediately. The next thing you know, they are out on the convention floor together, a happy pair waving to the delegates!
We can see now that Ford really didn't want to accept. You can't fault him for thinking, "I would only do it if..." For Reagan, the negotiations with Ford were too public and too drawn out. He wanted to bring them to a quick end. He had to, because the convention was going to be over in a couple of days, and the delegates weren't going to wait around while he and Ford figured things out!
Problem was, Reagan's negotiations with Ford displaced the normal selection process, a process that takes quite a range of vice-presidential candidates into account. When the talks with Ford didn't produce an agreement, Reagan didn't have an alternate other than Bush ready to go out on the floor with him. He couldn't start the usual sounding out, vetting and selection process at that late hour.
Bush was a safe candidate. He was there in Detroit. Reagan could be confident that he would say yes. He had a lifelong record of service in the Navy, in the Republican party, and in the federal executive branch. The voters knew him. He was from the big state of Texas, and from the Northeastern establishment. So Bush had a lot to recommend him, even though Reagan thought that he was weak.
Reagan's opinion of Bush improved over the next eight years, but at the time he didn't respect his running mate that much. Reagan's assessment arose from their famous encounter at the high school gym in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Reagan stirred the audience when he declaimed, "I paid for this microphone!" Bush had not behaved with courage and grace during that episode, and Reagan observed it. But George Bush had all those other things to recommend him, so Reagan put him on the ticket.
I thought Reagan's selection of Bush was a mistake well before W. ran and won in 2000. Reagan needed a true believer like Jack Kemp on his side. It's not that Kemp or anyone else would have helped Reagan do a better job during his eight years in office. Bush himself served well as vice-president, and we know that the formal powers of the office are pretty limited to begin with. Bush did what Reagan asked him to do.
Bush turned out to be a poor choice because his role as vice-president made him Reagan's natural successor in 1988, and Bush was not a good successor for Reagan. In politics, though, you don't think about succession to an office you haven't even won yet. In 1980, Reagan and his team focused their energies on defeating an incumbent president. Their concentration would have been misplaced if they had been thinking about succession eight years down the line.
So I'm going to leave the rest of the analysis up in the air here. Part two comes next month. If I don't come through in February with some more remarks about Reagan's Republican successors, please catch me on it. You have a right to know!
We can't lay at Reagan's door all the bad consequences of this decision. No one would expect him to see what would happen a generation later because he put George Bush on the ticket that year. In the summer of 1980, Reagan wasn't even sure he could unseat a sitting president. His main concern was to select someone who could help him win. So let me tell you how this choice turned out wrong, how for want of a vice-presidential nominee, the republic was lost.
The usual story is that Reagan and Ford talked about a Dream Ticket in 1980, a former president and a popular candidate teaming up to make the Republican ticket unbeatable. Then the talks failed when Ford suggested something like a co-presidency. Reagan didn't like the sound of that, so in the middle of the convention he turned to George Bush, his strongest opponent in the primaries. Gerald Ford had overreached, the story went, and Reagan chose a natural alternate when he couldn't agree to Ford's terms.
That version tells part of the story, but it overlooks some interesting nuances. Those nuances explain why Reagan, usually so astute about things political, made a decision that he might not have made if he had spent more time on it. As it turned out, his choice of a running mate was more consequential than he might have guessed at the time.
Anne Edwards recently published a book called The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage. She takes us to the spring of 1980, when Reagan is wrapping up the delegates he'll need to gain the his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in August. Reagan first approaches Ford about the vice-presidency in March 1980, five months before the convention. "Will you help the Republican party out and be my running mate?" Reagan asks.
They'd mended their fences from the 1976 battle for the Republican presidential nomination, but Ford politely turned Reagan down. Vice-president isn't a role you take on readily after you've been president. Reagan, however, isn't one to take no for an answer, especially if he sees any possibility at all of success. He asks Ford to reconsider, and asks him again, until Ford agrees to talk about it. These talks become intense during the convention in Detroit, Michigan. Then Ford goes on live television...
The interview with former President Ford is part of CBS's broadcast from the convention hall. Walter Cronkite asks Ford about his role as vice-president. Ford answers in a way that seems to put him on an equal footing with Reagan. That raises doubts for Reagan, so he places a phone call to Ford's room in the hotel. Reagan presses Ford's representative for an answer. No more complications and negotiations - and I need your answer in three minutes! Ford doesn't come through with a positive reply within the time limit, so Reagan calls George Bush. Bush accepts immediately. The next thing you know, they are out on the convention floor together, a happy pair waving to the delegates!
We can see now that Ford really didn't want to accept. You can't fault him for thinking, "I would only do it if..." For Reagan, the negotiations with Ford were too public and too drawn out. He wanted to bring them to a quick end. He had to, because the convention was going to be over in a couple of days, and the delegates weren't going to wait around while he and Ford figured things out!
Problem was, Reagan's negotiations with Ford displaced the normal selection process, a process that takes quite a range of vice-presidential candidates into account. When the talks with Ford didn't produce an agreement, Reagan didn't have an alternate other than Bush ready to go out on the floor with him. He couldn't start the usual sounding out, vetting and selection process at that late hour.
Bush was a safe candidate. He was there in Detroit. Reagan could be confident that he would say yes. He had a lifelong record of service in the Navy, in the Republican party, and in the federal executive branch. The voters knew him. He was from the big state of Texas, and from the Northeastern establishment. So Bush had a lot to recommend him, even though Reagan thought that he was weak.
Reagan's opinion of Bush improved over the next eight years, but at the time he didn't respect his running mate that much. Reagan's assessment arose from their famous encounter at the high school gym in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Reagan stirred the audience when he declaimed, "I paid for this microphone!" Bush had not behaved with courage and grace during that episode, and Reagan observed it. But George Bush had all those other things to recommend him, so Reagan put him on the ticket.
I thought Reagan's selection of Bush was a mistake well before W. ran and won in 2000. Reagan needed a true believer like Jack Kemp on his side. It's not that Kemp or anyone else would have helped Reagan do a better job during his eight years in office. Bush himself served well as vice-president, and we know that the formal powers of the office are pretty limited to begin with. Bush did what Reagan asked him to do.
Bush turned out to be a poor choice because his role as vice-president made him Reagan's natural successor in 1988, and Bush was not a good successor for Reagan. In politics, though, you don't think about succession to an office you haven't even won yet. In 1980, Reagan and his team focused their energies on defeating an incumbent president. Their concentration would have been misplaced if they had been thinking about succession eight years down the line.
So I'm going to leave the rest of the analysis up in the air here. Part two comes next month. If I don't come through in February with some more remarks about Reagan's Republican successors, please catch me on it. You have a right to know!
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Jonathan Gurwitz: Two years later, does U.S. still belong in Iraq?
Jonathan Gurwitz: Two years later, does U.S. still belong in Iraq?
Web Posted: 03/20/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
A question is popping up around the globe as the topic of cocktail conversations. Even in countries where cocktails aren't served as a matter of religious propriety, people are incredulously asking, "Could George W. Bush be right?"
