Memo to Hillary Clinton

To:              The Honorable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

From:           Doug Page, freelance writer, blogger, registered
independent

Date:            June 18, 2014

Re:              Iraq

Dear Madam Secretary:

You better be texting POTUS about this situation, telling him to

make damn sure he doesn’t lose Baghdad to those crazed ISIS

terrorists. If you're not, you’re hardly a serious contender for

becoming the next president of the United States – book

or no book!

Sure, the Iraq War under President George W. Bush wasn’t popular

but if Baghdad falls on President Obama’s watch, the former president

will look like the best commander in chief since Ronald Reagan.

The average American voter will see in the Democrats exactly what

you don’t want them to perceive – a political party so run by its

peaceniks that it’s prepared to surrender any ally, even questionable

ones, to anyone, including to a band of renegades who, according to

The Economist, make al-Qaida look reasonable.[i]

Anyone associated with the Democratic Party, regardless of what

office they’re running for this year or two years from now, will be

considered suspicious on national security.

Including you if you’re the Democratic presidential nominee!

Say what you want about national security – that it’s only near and

dear to the Tea Party and other assorted right-wing extremists – but

if ISIS wins in Iraq, enough Americans will feel threatened to

prevent you from winning a key state, like Ohio or Michigan, and, thus, 

sending the Republican presidential nominee into the White House.

In fact, the next time you speak with President Obama, you might tell

him that if he doesn’t save Baghdad, Jeb Bush may be the biggest

beneficiary. Not only will it elevate his candidacy for his party’s

presidential nomination it will also improve his chances of winning

the general election in November 2016.

And if Baghdad goes down, it could put you in a very uncomfortable

position, one likely not seen since Hubert Humphrey ran for president

in 1968.  You’ll be forced to distance yourself from the White House.

Like Humphrey, it's highly unlikely you'll be considered believable

since you worked for President Obama.  Most American voters won’t
be able to separate you from him.

Don’t forget Benghazi. Any fall of Baghdad piles onto that situation,

making you look even less credible on national defense.

Finally, you need to control the far left in your party, reminding

them the world is filled with danger.

As British historian Jeremy Black reminds us in his book, War and

The New Disorder in the 21^st Century, “One prediction seems safe:

talk of obsolescence, even end, of war will prove misplaced, and will

be mocked by the rictus on the face of the dead.”[ii]

---

[i] “Terror’s New Headquarters,” The Economist, June 14, 2014:  http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21604160-iraqs-second-city-has-fallen-group-wants-create-state-which-wage-jihad

[ii] Jeremy Black, War and The Disorder in the 21^st Century, London: Continuum, 2004, page 173.

No longer the White Man's Burden

Way back yonder, when the Democratic Party had a soul, it had a president who was a vociferous advocate for human rights.

Democracy was in the balance, yet this president, standing against the tide attempting to dominate world politics, decried the notion that anyone, regardless of what part of this world they occupied, should live without four basic, fundamental freedoms.

Freedom of expression, freedom to worship and the ability to live free of fear and from want were the cornerstones of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s policies that he announced during his State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, coincidentally enough, nearly 11 months to the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms.
“The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.
“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
“The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
“The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the world,” said Roosevelt.

The United States, he said, would become an Arsenal of Democracy, helping defend countries in Europe and Asia that were fighting German fascists and Japanese militarists. The American way of life, he said, would never be secure so long as someone, somewhere in the world, was oppressed.

Roosevelt knew instinctively that countries seeking to oppress others have an insatiable hunger to subjugate as much of the world as possible.

As a result of FDR’s bold policies, Europe and much of Asia are free today. Over the course of more than 40 years, the United States and its allies defeated the enemies of human rights: German fascists, Japanese militarists, and then Soviet Communists.

You cannot help but to admire FDR. His domestic and foreign opponents were formidable and yet he managed to outmaneuver and, eventually, trounce them.

Did he play fair? Probably not. There’s evidence that suggests he knew Japan would strike Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen so he could gain the domestic support he so vitally needed to bring the United States into a war its citizens didn’t want to fight.

Studying Roosevelt makes you wonder what went wrong with the Democratic Party over the last 60 years. It’s gone from being a party that insisted the United States pay any price and bear any burden to support those who champion liberty to becoming a party that’s more interested in its own self-indulgence. Fortunately, for its own sake, it’s not alone: The Republicans are just as awful.

Each contender for next year’s Democratic Presidential nomination denounces the war in Iraq and, as they do, they signal to terrorists and insurgents alike that they’re more concerned about their rights – than the rights of those they slaughter.

FDR is rolling over in his grave. And Hitler and Tojo are jealous that they didn’t have the great fortune of facing the pusillanimous Democrats of today.

If you’ve joined today’s anti-war movement, keep something in mind: The people in the Middle East who want the United States out of the Middle East aren’t pacifists. They’re cold-blooded killers. The peace movement, if it’s successful in securing a United States withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, only condemns an Iraqi or Afghan citizen to a grizzly death.

The peace movement is anything but a peace movement. It’s a form of passive-aggressive fascism. Whether it realizes it or not, the movement is aligned with groups that have no compunction about killing innocent people; other than demanding an immediate U.S. departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, not a single political idea is shared between these groups.

