Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Give a damn: The obligations of a U.S. citizen
So you don’t like the Iraq War, doubt the outcome of the one in Afghanistan, and just wish the War on Terror would go away. Who doesn’t?
In fact, that line of thinking could be found within anyone who ever lived through a war that’s ever been fought by the United States, from the Revolution to Vietnam to the first war we fought with Iraq.
The problem, as a noted historian said, “It’s your country, your army and your war.” And peace, as scholars Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla noted in their book War: Ends & Means, in spite of what you may think, is not your birthright.
This is a democracy in which the citizenry is obligated but not required all too unfortunately, to vote, understand domestic politics, foreign policy, the government – local, state and national – military affairs and, yes, war. And sometimes a country’s citizens are required to participate in a war.
The American people, wrote John Adams, the country’s second president and likely the most intellectual of the Founding Fathers, were to become, he hoped, statesmen, writes one of his biographers, C. Bradley Thompson, in the book, John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. He sought an enlightened citizen that “could distinguish between a necessary ‘reverence and obedience to Government on the one hand,’ and its ‘right to think and act’ for itself on the other, writes Thompson. Adams wanted all men, since they were the voters at the time, to be suspicious of those in power, says Thompson.
To take Adams’ argument a step further, not only should we be suspicious of those in power but we should be equally suspicious of those who seek it. This is not, as critics might say, to be paranoid or delusional but, rather, as Adams saw it, to be “independent, reasonable, and public-spirited,” writes Thompson.
In other words, as citizens, we need to raise our level of consciousness about our government. None of us should believe the sound bites bandied about by our politicians; instead, we are required, as Adams saw our obligations, to become informed on the issues facing the country, to discount the zealots on any given side, and to determine the best course of action for the nation. If necessary, we should also be willing to defend this nation, even if it requires the ultimate sacrifice.
None of this is easy. The idea behind the American Revolution was that we had the ability and the intellectual capacity to lead ourselves. Those who fail to vote, fail to become fully informed on current events, blindly accept the arguments of any fanatic, and remain apathetic about the nation’s actions lend credence to arguments made centuries ago that people are incapable of self-government.
This blog entry seeks to put today’s foreign affairs into historical perspective, show the failings of the Bush Administration, and explain why we need to be concerned about the state of our military. We face a situation that hasn’t been seen since World War II or the Cold War. Our way of life, as well as that of the entire civilized world, runs counter to every terrorist organization in existence. All Americans are the enemy. They want the United States ruined, maybe even eliminated.
Background
We have enemies. Osama Bin Laden is one of them. Others include North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are likely more, and they’re not pacifists.
In fact, they’re warmongers and cold-blooded killers. And unlike the U.S. government or our allies alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies report to no one. They’re terrorists. They violate a basic principle of government, which is to seek legitimacy from its people through elections. Terrorists we’re fighting gain authority through fear, threats and intimidation.
Their losses are of no concern to them. The only thing that matters to them is the number of people they kill and how much damage they inflict.
“The art of war is vital to the state,” wrote Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu more than 2,000 years ago. “It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or to ruin … under no circumstances can it be neglected” – even if you’re opposed to the ones we’re fighting or will fight in the future.
“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children the right to study painting, music, architecture, statuary tapestry and porcelain,” wrote John Adams to his wife Abigail during the Revolution.
Had cooler heads not prevailed, Adams would have found himself putting his knowledge about war to work as the country’s commander-in-chief. While he was president, Adams nearly took us to war with France. Fortunately, the dispute was resolved before shots were fired.
If you believe the polls, a number of people disapprove of the Iraq War because it was preemptive, or illegal, based on deceit, and the endgame isn’t in sight. All of this might be true but keep in mind that President Bush, his Cabinet, and each and every member of Congress approved the war against Iraq looking at the same intelligence.
The biggest criticism one can offer about the information used to approve the Iraq War was that it was dated. It was, based on news reports, much of the same information that was used by the Clinton Administration to secure Congressional approval for a regime change in Iraq.
Did the President Bush lie to us? Perhaps. But if he did, he wasn’t the first president to lie to the American public about foreign and military affairs.
A splendid little war
President James K. Polk deliberately provoked Mexico into a war by ordering U.S. troops to march into disputed territory – and it became almost as unpopular in the 1840s as the ones we’re fighting today – in the name of Manifest Destiny. Polk had one political goal during his term as president – expand the country to the other shining sea, the Pacific Ocean. (It makes him one of the few presidents who did what he said he was going to do.)
There are two significant differences between the Mexican-American War and the ones we’re fighting today: First, hostilities were concluded in two years; second, the war resulted in territorial gains for the United States, including resolving the status of Texas (Mexico recognized it as part of the United States), and picking up New Mexico, Arizona and California.
Had the United States Navy possessed aircraft carriers in the 19th century, perhaps President Polk would have given a victory speech on the flight deck with a banner hanging in the background proclaiming “Manifest Destiny: Accomplished.”
There’s even evidence that Franklin Delano Roosevelt set the United States on a course to fight World War II. Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, a book about the Pearl Harbor attack, describes a memo written by naval officer who suggested eight actions to provoke Japan into a war with the United States.
Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, a naval officer working in the War Department, writes the book’s author, Robert B. Stinnett, suggested the following policies in October 1940:
1. Arrange to use British bases in the Pacific, meaning Singapore
2. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).
3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chaing Kai-shek.
4. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
6. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
7. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
8. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
FDR enacted many of these suggestions. They resulted in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor – which Stinnett maintains the President and his top commanders knew was coming – and, as a result, FDR gained vital public support for fighting Japan and, subsequently, Germany and Italy.
The State Department, says Stinnett, predicted what the world would look like if the Nazis stayed in power in Germany and the militarists continued to run Japan, concluding that neither was in the best interests of the United States.
As a result, FDR and his advisors, writes Stinnett, devised a strategy (outlined above) to provoke Japan into attacking the United States, which, they thought, might force Hitler into declaring war against us.
It’s important to remember that FDR was enacting his strategy against Japan in a clandestine manner while the American public believed that it had nothing to “fear but fear itself.” Did President Roosevelt lie to the American public about his intentions and the causes of the war? Most likely.
Would FDR have initiated a preemptive war against Japan or Germany? That question will remain unanswered because the U.S. military, just prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, was a fifth-rate power – on a good day. Given the limited forces at the president’s disposal, not a single member of the U.S. high command could have possibly told the commander in chief how we could successfully, and preemptively, attack anyone.
World War II was costly to the United States: There were 400,000 combat deaths and another 600,000 wounded, a heavy price to make the world safe. Our involvement in the war lasted just under four years, and we averaged about 5,000 casualties a week.
Because we entered World War II, the Holocaust ended, fascism was severely ruined, the thought that a democracy could defeat a militarist power was proven, Atlantic Ocean shipping was made safe, and Japan stopped carrying out atrocities across Asia.
If we hadn’t fought World War II, there’s a possibility that today’s Nazi Germany might possess intercontinental nuclear missiles (their scientists were attempting to build nuclear weapons and had successfully launched rockets, armed with conventional weapons, against Great Britain); Japan was developing its own weapons of mass destruction, including the world’s first intercontinental bomber as well as biological weapons.
Carl von Clausewitz
Today’s War on Terror can’t help but to make one wonder if there’s anyone in the Bush Administration who has ever read a history book, like one about the Vietnam War, or bothered to study Carl von Clausewitz’s 19th century classic On War, a tome containing lessons that remain applicable today. It’s very likely that the generals and the admirals have studied these books; but, based on performance, one might doubt if their civilian leaders have done the same.
A Prussian officer, Clausewitz recognized that there were three key elements needed for any country to be successful in war – the will of the people, a well-commanded army and a government cognizant of its political aims. To suit a 21st century populace, we might the following: The government’s leaders need to effectively communicate the reasons their country needs to endure such hardship.
“A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship between them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it (the war) would be totally useless,” Clausewitz wrote.
In other words, all three need to be aligned on the means, ends and goals of any war. Otherwise, the effort is doomed.
During Vietnam, the Johnson Administration was criticized for only taking the Pentagon to war. President Johnson failed to do a number of things during the Vietnam War, including preparing a strategy for victory against North Vietnam; in addition, he also failed to bring about necessary American public support for the war effort.
As a result, four years after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, in 1968, as American casualties began to escalate significantly, along with CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite’s televised critique of the war, public support for Vietnam suddenly went cold.
Wars, especially ones fought by democracies, need to be won quickly. George C. Marshall, the Army’s World War II chief of staff, and likely the country’s most underrated military and political leader, wanted the war ended as fast as possible. He’d learned during his career that the United States public did not have an appetite for long, protracted wars.
Shortly after receiving his commission in 1903, Marshall went to the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, “when public opinion, once exultant about the new (U.S.) empire, had shifted to sympathy with the Filipinos resisting conquest,” write Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May in their book Thinking in Time: The uses of History for Decision Makers.
Just prior to his retirement from the Army, with World War II concluded, Marshall “spent his final weeks as Chief of Staff coping with ‘bring the boys home’ demonstrations,” write Neustadt and May.
The problem with the current wars is that, after five years, victory isn’t in sight; the political leadership fails to communicate effectively about our challenges and what’s at stake.
The other difficulty with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we’re fighting a non-uniformed enemy. And unlike previous wars, with the exception of Vietnam, when we took and held enemy territory, we’re attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and Afghans. Finally, all too often, our soldiers are contacting a military lawyer about the rules of engagement prior to taking out an enemy position, says retired Army Col. Michael D. Doubler, a military historian; these discussions have caused countless missed opportunities to kill the enemy.
Are we doing the right thing?
Any thought about whether our policies are correct in Afghanistan and Iraq needs to also take into consideration what the world would have looked like had we not fought any of the wars that mark our history.
Some questions we might ask:
Had we not fought the Civil War, how long would slavery have continued? What would a Nazi Germany look like today? If we had not fought Germany, would the United States, in effect, be tacitly supporting anti-Semitism?
Should we have continued to sell oil to Japan so it could kill innocent people and force women into sexual slavery but leave us alone? Could we sell our goods into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan’s economic plan for East Asia, had we not fought World War II?
Should we have let Kim Jung-Il’s father occupy South Korea in 1950? Did our involvement in Vietnam make the Soviets reconsider any plans they might have had to occupy Western Europe? Should we have let Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein occupy Kuwait? If we had left Hussein well alone would we be complicit in supporting his domestic policies, which included using rape and torture against his own people.
Would the world be safer with Hussein in Baghdad and the Taliban allowing Afghanistan to be a sanctuary for terrorists? How will the United States be perceived, by both its friends, enemies and detractors, in the Middle East and elsewhere, should it withdraw its military forces from Iraq, or Afghanistan, before the dispute is decided?
The answers to any of these questions are likely filled with speculation. But, I believe, more of often than not, our leaders acted correctly, even in Iraq and Afghanistan. Countries go to war, write Seabury and Codevilla, because they don’t like the peace.
A peace that involves a tense standoff with neither side firing a shot isn’t peace. That’s a cold war, like the one we experienced for 44 years with the old Soviet Union, and, on occasion, it goes hot, as it did in Korea and Vietnam.
The notion that wars don’t solve anything is, as scholars Seabury and Codevilla point out, a “historical howler.” They solve all kinds of problems; but, to be accurate, they also give birth to other issues, which can become troubling.
The arguments made against our involvement in Iraq are similar to the ones that were made prior to our involvement in World War II. It was Europe’s war or Asia’s war, not ours, said the Republicans and those supporting isolationist policies. Emotions ran high on both sides of the argument.
So what does the world look like had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
With Iraq, a dictator remains in power, abuses his people, snubs the United Nations, pays Palestinians to commit suicide in Israel while the Arab World looks the other way. With Afghanistan, religious zealots are in power, abuse their people, allow terrorists to occupy their country and use it as a training ground for other terrorists.
We knocked off the Taliban without too much difficulty but instead of reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan and making sure that our quick victory was actually a victory – which involves changing the hearts and minds of the people – we went, as the British say, “civilian,” meaning we installed the government we wanted and hoped that Afghanistan was resolved, says Colonel Doubler.
It wasn’t. The Taliban returned and, as a result, 25,000 U.S. troops, along with soldiers from Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, are fighting them again.
Iraq is a similar story. We defeated its military without too much difficulty but then proceeded to lose the peace. Had we kept the Iraqi Army intact, many of its soldiers would not have become insurgents. In addition, we never blew up Iraqi ammunition installations, which were later raided by the insurgents.
Our biggest military accomplishment in Iraq, since defeating its Army, appears to be having divided and split the insurgency. There’s a group of insurgents made up of Iraqis, and they appear to be beginning to support the new government; in addition, this group of insurgents has provided, on occasion, information about Al Qaida in Iraq, another band of insurgents that’s composed of fighters who are from other Arab countries and tend to be more zealous in their approach.
The biggest political victory we can claim from Iraq and Afghanistan is that they have some sort of democracy. In addition, the Arab World, especially Saudi Arabia, is beginning to realize it needs to engage in a political discourse, without weapons, with Israel. Finally, the Saudis are beginning to take a leadership role in the Arab World.
The failures of the Bush Administration
The Bush Administration might be as close an example as can be found of being the Keystone Cops when it comes to directing foreign and military policies. They have effectively acerbated just about every ally we ever had; in addition, and more importantly, President Bush had an opportunity before him that no president had seen in nearly 60 years – an attack on U.S. soil.
Through a patriotic appeal, he could have won Congressional approval to expand the military. And had he bothered to explain what was at stake, both militarily and politically, America’s military forces would have grown substantially because people would have enlisted. All he had to do was appeal to the country’s sense of patriotism, which ran red hot after the 9/11 attacks.
Instead, we were told to go shopping. Or travel. We were directed to go about our lives as if nothing had happened. In fact, any change we made about our lives, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the president said, was tantamount to conceding victory to the terrorists.