Youssef Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, now head of a consulting firm in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, writing in the Washington Post:
"Regardless of Bush's intentions — which many Arabs and Muslims still view with suspicion — the U.S. president and his neoconservative crowd are helping to spawn a spirit of reform and a new vigor to confront dynastic dictatorships and other assorted ills.
"It's enough for someone like me, who has felt that Bush's attitude toward the Mideast has been all wrong, to wonder whether his idea of setting the Muslim house in order is right."
Columnist Richard Gwyn, a Bush and Iraq war critic, writing in the Toronto Star:
"Here it is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right.
"President George W. Bush wasn't right to invade Iraq. His justifications for doing so were (almost all of them) either frivolous, in comparison to the scale of the venture, or were outright fraudulent.
"Having conquered Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, Bush and his officials and generals then made every blunder that could be imagined by an occupying power, adding several original ones of their own.
"But on the defining, fundamental question, Bush was right."
Journalist Claus Christian Malzahn writing for Der Spiegel Online:
"When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators.
"When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, when the Wall fell. Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on. Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then."
From Casablanca to Kabul, people who were supposedly genetically predisposed to suffer despotism in silence are suddenly sounding the chorus of freedom.
If this groundswell for democratic change is causing Arab, Canadian and European critics to feel somewhat conflicted about Bush, it's giving bitter-enders on the American left — some of whom are still replaying the past two presidential elections — and cynics on the right a case of cognitive dissonance.
Bush, after all, is supposedly an evangelical simpleton and a tool of oil-producing, Arab autocrats or Zionist imperialists, depending upon the source.
But such ideological fantasies are now running headlong into a brick wall of historical facts. And so the critics must decide.
Are they on the side of millions of Afghans and Iraqis breaking the chains of despotism, Lebanese shaking off the occupation of a dictatorship, Egyptians asserting their political liberty and women across the Middle East claiming their basic human rights?
Or to ensure that nothing positive accrues to the despised Bush and to fulfill the Cassandra-like prophesies about the war in Iraq, are they on the side of homicidal religious fanatics, human rights criminals, racists and sexists?
To pose the question this way is a mistake. It borrows from Bush’s principle, “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” Where is the voice that says, “An aggressive war is wrong, period.”? It doesn’t matter what comes out of the war: it’s just wrong. Reagan himself held to three simple moral principles that he learned from his mom: Everything happens for a reason. God has a plan for you, for all of us. Everything works out for the best in the end. I believe those things, and if I believe them I have to acknowledge that they apply to big things like the war in Iraq. But the war itself is evil, and should not have happened. We can see, sixty years later, that the Holocaust and World War II had many good outcomes, but they were evil and they never should have happened. The Crucifixion, which we remember this Good Friday, had an unbelievably good outcome for all of us, but it was an evil act and it never should have happened. No one can justify it. The same reasoning applies to our aggressive war in Iraq. No amount of good consequences can ever justify evil acts. Period.
Supporters of the Bush Doctrine would be wrong to declare as democratic faits accomplis the astounding developments in the Middle East. The likelihood is great that events in the region will more closely resemble Tiananmen Square than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Far more wrong, however, are administration opponents, blinded by ideological zeal, who are unwilling to grant any credit to Bush for these astounding developments, recognize the American military's role in shattering the Middle Eastern mantle of oppression or cheer the brave people of the region risking their lives to transform their moribund societies.
Web Posted: 03/20/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
A question is popping up around the globe as the topic of cocktail conversations. Even in countries where cocktails aren't served as a matter of religious propriety, people are incredulously asking, "Could George W. Bush be right?"
Youssef Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, now head of a consulting firm in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, writing in the Washington Post:
"Regardless of Bush's intentions — which many Arabs and Muslims still view with suspicion — the U.S. president and his neoconservative crowd are helping to spawn a spirit of reform and a new vigor to confront dynastic dictatorships and other assorted ills.
"It's enough for someone like me, who has felt that Bush's attitude toward the Mideast has been all wrong, to wonder whether his idea of setting the Muslim house in order is right."
Columnist Richard Gwyn, a Bush and Iraq war critic, writing in the Toronto Star:
"Here it is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right.
"President George W. Bush wasn't right to invade Iraq. His justifications for doing so were (almost all of them) either frivolous, in comparison to the scale of the venture, or were outright fraudulent.
"Having conquered Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, Bush and his officials and generals then made every blunder that could be imagined by an occupying power, adding several original ones of their own.
"But on the defining, fundamental question, Bush was right."
Journalist Claus Christian Malzahn writing for Der Spiegel Online:
"When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators.
"When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, when the Wall fell. Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on. Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then."
From Casablanca to Kabul, people who were supposedly genetically predisposed to suffer despotism in silence are suddenly sounding the chorus of freedom.
If this groundswell for democratic change is causing Arab, Canadian and European critics to feel somewhat conflicted about Bush, it's giving bitter-enders on the American left — some of whom are still replaying the past two presidential elections — and cynics on the right a case of cognitive dissonance.
Bush, after all, is supposedly an evangelical simpleton and a tool of oil-producing, Arab autocrats or Zionist imperialists, depending upon the source.
But such ideological fantasies are now running headlong into a brick wall of historical facts. And so the critics must decide.
Are they on the side of millions of Afghans and Iraqis breaking the chains of despotism, Lebanese shaking off the occupation of a dictatorship, Egyptians asserting their political liberty and women across the Middle East claiming their basic human rights?
Or to ensure that nothing positive accrues to the despised Bush and to fulfill the Cassandra-like prophesies about the war in Iraq, are they on the side of homicidal religious fanatics, human rights criminals, racists and sexists?
To pose the question this way is a mistake. It borrows from Bush’s principle, “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” Where is the voice that says, “An aggressive war is wrong, period.”? It doesn’t matter what comes out of the war: it’s just wrong. Reagan himself held to three simple moral principles that he learned from his mom: Everything happens for a reason. God has a plan for you, for all of us. Everything works out for the best in the end. I believe those things, and if I believe them I have to acknowledge that they apply to big things like the war in Iraq. But the war itself is evil, and should not have happened. We can see, sixty years later, that the Holocaust and World War II had many good outcomes, but they were evil and they never should have happened. The Crucifixion, which we remember this Good Friday, had an unbelievably good outcome for all of us, but it was an evil act and it never should have happened. No one can justify it. The same reasoning applies to our aggressive war in Iraq. No amount of good consequences can ever justify evil acts. Period.
Supporters of the Bush Doctrine would be wrong to declare as democratic faits accomplis the astounding developments in the Middle East. The likelihood is great that events in the region will more closely resemble Tiananmen Square than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Far more wrong, however, are administration opponents, blinded by ideological zeal, who are unwilling to grant any credit to Bush for these astounding developments, recognize the American military's role in shattering the Middle Eastern mantle of oppression or cheer the brave people of the region risking their lives to transform their moribund societies.
Monday, March 14, 2005
From Mark Twain
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
- Mark Twain
- Mark Twain
Saturday, March 05, 2005
The Ronald Reagan We All Knew
"Ronald Reagan has a genius for American occasions. He is a Prospero of American memories, a magician who carries a bright, ideal America like a holograph in his mind and projects its image in the air.... Reagan, master illusionist, is himself a kind of American dream. Looking at his genial, crinkly face prompts a sense of wonder: How does he pull it off?" - Time, July 1986
Drug Wars
Who thinks we would have any more drug crimes were we to decriminalize drugs?