The typical supporter of peace movement in the United States is a Democrat who should support anyone advancing liberty and human rights. The typical terrorist has likely never heard of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle, philosophers who influenced and created the very political freedoms that the West enjoys today.

But the average terrorist has definitely heard some hijacked version of the Koran and Islam, which inspires them to kill anyone – Muslim, Christian, Jew, man, woman or child – who doesn’t support their thinking.

Today’s anti-war movement is rooted in the one that rallied around the slogan “Give Peace a Chance,” forcing the United States to end its military and political efforts in Southeast Asia more than 30 years ago. The result: Millions of Cambodians were condemned to their Communist executioners. Communist North Vietnam was granted victory and went on to place millions of South Vietnamese into reeducation camps. Many South Vietnamese fled the country and many drowned in their attempt to live free.

If the peace movement’s conclusion is accepted at face value, once the U.S. military leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, peace breaks out. There’s only problem with the conclusion: It’ll kill some innocent man, woman or child.

The only good news from this conclusion is that the insurgents won’t have Americans to kill anymore. The bad news, however, is that innocent citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan will fall into the terrorists’ cross-hairs.

Then there’s the issue of Europe’s security vis á vis Iran as well as the security of those Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern nations allied with the United States, either covertly or overtly, since 9/11. These issues are never addressed by the peace movement.

President George W. Bush and his administration have truly mismanaged the country since September 11, 2001. The President was granted a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the terrorists and their sympathizers that Western political philosophy is far superior to the dictatorships, theocracies and monarchies they live under. In addition, the President had a wonderful opportunity to infuse the United States with a sense of patriotism and mission. He blew it.

The administration’s political aims would have been far better served had it focused on turning Afghanistan into a successful, self-supporting country. How this administration ever thought it could successfully turn around Afghanistan and, at the same time, turn Iraq into some sort of jewel of Middle Eastern democracy is anyone’s guess. Evidence suggests that they never thought through all the challenges they’d face.

Besides bad planning on Iraq, after defeating Saddam Hussein’s army, one wonders about the various companies that have benefited from contracts supplying U.S. military and political forces there. The manner in which these contacts were handled gives every appearance that the Bush Administration is more concerned about its corporate backers than it is about helping innocent civilians.

More than 100 years ago, at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, an Indian-born British subject wrote a poem called “A White Man’s Burden.” Rudyard Kipling was in the United States as it achieved military victories over Spanish forces in Cuba and the Philippines. The war turned the United States into a global power because, for the first time in its history, it occupied land far outside of its territorial waters.

Reading the poem with the lens of the 21st century, when we’ve all been sensitized to the slightest slur, it’s hard not to look at this as something that insults people with darker skin. But, as Kipling saw the world, in this poem he was attempting to tell Americans that they had special role; their new mission, as he saw it, was to educate, lift-up and improve the native people of the lands they occupied.

Kipling was telling the United States it had a moral duty to instruct Cubans and Filipinos on democracy, freedom and human rights so they could advance themselves and their countries in ways that would never have occurred under the Spanish.

This is the same moral philosophy that guided President Roosevelt as he presented his State of the Union address under the storm clouds of early 1941, when the future of democracy, freedom and human rights was in question. It is the same philosophy that has bound American foreign policy for more than 60 years and will likely continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

FDR is known to have quoted Kipling from time to time. “A White Man’s Burden” was written when he was in his late teens; this poem, along with his education, which instilled him a sense of obligation to help the less fortunate, guided his political beliefs.

FDR is the patron saint of the Democratic Party. He infused it with a sense of obligation to those less fortunate and that’s been its hallmark throughout the 20th century and still is to this very day.

But when it comes to helping those outside of U.S. borders who are less fortunate, today’s Democratic Party sounds like the Republicans FDR faced during the first two terms of his presidency. They’re isolationists.

Aligned with the Democrats, today’s anti-war movement is without any sense of obligation. In fact, it’s racist. At the core of its message is this: Darker skinned people, Arabs in this case, are not the White Man’s Burden.

The Rhymes of History

Sitting down in his study, the President of the United States reviews the war briefing he’s just received from his top military, political and foreign policy advisors and writes a few notes:

“This is what I know:

• We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Sound like George W. Bush dealing with the war in Iraq?

Try Harry S. Truman, around June or July 1945, figuring out how to end the war with Japan so World War II could come to a conclusion.

President Truman likely never wrote those words, or anything similar, after talking with his advisors about the way to end the war with Japan, but he probably had thoughts along those lines. In the summer of 1945, as U.S. troops were occupying Germany, and the fighting on Okinawa against Japanese forces was ending, Truman was feeling pressure to end the war, on U.S. terms, as fast as possible.

Prior to Truman becoming president, senior U.S. military officers were focusing on the best way to bring the war with Japan to an end. Invasion plans were prepared for the Japanese islands and commanders and military units, as well as personnel, were selected for the pending assault, which was scheduled for November 1945. The goal was for Japan to surrender unconditionally, just like Germany did, 12 months after the Nazis gave up.

While plans were being finalized, top U.S. military officers, including the president, learned that a new weapon, the atomic bomb, would be at their disposal sometime that summer. There were a number of questions and issues about the bomb. Would it work? Was it a strategic or tactical weapon? Would it shock the enemy into surrender? Or would Japanese leaders react to it the way they did the night U.S. planes fire-bombed Tokyo, killing nearly 85,000 people? They didn’t.