President Bush did something that no president should ever be allowed to do – he conducted a war on the cheap. It was thought that the current force could handle its challenges. It can’t. It’s stretched to its limits, resulting in our troops – regardless if they’re part of the Regular Army, reservists, in the National Guard or Marines – returning to Iraq for their third and fourth tours of duty.
Colonel Doubler, speaking at the First Infantry Division Museum in Wheaton, Illinois, last week, said that only one percent of the country volunteers for the armed forces. At some point, Doubler said, “that one percent will begin to ask why it’s doing all the fighting and the dying.”
And what’s worse, in my estimation, is that if you walk down any street in America, with the exception perhaps of those near a military base, you’d never know the country is at war. What the Bush Administration has effectively done is told the citizens to become apathetic about this war. Others will think about it. Others will fight it. Others will die in it.
Apathy is the Bush Administration’s policy for the Home Front. The last thing the Bush Administration wants is a public that cares. Because a concerned citizenry might demand either that we pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan, as it’s beginning to do, or, worse, insist on better results for the energy, blood and treasure that’s been expended.
Finally, prior to hostilities with Iraq, President Bush should have directed his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to increase his diplomatic efforts. The secretary should have been directed to travel to France, Germany and Russia, our leading critics of the war, where he would have spoken privately to their leaders about what we knew about Iraq and our intentions.
The diplomatic effort might have failed. But, at the very least, President Bush could say that he had tried to show our allies and critics what was at stake and describe for them our intentions. The Bush Administration’s refusal to reach out to its foreign critics only further strained relations with those countries.
“Your country, your army and your war.”
Our fellow Americans, which include 19-year-old men, along with those in their 20s, 30s, even their late 40s, as well as women, are dying, being wounded or maimed on the grimy, sandy, rocky grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re sacrificing their lives as well as their entire future to secure one nation against civil war and keep another safe from terrorist occupation. They deserve our highest respect.
The stakes in Iraq have increased because the insurgency just introduced chemical warfare. They’ve blown up at least one bomb laced with chlorine. If this weapon is successful in Iraq, al Qaida will likely use it in Afghanistan, and it may just make its way to our shores.
Causing additional concern is Iran. It may have a nuclear bomb or it may be creating one, which will only increase peril and anxiety in the Middle East, perhaps the world. A nuclear-armed Iran should make all of us uneasy.
The bigger problem is the Bush Administration. It insists that our foreign and military challenges can be faced down with the same size armed forces, albeit a limited increase, as we had prior to 9/11.
To hear President Bush or Vice President Cheney speak, this is a clash of civilizations. It’s us or them. If we take them at their word, this is the greatest threat the nation has seen since World War II or the Cold War.
Our troops, already with two or three tours of duty in Iraq under their belts, are returning for their fourth. The United States armed forces aren’t sized properly. They need to be increased so we have the necessary number of troops to face down these grave threats.
“It’s your country, your army and your war,” said Colonel Doubler last week, meaning that every American needs to increase their level of awareness about the armed forces. You may not approve of the war, you may not see the current challenges as threat to our national security, but you need to concern yourself, because you’re a citizen, with the shape, size and well being of our armed forces.
If we don’t prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s hard to say if we’ll prevail tomorrow, when the threat might be even more severe. Our enemies will feel empowered if they’re victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The best way to increase our armed forces, and end American apathy, is to reinstate the draft. Unlike the one we had during the Vietnam War, which deferred married men, those in college, as well as those over the age of 26, we need one that’s far more equitable. All men, up to age 50, should be subject to the draft. The only deferments should be for those who are veterans. A draft forces every American to live up to their obligations as a citizen.
If soldiers like 57-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Carlos Dominguez and 51-year-old Army Master Sgt. Robb G. Needham can make the ultimate sacrifice, why can’t any American who’s younger, perhaps in better physical condition, do the same?
In fact, that line of thinking could be found within anyone who ever lived through a war that’s ever been fought by the United States, from the Revolution to Vietnam to the first war we fought with Iraq.
The problem, as a noted historian said, “It’s your country, your army and your war.” And peace, as scholars Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla noted in their book War: Ends & Means, in spite of what you may think, is not your birthright.
This is a democracy in which the citizenry is obligated but not required all too unfortunately, to vote, understand domestic politics, foreign policy, the government – local, state and national – military affairs and, yes, war. And sometimes a country’s citizens are required to participate in a war.
The American people, wrote John Adams, the country’s second president and likely the most intellectual of the Founding Fathers, were to become, he hoped, statesmen, writes one of his biographers, C. Bradley Thompson, in the book, John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. He sought an enlightened citizen that “could distinguish between a necessary ‘reverence and obedience to Government on the one hand,’ and its ‘right to think and act’ for itself on the other, writes Thompson. Adams wanted all men, since they were the voters at the time, to be suspicious of those in power, says Thompson.
To take Adams’ argument a step further, not only should we be suspicious of those in power but we should be equally suspicious of those who seek it. This is not, as critics might say, to be paranoid or delusional but, rather, as Adams saw it, to be “independent, reasonable, and public-spirited,” writes Thompson.
In other words, as citizens, we need to raise our level of consciousness about our government. None of us should believe the sound bites bandied about by our politicians; instead, we are required, as Adams saw our obligations, to become informed on the issues facing the country, to discount the zealots on any given side, and to determine the best course of action for the nation. If necessary, we should also be willing to defend this nation, even if it requires the ultimate sacrifice.
None of this is easy. The idea behind the American Revolution was that we had the ability and the intellectual capacity to lead ourselves. Those who fail to vote, fail to become fully informed on current events, blindly accept the arguments of any fanatic, and remain apathetic about the nation’s actions lend credence to arguments made centuries ago that people are incapable of self-government.
This blog entry seeks to put today’s foreign affairs into historical perspective, show the failings of the Bush Administration, and explain why we need to be concerned about the state of our military. We face a situation that hasn’t been seen since World War II or the Cold War. Our way of life, as well as that of the entire civilized world, runs counter to every terrorist organization in existence. All Americans are the enemy. They want the United States ruined, maybe even eliminated.
Background
We have enemies. Osama Bin Laden is one of them. Others include North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are likely more, and they’re not pacifists.
In fact, they’re warmongers and cold-blooded killers. And unlike the U.S. government or our allies alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies report to no one. They’re terrorists. They violate a basic principle of government, which is to seek legitimacy from its people through elections. Terrorists we’re fighting gain authority through fear, threats and intimidation.
Their losses are of no concern to them. The only thing that matters to them is the number of people they kill and how much damage they inflict.
“The art of war is vital to the state,” wrote Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu more than 2,000 years ago. “It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or to ruin … under no circumstances can it be neglected” – even if you’re opposed to the ones we’re fighting or will fight in the future.
“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children the right to study painting, music, architecture, statuary tapestry and porcelain,” wrote John Adams to his wife Abigail during the Revolution.
Had cooler heads not prevailed, Adams would have found himself putting his knowledge about war to work as the country’s commander-in-chief. While he was president, Adams nearly took us to war with France. Fortunately, the dispute was resolved before shots were fired.
If you believe the polls, a number of people disapprove of the Iraq War because it was preemptive, or illegal, based on deceit, and the endgame isn’t in sight. All of this might be true but keep in mind that President Bush, his Cabinet, and each and every member of Congress approved the war against Iraq looking at the same intelligence.
The biggest criticism one can offer about the information used to approve the Iraq War was that it was dated. It was, based on news reports, much of the same information that was used by the Clinton Administration to secure Congressional approval for a regime change in Iraq.
Did the President Bush lie to us? Perhaps. But if he did, he wasn’t the first president to lie to the American public about foreign and military affairs.
A splendid little war
President James K. Polk deliberately provoked Mexico into a war by ordering U.S. troops to march into disputed territory – and it became almost as unpopular in the 1840s as the ones we’re fighting today – in the name of Manifest Destiny. Polk had one political goal during his term as president – expand the country to the other shining sea, the Pacific Ocean. (It makes him one of the few presidents who did what he said he was going to do.)
There are two significant differences between the Mexican-American War and the ones we’re fighting today: First, hostilities were concluded in two years; second, the war resulted in territorial gains for the United States, including resolving the status of Texas (Mexico recognized it as part of the United States), and picking up New Mexico, Arizona and California.
Had the United States Navy possessed aircraft carriers in the 19th century, perhaps President Polk would have given a victory speech on the flight deck with a banner hanging in the background proclaiming “Manifest Destiny: Accomplished.”
There’s even evidence that Franklin Delano Roosevelt set the United States on a course to fight World War II. Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, a book about the Pearl Harbor attack, describes a memo written by naval officer who suggested eight actions to provoke Japan into a war with the United States.
Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, a naval officer working in the War Department, writes the book’s author, Robert B. Stinnett, suggested the following policies in October 1940:
1. Arrange to use British bases in the Pacific, meaning Singapore
2. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).
3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chaing Kai-shek.
4. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
6. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
7. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
8. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
FDR enacted many of these suggestions. They resulted in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor – which Stinnett maintains the President and his top commanders knew was coming – and, as a result, FDR gained vital public support for fighting Japan and, subsequently, Germany and Italy.
The State Department, says Stinnett, predicted what the world would look like if the Nazis stayed in power in Germany and the militarists continued to run Japan, concluding that neither was in the best interests of the United States.
As a result, FDR and his advisors, writes Stinnett, devised a strategy (outlined above) to provoke Japan into attacking the United States, which, they thought, might force Hitler into declaring war against us.
It’s important to remember that FDR was enacting his strategy against Japan in a clandestine manner while the American public believed that it had nothing to “fear but fear itself.” Did President Roosevelt lie to the American public about his intentions and the causes of the war? Most likely.
Would FDR have initiated a preemptive war against Japan or Germany? That question will remain unanswered because the U.S. military, just prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, was a fifth-rate power – on a good day. Given the limited forces at the president’s disposal, not a single member of the U.S. high command could have possibly told the commander in chief how we could successfully, and preemptively, attack anyone.
World War II was costly to the United States: There were 400,000 combat deaths and another 600,000 wounded, a heavy price to make the world safe. Our involvement in the war lasted just under four years, and we averaged about 5,000 casualties a week.
Because we entered World War II, the Holocaust ended, fascism was severely ruined, the thought that a democracy could defeat a militarist power was proven, Atlantic Ocean shipping was made safe, and Japan stopped carrying out atrocities across Asia.
If we hadn’t fought World War II, there’s a possibility that today’s Nazi Germany might possess intercontinental nuclear missiles (their scientists were attempting to build nuclear weapons and had successfully launched rockets, armed with conventional weapons, against Great Britain); Japan was developing its own weapons of mass destruction, including the world’s first intercontinental bomber as well as biological weapons.
Carl von Clausewitz
Today’s War on Terror can’t help but to make one wonder if there’s anyone in the Bush Administration who has ever read a history book, like one about the Vietnam War, or bothered to study Carl von Clausewitz’s 19th century classic On War, a tome containing lessons that remain applicable today. It’s very likely that the generals and the admirals have studied these books; but, based on performance, one might doubt if their civilian leaders have done the same.
A Prussian officer, Clausewitz recognized that there were three key elements needed for any country to be successful in war – the will of the people, a well-commanded army and a government cognizant of its political aims. To suit a 21st century populace, we might the following: The government’s leaders need to effectively communicate the reasons their country needs to endure such hardship.
“A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship between them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it (the war) would be totally useless,” Clausewitz wrote.
In other words, all three need to be aligned on the means, ends and goals of any war. Otherwise, the effort is doomed.
During Vietnam, the Johnson Administration was criticized for only taking the Pentagon to war. President Johnson failed to do a number of things during the Vietnam War, including preparing a strategy for victory against North Vietnam; in addition, he also failed to bring about necessary American public support for the war effort.
As a result, four years after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, in 1968, as American casualties began to escalate significantly, along with CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite’s televised critique of the war, public support for Vietnam suddenly went cold.
Wars, especially ones fought by democracies, need to be won quickly. George C. Marshall, the Army’s World War II chief of staff, and likely the country’s most underrated military and political leader, wanted the war ended as fast as possible. He’d learned during his career that the United States public did not have an appetite for long, protracted wars.
Shortly after receiving his commission in 1903, Marshall went to the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, “when public opinion, once exultant about the new (U.S.) empire, had shifted to sympathy with the Filipinos resisting conquest,” write Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May in their book Thinking in Time: The uses of History for Decision Makers.
Just prior to his retirement from the Army, with World War II concluded, Marshall “spent his final weeks as Chief of Staff coping with ‘bring the boys home’ demonstrations,” write Neustadt and May.
The problem with the current wars is that, after five years, victory isn’t in sight; the political leadership fails to communicate effectively about our challenges and what’s at stake.
The other difficulty with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we’re fighting a non-uniformed enemy. And unlike previous wars, with the exception of Vietnam, when we took and held enemy territory, we’re attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and Afghans. Finally, all too often, our soldiers are contacting a military lawyer about the rules of engagement prior to taking out an enemy position, says retired Army Col. Michael D. Doubler, a military historian; these discussions have caused countless missed opportunities to kill the enemy.
Are we doing the right thing?
Any thought about whether our policies are correct in Afghanistan and Iraq needs to also take into consideration what the world would have looked like had we not fought any of the wars that mark our history.
Some questions we might ask:
Had we not fought the Civil War, how long would slavery have continued? What would a Nazi Germany look like today? If we had not fought Germany, would the United States, in effect, be tacitly supporting anti-Semitism?
Should we have continued to sell oil to Japan so it could kill innocent people and force women into sexual slavery but leave us alone? Could we sell our goods into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan’s economic plan for East Asia, had we not fought World War II?
Should we have let Kim Jung-Il’s father occupy South Korea in 1950? Did our involvement in Vietnam make the Soviets reconsider any plans they might have had to occupy Western Europe? Should we have let Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein occupy Kuwait? If we had left Hussein well alone would we be complicit in supporting his domestic policies, which included using rape and torture against his own people.