Why do we treat drugs and alcohol differently?
Why should we care if someone wants to take drugs, as long as they don't operate a car or other dangerous equipment while under the influence?
What does liberty mean if government can control what I put into my own body?
Why do we treat drugs and alcohol differently?
Why should we care if someone wants to take drugs, as long as they don't operate a car or other dangerous equipment while under the influence?
What does liberty mean if government can control what I put into my own body?
Friday, March 04, 2005
A New Political Party (Part II)
A New Political Party (Part II)
I wanted to report on some follow-up to A New Political Party, dated February 25, 2005. I checked out the American Reform Party on Google, and found http://americanreform.org. A gentleman active in that organization sent me a link for the New Frontier Coalition (NFC) at http://newfrontiercoalition.org. Here is my note to the gentleman who sent the link:
_________________________________________
Thanks for the link to the NFC site. Here are some quick thoughts after checking out the site and reading your recent correspondence.
The preamble to the NFC constitution is well-worded - more in response to that below. I think that the word coalition, as in New Frontier Coalition or in the ARP Coalition Committee, accurately describes the efforts under way now. I don't think it’s a good word to include in the name of a new third party that registers with the FEC. It implies that the individual parties maintain their identities within the coalition. If we had a parliamentary, proportional representation system like the Europeans or the Israelis, coalitions work fine. Our system doesn't work that way, so a new third party has to have unity built into its name. I don't think people will eagerly vote for a coalition in our system. What starts as a coalition has to coalesce into an organization that can field candidates and win votes.
I think almost half of the electorate is not happy with the existing two parties. Polls have put the independent vote at almost forty percent for some time, but my instinct tells me it's somewhat higher than that. Lincoln and Clinton won the White House with a little over forty percent of the popular vote. A new coalition needs to put together an organization that can win electoral votes in enough states to be credible. The Republicans nominated Fremont in 1856, and took the presidency only four years later. It could happen again.
Before the 2000 election, I wrote an article called "Where Are Candidates People Want?" I thought both candidates were poor at the time, and I don't believe I was the only one. A couple of weeks ago, the same thoughts were there: the two political parties are failing in one of their main jobs, which is to find candidates for office that people actually want. Fifty to sixty percent of the voters count themselves Democrat or Republican. They're happy enough, but the remaining forty to fifty percent are not happy at all with the choice they have on election day. Efforts to unite this group have to be successful.
Every unhappy voter has his or her reasons for dissatisfaction. For me, the war in Iraq gives special urgency to our situation. I wrote about the war a great deal in 2004 (see http://thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf), and the outcome of the November election made me see that we are truly in trouble. I do not want to see us lose our position of leadership in the world, and it's happening right in front of us. The effort to form a coalition is the only practical avenue out. The NFC preamble, with its tone of frustration and urgency, speaks to the mood that many have after the 2004 election.
To appeal to history once more: After one of his many unsuccessful races in the mid-1850s, Lincoln figured he was through with politics, and went back to his law practice. Then the Missouri Compromise came along, with its prospect of slavery in the new territories in the west. This proposal motivated Lincoln to become involved in politics again, and we know what happened after that. The war in Iraq is an event of similar magnitude. It has to motivate people to act, to do something after spending quite a while off the field. Like many, I've grumbled and complained about the two parties for a long time, but I didn't think I could do much about it. The efforts underway to form a new coalition give people like me a lot of hope, and a lot of reason to act.
That's enough for now. I'd like to post this message to the entire group, but it's long and I'm still pretty new. You are welcome to post it when you reply if you'd like. Perhaps it can give others encouragement, as your messages have encouraged me.
Steve
P.S. I agree with your remarks about the Libertarian Party. It is reasonably well organized, state by state, but its members' mental framework is that of a party that will always be small by comparison with others. They would not feel comfortable as part of a large coalition. A third party like the one you've described has to have an outlook that is as inclusive as possible.
I wanted to report on some follow-up to A New Political Party, dated February 25, 2005. I checked out the American Reform Party on Google, and found http://americanreform.org. A gentleman active in that organization sent me a link for the New Frontier Coalition (NFC) at http://newfrontiercoalition.org. Here is my note to the gentleman who sent the link:
_________________________________________
Thanks for the link to the NFC site. Here are some quick thoughts after checking out the site and reading your recent correspondence.
The preamble to the NFC constitution is well-worded - more in response to that below. I think that the word coalition, as in New Frontier Coalition or in the ARP Coalition Committee, accurately describes the efforts under way now. I don't think it’s a good word to include in the name of a new third party that registers with the FEC. It implies that the individual parties maintain their identities within the coalition. If we had a parliamentary, proportional representation system like the Europeans or the Israelis, coalitions work fine. Our system doesn't work that way, so a new third party has to have unity built into its name. I don't think people will eagerly vote for a coalition in our system. What starts as a coalition has to coalesce into an organization that can field candidates and win votes.
I think almost half of the electorate is not happy with the existing two parties. Polls have put the independent vote at almost forty percent for some time, but my instinct tells me it's somewhat higher than that. Lincoln and Clinton won the White House with a little over forty percent of the popular vote. A new coalition needs to put together an organization that can win electoral votes in enough states to be credible. The Republicans nominated Fremont in 1856, and took the presidency only four years later. It could happen again.
Before the 2000 election, I wrote an article called "Where Are Candidates People Want?" I thought both candidates were poor at the time, and I don't believe I was the only one. A couple of weeks ago, the same thoughts were there: the two political parties are failing in one of their main jobs, which is to find candidates for office that people actually want. Fifty to sixty percent of the voters count themselves Democrat or Republican. They're happy enough, but the remaining forty to fifty percent are not happy at all with the choice they have on election day. Efforts to unite this group have to be successful.
Every unhappy voter has his or her reasons for dissatisfaction. For me, the war in Iraq gives special urgency to our situation. I wrote about the war a great deal in 2004 (see http://thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf), and the outcome of the November election made me see that we are truly in trouble. I do not want to see us lose our position of leadership in the world, and it's happening right in front of us. The effort to form a coalition is the only practical avenue out. The NFC preamble, with its tone of frustration and urgency, speaks to the mood that many have after the 2004 election.
To appeal to history once more: After one of his many unsuccessful races in the mid-1850s, Lincoln figured he was through with politics, and went back to his law practice. Then the Missouri Compromise came along, with its prospect of slavery in the new territories in the west. This proposal motivated Lincoln to become involved in politics again, and we know what happened after that. The war in Iraq is an event of similar magnitude. It has to motivate people to act, to do something after spending quite a while off the field. Like many, I've grumbled and complained about the two parties for a long time, but I didn't think I could do much about it. The efforts underway to form a new coalition give people like me a lot of hope, and a lot of reason to act.
That's enough for now. I'd like to post this message to the entire group, but it's long and I'm still pretty new. You are welcome to post it when you reply if you'd like. Perhaps it can give others encouragement, as your messages have encouraged me.
