Generations of Americans have to take it on faith that wars can be won. Not since V-J Day in 1945 has there been dancing in our streets and strangers kissing in joy and relief.
With the mission in Baghdad far from accomplished, the last U. S. combat troops leave behind 4415 dead, billions of dollars spent (or stolen) and come home to a nation that is much less safe or united after seven years of sacrifice.
As the New York Times sums up the departing soldiers' mood, the war has been "not a glorious cause or... an adventure" but "a job that remains unfinished."
This echoes a Times report 35 years ago: "The last American troops left South Vietnam today, leaving behind an unfinished war that has deeply scarred this country and the United States.
"There was little emotion or joy as they brought to a close almost a decade of American military intervention."
The difference between then and now is that there is no foreseeable close. The 50,000 in so-called advise and assist brigades that remain behind, a military commander admits, although they "do not have a formal combat mission will, however, be combat capable. Some of those forces that will be embedded with Iraqi forces could indeed be drawn into combat."
What Barack Obama in his campaign called a "dumb war" is winding down not with a bang but a whimper of indefinite occupation in a country that was supposed to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction and to have harbored the 9/11 terrorists, neither of which turned out to be true.
With our human sacrifices continuing in Afghanistan, the American mood resembles that immortalized by William Butler Yeats at the end of World War II:
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeats ended "The Second Coming" with
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
In this century, a "rough beast" of anarchy is being gestated not only in the Middle East but here at home. Its coming is no cause for celebration.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, March 13, 2009
Afghanistan: Could We, Should We Go?
We have been here before--fighting and occupying countries with ancient hatreds and no history of anything resembling democracy--in Vietnam and Iraq. Lyndon Johnson's pride led to humiliation, George W. Bush's stubbornness to stalemate. Can Barack Obama's rationality save us from more of the same in Afghanistan?
In the New York Times today, as the cheerleaders for the Surge argue for an encore, Leslie Gelb makes the opening argument in the case for "How to Leave Afghanistan." It is an alternative the President should hear and consider.
The voters did not choose John McCain's approach to fighting terrorism, and the Obama Administration has a moral obligation to explore other choices than the policies that bogged us down in Iraq and will keep us there indefinitely, no matter what the timetables say.
"Our strategy in Afghanistan," Gelb argues, "should emphasize what we do best (containing and deterring, and forging coalitions) and downgrade what we do worst (nation-building in open-ended wars). It should cut our growing costs and secure our interests by employing our power more creatively and practically. It must also permit us--and this is critical--to focus more American resources and influence on the far more dire situation in Pakistan."
His proposal is to increase money, arms and training to friendly Afghans as US troops withdraw gradually while trying to buy away less extreme elements of the Taliban from their leadership and Al Qaeda and keeping available the option of air strikes to keep them bought.
Most important, Gelb argues, "Obama must do what the Bush team inexplicably never seemed to succeed in doing--stop the flow of funds to the Taliban that comes mainly through the Arab Gulf states. At the same time, he could let some money trickle in to reward good behavior."
What's important now are not the details of any particular proposal to keep us from putting more and more American lives at risk, but a mindset that will explore other options than those that served us so badly in Vietnam and Iraq and threaten to do it again in Afghanistan.
In the New York Times today, as the cheerleaders for the Surge argue for an encore, Leslie Gelb makes the opening argument in the case for "How to Leave Afghanistan." It is an alternative the President should hear and consider.
The voters did not choose John McCain's approach to fighting terrorism, and the Obama Administration has a moral obligation to explore other choices than the policies that bogged us down in Iraq and will keep us there indefinitely, no matter what the timetables say.
"Our strategy in Afghanistan," Gelb argues, "should emphasize what we do best (containing and deterring, and forging coalitions) and downgrade what we do worst (nation-building in open-ended wars). It should cut our growing costs and secure our interests by employing our power more creatively and practically. It must also permit us--and this is critical--to focus more American resources and influence on the far more dire situation in Pakistan."
His proposal is to increase money, arms and training to friendly Afghans as US troops withdraw gradually while trying to buy away less extreme elements of the Taliban from their leadership and Al Qaeda and keeping available the option of air strikes to keep them bought.
Most important, Gelb argues, "Obama must do what the Bush team inexplicably never seemed to succeed in doing--stop the flow of funds to the Taliban that comes mainly through the Arab Gulf states. At the same time, he could let some money trickle in to reward good behavior."
What's important now are not the details of any particular proposal to keep us from putting more and more American lives at risk, but a mindset that will explore other options than those that served us so badly in Vietnam and Iraq and threaten to do it again in Afghanistan.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Iraq End Game
The bargaining in Baghdad is getting serious as Iraqis pressure the Bush Administration for last-minute concessions on a status-of-forces agreement to sanction US presence beyond the end of the year.