Would the world be safer with Hussein in Baghdad and the Taliban allowing Afghanistan to be a sanctuary for terrorists? How will the United States be perceived, by both its friends, enemies and detractors, in the Middle East and elsewhere, should it withdraw its military forces from Iraq, or Afghanistan, before the dispute is decided?
The answers to any of these questions are likely filled with speculation. But, I believe, more of often than not, our leaders acted correctly, even in Iraq and Afghanistan. Countries go to war, write Seabury and Codevilla, because they don’t like the peace.
A peace that involves a tense standoff with neither side firing a shot isn’t peace. That’s a cold war, like the one we experienced for 44 years with the old Soviet Union, and, on occasion, it goes hot, as it did in Korea and Vietnam.
The notion that wars don’t solve anything is, as scholars Seabury and Codevilla point out, a “historical howler.” They solve all kinds of problems; but, to be accurate, they also give birth to other issues, which can become troubling.
The arguments made against our involvement in Iraq are similar to the ones that were made prior to our involvement in World War II. It was Europe’s war or Asia’s war, not ours, said the Republicans and those supporting isolationist policies. Emotions ran high on both sides of the argument.
So what does the world look like had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
With Iraq, a dictator remains in power, abuses his people, snubs the United Nations, pays Palestinians to commit suicide in Israel while the Arab World looks the other way. With Afghanistan, religious zealots are in power, abuse their people, allow terrorists to occupy their country and use it as a training ground for other terrorists.
We knocked off the Taliban without too much difficulty but instead of reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan and making sure that our quick victory was actually a victory – which involves changing the hearts and minds of the people – we went, as the British say, “civilian,” meaning we installed the government we wanted and hoped that Afghanistan was resolved, says Colonel Doubler.
It wasn’t. The Taliban returned and, as a result, 25,000 U.S. troops, along with soldiers from Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, are fighting them again.
Iraq is a similar story. We defeated its military without too much difficulty but then proceeded to lose the peace. Had we kept the Iraqi Army intact, many of its soldiers would not have become insurgents. In addition, we never blew up Iraqi ammunition installations, which were later raided by the insurgents.
Our biggest military accomplishment in Iraq, since defeating its Army, appears to be having divided and split the insurgency. There’s a group of insurgents made up of Iraqis, and they appear to be beginning to support the new government; in addition, this group of insurgents has provided, on occasion, information about Al Qaida in Iraq, another band of insurgents that’s composed of fighters who are from other Arab countries and tend to be more zealous in their approach.
The biggest political victory we can claim from Iraq and Afghanistan is that they have some sort of democracy. In addition, the Arab World, especially Saudi Arabia, is beginning to realize it needs to engage in a political discourse, without weapons, with Israel. Finally, the Saudis are beginning to take a leadership role in the Arab World.
The failures of the Bush Administration
The Bush Administration might be as close an example as can be found of being the Keystone Cops when it comes to directing foreign and military policies. They have effectively acerbated just about every ally we ever had; in addition, and more importantly, President Bush had an opportunity before him that no president had seen in nearly 60 years – an attack on U.S. soil.
Through a patriotic appeal, he could have won Congressional approval to expand the military. And had he bothered to explain what was at stake, both militarily and politically, America’s military forces would have grown substantially because people would have enlisted. All he had to do was appeal to the country’s sense of patriotism, which ran red hot after the 9/11 attacks.
Instead, we were told to go shopping. Or travel. We were directed to go about our lives as if nothing had happened. In fact, any change we made about our lives, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the president said, was tantamount to conceding victory to the terrorists.
President Bush did something that no president should ever be allowed to do – he conducted a war on the cheap. It was thought that the current force could handle its challenges. It can’t. It’s stretched to its limits, resulting in our troops – regardless if they’re part of the Regular Army, reservists, in the National Guard or Marines – returning to Iraq for their third and fourth tours of duty.
Colonel Doubler, speaking at the First Infantry Division Museum in Wheaton, Illinois, last week, said that only one percent of the country volunteers for the armed forces. At some point, Doubler said, “that one percent will begin to ask why it’s doing all the fighting and the dying.”
And what’s worse, in my estimation, is that if you walk down any street in America, with the exception perhaps of those near a military base, you’d never know the country is at war. What the Bush Administration has effectively done is told the citizens to become apathetic about this war. Others will think about it. Others will fight it. Others will die in it.
Apathy is the Bush Administration’s policy for the Home Front. The last thing the Bush Administration wants is a public that cares. Because a concerned citizenry might demand either that we pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan, as it’s beginning to do, or, worse, insist on better results for the energy, blood and treasure that’s been expended.
Finally, prior to hostilities with Iraq, President Bush should have directed his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to increase his diplomatic efforts. The secretary should have been directed to travel to France, Germany and Russia, our leading critics of the war, where he would have spoken privately to their leaders about what we knew about Iraq and our intentions.
The diplomatic effort might have failed. But, at the very least, President Bush could say that he had tried to show our allies and critics what was at stake and describe for them our intentions. The Bush Administration’s refusal to reach out to its foreign critics only further strained relations with those countries.
“Your country, your army and your war.”
Our fellow Americans, which include 19-year-old men, along with those in their 20s, 30s, even their late 40s, as well as women, are dying, being wounded or maimed on the grimy, sandy, rocky grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re sacrificing their lives as well as their entire future to secure one nation against civil war and keep another safe from terrorist occupation. They deserve our highest respect.
The stakes in Iraq have increased because the insurgency just introduced chemical warfare. They’ve blown up at least one bomb laced with chlorine. If this weapon is successful in Iraq, al Qaida will likely use it in Afghanistan, and it may just make its way to our shores.
Causing additional concern is Iran. It may have a nuclear bomb or it may be creating one, which will only increase peril and anxiety in the Middle East, perhaps the world. A nuclear-armed Iran should make all of us uneasy.
The bigger problem is the Bush Administration. It insists that our foreign and military challenges can be faced down with the same size armed forces, albeit a limited increase, as we had prior to 9/11.
To hear President Bush or Vice President Cheney speak, this is a clash of civilizations. It’s us or them. If we take them at their word, this is the greatest threat the nation has seen since World War II or the Cold War.
Our troops, already with two or three tours of duty in Iraq under their belts, are returning for their fourth. The United States armed forces aren’t sized properly. They need to be increased so we have the necessary number of troops to face down these grave threats.
“It’s your country, your army and your war,” said Colonel Doubler last week, meaning that every American needs to increase their level of awareness about the armed forces. You may not approve of the war, you may not see the current challenges as threat to our national security, but you need to concern yourself, because you’re a citizen, with the shape, size and well being of our armed forces.
If we don’t prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s hard to say if we’ll prevail tomorrow, when the threat might be even more severe. Our enemies will feel empowered if they’re victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The best way to increase our armed forces, and end American apathy, is to reinstate the draft. Unlike the one we had during the Vietnam War, which deferred married men, those in college, as well as those over the age of 26, we need one that’s far more equitable. All men, up to age 50, should be subject to the draft. The only deferments should be for those who are veterans. A draft forces every American to live up to their obligations as a citizen.
If soldiers like 57-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Carlos Dominguez and 51-year-old Army Master Sgt. Robb G. Needham can make the ultimate sacrifice, why can’t any American who’s younger, perhaps in better physical condition, do the same?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Looking into the future: The Day the Presses Stopped
bc-shenandoah
Attention: Editors & Publishers
Newspapers no longer printed
Monday, January 1, 2057
SHENANDOAH, Iowa (AP) – The last 600 copies of Iowa’s Shenandoah Valley News rolled off the presses last night, making it the last U.S. newspaper to shut down its print edition and closing a chapter in the history of the American daily newspaper industry.
Starting today, if the local population wants to read the Valley News, they’ll need to make sure their subscription is paid up so they can access the newspaper on the Internet.
The Shenandoah Valley News stood out in the landscape of the American daily newspaper industry because it was the sole, remaining holdout with a printed edition. Prior to the Valley News closing its printed edition, there had been a group of small newspapers in Kentucky that continued to offer a print edition but they were discontinued five years ago.
As of today, not a single American daily newspaper is printed. If anyone wants to read a daily newspaper published in the United States, they’ll need access to the Internet, and, more often than not, a valid subscription, so they can read it on their home, office, car or handheld computer as well as the many other ways that the Internet can be accessed.
The Shenandoah Valley News, until 10 years ago, had a daily and Sunday circulation of around 1,200 copies. But with a decline in the local population, and the ones that remained handy with a computer or other handheld devices that also accessed the Internet, the paper’s circulation slipped more than 50 percent, to around 570 on Sunday and 540 on Thursday, the only other day it was printed.
Like others in the American daily newspaper industry, the Valley News cutback on the number of pages it printed and reduced the number of days it published a printed edition; it even offered a tabloid edition of itself, starting 10 years ago.
“Nothing worked,” said Roy Oakes, publisher of the Valley News, so he and his managing editor, Wanda Lloyd, on instructions from their corporate owner, Google, started preparing for the day when they would only offer the paper on the Internet.
“We’ll save a bundle by not printing the thing,” said Oakes. “And, so far, the paper – can we still call it that? – is receiving a strong reception on the Internet.”
“The only thing that’s surprising about this move is how long we waited to make it,” said Lauren Jurgins, CEO of Google, the country’s largest newspaper publisher. “We’re an Internet company so it’s surprising we let the Shenandoah Valley News offer a print edition as long as it did. Our other newspapers stopped printing years ago.”
Google changed its strategy about 20 years ago when it decided to own information providers and intellectual property, not just broker them. As a result, they purchased a slew of newspapers, including the Gannett and McClatchy chains, as well as a number of book publishers.
“Traditional publishers, whether it was newspapers, books or other kinds of intellectual property, as we saw it, just didn’t appreciate what they had,” said Jurgins. “We’ve put these products on steroids, making them available anyway possible, and the results, so far, have exceeded our expectations.”
Microsoft soon followed, purchasing Chicago-based Tribune Company as well as a few assets from Hearst, including its newspapers and some magazines.
As of today, Oakes says, the paper’s Internet subscriptions are more than double what they were in print, around 1,300.
The Valley News has been offering its subscribers a 50 percent discount for the Internet edition. Subscribers can purchase either a 12-week or a full-year subscription for either $72.00 or $312.00, respectively.
Not only will the paper save money on newsprint costs, it also eliminated its circulation department. The paper’s classified advertising telemarketing department, based in the Philippines, will also handle consumer sales of the newspaper’s Web site.
The paper’s affiliation with Newspaper Editing, a company offering off-shore copyediting services from Vietnam, will continue.
“Our newsroom staff is composed of one editor and three reporters, one of whom is part time,” said Oakes. “Everyone in our newsroom knows how to update our Web site as well as send our stories to our digital distributor.
“Our ad folks are only selling retailers and car dealers in our designated market area,” Oakes said.
“In order to keep these subscriptions, and get a few new ones, we’ll need to make sure we’re on top of the communities we cover,” said Lloyd. “Hopefully, our advertising people we’ll be successful, too.”
It’s generally accepted by economists that the American daily newspaper industry started its decline about a century ago when television networks started offering news programming. The industry was further hindered with the advent of the World Wide Web.
“People became accustomed to reading the paper on their home PC,” said Arthur Twyinesome, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “As a result, newspaper circulation declined and the newspaper industry, for about three decades, never charged anyone to read the paper on the Internet.”
Further hindering the newspaper industry was the line of “i” products introduced by Apple Computer, starting in the century’s first decade. After the successful introduction of the iPod and iPhone, the company went on to introduce, with great success, the iBox, iCup and iShades – products that allowed people Internet access at anytime, regardless of what they were doing, and, as a result, reduced their purchases of printed products.
The iBox, sold exclusively to Kellogg’s, allows consumers Internet access from their favorite box of cereal.
“The great thing about the iBox is that consumers can learn more about our cereals or catch up on the news or even read a book – all while eating their breakfast,” said Winston Jared, a spokesman for Kellogg’s.
The iCup, initially oblong-shaped, gives consumers that ability to access the Internet from their coffee cup and was sold exclusively to Starbucks; a rounded iCup was introduced last year and Starbucks reports that consumers are accepting the rounded screen.
“The iCup is a hit with our customers,” said Anne Nestroff, Starbucks CEO. “It gives us an advantage over other coffee sellers because it allows our customers to catch up on the news, e-mail or whatever while enjoying their favorite java.”
“The beauty of the iBox and the iCup is that they’re disposable,” said a spokesman for Apple. “Once you’re done, you just throw it away – or place it in your recycling bin.”
Apple introduced iShades, a line of eyeglasses that can be used in a variety of ways, five years ago. Not only they can be used to correct vision but they’re also sunglasses and can access the Internet. They’re especially popular with train commuters or other travelers, allowing them to catch up on news and entertainment programming without having to carry anything.
Apple reports that more than 500 million iShades have been sold.
“We’re ahead of our own expectations,” said Steve Jenson, Apple CEO.
Some communities, like New York, Boston and Chicago, have cracked down on iShades, prohibiting people from wearing them if they decide to drive their car. If they’re just sitting in their car, and have placed it on automatic drive, then their allowed to wear their iShades.
Printed products took a further hit when Verizon, Microsoft and Electronic Arts teamed up to create a handheld gaming and telephone device that connects to the Internet, called the XPG.
“You can play games, go to the Internet, call your friends or download a book,” said Sally Higgins, a spokesman for Microsoft. “The XPG is the only handheld device anyone needs.”
By the time most U.S. daily newspapers stopped offering a printed edition, around 2040, the industry’s aggregate circulation had dropped to under 30 million. That was a loss of 20 million over the course of 30 years, said Juan Agranos, executive director of the Newspaper Association of America.
“Newspaper Internet subscriptions are increasing,” he said. “As of the last audit, overall newspaper Internet circulation is around 45 million.”
As a result, Agranos said, advertising on newspaper Web sites is increasing.
“Advertisers are learning that, once again, people turn to daily newspapers to be informed,” he said.