These questions, the positions of top U.S. leaders, the debates between them, potential casualties resulting from the assault on Japan, as well as the complex issues the United States faced abroad and at home, are discussed with great authority by John Ray Skates, a history professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, in his book The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb.

The book is especially pertinent today as the United States debates the best way to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while extracting some sort of political-military victory from the effort that’s been expended. It forces the reader to think about how the United States can shock its enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan into ending the fight; the book also makes the reader consider that perhaps there is no possible way to stun Al Qaida and Iraqi insurgents into submission. Skates, a retired army colonel, lays out, in excruciating detail, the debates, positions and discussions had by America’s leaders on the quickest and best possible way to coerce Japan into accepting the Allied policy of unconditional surrender.

In mid-1945, Japan still had five million men under arms. They’d lost every battle they’d fought against the United States since June 1942; however, Japan’s leaders didn’t see themselves as defeated. They knew U.S. troops would likely land on Kyushu, the Japanese island that American troops would invade in Operation Olympic, and they were preparing an intricate defense. While they couldn’t stop the invasion, Japan’s top brass thought, instead, that they could bleed the United States into accepting a negotiated settlement that was far short of its clearly stated, very public, and Allied-approved objective of unconditional surrender.

Skates shows how the policy of unconditional surrender for both Germany and Japan, as pushed through by President Roosevelt in early 1943, as well as the level of casualties the United States had sustained, determined military actions and, eventually, the use of the atomic bomb. The policy, as well as the experience from fighting Japan, forced America’s top leaders into coming up with the most efficient way into forcing Japan’s surrender.

By the time the summer of 1945 rolled around, the United States had suffered nearly 400,000 combat deaths with another 600,000 troops wounded. Top military commanders worried about the additional casualties the United States would suffer should it invade Kyushu. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, the Navy’s top officer, thought Japan could be brought down through a blockade that would essentially starve Japan’s populace – at minimal cost of U.S. lives; others, like General of the Army George C. Marshall, the Army’s top general, feared that the blockade would extend the war beyond the patience of the American home front; he thought the invasion was the faster way to bring about an American victory.

The United States was holding more than 400,000 prisoners of war: 370,000 Germans, 50,000 Italians, and 5,000 Japanese. German and Italian troops were far more prone to surrender because it was not considered unpatriotic if they did. For the Japanese, however, surrender was simply out of the question. Japanese troops were instructed to fight to the death; if they ran out of ammunition, they were told to charge the enemy or commit suicide. Anything less would bring dishonor to themselves and their surviving family members. The fact that there were so few Japanese prisoners of war reinforced the military’s view that any battle on the Japanese mainland would be arduous and bloody.

Top U.S. military officers had also reviewed the post-action reports of the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which, combined, cost the United States more than 100,000 casualties. As Skates writes, “Public concern already simmered over the casualties of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What would the cost of Downfall (the overall name for amphibious assaults against Japan) be and could Americans sustain it? Could any methods be used to minimize the casualties?”

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Army’s commanding officer in the Pacific, would lead the ground attack on Kyushu while the Navy’s top officer in the Pacific, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, would be responsible for transporting the troops, the amphibious assault itself, and providing all the necessary support for MacArthur’s troops, including food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies.

Operation Olympic, had it occurred, would be one of the largest amphibious assaults in all of military history. It would have entailed 12 divisions “comprising 427,400 troops and 626,800 tons of supplies,” writes Skates. The assault on Normandy, in comparison, looks small: It only involved five divisions for the beach landing and another three airborne divisions that were dropped in the middle of the night, just prior to the amphibious landings.

American military analysts thought that U.S. forces would occupy at least half of Kyushu, if not the entire Island. If Japan’s leaders still refused to surrender, even though U.S. forces were on Kyushu, then MacArthur and Nimitz would initiate Operation Coronet, an amphibious assault on Honshu, Japan’s main island, in March 1946. This operation would have involved “14 divisions with 462,000 troops,” writes Skates.

The best military estimates said that Japan would put up an all-out fight in the defense of Kyushu. They may not have had the best troops to prevent American forces from succeeding but the thinking was that at Kyushu, Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen would make a gallant, albeit suicidal, stand.

Casualties, Skates says, would have been higher during Operation Olympic than on Operation Coronet. MacArthur’s intelligence officers estimated that “about fourteen thousand soldiers and airmen would die in the first sixty days of Olympic,” writes Skates. MacArthur estimated that there would be nearly 80,000 American casualties – killed and wounded – during the first 60 days of the invasion of Kyushu. If the battle lasted 120 days, MacArthur estimated there would be more than 100,000 American casualties.

The battle losses, Skates writes, were based on the casualties that American forces endured on both Okinawa as well as in Normandy, where the First U.S. Army suffered more than 60,000 casualties of whom 16,000 were killed during the first 48 days in France. “Much evidence exists that casualty estimates for the invasion were realistic and based on past experience,” writes Skates. And while the invasion of Kyushu would cause no more American losses than had been realized in Normandy or on Okinawa, as Skates writes, that “was small comfort” to American civilian and military leaders.

“The earlier fanatical and suicidal, yet hopeless Japanese defenses created a psychology that the normal conventions of war did not apply against a nation of potential kamikazes,” writes Skates.