But the American election and Bush's imminent departure have changed the game. Gone is the McCain mantra of "victory with honor," a prescription for open-ended American presence, and what's left is only haggling over details about the pace of troop withdrawal and how much control Iraqis will assume over security efforts in the meantime.
Iraqi leaders, while openly welcoming Barack Obama's timetable, are losing the luxury of factional jockeying in their own parliament and facing a timetable to resolve Shiite-Sunni differences about the future of their country.
The only questions left are when and how, not if, the loss of American lives and the expenditure of $10 billion a month finally come to an end.
But the American election and Bush's imminent departure have changed the game. Gone is the McCain mantra of "victory with honor," a prescription for open-ended American presence, and what's left is only haggling over details about the pace of troop withdrawal and how much control Iraqis will assume over security efforts in the meantime.
Iraqi leaders, while openly welcoming Barack Obama's timetable, are losing the luxury of factional jockeying in their own parliament and facing a timetable to resolve Shiite-Sunni differences about the future of their country.
The only questions left are when and how, not if, the loss of American lives and the expenditure of $10 billion a month finally come to an end.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Obama-McCain Numbers Game
Reading tea leaves from the new November polls is as hard as it was a year ago to see what was really going behind the numbers that showed Hillary Clinton running away with the Democratic nomination.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Bush's Ultimate Indecency
Anyone looking for a new definition of "obscenity" should consult George W. Bush's remarks today at the 60th anniversary celebration of the birth of Israel.
The man who set off needless bloodshed in the Middle East five years ago chose to lecture survivors of the Holocaust about appeasement.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli Knesset.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This President may not know much about appeasement, but he is the model of those who have been and will be discredited by history.
Barack Obama, who now seems America's only hope to begin to undo the Bush damage to America's moral standing in the world, had an answer:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
It's sad that we have to wait until next January to rid ourselves of Bush's ignorant indecency.
The man who set off needless bloodshed in the Middle East five years ago chose to lecture survivors of the Holocaust about appeasement.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli Knesset.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This President may not know much about appeasement, but he is the model of those who have been and will be discredited by history.
Barack Obama, who now seems America's only hope to begin to undo the Bush damage to America's moral standing in the world, had an answer:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
It's sad that we have to wait until next January to rid ourselves of Bush's ignorant indecency.
Friday, April 04, 2008
A Country With Nobody in Charge
The Bush era is closing on a downer. More than four out of five Americans, 81 percent, are unhappy with the way the country is going, the New York Times/CBS News mood poll tells us today, with the economy replacing terrorism and the war in Iraq at the top of their worry list.
They blame government for the housing crisis more than banks or home buyers and favor help for individuals rather than financial institutions.
But that's not what's happening in Washington. After the $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, the Senate is cobbling a $15 billion bill that provides tax breaks for home builders but leaves out a provision Bush threatened to veto that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages to keep owners in their homes. They did include $100 million for counseling people facing foreclosure, presumably to help the newly homeless feel better about their situation.
The March decline of 80,000 jobs is the third in a row, signifying a real recession. For those who still have jobs, wage increases failed to match inflation, in effect giving them a pay cut.
As voters watch their Executive Branch and Congress fumble and stumble on the economy, they may also be depressed by the bottomless quagmire in Iraq that continues to consume lives and billions of dollars. The Petraeus-Ryan tap dancing team will bring very little convincing cheer from a country where the newly trained freedom fighters desert in droves when called into action.
Somebody should check on what the 19 percent of Americans who think the country is going in the right direction have been smoking.
They blame government for the housing crisis more than banks or home buyers and favor help for individuals rather than financial institutions.
But that's not what's happening in Washington. After the $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, the Senate is cobbling a $15 billion bill that provides tax breaks for home builders but leaves out a provision Bush threatened to veto that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages to keep owners in their homes. They did include $100 million for counseling people facing foreclosure, presumably to help the newly homeless feel better about their situation.
The March decline of 80,000 jobs is the third in a row, signifying a real recession. For those who still have jobs, wage increases failed to match inflation, in effect giving them a pay cut.
As voters watch their Executive Branch and Congress fumble and stumble on the economy, they may also be depressed by the bottomless quagmire in Iraq that continues to consume lives and billions of dollars. The Petraeus-Ryan tap dancing team will bring very little convincing cheer from a country where the newly trained freedom fighters desert in droves when called into action.