In addition to selling more subscriptions to its Web edition, the Shenandoah Valley News, like its newspaper colleagues, will sell its stories รก la carte on Apple’s iNews, a system that allows consumers to have news stories covering their interests sent to their e-mail address.
“We think that’ll be a good source of revenue for us, especially since so many people have moved away,” said Oakes. “Our stories on iNews will be an easy way for them to stay in touch with southwest Iowa.”
AP-01-01-57
Attention: Editors & Publishers
Newspapers no longer printed
Monday, January 1, 2057
SHENANDOAH, Iowa (AP) – The last 600 copies of Iowa’s Shenandoah Valley News rolled off the presses last night, making it the last U.S. newspaper to shut down its print edition and closing a chapter in the history of the American daily newspaper industry.
Starting today, if the local population wants to read the Valley News, they’ll need to make sure their subscription is paid up so they can access the newspaper on the Internet.
The Shenandoah Valley News stood out in the landscape of the American daily newspaper industry because it was the sole, remaining holdout with a printed edition. Prior to the Valley News closing its printed edition, there had been a group of small newspapers in Kentucky that continued to offer a print edition but they were discontinued five years ago.
As of today, not a single American daily newspaper is printed. If anyone wants to read a daily newspaper published in the United States, they’ll need access to the Internet, and, more often than not, a valid subscription, so they can read it on their home, office, car or handheld computer as well as the many other ways that the Internet can be accessed.
The Shenandoah Valley News, until 10 years ago, had a daily and Sunday circulation of around 1,200 copies. But with a decline in the local population, and the ones that remained handy with a computer or other handheld devices that also accessed the Internet, the paper’s circulation slipped more than 50 percent, to around 570 on Sunday and 540 on Thursday, the only other day it was printed.
Like others in the American daily newspaper industry, the Valley News cutback on the number of pages it printed and reduced the number of days it published a printed edition; it even offered a tabloid edition of itself, starting 10 years ago.
“Nothing worked,” said Roy Oakes, publisher of the Valley News, so he and his managing editor, Wanda Lloyd, on instructions from their corporate owner, Google, started preparing for the day when they would only offer the paper on the Internet.
“We’ll save a bundle by not printing the thing,” said Oakes. “And, so far, the paper – can we still call it that? – is receiving a strong reception on the Internet.”
“The only thing that’s surprising about this move is how long we waited to make it,” said Lauren Jurgins, CEO of Google, the country’s largest newspaper publisher. “We’re an Internet company so it’s surprising we let the Shenandoah Valley News offer a print edition as long as it did. Our other newspapers stopped printing years ago.”
Google changed its strategy about 20 years ago when it decided to own information providers and intellectual property, not just broker them. As a result, they purchased a slew of newspapers, including the Gannett and McClatchy chains, as well as a number of book publishers.
“Traditional publishers, whether it was newspapers, books or other kinds of intellectual property, as we saw it, just didn’t appreciate what they had,” said Jurgins. “We’ve put these products on steroids, making them available anyway possible, and the results, so far, have exceeded our expectations.”
Microsoft soon followed, purchasing Chicago-based Tribune Company as well as a few assets from Hearst, including its newspapers and some magazines.
As of today, Oakes says, the paper’s Internet subscriptions are more than double what they were in print, around 1,300.
The Valley News has been offering its subscribers a 50 percent discount for the Internet edition. Subscribers can purchase either a 12-week or a full-year subscription for either $72.00 or $312.00, respectively.
Not only will the paper save money on newsprint costs, it also eliminated its circulation department. The paper’s classified advertising telemarketing department, based in the Philippines, will also handle consumer sales of the newspaper’s Web site.
The paper’s affiliation with Newspaper Editing, a company offering off-shore copyediting services from Vietnam, will continue.
“Our newsroom staff is composed of one editor and three reporters, one of whom is part time,” said Oakes. “Everyone in our newsroom knows how to update our Web site as well as send our stories to our digital distributor.
“Our ad folks are only selling retailers and car dealers in our designated market area,” Oakes said.
“In order to keep these subscriptions, and get a few new ones, we’ll need to make sure we’re on top of the communities we cover,” said Lloyd. “Hopefully, our advertising people we’ll be successful, too.”
It’s generally accepted by economists that the American daily newspaper industry started its decline about a century ago when television networks started offering news programming. The industry was further hindered with the advent of the World Wide Web.
“People became accustomed to reading the paper on their home PC,” said Arthur Twyinesome, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “As a result, newspaper circulation declined and the newspaper industry, for about three decades, never charged anyone to read the paper on the Internet.”
Further hindering the newspaper industry was the line of “i” products introduced by Apple Computer, starting in the century’s first decade. After the successful introduction of the iPod and iPhone, the company went on to introduce, with great success, the iBox, iCup and iShades – products that allowed people Internet access at anytime, regardless of what they were doing, and, as a result, reduced their purchases of printed products.
The iBox, sold exclusively to Kellogg’s, allows consumers Internet access from their favorite box of cereal.
“The great thing about the iBox is that consumers can learn more about our cereals or catch up on the news or even read a book – all while eating their breakfast,” said Winston Jared, a spokesman for Kellogg’s.
The iCup, initially oblong-shaped, gives consumers that ability to access the Internet from their coffee cup and was sold exclusively to Starbucks; a rounded iCup was introduced last year and Starbucks reports that consumers are accepting the rounded screen.
“The iCup is a hit with our customers,” said Anne Nestroff, Starbucks CEO. “It gives us an advantage over other coffee sellers because it allows our customers to catch up on the news, e-mail or whatever while enjoying their favorite java.”
“The beauty of the iBox and the iCup is that they’re disposable,” said a spokesman for Apple. “Once you’re done, you just throw it away – or place it in your recycling bin.”
Apple introduced iShades, a line of eyeglasses that can be used in a variety of ways, five years ago. Not only they can be used to correct vision but they’re also sunglasses and can access the Internet. They’re especially popular with train commuters or other travelers, allowing them to catch up on news and entertainment programming without having to carry anything.
Apple reports that more than 500 million iShades have been sold.
“We’re ahead of our own expectations,” said Steve Jenson, Apple CEO.
Some communities, like New York, Boston and Chicago, have cracked down on iShades, prohibiting people from wearing them if they decide to drive their car. If they’re just sitting in their car, and have placed it on automatic drive, then their allowed to wear their iShades.
Printed products took a further hit when Verizon, Microsoft and Electronic Arts teamed up to create a handheld gaming and telephone device that connects to the Internet, called the XPG.
“You can play games, go to the Internet, call your friends or download a book,” said Sally Higgins, a spokesman for Microsoft. “The XPG is the only handheld device anyone needs.”
By the time most U.S. daily newspapers stopped offering a printed edition, around 2040, the industry’s aggregate circulation had dropped to under 30 million. That was a loss of 20 million over the course of 30 years, said Juan Agranos, executive director of the Newspaper Association of America.
“Newspaper Internet subscriptions are increasing,” he said. “As of the last audit, overall newspaper Internet circulation is around 45 million.”
As a result, Agranos said, advertising on newspaper Web sites is increasing.
“Advertisers are learning that, once again, people turn to daily newspapers to be informed,” he said.
In addition to selling more subscriptions to its Web edition, the Shenandoah Valley News, like its newspaper colleagues, will sell its stories รก la carte on Apple’s iNews, a system that allows consumers to have news stories covering their interests sent to their e-mail address.
“We think that’ll be a good source of revenue for us, especially since so many people have moved away,” said Oakes. “Our stories on iNews will be an easy way for them to stay in touch with southwest Iowa.”
AP-01-01-57
Friday, March 16, 2007
Pledging While Black -- The Value of Institutional Memory
Institutional memory is one of those things that's easy to lose. Replace a few executives, or key personnel, and, before you know it, the current crop of managers has no idea what their organization did or didn’t do in the past.
This means that their organization – whether it’s a major corporation, a small business, a church, a school, a college, or a sorority – is vulnerable to repeating a mistake it made once before.
I’m not here to debate the merits of history lessons – I’m all for them – but I am suggesting that if there is little or no institutional memory, then there is a higher likelihood that the organization will make a mistake that could have easily been avoided – had the managers only known the past.
More years ago than I care to count, I was student at DePauw University, a humble liberal arts school located in central Indiana, that has recently found itself the focus of The New York Times, CNN and a few other media outlets, especially in the Hoosier state.
I was a reporter for the school’s student newspaper, The DePauw, when Delta Zeta, also the focus of the media lately, decided to discriminate against an African American woman who attempted to pledge the sorority.
A few members of the sorority approached University officials, saying the student was not allowed to pledge because she was black.
Heavens to Betsy!!!! If only this girl hadn’t been PWBing everything would have been okay. I mean the nerve of some people – Pledging While Black. It’s almost as a bad as Driving While Black through a wealthy, discriminating white community!
A fellow reporter and I covered the sorority and the University’s actions against Delta Zeta. As I recall, the University asked Delta Zeta to accept the student. I can’t remember if she joined the group or not.
In the latest news, Delta Zeta’s headquarters, located in Ohio, forced out what they determined were all of the ugly girls in the DePauw chapter, saying, as a cover, that they weren’t doing all they could to make their chapter successful.
What it really came down to, according to all of the news reports, was that Delta Zeta headquarters, last Fall, decided it wanted to improve its looks at DePauw. So if you were carrying a few extra pounds or didn’t possess the kind of looks that turned a guy’s head, then you were history.
Once again, some of the girls from Delta Zeta, especially those that were forced out, approached the University, telling them they had no where to live and how they had been discriminated against because of their looks.
Had someone at Delta Zeta gone through the files, or had the organization even possessed some kind of institutional memory, there’s a good chance this wouldn’t have happened. Or, perhaps, it would have gone down differently.
That’s something that will be debated long into the future – among those who care.
What is known is that DePauw possesses a long memory. The University’s president, Bob Bottoms, has been around the campus a long time, even before I was a student there. So he knew DePauw had to respond, especially because it was the focus of some of the country’s top media outlets.
To his credit, Bottoms shut down the Delta Zeta chapter at DePauw. That’s the advantage of institutional memory. Bottoms had seen this before and he’d had enough.
Too bad no one at Delta Zeta headquarters possessed the same knowledge.
Ten or twenty years from now, Delta Zeta will likely re-open on DePauw’s campus. When they do, the sorority’s top officers will likely make sure they get their fair share of the best-looking girls they can find.
This means that their organization – whether it’s a major corporation, a small business, a church, a school, a college, or a sorority – is vulnerable to repeating a mistake it made once before.
I’m not here to debate the merits of history lessons – I’m all for them – but I am suggesting that if there is little or no institutional memory, then there is a higher likelihood that the organization will make a mistake that could have easily been avoided – had the managers only known the past.
More years ago than I care to count, I was student at DePauw University, a humble liberal arts school located in central Indiana, that has recently found itself the focus of The New York Times, CNN and a few other media outlets, especially in the Hoosier state.
I was a reporter for the school’s student newspaper, The DePauw, when Delta Zeta, also the focus of the media lately, decided to discriminate against an African American woman who attempted to pledge the sorority.
A few members of the sorority approached University officials, saying the student was not allowed to pledge because she was black.
Heavens to Betsy!!!! If only this girl hadn’t been PWBing everything would have been okay. I mean the nerve of some people – Pledging While Black. It’s almost as a bad as Driving While Black through a wealthy, discriminating white community!
A fellow reporter and I covered the sorority and the University’s actions against Delta Zeta. As I recall, the University asked Delta Zeta to accept the student. I can’t remember if she joined the group or not.
In the latest news, Delta Zeta’s headquarters, located in Ohio, forced out what they determined were all of the ugly girls in the DePauw chapter, saying, as a cover, that they weren’t doing all they could to make their chapter successful.
What it really came down to, according to all of the news reports, was that Delta Zeta headquarters, last Fall, decided it wanted to improve its looks at DePauw. So if you were carrying a few extra pounds or didn’t possess the kind of looks that turned a guy’s head, then you were history.
Once again, some of the girls from Delta Zeta, especially those that were forced out, approached the University, telling them they had no where to live and how they had been discriminated against because of their looks.
Had someone at Delta Zeta gone through the files, or had the organization even possessed some kind of institutional memory, there’s a good chance this wouldn’t have happened. Or, perhaps, it would have gone down differently.
That’s something that will be debated long into the future – among those who care.
What is known is that DePauw possesses a long memory. The University’s president, Bob Bottoms, has been around the campus a long time, even before I was a student there. So he knew DePauw had to respond, especially because it was the focus of some of the country’s top media outlets.
To his credit, Bottoms shut down the Delta Zeta chapter at DePauw. That’s the advantage of institutional memory. Bottoms had seen this before and he’d had enough.
Too bad no one at Delta Zeta headquarters possessed the same knowledge.
Ten or twenty years from now, Delta Zeta will likely re-open on DePauw’s campus. When they do, the sorority’s top officers will likely make sure they get their fair share of the best-looking girls they can find.
The Battle of Okinawa & How the War Started
Friday, June 29, 1945
By Combined News Services
GUAM – The Battle of Okinawa, lasting 83 days, was declared completed today as American forces moved into the mop-up stage of the operation, neutralizing pockets of Japanese resistance and taking far more prisoners than had been expected, Navy officials said.
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the top U.S. military commander of the operation, reported that the invasion’s success came at a high price: Nearly 12,000 U.S. soldiers, marines and sailors were killed during the battle that also saw the loss of more than 30 American warships, each and every one sunk by Japanese suicide planes, known as kamikazes, and nearly 800 aircraft.
About 65,000 American military personnel were wounded for a total of nearly 80,000 American casualties in the 83-day campaign, making it the bloodiest operation in the island-hopping drive against Japan.
Admiral Nimitz reported that 7,613 Army and Marine troops were killed, 31,807 were wounded and there were another 26,000 casualties, most of them suffering from combat fatigue. The Navy lost 4,320 sailors, with another 7,300 sailors wounded during the battle.
“Our casualties were high but not unexpected,” said Nimitz. “The Japs are a tough enemy, and we knew this would be a very difficult operation. It’s over.”