In addition to facing a suicidal enemy, the United States attempted, throughout the war, to gain the participation of the Soviet Union in its fight against Japan. The Soviets made a number of promises to the United States about its willingness to fight Japan, including invading parts of the Japanese Empire, but they didn’t declare war against Japan until the day after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Like all leaders, President Truman and those he consulted for achieving a military and political victory in World War II, couldn’t foresee the future. What they had before them, as they debated the tactics and strategy to be employed in bringing about Japan’s surrender, was the results, including the number of dead and wounded so far, as well as an idea of the level of patience that the American public had for finishing the war.

“The bomb, whether used strategically or tactically, promised to keep U.S. casualties at an acceptable level,” writes Skates. “The bomb also would shock Japanese leaders, and combined with other demonstrations of hopelessness of continued resistance, might tip the balance toward surrender.”

As a result, the President ordered the atomic bombing of Japan. The first one was dropped on August 6, on Hiroshima; the next one was dropped three days later on Nagasaki.

It took two atomic bombs killing about 200,000 people to shock Japan’s emperor into realizing the war was lost. The objective of the war, Japan’s unconditional surrender, had been achieved. More than 100,000 U.S. lives had been spared death and injury.

Overall, this is an excellent book. It’s very well researched and lays out a number of details that the average history reader would likely find tedious. The only flaw in the book is that not enough attention is given to Truman’s perspective. The reader would have been better served had the author given us some details on Truman’s fears and hopes on both the atomic bomb as well as the invasion. Perhaps this information isn’t available.

The lesson here, if there’s any, is that the victory usually comes about when the enemy is “shocked and awed.” The best way to “shock and awe” the enemy, as military historian Michael Doubler points out, is to “let your enemy tell you that you’re shocking and awesome. Don’t tell the enemy you’re going to shock and awe them.”

The idea of shocking an enemy into surrender is nothing new. During the Civil War, Union forces shocked the Confederacy into capitulation through General William Tecumseh Sherman’s march on the South. It showed the South that their position was hopeless. Only the Union could win. During the American Revolution, the Battle of Yorktown, while not exactly a stunning U.S. victory, showed the British that the French were committed to the American cause and that for the British to continue it was to put at risk more than the fight was worth.

Today, the United States faces a suicidal enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that neither enemy fights for a particular government. And the question remains how does the United States force these enemies into realizing their position is hopeless; for that matter can it even be achieved? Do we march an Army or Marine Division or two up into the mountains of Afghanistan, killing everyone we encounter? Or do we shock them into making peace by showing them the benefits of harmony with the United States and the West? How will we shock the Iraqi insurgency into accepting a peaceful settlement with Iraq’s government and, consequently, the countries with troops stationed in Iraq?

Any given day, President Bush might say the following to himself:

• “We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but remains belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.” And so it does.

(Writer’s note: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, published in 1994, can be found on alibris.com. The writer of this blog makes no money from alibris.com but wishes he did.)

Publishing Information: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, by John Ray Skates, University of South Carolina Press, 1994, 276 pages

Jesus, Democrats and the price of victory

1. Iraq, the Democrats and possible outcomes

Twenty thousand additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq may very well not make much of a difference. But it’s something. It shows our allies and enemies that the United States is committed to the war’s successful outcome.

If the President takes up the Democrats on their suggestion and pulls out, Iraq goes to hell overnight. The Saudis, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, will start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; Jordan will move its troops far enough into Iraq to keep its border secure; Turkey will be forced to find a way to deal with the Kurds, people they don’t like.

And Iran, which is likely pushing ahead with its nuclear arms program, will be sitting in the cat’s seat.

There’s a good chance that Iraq will be the theatre of a proxy war between the Arab world and the Persians. And if that happens, civilian casualties in Iraq will skyrocket exponentially.

But they won’t be the only ones that are harmed.

Oil, the fundamental commodity of all western economies, will see an increase in price. Right now, it’s trading in the $55 range, good news for the developed world. But if there’s any fear in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of crude will increase. Maybe double in this scenario.

The economic fallout would be horrible. Gas prices will increase; airlines will raise their prices to keep up with additional fuel charges; and just about everything that anyone buys at the store will see a jump in prices.

Companies will layoff additional employees simply because they don’t want to pay the additional overhead expenses.

And the stock markets will likely take a turn for the worse.

Finally, the continued confrontations between the Palestinians, Israel, Syria and Lebanon will spiral out of control. Syria’s best friend is Iran; Iran will extract all kinds of promises from Syria in this scenario; that means the Palestinians and the terrorist group Hezbollah will be receiving even more assistance than they’re already receiving from Iran.

So before you add your voice to the antiwar chant, consider these possible outcomes if the United States pulls out.

2. The debate over Iraq

It’s time to have the proverbial “Come to Jesus Meeting” about Iraq. The citizens of the United States, those who vote and actually give a damn about the country, are owed far better than what they’re currently receiving from the politicians in Washington. The sound bites of “stay the course” or “pull out” just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Those lines are cheap. And it allows anyone, on either side of this debate, to take a pass at truly discussing, considering and thinking about what U.S. involvement in Iraq means, not only to us but also to the Iraqis.