Steve
P.S. I agree with your remarks about the Libertarian Party. It is reasonably well organized, state by state, but its members' mental framework is that of a party that will always be small by comparison with others. They would not feel comfortable as part of a large coalition. A third party like the one you've described has to have an outlook that is as inclusive as possible.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Get Out Now
I used to be an intellectual. Now I'm just mad.
I thought of that tonight as I was reading about the events in Lebanon today. Scott McClellan or somebody like him said we have to be cautious about the resignation of the government there. The departure of the previous, pro-Syrian government is no guarantee, he said, that we'll see free or fair elections in the van. And who are we to commenting on whether another country has free or fair elections? Look at the election we've just been through. Would anyone call that a free election? Or was it a herd of scared voters stampeded by propaganda into voting for a war criminal? I don't want to think that it could be true, but right now I don't have any other explanation. I just cannot think how people could have voted for someone who committed the acts that Bush committed. I said something like that to Leslie, and she replied, "People are scared." That seems to be all that one can say.
So much of the reasoning about this war has been consequentialist. It'll all be worth it, we say, if we can bring about peace and democracy in the Middle East. It'll all be worth it - all the blood and grief - if we can bring democracy and freedom to the whole region. I say no, no, no. Stop measuring things in the balance. We can't bring out the scales of international justice here, to offset bad causes with good outcomes. We can't excuse ourselves by pointing to the good we did. There are some things you just don't do, no matter what. You don't shoot someone in the back, you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you don't falsely defame someone to protect yourself, and you don't attack another country that hasn't threatened you. To say that the war in Iraq is okay as long as we achieve a good outcome there is like saying that the Nazi holocaust was okay because the state of Israel could never have been created otherwise. The Jewish homeland became possible because Hitler tried to wipe out all of the Jews in Europe. No one says the holocaust was worth it because it gave birth to Israel.
All the commentators now say that whatever you think of the war, the act is done now and we have to make the best of it. We have to stick it out. Well, yes, we do have to make the best of it, but the second point about sticking it out does not follow from the first. The commentators take for granted, without bothering to argue the point, that the way to make the best of of Iraq is to stay in Iraq. What makes us think that we are having a salutary effect there? What makes us think, when almost everyone there hates us, that we can help them? It's a universal rule of human relations that you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. Why shouldn't this principle apply to nations as well? The Iraqis don't want our help. Even our puppets are happy to carry on their affairs without us. What can we do there?
The conventional answer is that we have to stay in Iraq until we have trained sufficient security forces to maintain peace and order in the land. We have to be patient, people say. Give the Iraqis time and they will develop security forces with the training, morale, discipline, leadership, equipment, information and power to defeat the insurgency and its criminal allies.
Now give that answer a second thought. We have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq: the best equipped, most committed, most highly trained and powerful force in the history of warfare. No one questions the quality of their leadership. Everyone comments on how their morale holds up despite the terrible circumstances of their duty. Their ability to gather information and locate enemy leaders and stores has improved. Yet this force is clearly unable to disarm its foe. If we can't disarm the insurgency with 150,000 troops, why do we think that 100,000 Iraqis can do it? The Iraqi force won't have the armor, the heavy weaponry, or the air power that we do. The insurgency has exploited our vulnerabilities, and Iraqi vulnerabilities, with skill and resolve. Why do we think the Iraqis will succeed where we have failed? Why do we think that we can train them to do what we can't do ourselves?
Now give the be patient answer a third thought. The enemy says that they will continue to attack Iraqi security forces as long as they act in concert with the American occupation forces. People say that if we leave Iraq a civil war could develop, but a civil war has already developed because of our presence there. The insurgents have directed their attacks against Iraqis who fight on our side. Suppose we left and the insurgents had no occupation to fight against. Would they continue to kill Iraqis? Would suicide bombers continue to drive their cars into the middle of large crowds of recruits to blow them up? We don't know. But the logic of this question is clear. There's a chance that the civil war in Iraq would take a different course were we to withdraw. And we can't know what would happen were we to withdraw unless we actually do it.
People say that we have to stay in Iraq three to five years, that we have to be ready to lose as many soldiers there as we lost civilians on September 11, 2001. Do the people who say that actually believe that at the end of five years of occupation, we'll have a situation in Iraq that's much better than it is now? Time is not on our side here, yet people say be patient. Don't rush to get out of there - no timetables for withdrawal. But what evidence do we have that thirty-six more months and 1,500 more lives will bring the outcome we want? Who can point to a process or a set of conditions that indicates progress toward our goal? Any rational analyst of this war can see that our presence in Iraq is the key catalyst for the violence there. The dynamics of the war will change when we are gone. We don't know how they'll change, but we do know that things won't stay the same if we leave.
That brings me to a last point. Consequentialist reasoning in this situation focuses on what we can do for the Iraqis, and by their example what we can do for the entire region. The argument to outcomes says that if we can spawn democracy throughout the Middle East and South Asia, we can defeat Al Qaeda. Even if you believe that argument, even if you believe that we are fighting our enemies in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here, we have more direct ways to accomplish the same goal. The visionary argument says that if we bring democracy to the entire region, we can drain the fundamentalist swamp and get rid of the murderous alligators that threaten us. Our experience with that kind of operation indicates that even if you do obliterate the swamp, the alligators just go somewhere else, like the golf courses.
We have to attack Al Qaeda directly. We have to act against our enemy in collaboration with other countries, in collaboration with other groups. We have to concentrate on the tasks right in front of us. The visionaries offer up an appealing goal - security for the West if we can make the whole Middle East safe for democracy - but the vision is illusory. We will lose our position of leadership in the world if we follow their path. In fact, we already have lost it.
I thought of that tonight as I was reading about the events in Lebanon today. Scott McClellan or somebody like him said we have to be cautious about the resignation of the government there. The departure of the previous, pro-Syrian government is no guarantee, he said, that we'll see free or fair elections in the van. And who are we to commenting on whether another country has free or fair elections? Look at the election we've just been through. Would anyone call that a free election? Or was it a herd of scared voters stampeded by propaganda into voting for a war criminal? I don't want to think that it could be true, but right now I don't have any other explanation. I just cannot think how people could have voted for someone who committed the acts that Bush committed. I said something like that to Leslie, and she replied, "People are scared." That seems to be all that one can say.
So much of the reasoning about this war has been consequentialist. It'll all be worth it, we say, if we can bring about peace and democracy in the Middle East. It'll all be worth it - all the blood and grief - if we can bring democracy and freedom to the whole region. I say no, no, no. Stop measuring things in the balance. We can't bring out the scales of international justice here, to offset bad causes with good outcomes. We can't excuse ourselves by pointing to the good we did. There are some things you just don't do, no matter what. You don't shoot someone in the back, you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you don't falsely defame someone to protect yourself, and you don't attack another country that hasn't threatened you. To say that the war in Iraq is okay as long as we achieve a good outcome there is like saying that the Nazi holocaust was okay because the state of Israel could never have been created otherwise. The Jewish homeland became possible because Hitler tried to wipe out all of the Jews in Europe. No one says the holocaust was worth it because it gave birth to Israel.