Included among the dead was the commanding officer of the ground troops, Lt. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., commanding officer of the 10th Army, which included nearly 200,000 combat soldiers.
“General Buckner, I’m sorry to report, was killed at the front, observing the Marines,” said Admiral Nimitz. “A Japanese shell blew up a nearby rock and a fragment from that rock went through the General’s chest.”
Buckner is the highest ranking U.S. officer killed in combat in the Pacific, the Admiral reported.
Okinawa, an island about 60 miles long and 18 miles wide at its widest point, was defended by more than 100,000 Japanese troops. Other than the 10,000 Japanese soldiers that surrendered, the rest were either killed by American forces or by their own hand because they refused to surrender.
The operation also cost the lives of nearly 80,000 of the island’s native, civilian inhabitants. U.S. military personnel are distributing food and medical assistance to the surviving native population.
Okinawa, considered a part of Tokyo by the Japanese, is a highly valuable prize in the war because it’s 350 miles from Japan’s Kyushu island and less than 1,000 miles from Tokyo, putting these two targets within easy range of U.S. bombers soon be based on the island. Because of its size, Okinawa is considered, highly placed military sources say, an excellent staging point for an invasion of Japan.
One of the biggest problems that the Navy faced with Okinawa is that there was very little known about the island. Few Americans had visited it since Commodore Matthew Perry stopped by on his way to Japan in 1853.
Navy intelligence did track down an American citizen who had visited the island, and he provided valuable information. But the number and type of Japan’s forces on the island was a guess, Nimitz said, and that’s the reason so many American troops were used in the attack.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, commanding U.S. and Allied forces in the south Pacific, has been critical of the Okinawa operation, saying there was no reason to wipe out the entire Japanese force at such a cost to American life.
“They could have cordoned off the remaining Japanese troops and starved them,” the General said from his headquarters in Manila. Most of the Japanese troops had been bottled up in the southern part of the island, MacArthur said.
Prior to the attack, military sources said, it was thought that Japanese defenders would be entrenched throughout the island. They would be so well hidden, they said, that it would be difficult for American ground troops to overwhelm the enemy.
As a result, a new weapon was introduced during the Okinawa invasion – the flame-throwing tank, Admiral Nimitz said. It was used to kill Japanese troops hidden in caves throughout the island.
As the operation on Okinawa comes to an end, U.S. and Allied military planners are figuring out the next stage of the war against the sole remaining Axis Power, Japan.
“Japan will feel the full force and weight of the United States,” said General of the Army George Marshall, the Army’s commanding general. Marshall would not comment on MacArthur’s disagreement with the Navy over tactics used on Okinawa.
The Pentagon today said that nearly 400,000 Americans had been killed during the war and that nearly 600,000 more had been wounded.
“We’ve averaged about 5,000 killed and wounded every week since we entered the war,” said a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Cdr. Elliot Jones.
Back in Washington, a document has surfaced that shows that Roosevelt administration may have actually provoked Japan into a war. Congressional sources say they’re releasing parts of the document now because President Roosevelt is dead.
Written by a Navy officer just prior to the 1940 presidential election, the document laid out eight proposals, that if taken by the United States, would likely provoke Japan into taking hostile action against the United States.
The proposals included arranging for the United States to have access to British bases in Singapore; assisting the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek in its attempt to defeat the Japanese invasion of China; placing the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii; insisting that the Dutch refuse to provide oil to Japan from their holdings in the West Indies; and embargoing all trade with Japan.
“All of these actions were taken by the Roosevelt administration,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), whose office released the document.
“It shows that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately pushed us into a war with Japan,” said U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, (R-MI). “Japan had no choice but to attack us.”
“This may hinder the Truman administration as it finds a way to end the war with Japan,” said Senator Barkley.
The Truman administration would not comment on the memo but said it was determined to find a way to accomplish both a political and military victory over Japan.
By Combined News Services
GUAM – The Battle of Okinawa, lasting 83 days, was declared completed today as American forces moved into the mop-up stage of the operation, neutralizing pockets of Japanese resistance and taking far more prisoners than had been expected, Navy officials said.
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the top U.S. military commander of the operation, reported that the invasion’s success came at a high price: Nearly 12,000 U.S. soldiers, marines and sailors were killed during the battle that also saw the loss of more than 30 American warships, each and every one sunk by Japanese suicide planes, known as kamikazes, and nearly 800 aircraft.
About 65,000 American military personnel were wounded for a total of nearly 80,000 American casualties in the 83-day campaign, making it the bloodiest operation in the island-hopping drive against Japan.
Admiral Nimitz reported that 7,613 Army and Marine troops were killed, 31,807 were wounded and there were another 26,000 casualties, most of them suffering from combat fatigue. The Navy lost 4,320 sailors, with another 7,300 sailors wounded during the battle.
“Our casualties were high but not unexpected,” said Nimitz. “The Japs are a tough enemy, and we knew this would be a very difficult operation. It’s over.”
Included among the dead was the commanding officer of the ground troops, Lt. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., commanding officer of the 10th Army, which included nearly 200,000 combat soldiers.
“General Buckner, I’m sorry to report, was killed at the front, observing the Marines,” said Admiral Nimitz. “A Japanese shell blew up a nearby rock and a fragment from that rock went through the General’s chest.”
Buckner is the highest ranking U.S. officer killed in combat in the Pacific, the Admiral reported.
Okinawa, an island about 60 miles long and 18 miles wide at its widest point, was defended by more than 100,000 Japanese troops. Other than the 10,000 Japanese soldiers that surrendered, the rest were either killed by American forces or by their own hand because they refused to surrender.
The operation also cost the lives of nearly 80,000 of the island’s native, civilian inhabitants. U.S. military personnel are distributing food and medical assistance to the surviving native population.
Okinawa, considered a part of Tokyo by the Japanese, is a highly valuable prize in the war because it’s 350 miles from Japan’s Kyushu island and less than 1,000 miles from Tokyo, putting these two targets within easy range of U.S. bombers soon be based on the island. Because of its size, Okinawa is considered, highly placed military sources say, an excellent staging point for an invasion of Japan.
One of the biggest problems that the Navy faced with Okinawa is that there was very little known about the island. Few Americans had visited it since Commodore Matthew Perry stopped by on his way to Japan in 1853.
Navy intelligence did track down an American citizen who had visited the island, and he provided valuable information. But the number and type of Japan’s forces on the island was a guess, Nimitz said, and that’s the reason so many American troops were used in the attack.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, commanding U.S. and Allied forces in the south Pacific, has been critical of the Okinawa operation, saying there was no reason to wipe out the entire Japanese force at such a cost to American life.
“They could have cordoned off the remaining Japanese troops and starved them,” the General said from his headquarters in Manila. Most of the Japanese troops had been bottled up in the southern part of the island, MacArthur said.
Prior to the attack, military sources said, it was thought that Japanese defenders would be entrenched throughout the island. They would be so well hidden, they said, that it would be difficult for American ground troops to overwhelm the enemy.
As a result, a new weapon was introduced during the Okinawa invasion – the flame-throwing tank, Admiral Nimitz said. It was used to kill Japanese troops hidden in caves throughout the island.
As the operation on Okinawa comes to an end, U.S. and Allied military planners are figuring out the next stage of the war against the sole remaining Axis Power, Japan.
“Japan will feel the full force and weight of the United States,” said General of the Army George Marshall, the Army’s commanding general. Marshall would not comment on MacArthur’s disagreement with the Navy over tactics used on Okinawa.
The Pentagon today said that nearly 400,000 Americans had been killed during the war and that nearly 600,000 more had been wounded.
“We’ve averaged about 5,000 killed and wounded every week since we entered the war,” said a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Cdr. Elliot Jones.
Back in Washington, a document has surfaced that shows that Roosevelt administration may have actually provoked Japan into a war. Congressional sources say they’re releasing parts of the document now because President Roosevelt is dead.
Written by a Navy officer just prior to the 1940 presidential election, the document laid out eight proposals, that if taken by the United States, would likely provoke Japan into taking hostile action against the United States.
The proposals included arranging for the United States to have access to British bases in Singapore; assisting the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek in its attempt to defeat the Japanese invasion of China; placing the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii; insisting that the Dutch refuse to provide oil to Japan from their holdings in the West Indies; and embargoing all trade with Japan.
“All of these actions were taken by the Roosevelt administration,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), whose office released the document.
“It shows that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately pushed us into a war with Japan,” said U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, (R-MI). “Japan had no choice but to attack us.”
“This may hinder the Truman administration as it finds a way to end the war with Japan,” said Senator Barkley.
The Truman administration would not comment on the memo but said it was determined to find a way to accomplish both a political and military victory over Japan.
Friday, March 02, 2007
On The Other Hand: American Troops Defeated
Friday, February 26, 1943
By Combined News Services
ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS, NORTH AFRICA – Germany’s battle-hardened Afrika Korps soldiers, led by the infamous “Desert Fox,” attacked U.S. troops in Tunisia’s Kasserine Pass, handing the Allied forces its second defeat in two months at the cost of more than 6,000 American casualties.
The three-day battle, which pitted American troops against Nazi soldiers led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the “Desert Fox,” cost U.S. troops dearly: 300 were killed, 3,000 were wounded, and another 3,000 were reported missing, most of them likely to be prisoners of war, Allied military officials said.
German forces pushed American soldiers back more than 80 miles.
This was the second Allied defeat in North Africa in eight weeks and puts the entire Allied war plan on the continent into doubt, Allied military officials said.
“The general accepts full responsibility for this defeat,” said Maj. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith of his commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allies’ commander-in-chief in North Africa. “It causes us to reconsider our strategy and tactics.”
As the Germans struck U.S. lines, American military officials said, chaos ensued, with troops abandoning their positions and weapons and fleeing to the rear. It was, said a U.S. general who requested anonymity, “The worst performance of U.S. Army troops in their whole proud history.”
The first defeat came back in December, just after Christmas, when Allied forces were prevented from liberating Tunis, an important Allied objective because the city’s ports are vital to re-supplying Nazi troops in North Africa.
More than 350 U.S. troops were reported killed, wounded or missing in December’s battle while another 180 British troops were reported killed, wounded or missing.
Earlier this week, British Lt. Gen. Harold Alexander was appointed the new ground commander, leading all Allied ground forces in North Africa and reporting to General Eisenhower.
After inspecting U.S. soldiers on Wednesday, Alexander told one American reporter that “American troops are soft, green and quite untrained. They lack the will to fight.”
Officers on General Eisenhower’s staff told reporters that some American generals in the African theatre may be relieved of their duties as a result of this latest defeat. Eisenhower, however, apparently remains safe in his job.
“There will be no change at the top,” said U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, from Washington. “Eisenhower is our general.”
The latest casualty numbers from North Africa come about six weeks after the War Department reported that the United States lost 60,000 soldiers, Marines, sailors and aviators last year.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific Theatre, Army Maj. Gen. Alexander M. Patch, commander of American forces on Guadalcanal, announced that the island has been liberated from the Japanese. Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and Marines were killed in the six-month battle for the island.
The U.S. Navy also lost of a number of ships and sailors during the battle.
“Total and complete Japanese defeat on Guadalcanal effected today,” said General Patch.
Allied forces on New Guinea are making progress against the Japanese, too.
The latest Gallop poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say that Japan is America’s chief enemy while only 34 percent report that Germany is.
Writer’s question: Would American confidence on World War II have suffered if some of the battles had been reported in this fashion?
By Combined News Services
ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS, NORTH AFRICA – Germany’s battle-hardened Afrika Korps soldiers, led by the infamous “Desert Fox,” attacked U.S. troops in Tunisia’s Kasserine Pass, handing the Allied forces its second defeat in two months at the cost of more than 6,000 American casualties.
The three-day battle, which pitted American troops against Nazi soldiers led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the “Desert Fox,” cost U.S. troops dearly: 300 were killed, 3,000 were wounded, and another 3,000 were reported missing, most of them likely to be prisoners of war, Allied military officials said.
German forces pushed American soldiers back more than 80 miles.
This was the second Allied defeat in North Africa in eight weeks and puts the entire Allied war plan on the continent into doubt, Allied military officials said.
“The general accepts full responsibility for this defeat,” said Maj. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith of his commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allies’ commander-in-chief in North Africa. “It causes us to reconsider our strategy and tactics.”
As the Germans struck U.S. lines, American military officials said, chaos ensued, with troops abandoning their positions and weapons and fleeing to the rear. It was, said a U.S. general who requested anonymity, “The worst performance of U.S. Army troops in their whole proud history.”
The first defeat came back in December, just after Christmas, when Allied forces were prevented from liberating Tunis, an important Allied objective because the city’s ports are vital to re-supplying Nazi troops in North Africa.
More than 350 U.S. troops were reported killed, wounded or missing in December’s battle while another 180 British troops were reported killed, wounded or missing.
Earlier this week, British Lt. Gen. Harold Alexander was appointed the new ground commander, leading all Allied ground forces in North Africa and reporting to General Eisenhower.
After inspecting U.S. soldiers on Wednesday, Alexander told one American reporter that “American troops are soft, green and quite untrained. They lack the will to fight.”
Officers on General Eisenhower’s staff told reporters that some American generals in the African theatre may be relieved of their duties as a result of this latest defeat. Eisenhower, however, apparently remains safe in his job.
“There will be no change at the top,” said U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, from Washington. “Eisenhower is our general.”
The latest casualty numbers from North Africa come about six weeks after the War Department reported that the United States lost 60,000 soldiers, Marines, sailors and aviators last year.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific Theatre, Army Maj. Gen. Alexander M. Patch, commander of American forces on Guadalcanal, announced that the island has been liberated from the Japanese. Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and Marines were killed in the six-month battle for the island.
The U.S. Navy also lost of a number of ships and sailors during the battle.
“Total and complete Japanese defeat on Guadalcanal effected today,” said General Patch.
Allied forces on New Guinea are making progress against the Japanese, too.
