Getting America back
The oft-used term of bipartisanship is a fancy way of saying National Unity. Said another way, bipartisanship is just acting in our national interests vice lesser objectives such as party interests. And last in the most practical way, bipartisanship is just the process of allowing all major parties an opportunity to influence what will be, in the end, a final vote that does represent our national interest, or our common interest. In the most basic American terms, we should have a fair political fight, reach a decision, and go forward.
If the aforementioned sounds like it could be “Citizenship 101”, it may be. But the need for the class appears too obvious to many who perceive and even observe the lack of bipartisanship going on these days. In the natural rises and falls of society’s mannerisms, bipartisanship will ride the same kind of waves. But when the trend goes on for over a decade, then there is a systematic problem that is adverse to our National well-being and future. And we do have serious problems that demand solutions … social security and out of control government spending being two.
Most voting citizens have expected our elected public servants to get the message, and “do something about it”. Indeed, some think the 2006 congressional elections that replaced the House and Senate Republican majorities with the Democratic majorities sent that message. Either way, the message or the election results, things in fact seem worse now than before. So much for the public servants “doing something about it”. The problem is obviously bigger than they and their hired staffs. And whatever the reasons, lack of bipartisanship is adverse to our National interest, or our common interest.
And so now it is time for the voters to step in and take control of this issue. This will take work on the voter’s part. Voters must select those seeking public office who “walk the walk” on bipartisanship. “Talking the talk” is a too late political move. And if necessary, voters may have to even “find” such candidates who walk the walk. This is what is meant by work.
There are many suggested means to judge bipartisanship. One is to observe public servants who “cross the aisle” to work with and propose legislation that is inherently bipartisan in its conception. Another is to observe voting records comparing support for bipartisan bills as opposed to partisan bills. Another is to observe votes for rules that promote one or the other, bipartisanship or partisanship. And for the most cynical, using judgments as to “walking the walk” compared to “talking the talk” will always be useful. Notice nowhere is mentioned winning or losing. Just giving all sides a fair shake is all bipartisanship is about. Some might call it demonstrating an ability to govern.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Cynics need not apply
Many feel like the Reagan joke about the room full of horse manure and the certain optimism there must be a pony in there somewhere. Yes, the state of the world, and maybe the USA, is like the room full of manure. But there is a pony in there somewhere, and it is going to take hard work to find it and then turn it loose. Some dread this constant need for work, and some consider it the salvation that must be both appreciated and pursued. And some think that the pursuit of their values along with doing the political basics is the way it always has been … just some times are better than others.
The world’s views seems to fall into two categories these days. One is the realist status quo view, mostly benign neglect, that sees the value of keeping the vast masses of the world’s population in perpetual poverties of food, health, education, and even servitude. After all, if the vast masses lived to the life style standards of the first world peoples, at a minimum environmental collapse would come to the world. And their long repressed political oppressions would probably assert themselves in some frenzy of retribution. The second world view sees the power of the people, if given a chance, to make things better for their progeny. In this view, better is in the eye of the very local beholder. And the beholder is more likely to think tribe, than nation state. This view is full of uncertainty and fraught with potentionally frightening unknowns to those in both the third world and the first world. The only saving grace in this view is the belief that humans want to make things better for their families, mostly their progeny. And this view acknowledges that democracy of a sorts exists in many warlord tribes; and it is the higher level basics like security that are the real values in this view.
There is another auto-pilot type of view about the world. This view suggests we today are more like the former benign neglect view, and irretrievably being drawn towards the second power of the people view. In this case, those in the first world can get in front of the cause and influence it, or just hang around on the fringes.
Do we in the USA have to be dragged along in all this world stuff? Probably. But here is the good news for which cynics need not apply. We can elect political leaders who have the savvy to guide us in our national interests during the next fifty years. Does anyone think all leaders are created equal? Does anyone think Bush or Clinton (either one) are the equals of a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln? Does anyone have any faith in international bodies like the UN or the World Bank to help guide the world forward? And do many think there are still leaders like George Washington who will step up to the plate in this time of need, again? As always, the pony needs to be found and unleashed. And only we voters can find and elect that person to do so.
Many feel like the Reagan joke about the room full of horse manure and the certain optimism there must be a pony in there somewhere. Yes, the state of the world, and maybe the USA, is like the room full of manure. But there is a pony in there somewhere, and it is going to take hard work to find it and then turn it loose. Some dread this constant need for work, and some consider it the salvation that must be both appreciated and pursued. And some think that the pursuit of their values along with doing the political basics is the way it always has been … just some times are better than others.