Somebody should check on what the 19 percent of Americans who think the country is going in the right direction have been smoking.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Trapped in Bush's Old Movie
Muqtada al Sadr is splintering the peace in Baghdad and Basra, militias are murdering and looting, but our toy soldier President is still out speechifying to captive stateside military audiences about how splendidly the war is going and belaboring Congressional Democrats for "hectoring" Iraqi leaders as they "try to work out their differences."
After five years, over 4000 American lives and half a trillion dollars, George W. Bush has no patience for critics whose "prescription is always the same: retreat." Today he ridicules anti-war Democrats: "They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter."
Then the President sets them straight: "If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?"
The critics could furnish him with a list, starting with Afghanistan, Pakistan and homeland security, but that might intrude on George W. Bush's fantasy life.
With every passing day, he is looking more like the deluded character in "Arsenic and Old Lace" who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt and keeps running up the stairs with a saber, yelling "Charge!" and the rest of us feel trapped in his bad movie praying for the lights to come back on.
After five years, over 4000 American lives and half a trillion dollars, George W. Bush has no patience for critics whose "prescription is always the same: retreat." Today he ridicules anti-war Democrats: "They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter."
Then the President sets them straight: "If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?"
The critics could furnish him with a list, starting with Afghanistan, Pakistan and homeland security, but that might intrude on George W. Bush's fantasy life.
With every passing day, he is looking more like the deluded character in "Arsenic and Old Lace" who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt and keeps running up the stairs with a saber, yelling "Charge!" and the rest of us feel trapped in his bad movie praying for the lights to come back on.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
McCain's Free Ride
While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue their mud fight this week, John McCain is on a six-day campaign trip to the Mideast and Europe--at taxpayer expense--polishing his image as a warrior-statesman.
As ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, the candidate will be accompanied by the Iraq Rover Boys, Senate colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, to help him "understand and keep up to date, particularly where young Americans may be in harm's way."
The trip is a perfect metaphor for our situation in Iraq. Humvees, tanks and helicopters will be protecting the politicians as they preen for the TV cameras while the bleeding goes on out of sight. Even the Democrats' tower of jello Harry Reid has politely pointed out that he wouldn't make such a trip himself, preferring to stay "more focused on the eight soldiers killed yesterday."
It won't all be waste. Graham may get another good buy on an Oriental rug as he did last spring when McCain staged his heavily fortified stroll in a Baghdad market and, in the European stage of the trip, there will be time to pose with European prime ministers and attend a $1000-a-plate fundraising lunch at the ancestral home of Princess Diana's family.
But all is not sunny in McCain's world view. Before leaving, he told Pennsylvania voters he is worried that al Qaeda might stage spectacular attacks in Iraq to tilt the election against him.
"We have achieved enormous success," he said, "but they are still a very viable and tough enemy. There is no doubt in my mind that the surge is succeeding. Thank God for Gen. Petraeus, one of the greatest generals in American history."
Later today, in Baghdad, McCain will be able to tell Petraeus in person and pose for pictures that won't do his campaign any harm.
As ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, the candidate will be accompanied by the Iraq Rover Boys, Senate colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, to help him "understand and keep up to date, particularly where young Americans may be in harm's way."
The trip is a perfect metaphor for our situation in Iraq. Humvees, tanks and helicopters will be protecting the politicians as they preen for the TV cameras while the bleeding goes on out of sight. Even the Democrats' tower of jello Harry Reid has politely pointed out that he wouldn't make such a trip himself, preferring to stay "more focused on the eight soldiers killed yesterday."
It won't all be waste. Graham may get another good buy on an Oriental rug as he did last spring when McCain staged his heavily fortified stroll in a Baghdad market and, in the European stage of the trip, there will be time to pose with European prime ministers and attend a $1000-a-plate fundraising lunch at the ancestral home of Princess Diana's family.
But all is not sunny in McCain's world view. Before leaving, he told Pennsylvania voters he is worried that al Qaeda might stage spectacular attacks in Iraq to tilt the election against him.
"We have achieved enormous success," he said, "but they are still a very viable and tough enemy. There is no doubt in my mind that the surge is succeeding. Thank God for Gen. Petraeus, one of the greatest generals in American history."
Later today, in Baghdad, McCain will be able to tell Petraeus in person and pose for pictures that won't do his campaign any harm.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Our Wobbly War on Terror
With President Bush's would-be successors squabbling over Iraq, they are neglecting the main threat of terror that will face one of them taking office next January.
In Pakistan, Musharraf is on his way out as leaders of the two dominant parties agree to reinstate the judges he fired and try to strip him of crucial powers.