It’s time for leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his top generals, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury to hole themselves up for a few days, maybe a week, in a place like Camp David, and hash out the issues.

And do so without issuing any press releases while they’re meeting. We need to force these people to devise a plan that meets the needs of everyone involved in Iraq. Maybe even those countries who have troops on the ground in Iraq, like Great Britain and Poland, should also join the meeting.

An American pullout doesn’t mean peace in Iraq; if anything, it means the exact opposite. More insurgents killing more people; and this time they’ll be funded by the treasury departments of Iran and some countries in the Arab world.

3. The All-Volunteer Force

If anything, President George W. Bush has proven the United States can wage a war with an all-volunteer force and, frankly, there won’t be too much resistance at home. To be cynical, those troops who’ve been killed in Iraq were, after all, volunteers.

Walk down any street America and you’ll never know that our sons and daughters are dying in central Asia or on a distant, dusty, Middle Eastern battlefield. You see the occasional flag but, otherwise, you’d never know there’s a war on.

Compare that with what happened during World War II, when houses posted star flags on their windows. If you posted a flag with one star, there was one member of your family in uniform. If you posted a flag with two stars, there were two members of your family serving, etc., etc.

The stars were silver. If that house changed their flag from a silver star to one that was gold, a member of that person’s family had been killed.

Since 9/11, I’ve only seen two silver star flags.

And this is the problem with an all-volunteer force. Only those Americans with a family member in the armed force are paying the price and feeling the pain of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else our troops are based.

If you’re in the peace movement, you want the draft reinstated. This might help you organize major marches across the United States on behalf of an American pull out.

If you’re for the war, you need to see the draft reinstated. It’s taken us nearly six years to increase the size of the active duty Army by 30,000; we simply need more troops on the ground in Iraq – like maybe a million – if we’re going to defeat the insurgents once and for all. We could probably say the same thing about our effort in Afghanistan.

The problem with the current size of the force in Iraq is that once we defeat the insurgents in one place, we need to move to another. And that allows the insurgency to reestablish its ties to the village or province we just secured. (Almost like Vietnam. But not quite.)

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 63 million American men between the ages of 18 – 49.

Here’s an idea: Draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status and whether or not they’re in college. The only way their names and numbers wouldn’t be subjected to the draft is if they’re veterans. Unlike the last time we used the draft, this version of conscription subjects everyone, regardless of their economic and educational status, to service in the armed forces.

The only way they would be allowed out of the military would be if they couldn’t pass the physical or basic training. If I had to guess, I’d say that half of all of those drafted will fail the physical and then another 50 percent will fail basic training. Still, that will give us about 16 million men in uniform, a number unseen since World War II.

Not everyone who is north of 35 or 40 will qualify for combat duty, but they should be able to contribute in some way to the well being of our forces.

A military force that consists of draftees will spread out the cost and the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will force all Americans to come to terms with Iraq.

In addition, a larger cross section of the country will be represented in this force. Instead of the force being made up of people who either 1) patriotic or 2) don't know what else to do, the force will be made up all kinds of Americans. This was the type of military that brought about victory in World War II.

A longstanding argument against the draft is that the military brass doesn’t want it, saying the average conscript isn’t a motivated solider. This same military brass considers itself to have some of the best leadership skills in the world. It’s time to put them to use. The best leaders motivate the worst performers.

Hold the applause on North Korea

While President Bush and his administration are giving themselves high fives for their diplomatic victory against North Korea at the United Nations, let’s keep in mind what the sanctions didn’t address on Saturday – the demise of North Korea, which means, for the foreseeable future, Kim Jung Il will continue to menace the world in general and the United States in particular.

China, North Korea’s best ally, sharing a border with the rogue state that’s about 880 miles long, has every reason to support Kim Jung Il. While Beijing may have lost some respect for not being able to control their stooge in Pyongyang, their interest in mining North Korea for gold and other precious metals supersedes anything they lost last week.

The Chinese have their eyes on the country’s natural resources and are prepared to pay North Korea for the rights to mine them. China will sell these precious metals. North Korea, for that matter, needs assistance bringing these natural resources to market; in addition, Kim Jung Il knows that whatever payment he receives from the Chinese will prop up his regime.

China will talk a good game about enforcing the U.N.-approved sanctions against North Korea, but don’t expect them to lead the charge, let alone do much. In addition, China views North Korea as part of their area of influence. As The Economist reports, Beijing considers a unified Korean peninsula a potential threat to national security. They prefer a divided peninsula because it maintains their influence with Japan.

To be sure, some damage has been inflicted on North Korea. Kim Jung Il’s favorite bank, Macao-based Banco Delta Asia, has been pressured by the United States to shut down or freeze the accounts of the North Korean leadership. This certainly crimps Kim Jung Il’s style but not so much that he feels his days are coming to an end.

So, essentially, very little progress has been made against North Korea. The only thing that’s likely to bring the regime to an end is either a U.S.-led war or a charge led by renegades inside North Korea. Neither is on the horizon.

North Korea

If we are to believe today’s news reports, North Korea has a nuclear bomb. If you’ve been following the news for the last few years, this shouldn’t surprise you. The best guesses on this most secretive regime was that it was developing a nuclear bomb for quite some time.

The question, as always, is does North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Il, have the willingness to use it. And this is a question that can only be answered with sheer speculation.