The world’s views seems to fall into two categories these days. One is the realist status quo view, mostly benign neglect, that sees the value of keeping the vast masses of the world’s population in perpetual poverties of food, health, education, and even servitude. After all, if the vast masses lived to the life style standards of the first world peoples, at a minimum environmental collapse would come to the world. And their long repressed political oppressions would probably assert themselves in some frenzy of retribution. The second world view sees the power of the people, if given a chance, to make things better for their progeny. In this view, better is in the eye of the very local beholder. And the beholder is more likely to think tribe, than nation state. This view is full of uncertainty and fraught with potentionally frightening unknowns to those in both the third world and the first world. The only saving grace in this view is the belief that humans want to make things better for their families, mostly their progeny. And this view acknowledges that democracy of a sorts exists in many warlord tribes; and it is the higher level basics like security that are the real values in this view.
There is another auto-pilot type of view about the world. This view suggests we today are more like the former benign neglect view, and irretrievably being drawn towards the second power of the people view. In this case, those in the first world can get in front of the cause and influence it, or just hang around on the fringes.
Do we in the USA have to be dragged along in all this world stuff? Probably. But here is the good news for which cynics need not apply. We can elect political leaders who have the savvy to guide us in our national interests during the next fifty years. Does anyone think all leaders are created equal? Does anyone think Bush or Clinton (either one) are the equals of a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln? Does anyone have any faith in international bodies like the UN or the World Bank to help guide the world forward? And do many think there are still leaders like George Washington who will step up to the plate in this time of need, again? As always, the pony needs to be found and unleashed. And only we voters can find and elect that person to do so.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Reaching the point of too much national debt
Most understand that some national debt may be preferable. But as in most things in life, one can have too much of a good deal. One can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. Have we Americans reached that point, or even surpassed it? Are we voters just as guilty as our English ancestors when we accused them of taxation without representation? Is the analogy to our descendents getting the debt burden without being able to vote on it today appropriate?
One present day buzz word for too much national debt is “out of control federal spending”. This idea may not be too alarming, but the examples can be. One is the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that spends about $250 million for a bridge that benefits less than 100 citizens, plus those that build the bridge. Another is a recent House bill to reimburse some Guam citizens for Japanese war crimes. On the face of it, this is absurd. In both cases, the federal government does not collect enough taxes to pay for all this, so more borrowing to pay the bills goes on. Like in a marriage, one can argue what part of the income does pay what bills, so some of it is covered while some of it is wasteful, or can be postponed. But in the aggregate, the federal government spends more than it collects, and it borrows to pay the total bills.
One idea that should be a cause for concern to all patriots is simple. When voters learn they can vote themselves benefits and monies from the public treasury without “apparent” consequences, and their elected public servants learn to feed this most despicable human tendency, then American society has entered a slippery slope from which recovery is difficult at best, and future ruin is more probable. This situation is analogous to “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”.
Most think voters and taxpayers of today and tomorrow will willingly go into debt as part of defending our country and way of life in a war. Now that is a national emergency. But when congressmen and congresswomen create new categories for emergencies that are less than that of war, and allow them to spend to where borrowing is required, then a “tipping point” has been passed.
Of course the usual arguments are that this spending is for things that voters want, and the spending benefits voters, and also the spending is a jobs program that benefits some citizens. And from the Congress’s point of view, if it keeps getting them elected, then that is good too … for Congress. The usual line follows something like “one man’s pork is another man’s good idea”. And as long as people keep lending money to finance all this excess spending, that is fine, especially if the debt is owned mostly by Americans who do receive the interest payments. A lesser line sometimes heard is that of a political strategy, often attributed to Reagan. If he gave the Congress enough rope to overspend, with him signing the spending legislation, then eventually it would catch up and prompt some spending restrictions and control in the future. There is some reason to think this theory may have some basis in history.
The most difficult thing for a citizen who votes and is trying to sort out this subject of “possible out of control spending” is, well, trying to figure it all out. The arguments and facts are all over the place, some academic, some just theoretical, and some more practical. Who knows just what to believe? Here is one chart about what to believe.