"Afghanistan is slipping toward failure," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden warns. "The Taliban is back, violence is up, drug production is booming and the Afghans are losing faith in their government. All the legs of our strategy--security, counter-narcotics efforts, reconstruction and governance--have gone wobbly."
The schedule of staying or going in Iraq is dominating the foreign policy debate in the presidential campaign, but Pakistan and Afghanistan are becoming more urgent.
"If we should have had a surge anywhere," Sen. Biden wrote last week in the New York Times, "it is Afghanistan...In six years, we have spent on Afghanistan’s reconstruction only what we spend every three weeks on military operations in Iraq."
The border area between the two countries, according to Biden is "a freeway of fundamentalism: the Taliban and Al Qaeda find sanctuary in Pakistan, while Pakistani suicide bombers wreak havoc in Afghanistan."
The Bush-Cheney strategy of relying on Musharraf's unreliable assurances about rooting them out is collapsing, but this Administration is unlikely to face that fact.
Biden sums it up: "The next president will have to rally America and the world to 'fight them over there unless we want to fight them over here.' The 'over there' is not, as President Bush has claimed, Iraq, but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Voters should be pressing Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama to tell them what they are going to do about that.
In Pakistan, Musharraf is on his way out as leaders of the two dominant parties agree to reinstate the judges he fired and try to strip him of crucial powers.
"Afghanistan is slipping toward failure," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden warns. "The Taliban is back, violence is up, drug production is booming and the Afghans are losing faith in their government. All the legs of our strategy--security, counter-narcotics efforts, reconstruction and governance--have gone wobbly."
The schedule of staying or going in Iraq is dominating the foreign policy debate in the presidential campaign, but Pakistan and Afghanistan are becoming more urgent.
"If we should have had a surge anywhere," Sen. Biden wrote last week in the New York Times, "it is Afghanistan...In six years, we have spent on Afghanistan’s reconstruction only what we spend every three weeks on military operations in Iraq."
The border area between the two countries, according to Biden is "a freeway of fundamentalism: the Taliban and Al Qaeda find sanctuary in Pakistan, while Pakistani suicide bombers wreak havoc in Afghanistan."
The Bush-Cheney strategy of relying on Musharraf's unreliable assurances about rooting them out is collapsing, but this Administration is unlikely to face that fact.
Biden sums it up: "The next president will have to rally America and the world to 'fight them over there unless we want to fight them over here.' The 'over there' is not, as President Bush has claimed, Iraq, but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Voters should be pressing Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama to tell them what they are going to do about that.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Subtext of '08
What do we know about voters' desires after watching them winnow down a score of presidential candidates to three?
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Obama Mystique
Maria Shriver, the First Lady of California, whose husband is backing McCain, comes out for Obama.
Alma Rangel, the First Lady of Harlem, whose husband, Congressman Charlie Rangel is backing Hillary Clinton, comes out for Obama.
Susan Eisenhower, whose grandfather was a Republican legend, comes out for Obama.
Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, the Senator from Missouri, the Governor of Kansas... The list of prominent women who are choosing Obama over the potential first woman president keeps growing.
Last month, one of the icons of the Movement, Gloria Steinem, argued for the election of Hillary Clinton in a New York Times OpEd piece, asserting "the sex barrier (is) not taken as seriously as the racial one."
But her counterpart who started it all with "The Feminine Mystique," might not agree. If she were still alive, Betty Friedan would be out there for Obama.
In 1968, Friedan and I were working together for Eugene McCarthy to stop the war in Vietnam. She would not be likely to back Hillary Clinton, who voted to start the one in Iraq, over Barack Obama, who spoke out against starting it.
There are times when bloodshed trumps both gender and race.
Alma Rangel, the First Lady of Harlem, whose husband, Congressman Charlie Rangel is backing Hillary Clinton, comes out for Obama.
Susan Eisenhower, whose grandfather was a Republican legend, comes out for Obama.
Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, the Senator from Missouri, the Governor of Kansas... The list of prominent women who are choosing Obama over the potential first woman president keeps growing.
Last month, one of the icons of the Movement, Gloria Steinem, argued for the election of Hillary Clinton in a New York Times OpEd piece, asserting "the sex barrier (is) not taken as seriously as the racial one."
But her counterpart who started it all with "The Feminine Mystique," might not agree. If she were still alive, Betty Friedan would be out there for Obama.
In 1968, Friedan and I were working together for Eugene McCarthy to stop the war in Vietnam. She would not be likely to back Hillary Clinton, who voted to start the one in Iraq, over Barack Obama, who spoke out against starting it.
There are times when bloodshed trumps both gender and race.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
No Crying Shame
This is starting out as a year for tears.