The latest Gallop poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say that Japan is America’s chief enemy while only 34 percent report that Germany is.
Writer’s question: Would American confidence on World War II have suffered if some of the battles had been reported in this fashion?
Friday, February 23, 2007
On The Other Hand: What Could Have Been
Sunday, December 27, 1942
By Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON – While U.S. casualties continue to increase across the Pacific, and with a ground offensive recently initiated against Nazi-held North Africa, the president’s war plan to halt Germany's and Japan’s ambitions is under scrutiny by a skeptical Congress, with some members saying that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked a needless war against the two countries.
Nearly 13 months after the most damaging military attack on U.S. soil, the strike against Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu, is now under Congressional investigation. In some quarters of Congress, there are concerns that the President may have either previously known about Japan’s plans to attack the U.S. base – or deliberately and clandestinely provoked a war with Japan, which forced Germany to declare war against the United States.
Worse, Roosevelt’s critics say, once he knew of Japan’s plans to strike Pearl Harbor, he refused to alert his military commanders, so U.S. forces in the Pacific would be caught by surprise. This would then gain U.S. public support for America’s entry into World War II, the president’s Congressional critics say.
Prior to the attack, the Gallup opinion poll said there was little domestic support for fighting either Japan or Germany. After Pearl Harbor, public opinion shifted drastically in favor of fighting both countries.
“If you look at FDR’s actions between 1940 and 1941,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Sweeney (D-OH), “he was trying to find a way to have Japan and Germany fight the United States.”
Shortly after the attack, Congress formed a joint Senate and House committee to investigate its causes as well as the administration’s policies toward Japan prior to the attack.
“We’ve come across a very interesting memo,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), who chairs the committee investigating the surprise attack. “It appears to confirm some concerns that the administration may have been overly aggressive in its approach to Japan” before it attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Senator would give few details about the note but described it as “written by a naval officer who appears to have great knowledge of the Japanese.”
The War Department would neither confirm nor deny the memo’s existence.
Congressional support for the Roosevelt Administration’s war policies is weakening, critics say, because of heavy U.S. military losses.
The Army and the Marines, battling Japanese troops on the Pacific Islands of New Guinea and Guadalcanal, have suffered thousands of casualties. In addition, the Navy has lost a number of ships, including five aircraft carriers, to the Japanese, this year.
Congressional critics say the United States, unprepared for war against Japan, was forced to surrender some of its most strategic Pacific possessions, including Wake and Guam Islands as well as the Philippines.
“Had our military commanders been better led by the President,” said U.S. Sen. Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), “there’s a good chance we would not have been forced to give up our strategic outposts in the Pacific.”
The loss of the Philippines was particularly devastating because 76,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. military force to ever capitulate in the country’s history, surrendered to the Japanese. Coincidentally, the troops surrendered on the 77th anniversary of the day that Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his army to lay down its arms to forces led by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, which ended the Civil War.
While the Navy stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May and again, in June, at the Battle of Midway, an archipelago just north of Hawaii, the losses for these two victories were costly, including hundreds of planes and two aircraft carriers. The other three U.S. aircraft carriers were lost during other Pacific battles against the Japanese.
Japan’s losses at the Battle of Midway, Navy intelligence says, were even higher, including four aircraft carriers, two cruisers, three destroyers and some small boats. Japan's losses have not been confirmed by Tokyo.
Another military success against Japan, although limited in its effect, included the bombing of Japan. Many of the operation’s details remain secret.
On the ground, however, the fighting situation is quite different. U.S. soldiers and Marines find themselves bogged down battling an entrenched enemy. U.S. losses on New Guinea and Guadalcanal are heavy – into the thousands – because Japanese troops, military commanders say, often fight to the death rather than surrender.
“I’m afraid a lot of people think the Jap is a ‘pushover,’” said Army Air Force Lt. Gen. George Kenney, who heads up the Allied Air Forces in the southwest Pacific. “We will have to call on all our patriotism, stamina, guts, and maybe some crusading spirit or religious fervor thrown in, to beat him.
“No amateur team will take this boy out. You take on Notre Dame, every time you play,” the general said.
Shortly after the mid-term elections, the Army landed troops in Algeria and Morocco to liberate North Africa from German occupation. The operation, under the command of Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, if it is successful, will allow the Allies to move more freely around the Mediterranean Sea.
Prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the United States, diplomatic relations between the two countries had reached a stand-off, with the United States closing 24 German consulates across the country, saying they were havens for Nazi spies.
In addition, the United States loaned Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British Naval Bases, including those in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies.
“The destroyer trade was an ‘out-right declaration of war’,” said U.S. Sen. Gerald Nye, (R-ND). “It was a belligerent act that weakened our defenses.”
Seven months prior to the outbreak of war with Germany, the Navy started engaging the Third Reich’s submarines while escorting merchant ships sailing between the United States and Great Britain.
The United States even started supplying Great Britain with materiel it needed to survive Germany’s onslaught. The President defended U.S actions by saying, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your garden hose so your house is safe.”
“We were fighting Germany before the war even happened,” said Senator Ferguson. “It’s becoming quite clear that the President acted without Congressional authority to do that.”
(Writer’s note: This account is entirely fictional. Some of the information is accurate. This article is intended to be thought-provoking. Is it possible for anyone to understand the action’s any country takes during wartime? Are there any similarities between President Roosevelt’s actions, in his attempt to defeat fascism, and those of President George W. Bush, in his attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Could World War II have ended differently?)
By Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON – While U.S. casualties continue to increase across the Pacific, and with a ground offensive recently initiated against Nazi-held North Africa, the president’s war plan to halt Germany's and Japan’s ambitions is under scrutiny by a skeptical Congress, with some members saying that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked a needless war against the two countries.
Nearly 13 months after the most damaging military attack on U.S. soil, the strike against Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu, is now under Congressional investigation. In some quarters of Congress, there are concerns that the President may have either previously known about Japan’s plans to attack the U.S. base – or deliberately and clandestinely provoked a war with Japan, which forced Germany to declare war against the United States.
Worse, Roosevelt’s critics say, once he knew of Japan’s plans to strike Pearl Harbor, he refused to alert his military commanders, so U.S. forces in the Pacific would be caught by surprise. This would then gain U.S. public support for America’s entry into World War II, the president’s Congressional critics say.
Prior to the attack, the Gallup opinion poll said there was little domestic support for fighting either Japan or Germany. After Pearl Harbor, public opinion shifted drastically in favor of fighting both countries.
“If you look at FDR’s actions between 1940 and 1941,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Sweeney (D-OH), “he was trying to find a way to have Japan and Germany fight the United States.”
Shortly after the attack, Congress formed a joint Senate and House committee to investigate its causes as well as the administration’s policies toward Japan prior to the attack.
“We’ve come across a very interesting memo,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), who chairs the committee investigating the surprise attack. “It appears to confirm some concerns that the administration may have been overly aggressive in its approach to Japan” before it attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Senator would give few details about the note but described it as “written by a naval officer who appears to have great knowledge of the Japanese.”
The War Department would neither confirm nor deny the memo’s existence.
Congressional support for the Roosevelt Administration’s war policies is weakening, critics say, because of heavy U.S. military losses.
The Army and the Marines, battling Japanese troops on the Pacific Islands of New Guinea and Guadalcanal, have suffered thousands of casualties. In addition, the Navy has lost a number of ships, including five aircraft carriers, to the Japanese, this year.
Congressional critics say the United States, unprepared for war against Japan, was forced to surrender some of its most strategic Pacific possessions, including Wake and Guam Islands as well as the Philippines.
“Had our military commanders been better led by the President,” said U.S. Sen. Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), “there’s a good chance we would not have been forced to give up our strategic outposts in the Pacific.”
The loss of the Philippines was particularly devastating because 76,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. military force to ever capitulate in the country’s history, surrendered to the Japanese. Coincidentally, the troops surrendered on the 77th anniversary of the day that Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his army to lay down its arms to forces led by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, which ended the Civil War.
While the Navy stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May and again, in June, at the Battle of Midway, an archipelago just north of Hawaii, the losses for these two victories were costly, including hundreds of planes and two aircraft carriers. The other three U.S. aircraft carriers were lost during other Pacific battles against the Japanese.
Japan’s losses at the Battle of Midway, Navy intelligence says, were even higher, including four aircraft carriers, two cruisers, three destroyers and some small boats. Japan's losses have not been confirmed by Tokyo.
Another military success against Japan, although limited in its effect, included the bombing of Japan. Many of the operation’s details remain secret.
On the ground, however, the fighting situation is quite different. U.S. soldiers and Marines find themselves bogged down battling an entrenched enemy. U.S. losses on New Guinea and Guadalcanal are heavy – into the thousands – because Japanese troops, military commanders say, often fight to the death rather than surrender.
“I’m afraid a lot of people think the Jap is a ‘pushover,’” said Army Air Force Lt. Gen. George Kenney, who heads up the Allied Air Forces in the southwest Pacific. “We will have to call on all our patriotism, stamina, guts, and maybe some crusading spirit or religious fervor thrown in, to beat him.
“No amateur team will take this boy out. You take on Notre Dame, every time you play,” the general said.
Shortly after the mid-term elections, the Army landed troops in Algeria and Morocco to liberate North Africa from German occupation. The operation, under the command of Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, if it is successful, will allow the Allies to move more freely around the Mediterranean Sea.
Prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the United States, diplomatic relations between the two countries had reached a stand-off, with the United States closing 24 German consulates across the country, saying they were havens for Nazi spies.
In addition, the United States loaned Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British Naval Bases, including those in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies.
“The destroyer trade was an ‘out-right declaration of war’,” said U.S. Sen. Gerald Nye, (R-ND). “It was a belligerent act that weakened our defenses.”
Seven months prior to the outbreak of war with Germany, the Navy started engaging the Third Reich’s submarines while escorting merchant ships sailing between the United States and Great Britain.
The United States even started supplying Great Britain with materiel it needed to survive Germany’s onslaught. The President defended U.S actions by saying, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your garden hose so your house is safe.”
“We were fighting Germany before the war even happened,” said Senator Ferguson. “It’s becoming quite clear that the President acted without Congressional authority to do that.”
(Writer’s note: This account is entirely fictional. Some of the information is accurate. This article is intended to be thought-provoking. Is it possible for anyone to understand the action’s any country takes during wartime? Are there any similarities between President Roosevelt’s actions, in his attempt to defeat fascism, and those of President George W. Bush, in his attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Could World War II have ended differently?)
Friday, February 09, 2007
Why They're Running
With the U.S. presidential primary season about a year away, let’s review le raison d’รชtra for the candidates seeking their party’s nomination for the nation’s highest political job as well as where the campaigns stand on financing.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, with more than $11 million in cash, according to Political Money Line, a unit of the Congressional Quarterly, is running so she can become her husband’s co-equal. It bothers her that Bill’s a former president while she’s only a senator.
She has more than twice as much money as U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (CT), and has received, Political Money Line reports, nearly 27,000 individual campaign contributions. At this point in the campaign, Hillary is tough to beat. She has the organization, the money, and is owed many favors, so it’s highly unlikely that she’ll lose the primaries.
Dodd, in his fifth Senate term, is running for the nomination because he’s opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an excellent representative for Connecticut, but outside of the Nutmeg State, he’s hardly known.
Political Money Line reports that Dodd has nearly $5 million in his campaign but has received only 99 individual campaign contributions. Part of Dodd’s war chest, according to Political Money Line, comes from the money he has for his Senate campaign.
Dodd “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating that he ‘is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut,’” reports Political Money Line.
This allows Dodd to declare that his Senate campaign “has excess funds and transfer the funds to his presidential committee.” The Senate campaign, reports Political Money Line, had about $1.9 million as of the end of September 2006.
Dodd isn’t as calculating , crafty and conniving as Hillary. And his public speaking abilities pale in comparison to hers. Look for Dodd to be one of the first candidates to pull out of the primary.
John Edwards
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), is running because he wants another shot at the nomination. He was a loyal solider for his party during the last presidential campaign when he served as U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. The team failed, mostly because of Kerry, so Edwards figures the nomination is rightly his.
He’s also opposed to the Iraq War and his campaign will focus on “two Americas – one rich, one poor” like he did during the last presidential primary.
Edwards, figuring he better get a jump on the competition, has been campaigning since last summer. He comes across as a sincerely nice guy but also a bit of lightweight. It’s highly unlikely his candidacy will hold up for long against the competition.
Political Money Line reports that his Political Action Committee, One America Committee, had less than $9,000 in cash as of the end of January. There doesn’t appear to be any reporting, so far, on how much money his campaign has. This is likely due to the fact that he hasn’t officially declared his candidacy.
When Democrats go to the polls during the primary season, they’ll likely recall that Edwards was part of a losing presidential ticket in 2004 and, as a result, they’ll vote for someone else.
Joe Biden
U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), has been running for his party’s nomination, either overtly or covertly, since 1988. Perhaps Senator Biden should realize he’s a long shot – at best! – and give it up.
While Biden has done well with campaign contributions, about $3.6 million according to Political Money Line, it’s hard to figure out what this candidacy is all about. He’ll play up his his experience on the Senate’s foreign relations committee.
Given that background, along with his inability, so far, to wage a successful national campaign, plus his foot-in-mouth issues, Biden is more likely to become the next Secretary of State to a President Hillary Clinton than he is to become the country’s next President. Perhaps that’s what he really wants, the nation’s top diplomatic job.
Barack Obama
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), is running – if he actually decides to run – to show the Democratic establishment that a good man can’t be kept down. He’s also seeks, and rightly so, to show that a black man can, indeed, be elected President.
The problem Senator Obama has is that he hasn’t been completely vetted in the same manner that his competitors have, especially Senator Clinton. If he declares that he’s candidate, he will have to survive some very harsh scrutiny, not only from the national media but also from his fellow Senate colleagues.