This chart, even if it is not completely accurate, points out the percentage of our American national debt that has been loaned as of 2005 by Social Security. Anyone can look at their pay stub and know how much of their income, and their company’s income, has been collected and sent to the treasury just during this pay period. It’s a big percentage, and a big number, and that is the point of this post. Have we as a Nation gone too far in borrowing from our social security future with all its promises. Have we “killed the goose that lays the golden egg”? Let’s take the theory out of this and just be practical. Social security is not a retirement plan, though some try use it that way. But the social security benefits (payments) are enormous now and will grow dramatically as the population bulge known as the baby boom generation steps up to the trough for their time of benefits. And there is not a penny in the bank to pay them, except promises to do so. Almost all know Social Security has always been a pay as you go system, so those getting benefits in the 1940’s for example got more from the system than they ever paid in. As long as America had over 30 workers supporting one beneficiary, this social compact worked, and it still works today. But the trend lines due to demographics and uncontrolled spending are reducing this ratio to much less than 5 to 1, that is 5 workers and their companies paying enough taxes to honor all the obligations promised earlier by our own elected representatives. Many married couples set enough money aside to tide themselves over. It appears our federal government has not been as smart.
The potential impacts are all very scary. Our descendents, all future taxpaying workers if healthy, may object to the taxes they have to pay just to meet the earlier promised social security obligations, and for which they could not vote at the time. Of such circumstances are born revolutions. And then perhaps we’ll revert to the older fashioned social security problem solution … birth rates and having more kids to take care of ancestors. The last possible impact is also scary … that of the lost faith in a system that collapses like a house of cards that even drags down those retirement plans and promises when they go broke or underfunded.
Fortunately, “chicken little” may not be alive and well. We citizens and voters can step in, if we choose to do so, and act in our own behalf. The politicians will have to follow if they want to stay in office. This is a National Security issue, a common issue, and is so important to our national future that one hopes we act. To not do so is to pass the decisions to our progeny, who like us, will act in their behalf. We may not like what they decide.
Most understand that some national debt may be preferable. But as in most things in life, one can have too much of a good deal. One can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. Have we Americans reached that point, or even surpassed it? Are we voters just as guilty as our English ancestors when we accused them of taxation without representation? Is the analogy to our descendents getting the debt burden without being able to vote on it today appropriate?
One present day buzz word for too much national debt is “out of control federal spending”. This idea may not be too alarming, but the examples can be. One is the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that spends about $250 million for a bridge that benefits less than 100 citizens, plus those that build the bridge. Another is a recent House bill to reimburse some Guam citizens for Japanese war crimes. On the face of it, this is absurd. In both cases, the federal government does not collect enough taxes to pay for all this, so more borrowing to pay the bills goes on. Like in a marriage, one can argue what part of the income does pay what bills, so some of it is covered while some of it is wasteful, or can be postponed. But in the aggregate, the federal government spends more than it collects, and it borrows to pay the total bills.
One idea that should be a cause for concern to all patriots is simple. When voters learn they can vote themselves benefits and monies from the public treasury without “apparent” consequences, and their elected public servants learn to feed this most despicable human tendency, then American society has entered a slippery slope from which recovery is difficult at best, and future ruin is more probable. This situation is analogous to “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”.
Most think voters and taxpayers of today and tomorrow will willingly go into debt as part of defending our country and way of life in a war. Now that is a national emergency. But when congressmen and congresswomen create new categories for emergencies that are less than that of war, and allow them to spend to where borrowing is required, then a “tipping point” has been passed.
Of course the usual arguments are that this spending is for things that voters want, and the spending benefits voters, and also the spending is a jobs program that benefits some citizens. And from the Congress’s point of view, if it keeps getting them elected, then that is good too … for Congress. The usual line follows something like “one man’s pork is another man’s good idea”. And as long as people keep lending money to finance all this excess spending, that is fine, especially if the debt is owned mostly by Americans who do receive the interest payments. A lesser line sometimes heard is that of a political strategy, often attributed to Reagan. If he gave the Congress enough rope to overspend, with him signing the spending legislation, then eventually it would catch up and prompt some spending restrictions and control in the future. There is some reason to think this theory may have some basis in history.
The most difficult thing for a citizen who votes and is trying to sort out this subject of “possible out of control spending” is, well, trying to figure it all out. The arguments and facts are all over the place, some academic, some just theoretical, and some more practical. Who knows just what to believe? Here is one chart about what to believe.
This chart, even if it is not completely accurate, points out the percentage of our American national debt that has been loaned as of 2005 by Social Security. Anyone can look at their pay stub and know how much of their income, and their company’s income, has been collected and sent to the treasury just during this pay period. It’s a big percentage, and a big number, and that is the point of this post. Have we as a Nation gone too far in borrowing from our social security future with all its promises. Have we “killed the goose that lays the golden egg”? Let’s take the theory out of this and just be practical. Social security is not a retirement plan, though some try use it that way. But the social security benefits (payments) are enormous now and will grow dramatically as the population bulge known as the baby boom generation steps up to the trough for their time of benefits. And there is not a penny in the bank to pay them, except promises to do so. Almost all know Social Security has always been a pay as you go system, so those getting benefits in the 1940’s for example got more from the system than they ever paid in. As long as America had over 30 workers supporting one beneficiary, this social compact worked, and it still works today. But the trend lines due to demographics and uncontrolled spending are reducing this ratio to much less than 5 to 1, that is 5 workers and their companies paying enough taxes to honor all the obligations promised earlier by our own elected representatives. Many married couples set enough money aside to tide themselves over. It appears our federal government has not been as smart.