Days after Hillary Clinton rescued her campaign by welling up in a New Hampshire coffee shop, George W. Bush wept yesterday at a Holocaust memorial in Israel, expressing sorrow over US failure in World War II to bomb Auschwitz and save some of the victims.
Sen. Clinton was clearly crying in response to her own stress, but the President's tears seem more complicated. Faced with visible evidence of more than a million murders, he turned from aerial views of the concentration camp and told Condoleeza Rice, "We should have bombed it." Before leaving, he wrote in the visitor's book, "God Bless Israel, George Bush."
For a man who believes in a world divided into Good and Evil, that is an understandable reaction, but is there something more in him than self-righteous certainty?
Last year, at a ceremony awarding a posthumous Medal of Honor to a Marine who threw himself over a grenade and saved the lives of two men in his unit, Bush wept as he said, “He was the guy who signed on for an extra two months in Iraq so he could stay with his squad...to make sure that everyone makes it home alive."
As we reach for change in American leadership, Bush's tears evoke sadness that his capacity to grieve for that Marine and his family as well as Holocaust victims never led him to join the majority of those he serves who want to put an end to killing as the means of choice to make the world safer.
Now we know that Hillary Clinton can cry over herself, but will she or whoever else succeeds George Bush be truly committed to sparing American families tears in the years ahead?
Days after Hillary Clinton rescued her campaign by welling up in a New Hampshire coffee shop, George W. Bush wept yesterday at a Holocaust memorial in Israel, expressing sorrow over US failure in World War II to bomb Auschwitz and save some of the victims.
Sen. Clinton was clearly crying in response to her own stress, but the President's tears seem more complicated. Faced with visible evidence of more than a million murders, he turned from aerial views of the concentration camp and told Condoleeza Rice, "We should have bombed it." Before leaving, he wrote in the visitor's book, "God Bless Israel, George Bush."
For a man who believes in a world divided into Good and Evil, that is an understandable reaction, but is there something more in him than self-righteous certainty?
Last year, at a ceremony awarding a posthumous Medal of Honor to a Marine who threw himself over a grenade and saved the lives of two men in his unit, Bush wept as he said, “He was the guy who signed on for an extra two months in Iraq so he could stay with his squad...to make sure that everyone makes it home alive."
As we reach for change in American leadership, Bush's tears evoke sadness that his capacity to grieve for that Marine and his family as well as Holocaust victims never led him to join the majority of those he serves who want to put an end to killing as the means of choice to make the world safer.
Now we know that Hillary Clinton can cry over herself, but will she or whoever else succeeds George Bush be truly committed to sparing American families tears in the years ahead?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Winnowing the Fields in Iowa
As they get ready to do whatever it is they do, Iowans look more like they are picking prize livestock at a fair than choosing the next Leader of the Free World.
Unlike the Congressional elections of November 2006, there is less talk about Iraq, government corruption or a worrisome economy than about the candidates' character, style and commitment to "change."
Getting supporters among a fraction of the state's voters to caucus sites in the freezing cold, winning over non-supporters to become their fallback choices and placing a strong second, third or fourth are the means by which candidates will leave Iowa with a perceived victory or defeat.
They have a curious way of winnowing the fields in this heartland state.
Unlike the Congressional elections of November 2006, there is less talk about Iraq, government corruption or a worrisome economy than about the candidates' character, style and commitment to "change."
Getting supporters among a fraction of the state's voters to caucus sites in the freezing cold, winning over non-supporters to become their fallback choices and placing a strong second, third or fourth are the means by which candidates will leave Iowa with a perceived victory or defeat.
They have a curious way of winnowing the fields in this heartland state.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Iraq: Too Dangerous to Cover
The Surge may be making Iraq safer, but not for those reporting it. Eight out of ten journalists say the war is now harder to cover than it was when they started working there.
From an October survey of 111 journalists in 29 news organizations, the Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes: "They believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived."
Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, local staff do the face-to-face reporting, and they can't carry any equipment, not even notebooks, that might identify them as working for American media out of fear of being killed. Some don't even tell their families.
According to one print journalist, "The dangers can’t be overstated. It’s been an ambush--two staff killed, one wounded--various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure).”
A broadcast editor reported: "It's dangerous and frustrating. You want to go out and cover stories, but you can't because of the threat of kidnapping or worse. It's hard to hear commentators back home say, 'The media isn't covering the full story.' Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not bias. When journalists cannot cover a playground being rebuilt because it's too dangerous to travel around the city, then that playground is not the primary story."
Politicians, media critics and journalism students, take note.
From an October survey of 111 journalists in 29 news organizations, the Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes: "They believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived."
Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, local staff do the face-to-face reporting, and they can't carry any equipment, not even notebooks, that might identify them as working for American media out of fear of being killed. Some don't even tell their families.
According to one print journalist, "The dangers can’t be overstated. It’s been an ambush--two staff killed, one wounded--various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure).”
A broadcast editor reported: "It's dangerous and frustrating. You want to go out and cover stories, but you can't because of the threat of kidnapping or worse. It's hard to hear commentators back home say, 'The media isn't covering the full story.' Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not bias. When journalists cannot cover a playground being rebuilt because it's too dangerous to travel around the city, then that playground is not the primary story."
Politicians, media critics and journalism students, take note.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Energizer Bunny of Baghdad Grifters
If you wanted to cram all the Bush Administration's folly, stupidity and inability to learn into the story of one person, it would be Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who milked the U.S. for millions, lied us into the war and now is a key figure in helping Prime Minister al Maliki and Gen. Petraeus put Iraq back together.
His new job is to press the central government to use gains from the Surge to deliver better electricity, health, education and security services to Baghdad neighborhoods.
Never mind that, as late as this summer, he was sabotaging U.S. plans for de-Bathification and spying for Iran, today Chalabi "is an important part of the process," according to Col. Steven Boylan, Petraeus' spokesman. "He has a lot of energy."
During the runup to the war, Chalabi was promoted by Neo-Cons as the “George Washington of Iraq.” A fugitive from Jordan after being convicted of bank fraud, he told the Pentagon all about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda for which we paid $33 million over four years. None of it turned out to be true.
Nonetheless, he stayed on the U.S. payroll until 2004. About that time, we learned Chalabi was selling information to Iran, letting them know that one of our sources of Iranian intelligence was a broken code used by their spy services.
Now he is devoting all that "energy" into helping us put the pieces of Iraq back together. If Petraeus and al Maliki have him over to lunch to discuss his progress, they had better count the silverware before he leaves.
His new job is to press the central government to use gains from the Surge to deliver better electricity, health, education and security services to Baghdad neighborhoods.
Never mind that, as late as this summer, he was sabotaging U.S. plans for de-Bathification and spying for Iran, today Chalabi "is an important part of the process," according to Col. Steven Boylan, Petraeus' spokesman. "He has a lot of energy."
During the runup to the war, Chalabi was promoted by Neo-Cons as the “George Washington of Iraq.” A fugitive from Jordan after being convicted of bank fraud, he told the Pentagon all about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda for which we paid $33 million over four years. None of it turned out to be true.
Nonetheless, he stayed on the U.S. payroll until 2004. About that time, we learned Chalabi was selling information to Iran, letting them know that one of our sources of Iranian intelligence was a broken code used by their spy services.
Now he is devoting all that "energy" into helping us put the pieces of Iraq back together. If Petraeus and al Maliki have him over to lunch to discuss his progress, they had better count the silverware before he leaves.
Spies, Secrets and Sexy Women
Mata Hari would have been mortified, and James Bond might have been stirred, even shaken. Here last night was Valerie Plame, the kind of elegant woman you meet at a Washington cocktail party, talking to Jon Stewart about what the CIA has redacted from her new book in a section about breast-feeding her baby.
Spying is not what it used to be and, from newly released figures, getting more costly and complicated all the time. This year the government is spending $43.5 billion on spy services, up from $26.6 billion a decade ago, according to Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence.
What's more, since 9/11, most of it has been outsourced to civilian contractors in what amounts to a Blackwatering of national spy operations.
The Washington Post has quoted a former senior Pentagon intelligence official about the difficulty of military efforts in Iraq to provide human intelligence sources to forces that rotate out after tours of a single year. "That is hardly enough time to develop serious, dependable Iraqi sources," he said.
As with so much of what goes on in our Iraq adventure, we have no way of knowing who is being paid how much to do what to whom. Are we employing exotic dancers to seduce officials, as Mata Hari presumably did during World War I? Or are most of our spies office-bound matrons like Valerie Plame Wilson?
Unless or until Dick Cheney gets teed off at one of their husbands, we may never know.
Spying is not what it used to be and, from newly released figures, getting more costly and complicated all the time. This year the government is spending $43.5 billion on spy services, up from $26.6 billion a decade ago, according to Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence.
What's more, since 9/11, most of it has been outsourced to civilian contractors in what amounts to a Blackwatering of national spy operations.
The Washington Post has quoted a former senior Pentagon intelligence official about the difficulty of military efforts in Iraq to provide human intelligence sources to forces that rotate out after tours of a single year. "That is hardly enough time to develop serious, dependable Iraqi sources," he said.