Obama stands out among his competitors because he’s a black man. This will make it easier for him to gain attention, which should translate into winning votes, if he decides to run. But, at this point, he doesn’t appear to be as well organized as Senator Clinton. Also, according to Political Money Line, his “Obama 2010 Inc” committee has just over $500,000.
That committee is established to help him run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. That money could also be used for any future presidential run he makes.
Evan Bayh
The true dark horse among the Democrats might be U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) whose campaign is almost as well-healed as Hillary Clinton’s, with nearly $11 million in the bank, according to Political Money Line, as of December 31, 2006.
This means he’s organized, aggressive at raising money, and just might be the strongest alternative to Senator Clinton. The last part depends on whether he’s as good on the campaign trail as he has been getting his campaign financed.
The problem Bayh suffers from is that the national media isn’t paying attention to his campaign. Unless he can turn that around, he’ll go down as the most well-financed forgotten presidential candidate in recent years.
Bayh can certainly tout his experience as a two-term governor in a heavily Republican state. But other than that, there’s not much about his candidacy that’s going to get someone excited about him.
Bill Richardson
The last alternative to Senator Clinton is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as President Clinton’s United Nation’s ambassador and was also his Energy Secretary. He’s former a presidential exploratory committee but has yet to declare his candidacy.
Among Democrats, and even Republicans, Richardson might be the politician with the most experience. He was a member of the House of Representatives for 15 years before going on to serve in the United Nations and then in President Clinton’s cabinet. As a result, he has both domestic and foreign policy experience.
His experience overseeing America’s energy issues shouldn’t be diminished. President Bush has said he’d like reduce the country’s oil consumption. Richardson could position himself as the presidential candidate who knows how to do that.
On personal issues, Richardson is also a very attractive candidate. He was born in California, an important state to win during the primary and general election. His mother was Mexican and word is that he’s fluent in Spanish.
The question about Richardson is will he generate any excitement.
Qualifications for Office
Qualifications don’t matter all that much to the electorate, during either the primary or general campaign seasons. If experience mattered, George H. W. Bush, with a background in business, diplomacy and Congress, would have taken the presidential oath on January 20, 1981.
Instead, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and former California governor, who campaigned on America’s inherit strength, became the nation’s 40th President. Successful presidential candidates, like Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, center their campaigns primarily around their personality.
They also evoke a visceral reaction among their supports as well as their detractors. If the American electorate thinks someone’s personality is a good fit for the nation’s challenges, and they find them likeable, there’s a high probability they’ll vote for that person.
The Republican line-up
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11, is the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination. Like his leading counterpart for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rudy, as he’s known to friends and foes, is a controversial figure, evoking a visceral response.
And that just might make him the next president.
Guiliani, if he runs, will center his campaign around the leadership he demonstrated during the tragic day of September 11, 2001, and the weeks that followed before he left office. He’ll also talk up the fact that he knows how to run the country’s largest city as well as his experience as a former prosecutor who convicted one of the mob’s top kingpins, John Gotti.
So far, the only thing Rudy has announced is that he’s former a presidential exploratory committee. Political Money Line reports that he has more than $2 million from his former Senate campaign committee.
He raised more than $170,000 during 2006’s fourth quarter, Political Money Line reports, out-earning his two rivals, Sam Brownback and John McCain, significantly.
Like all political candidates, Guiliani’s background, and positions, make him vulnerable to the more strident, perhaps even pure, among his party. He’s been married three times and his last divorce, from New York City television talk show host Donna Hanover, was very public and very acrimonious.
Rudy’s position on a number of social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, is out of line with traditional Republican thinking. Still, at this point, he’s the man to beat for the nomination.
Rudy will tell the Republican faithful that he’s a Republican where it counts – winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking on the terrorists. Rudy hopes that his moderate positions on social issues, including stem cell research, will make him palatable to the electorate during the presidential campaign.
John McCain
Like Guiliani, U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), is running as a candidate more concerned about defeating terrorists, whether they’re in Iraq and elsewhere, than he is in making abortion illegal.
McCain will nod and wink to the Republican faithful that he’s a conservative of social issues and, at the same time, will work hard to win the votes of social moderates by saying, in one way or another, that defeating terrorists outweighs abortion.
McCain, like Guiliani, is divorced and has since remarried. But unlike his fellow Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, he’s the only one candidate who’s served in the military. He’ll campaign, often, has a Vietnam War hero.
Mitt Romney
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, if he formerly enters the race, will center around his religion and how it does not prevent him from enacting and or signing legislation that the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes.
He’ll want to spend more time talking up his background as a leading business executive, as a governor and as the president of the 2002 Winter Olympics, held in Salt Lake City.
The son of a three-term Michigan governor, Romney sees himself, at least in business, as a turnaround specialist, having erased a “$3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office,” says the Web site touting his presidential exploratory committee.
The big question every Republican should ask Romney is why he left the Massachusetts governorship after only one term. He would be in a far stronger position had he remained in the job because it would allow him to tell primary voters that he’s a conservative in a liberal state – and found to be very acceptable.
He’s opposed to abortion and, like many a Republican, is looking for victory in the Middle East. Other top concerns include taxes, China and international trade.
Prior to entering public life, Romney had been an executive with consulting firm Bain & Company. His Political Action Committee, says Political Money Line, reports having around $185,000 on hand as of January 31, 2007.
Sam Brownback
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), holds the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole. He’s a true-blue conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Brownback is probably the most conservative Republican in the primary. He’s an evangelical Christian and is opposed to gay marriage and abortion.
At this point, his campaign, according to Political Money Line, has around $40,000.00. He’s got a long way to go to catch up with the Former Mayor of New York.
Newt Gingrich
Lurking in the background among Republicans is former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t declared his presidency but he certainly has a robust Web site. More on Newt next time.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, with more than $11 million in cash, according to Political Money Line, a unit of the Congressional Quarterly, is running so she can become her husband’s co-equal. It bothers her that Bill’s a former president while she’s only a senator.
She has more than twice as much money as U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (CT), and has received, Political Money Line reports, nearly 27,000 individual campaign contributions. At this point in the campaign, Hillary is tough to beat. She has the organization, the money, and is owed many favors, so it’s highly unlikely that she’ll lose the primaries.
Dodd, in his fifth Senate term, is running for the nomination because he’s opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an excellent representative for Connecticut, but outside of the Nutmeg State, he’s hardly known.
Political Money Line reports that Dodd has nearly $5 million in his campaign but has received only 99 individual campaign contributions. Part of Dodd’s war chest, according to Political Money Line, comes from the money he has for his Senate campaign.
Dodd “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating that he ‘is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut,’” reports Political Money Line.
This allows Dodd to declare that his Senate campaign “has excess funds and transfer the funds to his presidential committee.” The Senate campaign, reports Political Money Line, had about $1.9 million as of the end of September 2006.
Dodd isn’t as calculating , crafty and conniving as Hillary. And his public speaking abilities pale in comparison to hers. Look for Dodd to be one of the first candidates to pull out of the primary.
John Edwards
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), is running because he wants another shot at the nomination. He was a loyal solider for his party during the last presidential campaign when he served as U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. The team failed, mostly because of Kerry, so Edwards figures the nomination is rightly his.
He’s also opposed to the Iraq War and his campaign will focus on “two Americas – one rich, one poor” like he did during the last presidential primary.
Edwards, figuring he better get a jump on the competition, has been campaigning since last summer. He comes across as a sincerely nice guy but also a bit of lightweight. It’s highly unlikely his candidacy will hold up for long against the competition.
Political Money Line reports that his Political Action Committee, One America Committee, had less than $9,000 in cash as of the end of January. There doesn’t appear to be any reporting, so far, on how much money his campaign has. This is likely due to the fact that he hasn’t officially declared his candidacy.
When Democrats go to the polls during the primary season, they’ll likely recall that Edwards was part of a losing presidential ticket in 2004 and, as a result, they’ll vote for someone else.
Joe Biden
U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), has been running for his party’s nomination, either overtly or covertly, since 1988. Perhaps Senator Biden should realize he’s a long shot – at best! – and give it up.
While Biden has done well with campaign contributions, about $3.6 million according to Political Money Line, it’s hard to figure out what this candidacy is all about. He’ll play up his his experience on the Senate’s foreign relations committee.
Given that background, along with his inability, so far, to wage a successful national campaign, plus his foot-in-mouth issues, Biden is more likely to become the next Secretary of State to a President Hillary Clinton than he is to become the country’s next President. Perhaps that’s what he really wants, the nation’s top diplomatic job.
Barack Obama
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), is running – if he actually decides to run – to show the Democratic establishment that a good man can’t be kept down. He’s also seeks, and rightly so, to show that a black man can, indeed, be elected President.
The problem Senator Obama has is that he hasn’t been completely vetted in the same manner that his competitors have, especially Senator Clinton. If he declares that he’s candidate, he will have to survive some very harsh scrutiny, not only from the national media but also from his fellow Senate colleagues.
Obama stands out among his competitors because he’s a black man. This will make it easier for him to gain attention, which should translate into winning votes, if he decides to run. But, at this point, he doesn’t appear to be as well organized as Senator Clinton. Also, according to Political Money Line, his “Obama 2010 Inc” committee has just over $500,000.
That committee is established to help him run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. That money could also be used for any future presidential run he makes.
Evan Bayh
The true dark horse among the Democrats might be U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) whose campaign is almost as well-healed as Hillary Clinton’s, with nearly $11 million in the bank, according to Political Money Line, as of December 31, 2006.
This means he’s organized, aggressive at raising money, and just might be the strongest alternative to Senator Clinton. The last part depends on whether he’s as good on the campaign trail as he has been getting his campaign financed.
The problem Bayh suffers from is that the national media isn’t paying attention to his campaign. Unless he can turn that around, he’ll go down as the most well-financed forgotten presidential candidate in recent years.
Bayh can certainly tout his experience as a two-term governor in a heavily Republican state. But other than that, there’s not much about his candidacy that’s going to get someone excited about him.
Bill Richardson
The last alternative to Senator Clinton is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as President Clinton’s United Nation’s ambassador and was also his Energy Secretary. He’s former a presidential exploratory committee but has yet to declare his candidacy.
Among Democrats, and even Republicans, Richardson might be the politician with the most experience. He was a member of the House of Representatives for 15 years before going on to serve in the United Nations and then in President Clinton’s cabinet. As a result, he has both domestic and foreign policy experience.
His experience overseeing America’s energy issues shouldn’t be diminished. President Bush has said he’d like reduce the country’s oil consumption. Richardson could position himself as the presidential candidate who knows how to do that.
On personal issues, Richardson is also a very attractive candidate. He was born in California, an important state to win during the primary and general election. His mother was Mexican and word is that he’s fluent in Spanish.
The question about Richardson is will he generate any excitement.
Qualifications for Office
Qualifications don’t matter all that much to the electorate, during either the primary or general campaign seasons. If experience mattered, George H. W. Bush, with a background in business, diplomacy and Congress, would have taken the presidential oath on January 20, 1981.
Instead, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and former California governor, who campaigned on America’s inherit strength, became the nation’s 40th President. Successful presidential candidates, like Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, center their campaigns primarily around their personality.
They also evoke a visceral reaction among their supports as well as their detractors. If the American electorate thinks someone’s personality is a good fit for the nation’s challenges, and they find them likeable, there’s a high probability they’ll vote for that person.
The Republican line-up
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11, is the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination. Like his leading counterpart for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rudy, as he’s known to friends and foes, is a controversial figure, evoking a visceral response.
And that just might make him the next president.
Guiliani, if he runs, will center his campaign around the leadership he demonstrated during the tragic day of September 11, 2001, and the weeks that followed before he left office. He’ll also talk up the fact that he knows how to run the country’s largest city as well as his experience as a former prosecutor who convicted one of the mob’s top kingpins, John Gotti.
So far, the only thing Rudy has announced is that he’s former a presidential exploratory committee. Political Money Line reports that he has more than $2 million from his former Senate campaign committee.
He raised more than $170,000 during 2006’s fourth quarter, Political Money Line reports, out-earning his two rivals, Sam Brownback and John McCain, significantly.
Like all political candidates, Guiliani’s background, and positions, make him vulnerable to the more strident, perhaps even pure, among his party. He’s been married three times and his last divorce, from New York City television talk show host Donna Hanover, was very public and very acrimonious.
Rudy’s position on a number of social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, is out of line with traditional Republican thinking. Still, at this point, he’s the man to beat for the nomination.
Rudy will tell the Republican faithful that he’s a Republican where it counts – winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking on the terrorists. Rudy hopes that his moderate positions on social issues, including stem cell research, will make him palatable to the electorate during the presidential campaign.
John McCain
Like Guiliani, U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), is running as a candidate more concerned about defeating terrorists, whether they’re in Iraq and elsewhere, than he is in making abortion illegal.
McCain will nod and wink to the Republican faithful that he’s a conservative of social issues and, at the same time, will work hard to win the votes of social moderates by saying, in one way or another, that defeating terrorists outweighs abortion.
McCain, like Guiliani, is divorced and has since remarried. But unlike his fellow Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, he’s the only one candidate who’s served in the military. He’ll campaign, often, has a Vietnam War hero.
Mitt Romney
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, if he formerly enters the race, will center around his religion and how it does not prevent him from enacting and or signing legislation that the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes.
He’ll want to spend more time talking up his background as a leading business executive, as a governor and as the president of the 2002 Winter Olympics, held in Salt Lake City.
The son of a three-term Michigan governor, Romney sees himself, at least in business, as a turnaround specialist, having erased a “$3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office,” says the Web site touting his presidential exploratory committee.
The big question every Republican should ask Romney is why he left the Massachusetts governorship after only one term. He would be in a far stronger position had he remained in the job because it would allow him to tell primary voters that he’s a conservative in a liberal state – and found to be very acceptable.
He’s opposed to abortion and, like many a Republican, is looking for victory in the Middle East. Other top concerns include taxes, China and international trade.
Prior to entering public life, Romney had been an executive with consulting firm Bain & Company. His Political Action Committee, says Political Money Line, reports having around $185,000 on hand as of January 31, 2007.