To be sure, the latest reports indicate this isn’t much of a bomb. It wasn’t anywhere near the size of the atomic bomb, today’s Wall Street Journal reports, that the United States dropped on Japan during World War II.

Still, a nuclear-armed North Korea shouldn’t settle well with anyone. It doesn’t help China’s self-perceived position as Asia’s honest broker to see its key ally openly defy it, which it did by exploding a nuclear bomb. And it begs the following questions:

• Do the Chinese still have any influence with Pyongyang?
• Are the Chinese, while officially against a nuclear-armed North Korea,
secretly celebrating this latest development?

The answers: Who knows?

So this latest development begs us for options. Here they are:

1. Invade North Korea. While this might settle well with all of the hawks, the problem with this policy is that President Bush doesn’t have enough political capital to take the country to another war. If North Korea successfully launches a nuclear strike against the United States or Japan, then the President’s political position changes. But until then, North Korea remains safe from a pre-emptive war.
2. Cut off aid to North Korea. This one might actually fly. For years, the United States, through the United Nations, has provided food to North Korea. The deal went something like this: We give food to North Korea so they don’t develop nuclear weapons. Since this deal has been violated, the United States is in a good position to tell North Korea, the United Nations, and, more importantly, China, that it will no longer provide food assistance to North Korea. The latest reports suggest that North Korea, a country of around 23 million people, is practically starving.
3. Give nuclear arms to Japan. This changes the balance of power in Asia dramatically and it won’t settle well with China, which views World War II as something that happened last week. But it might actually be something the United States can do to keep North Korea guessing. It might also be the strongest military action the United States can successfully carry out in the near term. Questions about this option will involve China’s response. China can be expected to react strongly against a nuclear armed Japan. Japan might resist this option because it has a new prime minister, and he may not be ready to risk any chance he has of improving relations with China.
4. Complain to the United Nations. The problem with this body is that it can’t resolve the average, run-of-the-mill genocide. So don’t expect it to resolve, to our liking at least, anything as complicated as North Korea and nuclear weapons. This is a nice choice from the standpoint of increasing our goodwill throughout the world; but, seriously, don’t expect it to do much in terms of bringing this issue to a resolution.
5. Do nothing. This policy might settle well with the isolationists in the United States but it’s problematic. South Korea is an ally and the United States is committed to its defense and survival. This is not an option.
6. Find out what the Chinese know. Spending time with the Chinese makes sense because China is North Korea’s best ally. The latest developments in North Korea make the merits of such talks questionable; but the Chinese, on the q-t of course, might release information about North Korea that only they know. Which might help the case the United States is making.
7. Survey our allies in Asia. This means finding out what the thinking is with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand about the developments in North Korea. This is helpful and important but doesn’t provide any immediate satisfaction in terms of resolving the issue.
8. Continue the six-party talks with North Korea. Given yesterday’s news, the possible results of this plan are questionable.
9. Talk one-on-one with North Korea. This is exactly what Kim Jong Il wants – respect from the United States. George W. Bush is in the final two years of his presidency. He’s coasting, you might say, until he turns over the keys to the Oval Office. There’s a case to be made for him to talk one-on-one with Kim Jong Il but it’s highly unlikely that the United States will ever enter into direct talks, alone, with North Korea.

The problem with all of these options is that, with the exception of the first one, none of them leads to the solution which is needed – the demise of North Korea. The problem with keeping North Korea around is that it will likely behave in the same manner – or worse – in the coming months or years.

And it begs the question why does the United States want this problem to remain unsolved. It doesn’t but right now the president doesn’t have the political capital and the military doesn’t have the means of taking out North Korea once and for all.

So we’re stuck with this problem – unless Kim Jong Il acts irrationally. He won’t. He’s far too smart. Be prepared for more saber-rattling from North Korea and a few more explosions.

The political lessons of President, whoops, sorry, Senator John Kerry

Before going to town on the National Intelligence Estimate, the Democrats might step back, take a deep breath, and think about the man who should be the president of the United States, John Kerry.

2004 was Senator Kerry’s election to lose. The war on terror wasn’t all that popular and the economy then, like today, was troublesome. But lose he did.

He could have said everything he said and still be president today, with one exception. Had he not inferred to America’s military families that their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters were fighting and dying in the wrong war, he would occupy the Oval Office today.

Instead, he was, willingly or unwillingly, held hostage to the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party, which maintains that all war – even the ones the country is forced to fight – is evil.

There’s nothing good about war, mind you, but sometimes, they need to be fought. And the last thing that any presidential candidate, especially one who’s affiliated with a party whose national security credentials are easy to dismiss, should do is criticize a war effort. Even if they disagree with the war.

Those who have lost a loved one will think their family member died in vain. And that’ll just force them to vote for the opposition.

The Democrats stand a good chance of making some significant gains in the upcoming mid-term elections. The economy is on shaky ground and the execution the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been less than spectacular.

So instead of becoming all hyped up about the national security report, the Democrats should tell the country that they’ve been the party that’s defended the United States during times of great peril – World Wars I & II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War come to mind – and that they’ll be just as vigilant, if not more so, if they’re at the helm during the war on terror.

Americans want to be safe. The last thing the voters will do is choose someone they suspect, even the slightest bit, will put the country at risk.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the man who’s sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. It’s not John Kerry.