As with so much of what goes on in our Iraq adventure, we have no way of knowing who is being paid how much to do what to whom. Are we employing exotic dancers to seduce officials, as Mata Hari presumably did during World War I? Or are most of our spies office-bound matrons like Valerie Plame Wilson?
Unless or until Dick Cheney gets teed off at one of their husbands, we may never know.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Is This a Great Country or What?
In Washington, our Congress has settled in to business as usual now that the Surge is going so well. Democrats are overjoyed at news of Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, while Republicans are fresh from the triumph of sliming a brain-injured 12-year-old boy to make sure he and others like him don’t rip us off by getting health care insurance.
In Iraq today, other people acting in my name and yours killed six women and nine children during an air and ground attack on senior Al Qaeda leaders. We issued a statement of regret that “civilians are hurt or killed while Coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, AP reports, “has recently confronted top American commander Gen. David Petraeus about what he sees as overly aggressive U.S. tactics that harm innocent civilians, according to Iraqi officials.”
Last Friday, a pre-dawn U.S. raid on Khalis, a Shiite city north of Baghdad, killed 25 people when troops called in air strikes while hunting suspected smugglers of arms from Iran to Baghdad. Village leaders said the victims included civilians, but the military insisted the 25 killed were militants.
Meanwhile, Shiites and Sunnis are reported to be making no progress toward national reconciliation. But the Surge is working just fine, isn’t it?
We can all go on getting Halloween costumes for the kids and maybe driving somewhere for a little leaf-peeping.
In Iraq today, other people acting in my name and yours killed six women and nine children during an air and ground attack on senior Al Qaeda leaders. We issued a statement of regret that “civilians are hurt or killed while Coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, AP reports, “has recently confronted top American commander Gen. David Petraeus about what he sees as overly aggressive U.S. tactics that harm innocent civilians, according to Iraqi officials.”
Last Friday, a pre-dawn U.S. raid on Khalis, a Shiite city north of Baghdad, killed 25 people when troops called in air strikes while hunting suspected smugglers of arms from Iran to Baghdad. Village leaders said the victims included civilians, but the military insisted the 25 killed were militants.
Meanwhile, Shiites and Sunnis are reported to be making no progress toward national reconciliation. But the Surge is working just fine, isn’t it?
We can all go on getting Halloween costumes for the kids and maybe driving somewhere for a little leaf-peeping.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Buying Lives: Army Ups the Ante
In the past three weeks, more than 6,000 U. S. Army captains have accepted payments of $25,000 to $35,000 to serve three more years.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates approved the incentives last month as a temporary measure to retain “a generation of junior and mid-level officers and NCOs who have been tested in battle like none other in decades."
The money is paltry compared to the billions involved in fighting the war in Iraq, but it sheds light on the human costs of our continuing presence there.
"In the Army there has never been anything like this in memory," said Col. Paul Aswell, director of officer policy for Army personnel. "The bonuses are...a measure of payback to the family. They get this windfall to ease some of the pain of service in this environment."
The Washington Post reports a Brigadier General’s comment: "For a young family, these captains have known nothing but war and nonstop deployments. No amount of money can compensate me for missing...my daughter's first play.”
No taxpayer will begrudge this “windfall” for those who pay the real price for prolonging a pointless war, but anyone with financial qualms might want to compare an Army captain’s salary of up to $60,000 a year with the $445,000 it takes to keep a Blackwater guard there.
Honorable service is much cheaper to buy than the efforts of those who besmirch the nation’s reputation by killing innocent civilians.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates approved the incentives last month as a temporary measure to retain “a generation of junior and mid-level officers and NCOs who have been tested in battle like none other in decades."
The money is paltry compared to the billions involved in fighting the war in Iraq, but it sheds light on the human costs of our continuing presence there.
"In the Army there has never been anything like this in memory," said Col. Paul Aswell, director of officer policy for Army personnel. "The bonuses are...a measure of payback to the family. They get this windfall to ease some of the pain of service in this environment."
The Washington Post reports a Brigadier General’s comment: "For a young family, these captains have known nothing but war and nonstop deployments. No amount of money can compensate me for missing...my daughter's first play.”
No taxpayer will begrudge this “windfall” for those who pay the real price for prolonging a pointless war, but anyone with financial qualms might want to compare an Army captain’s salary of up to $60,000 a year with the $445,000 it takes to keep a Blackwater guard there.
Honorable service is much cheaper to buy than the efforts of those who besmirch the nation’s reputation by killing innocent civilians.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
War Over War Movies
Before Vietnam, war movies were either gung-ho patriotic starring John Wayne or philosophically anti-war, starting with “All Quiet on the Western Front.”