All the commentators now say that whatever you think of the war, the act is done now and we have to make the best of it. We have to stick it out. Well, yes, we do have to make the best of it, but the second point about sticking it out does not follow from the first. The commentators take for granted, without bothering to argue the point, that the way to make the best of of Iraq is to stay in Iraq. What makes us think that we are having a salutary effect there? What makes us think, when almost everyone there hates us, that we can help them? It's a universal rule of human relations that you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. Why shouldn't this principle apply to nations as well? The Iraqis don't want our help. Even our puppets are happy to carry on their affairs without us. What can we do there?
The conventional answer is that we have to stay in Iraq until we have trained sufficient security forces to maintain peace and order in the land. We have to be patient, people say. Give the Iraqis time and they will develop security forces with the training, morale, discipline, leadership, equipment, information and power to defeat the insurgency and its criminal allies.
Now give that answer a second thought. We have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq: the best equipped, most committed, most highly trained and powerful force in the history of warfare. No one questions the quality of their leadership. Everyone comments on how their morale holds up despite the terrible circumstances of their duty. Their ability to gather information and locate enemy leaders and stores has improved. Yet this force is clearly unable to disarm its foe. If we can't disarm the insurgency with 150,000 troops, why do we think that 100,000 Iraqis can do it? The Iraqi force won't have the armor, the heavy weaponry, or the air power that we do. The insurgency has exploited our vulnerabilities, and Iraqi vulnerabilities, with skill and resolve. Why do we think the Iraqis will succeed where we have failed? Why do we think that we can train them to do what we can't do ourselves?
Now give the be patient answer a third thought. The enemy says that they will continue to attack Iraqi security forces as long as they act in concert with the American occupation forces. People say that if we leave Iraq a civil war could develop, but a civil war has already developed because of our presence there. The insurgents have directed their attacks against Iraqis who fight on our side. Suppose we left and the insurgents had no occupation to fight against. Would they continue to kill Iraqis? Would suicide bombers continue to drive their cars into the middle of large crowds of recruits to blow them up? We don't know. But the logic of this question is clear. There's a chance that the civil war in Iraq would take a different course were we to withdraw. And we can't know what would happen were we to withdraw unless we actually do it.
People say that we have to stay in Iraq three to five years, that we have to be ready to lose as many soldiers there as we lost civilians on September 11, 2001. Do the people who say that actually believe that at the end of five years of occupation, we'll have a situation in Iraq that's much better than it is now? Time is not on our side here, yet people say be patient. Don't rush to get out of there - no timetables for withdrawal. But what evidence do we have that thirty-six more months and 1,500 more lives will bring the outcome we want? Who can point to a process or a set of conditions that indicates progress toward our goal? Any rational analyst of this war can see that our presence in Iraq is the key catalyst for the violence there. The dynamics of the war will change when we are gone. We don't know how they'll change, but we do know that things won't stay the same if we leave.
That brings me to a last point. Consequentialist reasoning in this situation focuses on what we can do for the Iraqis, and by their example what we can do for the entire region. The argument to outcomes says that if we can spawn democracy throughout the Middle East and South Asia, we can defeat Al Qaeda. Even if you believe that argument, even if you believe that we are fighting our enemies in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here, we have more direct ways to accomplish the same goal. The visionary argument says that if we bring democracy to the entire region, we can drain the fundamentalist swamp and get rid of the murderous alligators that threaten us. Our experience with that kind of operation indicates that even if you do obliterate the swamp, the alligators just go somewhere else, like the golf courses.
We have to attack Al Qaeda directly. We have to act against our enemy in collaboration with other countries, in collaboration with other groups. We have to concentrate on the tasks right in front of us. The visionaries offer up an appealing goal - security for the West if we can make the whole Middle East safe for democracy - but the vision is illusory. We will lose our position of leadership in the world if we follow their path. In fact, we already have lost it.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Dowd: W.'s Stiletto Democracy
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: W.'s Stiletto Democracy:
"It was remarkable to see President Bush lecture Vladimir Putin on the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society."
"It was remarkable to see President Bush lecture Vladimir Putin on the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society."
Friday, February 25, 2005
A New Political Party
I feel like Fiver. Doesn't anyone else see it? "It's coming, it's coming," he said, and no one believed him. Bigwig made fun of him. Hazel was the only one who had faith in his brother's prescience. But the things I'm predicting will take years. It takes a long time for an empire to fall. But once it starts, it can happen fast, as we saw with the Soviet empire fifteen years ago. Why don't people see that when the time comes, ours can fall quickly, too?
Where can our country find wise leadership? The parties don't produce particularly good candidates for the presidency, and that's one of their main jobs. Our system for selecting presidential candidates is broken. I don't see a good way to fix it, except to form a new party. Do you remember Ross Perot? He started a new party. But he wasn't an institution builder, and the American Reform party didn't take hold. The Reform party split up over the Buchanan nomination in the 90s. So we don't have any known alternatives, now.
Who would support the Reform party, were it to re-form? Perot supporters (20% of the voters in 1992). Ventura supporters. Deaniacs. Libertarians, perhaps. All disaffected independents who need someone to vote for.
Who would not be in the party? Evangelicals. MoveOn.org supporters. Democrats and Republicans who are happy with the way their party is going. That's about half of the electorate. The job of a new party is to recruit the other half.
How did the Republican party get started? Did it just coalesce, or did it result from a number of key people doing a lot of hard work? The interesting thing is, I don't remember that Lincoln engaged in much party-building work himself. It just coalesced around him as the election of 1860 approached. Who did the institution building in that case? The Reform party coalesced around Perot in 1992, but it didn't last. Did the Republican party last because the Civil War, and the years before and after the war, were such extraordinary times?
Where can our country find wise leadership? The parties don't produce particularly good candidates for the presidency, and that's one of their main jobs. Our system for selecting presidential candidates is broken. I don't see a good way to fix it, except to form a new party. Do you remember Ross Perot? He started a new party. But he wasn't an institution builder, and the American Reform party didn't take hold. The Reform party split up over the Buchanan nomination in the 90s. So we don't have any known alternatives, now.
Who would support the Reform party, were it to re-form? Perot supporters (20% of the voters in 1992). Ventura supporters. Deaniacs. Libertarians, perhaps. All disaffected independents who need someone to vote for.
Who would not be in the party? Evangelicals. MoveOn.org supporters. Democrats and Republicans who are happy with the way their party is going. That's about half of the electorate. The job of a new party is to recruit the other half.
How did the Republican party get started? Did it just coalesce, or did it result from a number of key people doing a lot of hard work? The interesting thing is, I don't remember that Lincoln engaged in much party-building work himself. It just coalesced around him as the election of 1860 approached. Who did the institution building in that case? The Reform party coalesced around Perot in 1992, but it didn't last. Did the Republican party last because the Civil War, and the years before and after the war, were such extraordinary times?
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Bush, Putin, and Thucydides
The news this week has been all about Bush telling Putin that he's backsliding on democracy, and he'd better shape up. What a singular privilege, to be lectured about democracy from a man like Bush. What must Putin be thinking as he endures this kind of thing? It's as if Hitler were to lecture FDR and Churchill about anti-semitism in the United States and Britain. Putin has a war criminal sitting in front of him, sanctimoniously telling him that his leadership of Russia is undemocratic.