Victory over Al-Qaida

Declare victory, says James Fallows in this month’s Atlantic magazine, on the war on terror. Why not? Unlike at World War II’s conclusion, when Americans saw pictures of German and Japanese leaders signing surrender documents, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see Osama bin Laden or his henchmen capitulate to the United States or its allies in a formal surrender ceremony.

We’re fighting a rogue enemy that doesn’t play by the rules, which gives the Bush administration freedom to declare victory. And maybe with good reason: Al-Qaida hasn’t struck the United States in more than five years and their organization has been severely damaged.

Still, it’s not quite down and out. Bin Laden, although likely isolated in some remote hideout in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, remains at large. The worst thing the West has to contend with isn’t so much bin Laden’s Al-Qaida but, rather, his licensees in Asia, the Middle East and Europe or those who claim some sort of affiliation, Fallows writes.

While there’s always a possibility of an attack from terrorists, writes Fallows, we’ve achieved a number of victories against Al-Qaida since 9/11, harshly reducing their capabilities. We have killed or captured Al-Qaida’s leaders, wiped out their training camps in Afghanistan, and become smarter about what to look for when they communicate among themselves, travel or attempt to transfer money.

The biggest disturbance lately from Al-Qaida affiliates was in the United Kingdom a month ago, when the government announced that it had foiled a terrorist plan to blow up 10 jet liners headed to the United States. Like the London attacks during the summer of ’05, this one was presumed to have been carried out by Muslims born in the United Kingdom or who had, at the very least, been living in the UK for quite some time, which, needless to say, comes as quite a shock to British citizens.

Unlike their UK counterparts, Fallows writes, Arab and Muslim immigrants to the United States are far different than the “estranged Muslim underclass of much of Europe.” Arabs and Muslims living here are like any “well-assimilated ethnic group” in the United States; in addition, they own businesses and hold college degrees. Finally, second generation American Muslims “are culturally and economically Americanized” while “many European Muslims often develop a sharper sense of alienation.”

And, say what you will about George W. Bush, one of his first actions, shortly after 9/11, was to extend the proverbial hand to American Muslims. He visited mosques and made it a point of telling the country that the war against terror was not a war against Islam. This action alone likely gave American Muslims assurances that they were not about to be jailed like their Japanese-American counterparts during the Second World War.

So, yes, given that we’ll never likely hear or see much from bin Laden, President Bush might as well declare victory against Al-Qaida. Other than issuing a video tape, announcing that they’re not about to give up the fight, there’s not much the terrorist group’s leaders can do to dispute our claim.

And if we’ve truly won a military and intelligence victory over Al-Qaida, then it’s time to initiate the political and economic victory. We need some sort of Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. In addition, American, European and Asian companies need to invest in Afghanistan so it’s no longer a breeding ground for terrorists.

President Bush: No need to concern yourself about our war dead

Reinstating the draft, while a long way off from becoming a reality, would make today’s anti-war movement relevant, forcing Americans to realize that there’s a possibility that they or a loved one could wind up being sent to some distant, Middle Eastern battlefield.

The protesters aren’t striking fear in the hearts of President Bush and his top military commanders. Unlike their Vietnam War predecessors, Bush and his commanders have an all-volunteer force at their disposal, not conscripts, and the result is that most Americans are unaware or, worse, apathetic to the plight of our soldiers.

With the exception of Cindy Sheehan, today’s anti-war movement has no recognizable faces or leaders. College campuses, unlike in the late 1960s and early 1970s, are pretty calm, at least when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is one of the great unintended tragedies of the draft’s demise: A citizenry that is so far removed from its military that it doesn’t care how many troops are deployed, killed or wounded. So long as our civilian lives aren’t too inconvenienced, the fighting hardly merits a trickle of a thought among any of us here at home.

Why do I say this? Take a walk down any street in America and other than the occasional flag hanging from a house or a building, or the bumper sticker that says “Support Our Troops,” you’d never know that our soldiers are in harm’s way.

The other troubling unintended consequence of the draft’s downfall is that it gives President Bush the ability to use our military nearly any way he sees fit – without having to concern himself too much with public opinion. It’s almost as if he has mercenaries at his disposal.

In fact, if there’s any one person who would fight the draft’s reinstatement tooth and nail, it’s likely to be President Bush himself. A conscripted military has the potential to become a political liability, forcing the administration to become accountable to all the families with a son, father or husband in uniform and, possibly, forcing the administration to curtail its actions.

Today’s all-volunteer force allows us to dismiss the war from our daily lives. Because unless you have a loved one serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very likely the war is as remote to you as any other event overseas.

And that’s the problem. If we want to win this war, or force the President to end our overseas military operations, then many more Americans need to put their lives at risk; and the only way to do that is through the draft.

The draft would also bring us closer to having a citizen-army. It was this kind of army, made up of Americans from all walks of life, which brought fascism to an end in Europe and Japan and ended slavery in the United States. Whatever your opinion is on the war in Iraq, keep in mind that fascism and slavery were brought to their knees with bullets and bombs – not with economic sanctions or an international peacekeeping force.

As it was last constituted until 1973, the draft, while not exactly egalitarian, required 17-year-old boys to register with their local draft board. A year later, if that 18-year-old man wasn’t in college, wasn’t a family’s lone son, wasn’t in poor physical condition, or wasn’t married, it was very likely that he’d be called up for military service.