This week the Los Angeles Times has been OpEding an argument prompted by a conservative’s contention that today’s Hollywood “stakes out an anti-victory position on the current war in Iraq, continuing its deplorable 40-year streak of working against the United States' strategic objectives at a time of war.”
That’s a mouthful of accusation: 40 years of celluloid treason, and most Americans failed to notice. While there are legitimate questions about Brian DePalma’s latest opus, they don’t begin to support a collective indictment of Hollywood film-makers as disloyal to their country.
Looking back at decades of the best war movies, from “Paths of Glory” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai” to “Saving Private Ryan” and “Flags of Our Fathers,” what’s most striking is how apolitical they have been, evoking horror over the brutality, hypocrisy and waste of lives and/or celebrating the bloody gallantry of young people under fire.
Until now, even in time of war, serious film-makers were not propagandists with “strategic objectives” but artists trying to get at universal truths.
Just before Iraq, a number of conservative contributors to National Review named as their favorite war movie “Patton,” the 1970 biopic of America’s red-white-and-blue World War II general, co-written by Francis Ford Coppola.
Seven years later, Coppola made “Apocalypse Now,” which ideologues would see as a savage indictment of our involvement in Vietnam.
But both were made years after the wars were over and neither was intended as a political statement, any more than “The Godfather,” which came between the two.
Hollywood people have always had strong political beliefs, but few expressed them during working hours. There was too much money at stake.
This week the Los Angeles Times has been OpEding an argument prompted by a conservative’s contention that today’s Hollywood “stakes out an anti-victory position on the current war in Iraq, continuing its deplorable 40-year streak of working against the United States' strategic objectives at a time of war.”
That’s a mouthful of accusation: 40 years of celluloid treason, and most Americans failed to notice. While there are legitimate questions about Brian DePalma’s latest opus, they don’t begin to support a collective indictment of Hollywood film-makers as disloyal to their country.
Looking back at decades of the best war movies, from “Paths of Glory” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai” to “Saving Private Ryan” and “Flags of Our Fathers,” what’s most striking is how apolitical they have been, evoking horror over the brutality, hypocrisy and waste of lives and/or celebrating the bloody gallantry of young people under fire.
Until now, even in time of war, serious film-makers were not propagandists with “strategic objectives” but artists trying to get at universal truths.
Just before Iraq, a number of conservative contributors to National Review named as their favorite war movie “Patton,” the 1970 biopic of America’s red-white-and-blue World War II general, co-written by Francis Ford Coppola.
Seven years later, Coppola made “Apocalypse Now,” which ideologues would see as a savage indictment of our involvement in Vietnam.
But both were made years after the wars were over and neither was intended as a political statement, any more than “The Godfather,” which came between the two.
Hollywood people have always had strong political beliefs, but few expressed them during working hours. There was too much money at stake.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Bush-Hunting Season Opens
Next week the President officially becomes a lame duck. One of his staunchest Senate supporters, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, has turned on the issue of children’s health insurance and is actively fighting to defeat him.
“We’re going to try [to] convince people in the House to change their vote,” he said yesterday. “All I can do is make phone calls.”
Not quite “Here I stand, I can do no other,” but 18 Senate Republicans defected from Bush dogma yesterday by voting for the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill the President has promised to veto.
The 67-29 margin would override it, and two Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama and Biden, were not even there. The question now is whether another dozen House Republicans will join the 45 who broke ranks the other day.
The President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million in November 2000 but won the Supreme Court by 5-4 in December has translated that mandate into almost seven years of domination in Washington, but now servile Republicans in Congress are facing extinction next year if they persist in their fealty.
Under cover of Gen. Petraeus, they may hold out over Iraq, but denying children health coverage is quite another matter. The White House may compromise, but they have no experience at it.
Childrens do learn. Do Presidents?
“We’re going to try [to] convince people in the House to change their vote,” he said yesterday. “All I can do is make phone calls.”
Not quite “Here I stand, I can do no other,” but 18 Senate Republicans defected from Bush dogma yesterday by voting for the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill the President has promised to veto.
The 67-29 margin would override it, and two Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama and Biden, were not even there. The question now is whether another dozen House Republicans will join the 45 who broke ranks the other day.
The President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million in November 2000 but won the Supreme Court by 5-4 in December has translated that mandate into almost seven years of domination in Washington, but now servile Republicans in Congress are facing extinction next year if they persist in their fealty.
Under cover of Gen. Petraeus, they may hold out over Iraq, but denying children health coverage is quite another matter. The White House may compromise, but they have no experience at it.
Childrens do learn. Do Presidents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)