What's Bush going to tell Putin next? That he shouldn't make war in Chechnya? That he shouldn't use propaganda to destroy people's reputations? That he shouldn't be dishonest in his dealings with the people of Russia? Putin should just walk out on this man, tell this glad-hander that the rest of the world has had enough of him.
Every day, we show the whole world how weak we really are. We show that we can't protect our soldiers from roadside bombs. We show that we send our brave men into battle with no realistic or legitimate purpose. We show that we can't manage to secure the highway from the Baghdad airport to the city. We can't even secure the main thoroughfare in the city itself. But we can destroy a city, Fallujah, with heavy armor and air power, and claim that we have reduced the enemy's ability to fight. Who believes that?
Our enemies can also observe what we have to do to deploy 150,000 soldiers to Iraq. We have to reduce our forces in Korea. We have to place extraordinary demands on our reserves and our national guard. We have to rotate divisions in and out to give our men and women some time away from the horrible conditions there. It's clear that we can't deploy 150,000 soldiers elsewhere while we are involved with state-building in Iraq.
Meantime, our enemies grow stronger by the day. Someday soon, our enemies and our rivals will say, "Your time is up. We'll struggle against you. And we'll fight you if we have to." And they'll treat us the way we have treated them. Others don't respect us anymore. Respect is offered to a leader, and we don't lead. Others fear us. As Thucydides showed us in his parable of self-destruction, the History of the Pelopponesian War: when states fear a great power, as the Greek city-states feared Athens, the smaller states will find a way to unite against the great power to destroy it. As it turned out, Athens destroyed itself by going abroad to fight an unnecessary war in Sicily. After that campaign, Athens never regained its strength.
Athens lost its position of leadership when it began to act like a bully and a predator. Strength flowed away from it after that, just as strength flows away from a leader who shows himself to be weak. Yes, it takes some time to muster the courage that a challenge requires. It takes some time to muster counter-vailing strength. But it doesn't take that much time, and the challenge is coming soon. When it comes, we will look around for people to help us, and no one will be there.
What's Bush going to tell Putin next? That he shouldn't make war in Chechnya? That he shouldn't use propaganda to destroy people's reputations? That he shouldn't be dishonest in his dealings with the people of Russia? Putin should just walk out on this man, tell this glad-hander that the rest of the world has had enough of him.
Every day, we show the whole world how weak we really are. We show that we can't protect our soldiers from roadside bombs. We show that we send our brave men into battle with no realistic or legitimate purpose. We show that we can't manage to secure the highway from the Baghdad airport to the city. We can't even secure the main thoroughfare in the city itself. But we can destroy a city, Fallujah, with heavy armor and air power, and claim that we have reduced the enemy's ability to fight. Who believes that?
Our enemies can also observe what we have to do to deploy 150,000 soldiers to Iraq. We have to reduce our forces in Korea. We have to place extraordinary demands on our reserves and our national guard. We have to rotate divisions in and out to give our men and women some time away from the horrible conditions there. It's clear that we can't deploy 150,000 soldiers elsewhere while we are involved with state-building in Iraq.
Meantime, our enemies grow stronger by the day. Someday soon, our enemies and our rivals will say, "Your time is up. We'll struggle against you. And we'll fight you if we have to." And they'll treat us the way we have treated them. Others don't respect us anymore. Respect is offered to a leader, and we don't lead. Others fear us. As Thucydides showed us in his parable of self-destruction, the History of the Pelopponesian War: when states fear a great power, as the Greek city-states feared Athens, the smaller states will find a way to unite against the great power to destroy it. As it turned out, Athens destroyed itself by going abroad to fight an unnecessary war in Sicily. After that campaign, Athens never regained its strength.
Athens lost its position of leadership when it began to act like a bully and a predator. Strength flowed away from it after that, just as strength flows away from a leader who shows himself to be weak. Yes, it takes some time to muster the courage that a challenge requires. It takes some time to muster counter-vailing strength. But it doesn't take that much time, and the challenge is coming soon. When it comes, we will look around for people to help us, and no one will be there.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Krugman: Wag-the-Dog Protection
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Wag-the-Dog Protection:
"So it's important to point out that Mr. Bush, for all his posturing, has done a very bad job of protecting the nation - and to make that point now, rather than in the heat of the next foreign crisis. The fact is that Mr. Bush, while willing to go to war on weak evidence, hasn't taken the task of protecting America from terrorists at all seriously."
"So it's important to point out that Mr. Bush, for all his posturing, has done a very bad job of protecting the nation - and to make that point now, rather than in the heat of the next foreign crisis. The fact is that Mr. Bush, while willing to go to war on weak evidence, hasn't taken the task of protecting America from terrorists at all seriously."
OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan
OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan
The Blogs Must Be Crazy: Or maybe the MSM is just suffering from freedom envy.
The Blogs Must Be Crazy: Or maybe the MSM is just suffering from freedom envy.
NYT: Hunter S. Thompson, Outlaw Journalist, Is Dead at 67
The New York Times > Books > Hunter S. Thompson, Outlaw Journalist, Is Dead at 67:
"Yet his early work presaged some of the fundamental changes that have rocked journalism today. Mr. Thompson's approach in many ways mirrors the style of modern-day bloggers, those self-styled social commentators who blend news, opinion and personal experience on Internet postings. Like bloggers, Mr. Thompson built his case for the state of America around the framework of his personal views and opinions."
"Yet his early work presaged some of the fundamental changes that have rocked journalism today. Mr. Thompson's approach in many ways mirrors the style of modern-day bloggers, those self-styled social commentators who blend news, opinion and personal experience on Internet postings. Like bloggers, Mr. Thompson built his case for the state of America around the framework of his personal views and opinions."
Monday, February 21, 2005
Herbert: Iraq, Then and Now
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq, Then and Now:
"So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America."
"So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America."
Friday, February 18, 2005
Herbert: Our Friends, the Torturers
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Our Friends, the Torturers
"Extraordinary rendition is antithetical to everything Americans are supposed to believe in. It violates American law. It violates international law. And it is a profound violation of our own most fundamental moral imperative - that there are limits to the way we treat other human beings, even in a time of war and great fear."
"Extraordinary rendition is antithetical to everything Americans are supposed to believe in. It violates American law. It violates international law. And it is a profound violation of our own most fundamental moral imperative - that there are limits to the way we treat other human beings, even in a time of war and great fear."
Sunday, February 13, 2005
David Mamet on Arthur Miller: Attention Must Be Paid
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Attention Must Be Paid:
"One service more we dare to ask -
Pray for us, heroes, pray,
That when Fate lays on us our task
We do not shame the day."
"One service more we dare to ask -
Pray for us, heroes, pray,
That when Fate lays on us our task
We do not shame the day."
Friday, February 11, 2005
Herbert: Torture, American Style
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Torture, American Style
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old native of Syria who emigrated to Canada as a teenager. On Sept. 26, 2002, as he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was in the process of changing planes...
Jettisoning the rule of law to permit such acts of evil as kidnapping and torture is not a defensible policy for a civilized nation. It's wrong. And nothing good can come from it.
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old native of Syria who emigrated to Canada as a teenager. On Sept. 26, 2002, as he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was in the process of changing planes...