Two million men were drafted to fight in Vietnam, writes James Ebert in his book, “The American Infantryman in Vietnam, 1965 – 1972.” In 1965, draftees made up 21 percent of the force deployed against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. By 1970, 70 percent of the combat force had been drafted.

The hardest question to answer about reinstating and implementing the draft is how we ensure that one generation does not unfairly hand off this obligation to another. The best way to avoid the problem is to draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status or whether they’re in college. Only prior military service should prevent a man from being drafted.

Conscripting 50-year-old men comes as close as possible to ensuring that an older generation does not unfairly throw this obligation onto a younger one. And while it might seem unfathomable to see a 50-year-old man in basic training, keep in mind there are many men that age and older who work out regularly. While not every 50-year-old will be fit for combat duty, there’s likely a military job they could handle, given their advanced age.

Of course, reinstating the draft would be highly controversial. It might be met with riots just as it was when Abraham Lincoln and Congress instituted the draft during the Civil War. But it’s the only way to stop the apathy that most Americans suffer from when it comes to being aware of the risks our soldiers face. If would also force President Bush and his commanders to come clean with their plans for the Middle East.

A larger cross-section of the country will be represented overseas in a conscripted military force. That should help us win the wars we’re fighting; and it may just give Iran and North Korea pause. We’d appear to be ready to fight them because we mobilized. And, quite possibly, a conscripted military force just might give the anti-war movement significance.

Saving the Country

After Al-Qaida, the next greatest threat to the United States, as President Bush sees it, is the potential downfall of traditional marriage. It’s under siege, taking fire from people who want to see it changed.

Fueling this assault is the fact that heterosexuals are divorcing in droves and gays want to get married. Nothing could be worse for the country, says the President. And it begs the question, how can we save marriage before it becomes irrelevant or, worse, obsolete?

Well, let’s take a look at the current state of traditional marriage. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 2.2 million marriage ceremonies are performed annually. And every
year, the Census Bureau reports, there are about one million divorces.

There’s always lots of speculation as to why people divorce but the reasons likely include infidelity, falling out of love, boredom, lack of communication, and the arrival of children.

The only thing that’s surprising about the debate on gay marriage is why so many gays want to get married in the first place. If you’re gay, take a good look at the nearest married, heterosexual man. Nowhere will you find a more sexually frustrated human being. Consider
that before you run off to the altar or join the protests to legalize gay marriage.

Your average married heterosexual man is sexually stifled because his wife works, in or out of the home, and her headaches increased exponentially since the day they lucky couple said, “I
do,” meaning he’s not getting, well you know, as often as he’d like. In addition, if they’re blessed with children, matters have only become worse. Colds, homework, play dates have
taken their toll on the romance.

That said, traditional marriage provides a man and woman with a stable home life and also ties them to one another emotionally, financially and, sometimes, physically; and, also, each spouse
knows who’s parenting the offspring produced as result of this union.

But, let’s face it, there’s a nagging strain on marriage, and it’s called monogamy. Who doesn’t want to have a quick fling? It’s not like you want to leave your spouse, you just want to check out, as the song goes, the fruits of another.

And now there’s a University of California-Santa Barbara study reporting that women want different kinds of men in their lives. They want a testosterone-filled guy for a “short-term” relationship, which likely means something quick and physical; but they also want, for the long term, a nurturing guy who will father their children and assist in their upbringing.

If my wife had her druthers, she’d marry four different men. She’d marry testosterone-filled
guy for the great nookie; she’d continue with me because I’m the father of her children; she’d also marry a handyman to do all of those household projects that usually cost a hefty buck when I call the local professional to handle the job; and last but not least, she’d marry a younger man to make her feel attractive and desirable as she advances toward middle age.

So what’s the solution to saving marriage? Polygamy!

The Mormons are onto something. Of course, officially, the Church of Latter Day Saints doesn’t condone polygamy, but let’s consider that polygamy, as it’s currently practiced by rebellious sectors of the Mormon Church, or even in certain parts of the Arab world, recognizes that men have certain desires: They want to fool around. And those Mormons and Arabs are willing to pay a high price for these trysts – they’re prepared to marry these women.

We just need to Americanize polygamy by making sure it meets all of today’s civil rights requirements. That means that federal legislation needs to be passed giving women the right to practice polygamy with as many husbands as they want; for that matter, guys should also be
able practice polygamy with as many wives as they’d like.

I see no reason why we can’t let gays in on this practice. If gay men and gay women want more than one husband and wife, power to them. I’m still not sure about the bisexuals. We’ll need to
convene a Congressional task force to consider that one.

Polygamy is the only rational way to save marriage and rid the United States of this pending threat. Both men and women will attain a higher level of satisfaction within marriage, and
polygamy should bring us closer to our Arab brethren, thereby improving national security.

If you're curious as to what affect, if any, polygamy has on children. Well, over the weekend, in Salt Lake City -- where else! -- there was a protest on behalf of polygamy by the children from these unions.

As for the political landscape, polygamy promotes marriage – something that should make
President Bush and his band of Republicans happy – and it allows a certain amount of sexual
variety within the confines of a committed relationship. I see no reason why the Democrats should withhold their support for this legislation.