The potential impacts are all very scary. Our descendents, all future taxpaying workers if healthy, may object to the taxes they have to pay just to meet the earlier promised social security obligations, and for which they could not vote at the time. Of such circumstances are born revolutions. And then perhaps we’ll revert to the older fashioned social security problem solution … birth rates and having more kids to take care of ancestors. The last possible impact is also scary … that of the lost faith in a system that collapses like a house of cards that even drags down those retirement plans and promises when they go broke or underfunded.
Fortunately, “chicken little” may not be alive and well. We citizens and voters can step in, if we choose to do so, and act in our own behalf. The politicians will have to follow if they want to stay in office. This is a National Security issue, a common issue, and is so important to our national future that one hopes we act. To not do so is to pass the decisions to our progeny, who like us, will act in their behalf. We may not like what they decide.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Pretending chic and being chic
There have been too many times in America’s recent past where the self appointed and mutually anointed have mixed apples and oranges, much to their chagrin. When it seemed chic to invite Black Panthers to trendy cocktail parties, and advertise it socially and politically, they did so … for a short period of time. How much of this is going on today, decades later? Very little, most suspect. When the Palestinians became a group for the first time in history, many Arabs probably quietly laughed at the idiocy of Arafat, an Egyptian, accepting a Nobel Peace Prize as a Palestinian. Yet the chic crowd invited him into their culture, though I suspect most mothers knew to lock up their sons from this sexual predator. And what seems so astounding these days is this happened in the US and in particular the Boston to DC corridor, a bastion of true American patriotism (in spite of all the chic images otherwise).
The most disappointing trend along this line is the values of the young people involved in mass media. Mass media includes printed media, TV, radio, and even blogs. It appears to many that they have been screwed in the worst sort of way by their educational experience. This includes the most basic ideas about values, debates, investigative reporting, and the most basic skills to honor this and go about that. And their teachers are the ones that screwed them. What was chic to their teachers is not necessarily so these days. But don’t expect many young younger media types to even have a hint of the idea, and discussion.
Fortunately many older types were indoctrinated to the idea of equal opportunity. Nowhere was equal outcome mentioned for any reasons, to include good intentions, mommy tracks, and upbringing. In the end, common sense and numbers, and the vote have balanced those with societal agendas who have tried to change us all. Those who have tried to outwit and out maneuver the voters have been on a losing tide of history, now going on for decades.
How inviting Black Panthers to a cocktail party could be chic is a given having read history. How inviting equal opportunity patriots from throughout the world to today’s chic cocktail parties is up for grabs. To not do so suggests a more deep societal cancer that must be ruthlessly excised. Fortunately, the patient is healthy, and a little nurturing will help a lot.
How chic “equal opportunity” should be. It is because it is chic, and so unusual in the world today. Its home bastion is the US. Until chic about equal opportunity can become like the cocktail parties that brought in the Black Panthers in the past, one hopes chic is more limited to the entertainment and paparazzi crowd with all its light intellectual weight and political influence.
There have been too many times in America’s recent past where the self appointed and mutually anointed have mixed apples and oranges, much to their chagrin. When it seemed chic to invite Black Panthers to trendy cocktail parties, and advertise it socially and politically, they did so … for a short period of time. How much of this is going on today, decades later? Very little, most suspect. When the Palestinians became a group for the first time in history, many Arabs probably quietly laughed at the idiocy of Arafat, an Egyptian, accepting a Nobel Peace Prize as a Palestinian. Yet the chic crowd invited him into their culture, though I suspect most mothers knew to lock up their sons from this sexual predator. And what seems so astounding these days is this happened in the US and in particular the Boston to DC corridor, a bastion of true American patriotism (in spite of all the chic images otherwise).
The most disappointing trend along this line is the values of the young people involved in mass media. Mass media includes printed media, TV, radio, and even blogs. It appears to many that they have been screwed in the worst sort of way by their educational experience. This includes the most basic ideas about values, debates, investigative reporting, and the most basic skills to honor this and go about that. And their teachers are the ones that screwed them. What was chic to their teachers is not necessarily so these days. But don’t expect many young younger media types to even have a hint of the idea, and discussion.