Jettisoning the rule of law to permit such acts of evil as kidnapping and torture is not a defensible policy for a civilized nation. It's wrong. And nothing good can come from it.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Jeff Wilson | 02/06/2005 | Celebrating the late Ronald Reagan on his 94th birthday
AP Wire | 02/06/2005 |
Celebrating the late Ronald Reagan on his 94th birthday: "Celebrating the late Ronald Reagan on his 94th birthday
JEFF WILSON
Associated Press
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - The Gipper was celebrated during a Sunday gathering of loyalists on Ronald Wilson Reagan's 94th birthday, the first posthumous anniversary of his birth."
Celebrating the late Ronald Reagan on his 94th birthday: "Celebrating the late Ronald Reagan on his 94th birthday
JEFF WILSON
Associated Press
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - The Gipper was celebrated during a Sunday gathering of loyalists on Ronald Wilson Reagan's 94th birthday, the first posthumous anniversary of his birth."
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Tom Wolfe: The Doctrine That Never Died
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Doctrine That Never Died
Ah, yes, a missile. On the day in November 1961, when the Air Force achieved the first successful silo launching of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the SM-80, the Western Hemisphere part of the Monroe Doctrine ceased to mean anything at all - while the ideas behind it began to mean everything in the world.
At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM's - soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs - shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush's Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with - what? - nothing but a single sphere ... which is to say, the entire world.
For the mission - the messianic mission! - has never shrunk in the slightest ... which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing ... the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," President Bush said. He added, "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."
David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that "Americanism" is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a "shining city upon a hill." God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush - and Theodore Roosevelt - that it is America's destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.
Ah, yes, a missile. On the day in November 1961, when the Air Force achieved the first successful silo launching of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the SM-80, the Western Hemisphere part of the Monroe Doctrine ceased to mean anything at all - while the ideas behind it began to mean everything in the world.
At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM's - soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs - shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush's Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with - what? - nothing but a single sphere ... which is to say, the entire world.
For the mission - the messianic mission! - has never shrunk in the slightest ... which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing ... the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," President Bush said. He added, "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."
David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that "Americanism" is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a "shining city upon a hill." God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush - and Theodore Roosevelt - that it is America's destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Frank Rich: Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love
The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love:
"JAN. 30 is here at last, and the light is at the end of the tunnel, again. By my estimate, Iraq's election day is the fifth time that American troops have been almost on their way home from an about-to-be pacified Iraq. The four other incipient V-I days were the liberation of Baghdad (April 9, 2003), President Bush's declaration that 'major combat operations have ended' (May 1, 2003), the arrest of Saddam Hussein (Dec. 14, 2003) and the handover of sovereignty to our puppet of choice, Ayad Allawi (June 28, 2004). And this isn't even counting the two 'decisive' battles for our nouveau Tet, Falluja. Iraq is Vietnam on speed - the false endings of that tragic decade re-enacted and compressed in jump cuts, a quagmire retooled for the MTV attention span. "
"JAN. 30 is here at last, and the light is at the end of the tunnel, again. By my estimate, Iraq's election day is the fifth time that American troops have been almost on their way home from an about-to-be pacified Iraq. The four other incipient V-I days were the liberation of Baghdad (April 9, 2003), President Bush's declaration that 'major combat operations have ended' (May 1, 2003), the arrest of Saddam Hussein (Dec. 14, 2003) and the handover of sovereignty to our puppet of choice, Ayad Allawi (June 28, 2004). And this isn't even counting the two 'decisive' battles for our nouveau Tet, Falluja. Iraq is Vietnam on speed - the false endings of that tragic decade re-enacted and compressed in jump cuts, a quagmire retooled for the MTV attention span. "
NYT: Washington Memo: Communicator in Chief Keeps the Focus on Iraq Positive
The New York Times > Washington > Washington Memo: Communicator in Chief Keeps the Focus on Iraq Positive:
Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "'you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression."
"You know, it is amazing, first of all, they're having a vote at all," Mr. Bush said in response to the first question, about whether he expected a big turnout in the Iraqi election. "A couple of years ago, people would have been puzzled by someone saying that the Iraqis will be given a chance to vote."
Puzzled is right. Because if you had said a few years ago that the Iraqis would be voting, we would say that could happen only one way. That could happen only if a country like us went in and conquered Iraq, and then we held elections because that is what you do when you bring freedom and democracy to people.
Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "'you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression."
"You know, it is amazing, first of all, they're having a vote at all," Mr. Bush said in response to the first question, about whether he expected a big turnout in the Iraqi election. "A couple of years ago, people would have been puzzled by someone saying that the Iraqis will be given a chance to vote."
Puzzled is right. Because if you had said a few years ago that the Iraqis would be voting, we would say that could happen only one way. That could happen only if a country like us went in and conquered Iraq, and then we held elections because that is what you do when you bring freedom and democracy to people.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
What Would It Take?
So historians are going to judge Bush favorably for overthrowing Hussein and bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East. We'll see. He will be judged the worst president in the history of the United States because he is a war criminal. Historians have rated other presidents poorly because they have allowed corruption on their watch. No president in our history has ever committed out and out aggression, as this one has. No president has ever asked our brave soldiers to die in order to conquer and occupy another country. No president has ever killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians on the flimsy argument that he knew what was good for them.
The famous saying from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Now, after Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah, and Baghdad itself, we have to say, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." Nothing Bush says is trustworthy. Nothing he does now can restore our good reputation. Nothing but a change of leadership can do that, and we have rehired this broken down, dishonest, self-righteous and short-sighted man for another four years. My son wondered on the phone tonight whether Bush is well-intentioned but short-sighted, or just plain evil. I reminded him that my wife and his mother clearly thinks it's the latter. My son commented that it's probably somewhere in between.
I am past wondering about the man's motives, his make-up or his character. I just want him out of there. All you have to do is look at his actions, and the results of those actions, to see that he is a disaster. No person who understands our place of leadership in the world could approve of what he has done. No person who understands the proper grounds for a just war could think that this war is justified. And no person who understands the war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda can think that this war is worthwhile. The war in Iraq can only bring one bad consequence after another.
My wife was talking with my dad on the phone the other night. She asked, her voice rising a bit as it always does when addressing this subject, "What would it take for the Christian right to renounce Bush?" What could he do that he hasn't already done? He has invaded a country and wreaked untold damage as a result. Well, I thought I'd take this somewhat sarcastic question seriously. What would it take? I heard an evangelical leader on the radio today speak favorably of Bush, because Bush professes Jesus as his savior. What would Bush have to do to turn this leader's opinion around? What if he shot his mother in public? Would that do it? What if he began to imprison people like me for sedition? Would that do it? I had to conclude that the only unforgivable act, the only thing Bush could do to reverse the evangelicals' admiration for him, would be blasphemy. If Bush were to renounce Jesus as his savior, if he were to declare that Jesus was the Satan's emissary on earth, then the evangelicals might reconsider. Otherwise, they would overlook all of his acts, no matter how bad. They would find some reason to excuse his bad judgment, some grounds for approving of his policies. They already have.