Sam Brownback
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), holds the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole. He’s a true-blue conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Brownback is probably the most conservative Republican in the primary. He’s an evangelical Christian and is opposed to gay marriage and abortion.
At this point, his campaign, according to Political Money Line, has around $40,000.00. He’s got a long way to go to catch up with the Former Mayor of New York.
Newt Gingrich
Lurking in the background among Republicans is former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t declared his presidency but he certainly has a robust Web site. More on Newt next time.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Damsel in Distress or Iron Lady?
While U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), makes an interesting candidate for president – an attractive black man, as his Senate colleague Joe Biden said rather stupidly last week – the one who actually holds the cards to winning the nomination would likely make a far better chief executive.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.
Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.
It’s just so unfair.
The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).
Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.
But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.
(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)
While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”
The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.
Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.
After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.
Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.
The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.
Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.
While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.
Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.
Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.
For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.
As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.
She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.
Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.
After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.
All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.
A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.
If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.
What Kind of President will she be?
Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.
As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)
Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.
In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.
Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.
But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.
So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.
Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.
The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.
If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.
The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.
Domestic Issues
Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.
So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.
Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.
She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.
Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.
Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.
It’s just so unfair.
The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).
Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.
But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.
(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)
While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”
The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.
Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.
After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.
Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.
The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.
Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.
While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.
Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.
Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.
For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.
As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.
She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.
Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.
After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.
All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.
A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.
If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.
What Kind of President will she be?
Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.
As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)
Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.
In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.
Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.
But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.
So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.
Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.
The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.
If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.
The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.
Domestic Issues
Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.
So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.
Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.
She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.
Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.
Friday, January 12, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Notes on President Ford, Vietnam and Iraq
Writer’s note: It’s been a while since I’ve updated this blog. So here are some thoughts on recent events and issues that continue to be discussed in the media.
1. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford
In the early 1960s, my dad was a young reporter for United Press International in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Michigan’s Fifth Congressional district. Congressman Jerry Ford dropped by the office one day to take him and another reporter, from the Detroit Free Press, to lunch. They talked politics and Michigan football, and dad never forgot Congressman Ford’s generosity that day, describing him as one of the most decent men he’d ever met.
Advance 14 years and Ford is the President of the United States and my dad, by then, is UPI’s vice president and general manager.
Business took dad to Washington where he had dinner with a former UPI photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Hume Kennerly, who, by that time, was President Ford’s official White House Photographer, and Dick Growald, who covered The White House, in tandem, with Helen Thomas, for UPI. Kennerly suggested to dad that he come by The White House the next morning so he could see his office.
Although he didn’t have much of an interest in photography, a visit to The White House, even if was the photographer’s office, had some appeal. Dad arrives and Kennerly suddenly announced that they’re going to say, “Hello.”
Dad inquired, “To Whom?”
The next thing he knew, he was being led into the Oval Office and there was President Ford sitting behind his desk. He stood up and greeted dad as if they were old friends.
Ford spent about 30 minutes that day with my dad, Growald and a White House spokesman. And Kennerly photographed all of it. In fact, I have a picture of the meeting and plan to bequeath it to my children.
Ford couldn’t have been nicer, dad always said. Obviously, the President had been briefed on my dad, so he was aware that they shared a connection to Grand Rapids.
Dad was on Cloud 9. He told us all about his meeting with the President and showed us the pictures.
As a result, I’ve always held the late president in high esteem. Although I was only 14 at the time, I had hoped Ford would be elected president in 1976. And, given the times that Jimmy Carter experienced, I believe Ford would have handled many of the same events between 1977 and 1981, especially the U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran, far better than his successor.
RIP, Mr. President.
2. Gerald R. Ford as President of the United States
Ford was always my kind of Republican. As The New York Times recently said, he was the kind of politician who wanted the government “out of your bedroom, living room and the board room.”
I’m not sure about the last one but that has nothing to do with Jerry Ford. No one in the 1970s could have predicted all of the corporate transgressions we’ve witnessed in the past five years.
After Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, two men who were prone to professional and personal antics that degraded the Presidency, Ford was clean. Very clean. And he was a steady hand at the helm of a ship that was passing through turbulent waters.
It’s easy to dismiss someone like Ford as an Accidental President. But at the time he came into office, the country needed someone like him, someone who could put the country at ease after the trials and tribulations of Watergate and Vietnam. The nation should be grateful that he successfully moved the country beyond these two debacles.
A number of the obituaries and tributes credit Ford with removing the United States from Vietnam. While some of that is true, it’s important to remember that U.S. troops started returning from Vietnam during the Nixon Administration. In fact, like it or not, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had more to do with ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam than President Ford.
By the time Ford became President, U.S. plans for Vietnam had been set. We’d signed a peace accord, of sorts, with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1973, about 18 months before Ford became president. It released U.S. servicemen captured by North Vietnam and committed the United States to withdrawing from South Vietnam.
By the time Communist troops were bearing down on Saigon in April 1975, Ford had few options. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have cited national security concerns, and ordered bombing raids against Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam in an attempt to force a stalemate.
But, by that time, that action was going to spend more political capital than the President likely wanted and maybe even had. In addition, it’s difficult to say how effective bombing raids would have been since the North Vietnamese had proven that they accepted heavy casualties.
Under no circumstance was Ford going to reintroduce U.S. ground troops to prop up the Saigon government. There was not a scintilla of political support for such action.
Probably the single best thing Ford did was assure the nation that the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists was not a ringing of the death knell for the United States as a superpower. As tragic as it was, Saigon’s fall allowed the United States to focus on more pressing international issues, like the Soviet Union, China and the Middle East.
Ford went on to score three significant victories with each one. He forced the Soviets to recognize human rights; he kept the Chinese engaged with the United States; and, finally, he was able to gain acceptance of a truce between Israel and Egypt.
Ford’s pardon of President Nixon will be debated by historians for adinfinitum. A case for either action – pardon or no pardon – can be made without too much difficulty. By pardoning Nixon, Ford put Watergate behind us just as, in the same way, by letting Saigon fall to Hanoi, he put the war behind us.
3. Iraq
It’s time to dust off our history books. Iraq is no Vietnam. Today, the United States is fighting an insurgency supported by terrorist networks likely coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran as well as what’s homegrown in Iraq. They may be coming from other countries, but those are the ones we know about.
At least we knew our enemy during the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and they were primarily supported by the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, the Peoples Republic of China. This makes the Vietnam War look much easier to manage than the current one in Iraq.
While the United States has been somewhat successful in separating Iraqi insurgents from foreign insurgents – namely those supported by Al Qaida – we’re not dealing with another nation. Instead, we’re dealing with mercenaries or freelancers who give every appearance of being willing to pay a high price for their cause – preventing the United States and its Iraqi allies from letting Iraq turn into a failed state – and who report to no one.
One of the big differences between our enemies in Iraq and us is the fact that they report to no one. Certainly there’s no leader of the insurgency who is held accountable politically or publicly. The insurgency, wherever it comes from, can afford high casualties and military blunders.
But the lessons of Vietnam should not be dismissed. President Nixon violated a basic lesson of negotiation when he started talking with Hanoi. As the talks were getting underway, Nixon announced he was bringing the troops home, thereby immediately weakening our position.
The North Vietnamese knew, from that point on, that it was just a matter of time before the United States ended its commitments to the government in Saigon. All Hanoi had to do was pay lip service to the negotiations while they continued to fight the war on their terms.
The newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democratic colleagues, as well as a few Republicans, might review the actions taken by the Nixon Administration. If they really want the United States to fail in Iraq, all they need to do is keep pressing George W. Bush for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
If Bush caves to the pressure, and starts bringing the troops home, this will signal to the insurgents – as well as to everyone else – that it’s just a matter of time before the United States stops supporting the government in Baghdad.
Speaker Pelosi and her allies on Capitol Hill might consider what Iraq will look like if the United States pulls out. And they might also consider how such actions will be perceived by both our allies and anyone else who considers the United States its enemy.
1. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford
In the early 1960s, my dad was a young reporter for United Press International in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Michigan’s Fifth Congressional district. Congressman Jerry Ford dropped by the office one day to take him and another reporter, from the Detroit Free Press, to lunch. They talked politics and Michigan football, and dad never forgot Congressman Ford’s generosity that day, describing him as one of the most decent men he’d ever met.
Advance 14 years and Ford is the President of the United States and my dad, by then, is UPI’s vice president and general manager.
Business took dad to Washington where he had dinner with a former UPI photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Hume Kennerly, who, by that time, was President Ford’s official White House Photographer, and Dick Growald, who covered The White House, in tandem, with Helen Thomas, for UPI. Kennerly suggested to dad that he come by The White House the next morning so he could see his office.
Although he didn’t have much of an interest in photography, a visit to The White House, even if was the photographer’s office, had some appeal. Dad arrives and Kennerly suddenly announced that they’re going to say, “Hello.”
Dad inquired, “To Whom?”
The next thing he knew, he was being led into the Oval Office and there was President Ford sitting behind his desk. He stood up and greeted dad as if they were old friends.
Ford spent about 30 minutes that day with my dad, Growald and a White House spokesman. And Kennerly photographed all of it. In fact, I have a picture of the meeting and plan to bequeath it to my children.
Ford couldn’t have been nicer, dad always said. Obviously, the President had been briefed on my dad, so he was aware that they shared a connection to Grand Rapids.
Dad was on Cloud 9. He told us all about his meeting with the President and showed us the pictures.
As a result, I’ve always held the late president in high esteem. Although I was only 14 at the time, I had hoped Ford would be elected president in 1976. And, given the times that Jimmy Carter experienced, I believe Ford would have handled many of the same events between 1977 and 1981, especially the U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran, far better than his successor.
RIP, Mr. President.
2. Gerald R. Ford as President of the United States
Ford was always my kind of Republican. As The New York Times recently said, he was the kind of politician who wanted the government “out of your bedroom, living room and the board room.”
I’m not sure about the last one but that has nothing to do with Jerry Ford. No one in the 1970s could have predicted all of the corporate transgressions we’ve witnessed in the past five years.
After Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, two men who were prone to professional and personal antics that degraded the Presidency, Ford was clean. Very clean. And he was a steady hand at the helm of a ship that was passing through turbulent waters.
It’s easy to dismiss someone like Ford as an Accidental President. But at the time he came into office, the country needed someone like him, someone who could put the country at ease after the trials and tribulations of Watergate and Vietnam. The nation should be grateful that he successfully moved the country beyond these two debacles.
A number of the obituaries and tributes credit Ford with removing the United States from Vietnam. While some of that is true, it’s important to remember that U.S. troops started returning from Vietnam during the Nixon Administration. In fact, like it or not, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had more to do with ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam than President Ford.
By the time Ford became President, U.S. plans for Vietnam had been set. We’d signed a peace accord, of sorts, with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1973, about 18 months before Ford became president. It released U.S. servicemen captured by North Vietnam and committed the United States to withdrawing from South Vietnam.
By the time Communist troops were bearing down on Saigon in April 1975, Ford had few options. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have cited national security concerns, and ordered bombing raids against Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam in an attempt to force a stalemate.
But, by that time, that action was going to spend more political capital than the President likely wanted and maybe even had. In addition, it’s difficult to say how effective bombing raids would have been since the North Vietnamese had proven that they accepted heavy casualties.
Under no circumstance was Ford going to reintroduce U.S. ground troops to prop up the Saigon government. There was not a scintilla of political support for such action.
Probably the single best thing Ford did was assure the nation that the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists was not a ringing of the death knell for the United States as a superpower. As tragic as it was, Saigon’s fall allowed the United States to focus on more pressing international issues, like the Soviet Union, China and the Middle East.
Ford went on to score three significant victories with each one. He forced the Soviets to recognize human rights; he kept the Chinese engaged with the United States; and, finally, he was able to gain acceptance of a truce between Israel and Egypt.
Ford’s pardon of President Nixon will be debated by historians for adinfinitum. A case for either action – pardon or no pardon – can be made without too much difficulty. By pardoning Nixon, Ford put Watergate behind us just as, in the same way, by letting Saigon fall to Hanoi, he put the war behind us.
3. Iraq
It’s time to dust off our history books. Iraq is no Vietnam. Today, the United States is fighting an insurgency supported by terrorist networks likely coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran as well as what’s homegrown in Iraq. They may be coming from other countries, but those are the ones we know about.
At least we knew our enemy during the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and they were primarily supported by the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, the Peoples Republic of China. This makes the Vietnam War look much easier to manage than the current one in Iraq.
While the United States has been somewhat successful in separating Iraqi insurgents from foreign insurgents – namely those supported by Al Qaida – we’re not dealing with another nation. Instead, we’re dealing with mercenaries or freelancers who give every appearance of being willing to pay a high price for their cause – preventing the United States and its Iraqi allies from letting Iraq turn into a failed state – and who report to no one.
One of the big differences between our enemies in Iraq and us is the fact that they report to no one. Certainly there’s no leader of the insurgency who is held accountable politically or publicly. The insurgency, wherever it comes from, can afford high casualties and military blunders.
But the lessons of Vietnam should not be dismissed. President Nixon violated a basic lesson of negotiation when he started talking with Hanoi. As the talks were getting underway, Nixon announced he was bringing the troops home, thereby immediately weakening our position.
The North Vietnamese knew, from that point on, that it was just a matter of time before the United States ended its commitments to the government in Saigon. All Hanoi had to do was pay lip service to the negotiations while they continued to fight the war on their terms.
The newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democratic colleagues, as well as a few Republicans, might review the actions taken by the Nixon Administration. If they really want the United States to fail in Iraq, all they need to do is keep pressing George W. Bush for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
If Bush caves to the pressure, and starts bringing the troops home, this will signal to the insurgents – as well as to everyone else – that it’s just a matter of time before the United States stops supporting the government in Baghdad.
Speaker Pelosi and her allies on Capitol Hill might consider what Iraq will look like if the United States pulls out. And they might also consider how such actions will be perceived by both our allies and anyone else who considers the United States its enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)