If a Democrat like Kerry had gone to war in the Middle East on the same grounds cited by Bush, do you suppose the evangelical Christians would have approved of his action? Hardly. They might likely have called him the anti-Christ, and cited Revelation to prove that the war was another sign of the end times. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He speaks their language, and that's all that matters. Bush is sure that he is doing God's will, and they're sure that he is, too. But Bush's blindness, the atrocious consequences of his bad judgment, will make the country lose its preeminent position in the world. And Bush's supporters will blame Bush's enemies for the fall, not Bush himself. They'll blame traitors like me for not giving him the backing he needed during the country's hour of crisis. No matter how bad the results of Bush's actions, they won't see that he has done anything wrong. He can't do wrong, because he is God's instrument on earth.
In four years, other countries will pity the United States almost as much as they fear it. Well that's an exaggeration. It'll take longer than that. But it's going to be hard to watch China rise and the United States fall. I thought it would happen after I was dead, but it's going to happen while I'm around to see it. And March 19, 2003, is the date the process began. That's the date the war started, and that's the date that historians will look at when they analyze the actions of the worst president the United States ever had.
The famous saying from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Now, after Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah, and Baghdad itself, we have to say, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." Nothing Bush says is trustworthy. Nothing he does now can restore our good reputation. Nothing but a change of leadership can do that, and we have rehired this broken down, dishonest, self-righteous and short-sighted man for another four years. My son wondered on the phone tonight whether Bush is well-intentioned but short-sighted, or just plain evil. I reminded him that my wife and his mother clearly thinks it's the latter. My son commented that it's probably somewhere in between.
I am past wondering about the man's motives, his make-up or his character. I just want him out of there. All you have to do is look at his actions, and the results of those actions, to see that he is a disaster. No person who understands our place of leadership in the world could approve of what he has done. No person who understands the proper grounds for a just war could think that this war is justified. And no person who understands the war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda can think that this war is worthwhile. The war in Iraq can only bring one bad consequence after another.
My wife was talking with my dad on the phone the other night. She asked, her voice rising a bit as it always does when addressing this subject, "What would it take for the Christian right to renounce Bush?" What could he do that he hasn't already done? He has invaded a country and wreaked untold damage as a result. Well, I thought I'd take this somewhat sarcastic question seriously. What would it take? I heard an evangelical leader on the radio today speak favorably of Bush, because Bush professes Jesus as his savior. What would Bush have to do to turn this leader's opinion around? What if he shot his mother in public? Would that do it? What if he began to imprison people like me for sedition? Would that do it? I had to conclude that the only unforgivable act, the only thing Bush could do to reverse the evangelicals' admiration for him, would be blasphemy. If Bush were to renounce Jesus as his savior, if he were to declare that Jesus was the Satan's emissary on earth, then the evangelicals might reconsider. Otherwise, they would overlook all of his acts, no matter how bad. They would find some reason to excuse his bad judgment, some grounds for approving of his policies. They already have.
If a Democrat like Kerry had gone to war in the Middle East on the same grounds cited by Bush, do you suppose the evangelical Christians would have approved of his action? Hardly. They might likely have called him the anti-Christ, and cited Revelation to prove that the war was another sign of the end times. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He speaks their language, and that's all that matters. Bush is sure that he is doing God's will, and they're sure that he is, too. But Bush's blindness, the atrocious consequences of his bad judgment, will make the country lose its preeminent position in the world. And Bush's supporters will blame Bush's enemies for the fall, not Bush himself. They'll blame traitors like me for not giving him the backing he needed during the country's hour of crisis. No matter how bad the results of Bush's actions, they won't see that he has done anything wrong. He can't do wrong, because he is God's instrument on earth.
In four years, other countries will pity the United States almost as much as they fear it. Well that's an exaggeration. It'll take longer than that. But it's going to be hard to watch China rise and the United States fall. I thought it would happen after I was dead, but it's going to happen while I'm around to see it. And March 19, 2003, is the date the process began. That's the date the war started, and that's the date that historians will look at when they analyze the actions of the worst president the United States ever had.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The New York Times: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces
The New York Times > Washington > Foreign Relations: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces:
"The theme of Ms. Rice's opening statement was that history would favorably judge the Bush administration's struggle to expand freedom, particularly in the Muslim world, just as President Harry S. Truman is hailed by historians for laying the foundation of defeating Communism after World War II."
"The theme of Ms. Rice's opening statement was that history would favorably judge the Bush administration's struggle to expand freedom, particularly in the Muslim world, just as President Harry S. Truman is hailed by historians for laying the foundation of defeating Communism after World War II."
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Safire: Character Is Destiny
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Character Is Destiny
The British historian D. W. Brogan wrote 60 years ago that the unique achievement of Americans to form a continental nation - without sacrificing liberty or efficiency - led to the temper of the pioneer, the gambler and the booster: "the religion of economic and political optimism."
History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?
Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)
It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.
The British historian D. W. Brogan wrote 60 years ago that the unique achievement of Americans to form a continental nation - without sacrificing liberty or efficiency - led to the temper of the pioneer, the gambler and the booster: "the religion of economic and political optimism."
History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?
Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)
It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Dow: Defining Victory Down
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Defining Victory Down
It's good to remember how our civil war started: with an election. The immediate cause of the war was Lincoln's election in 1860. South Carolina and the other states of the confederacy would not have seceded it Douglas or Buchanan had been elected. Scowcroft argues the same thing about Iraq: the election may be the last event before civil conflict gets much worse.
It's good to remember how our civil war started: with an election. The immediate cause of the war was Lincoln's election in 1860. South Carolina and the other states of the confederacy would not have seceded it Douglas or Buchanan had been elected. Scowcroft argues the same thing about Iraq: the election may be the last event before civil conflict gets much worse.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation
The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation
Not in this article, but in one published the day before, Powell said that he hopes our aid to Indonesia and other countries hit by the tsunamis would improve our image with the Muslim world. What would we have said if Goebbels had gone around on a good will tour after Czechoslovakia, saying that he hoped German aid would improve the Nazi's image in Eastern Europe? What would Churchill have said? I don't want to say that Powell is like Goebbels, or that Bush is like Hitler. I do want to say that the invasion of Iraq is a crime on the same scale as Hitler's move into the Sudetenland. Of course we'd like to improve our image. Every warlord and thug wants to have a good image with the people. But when will someone acknowledge that we are criminals here, that what we have done is a crime? Good people and good countries have reputations that stand on their own. Only people and countries who have done horrible things have to think about brushing up their images.
Not in this article, but in one published the day before, Powell said that he hopes our aid to Indonesia and other countries hit by the tsunamis would improve our image with the Muslim world. What would we have said if Goebbels had gone around on a good will tour after Czechoslovakia, saying that he hoped German aid would improve the Nazi's image in Eastern Europe? What would Churchill have said? I don't want to say that Powell is like Goebbels, or that Bush is like Hitler. I do want to say that the invasion of Iraq is a crime on the same scale as Hitler's move into the Sudetenland. Of course we'd like to improve our image. Every warlord and thug wants to have a good image with the people. But when will someone acknowledge that we are criminals here, that what we have done is a crime? Good people and good countries have reputations that stand on their own. Only people and countries who have done horrible things have to think about brushing up their images.
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."
"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
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?
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