Fortunately many older types were indoctrinated to the idea of equal opportunity. Nowhere was equal outcome mentioned for any reasons, to include good intentions, mommy tracks, and upbringing. In the end, common sense and numbers, and the vote have balanced those with societal agendas who have tried to change us all. Those who have tried to outwit and out maneuver the voters have been on a losing tide of history, now going on for decades.
How inviting Black Panthers to a cocktail party could be chic is a given having read history. How inviting equal opportunity patriots from throughout the world to today’s chic cocktail parties is up for grabs. To not do so suggests a more deep societal cancer that must be ruthlessly excised. Fortunately, the patient is healthy, and a little nurturing will help a lot.
How chic “equal opportunity” should be. It is because it is chic, and so unusual in the world today. Its home bastion is the US. Until chic about equal opportunity can become like the cocktail parties that brought in the Black Panthers in the past, one hopes chic is more limited to the entertainment and paparazzi crowd with all its light intellectual weight and political influence.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Cherry picking history can be dangerous
History belongs to us all, not any one group or person.
Much as been written about the opportunities our political leaders had in the 1930’s to have nipped the coming world war in the bud. Comparisons to the Vietnam War come in as another war that could have been fought differently, in the conduct especially when applying principles. Now the analogies have been forwarded to include the rise of Islamic fascism and the attacks and recruiting throughout the world, with Iraq dragged in as part of Islamic fascism, and its own wars against its own humanity.
And all most of us want to do is wake up in the morning and do a good job, and trust our Family is safe in the most fundamental sort of way. This applied to our ancestors, also.
During the late 1930’s there were four Neutrality Acts passed by Congress and signed by the President that focused on our isolationism, that is to not let the US be entangled and dragged into another world war, especially on their terms. There were also lesser elements of pacifism, which in today’s terms might be called anti-war. That such laws were passed and signed by the President is little discussed today. And given that we did get involved in another world war, the attempts to legislate our way out failed. Sometimes it takes more than legislation in America to stop evil, or even nip it in the bud. In our case, it took a united nation, and sacrifice, to end it as quick as we could.
Vietnam can be construed to sound simpler. In the end, Vietnam was not worth dieing for in pursuit of our national interest. For history’s sake, it is worth noting that one of Nixon’s campaign planks was to get us out of Vietnam. And Congress did get involved in defunding Nixon’s method of getting out of the war, so one may argue Congress has been involved in the conduct of a war, during a war. Of course all this is muddled because it was never a declared war, an old fashioned historical principle, by the way.
Does any of this history help guide us today? The complicated answer is no. The simple answer is yes. But this is not a John Kerry answer, and it is not cherry picking history.
The American personality of being isolationist is still alive and well. But the idea is a two way street. We do not have to be tied down and dragged in by what others in the world think, and tell us what to do. We can be isolationist, and act in our own national interest, one and the same. So if we are attacked and recruited by some tribe and idea out of the 7th century, we can respond in our own isolationist way, the rest of the world be d**med.
We did such a thing in the late 1930’s with the Neutrality Acts. Unfortunately we could not legislate our way out of evil then. And efforts to legislate Nixon’s exit from Vietnam resulted in the decades of local misery and American unintended consequences. History suggests our prospects, if we do the same, are just as dismal today.
Fortunately, there is at least one alternative. It is called let the Executive run foreign policy, have the Congress fund it, and let the voters decide.
History belongs to us all, not any one group or person.
Much as been written about the opportunities our political leaders had in the 1930’s to have nipped the coming world war in the bud. Comparisons to the Vietnam War come in as another war that could have been fought differently, in the conduct especially when applying principles. Now the analogies have been forwarded to include the rise of Islamic fascism and the attacks and recruiting throughout the world, with Iraq dragged in as part of Islamic fascism, and its own wars against its own humanity.
And all most of us want to do is wake up in the morning and do a good job, and trust our Family is safe in the most fundamental sort of way. This applied to our ancestors, also.
During the late 1930’s there were four Neutrality Acts passed by Congress and signed by the President that focused on our isolationism, that is to not let the US be entangled and dragged into another world war, especially on their terms. There were also lesser elements of pacifism, which in today’s terms might be called anti-war. That such laws were passed and signed by the President is little discussed today. And given that we did get involved in another world war, the attempts to legislate our way out failed. Sometimes it takes more than legislation in America to stop evil, or even nip it in the bud. In our case, it took a united nation, and sacrifice, to end it as quick as we could.
Vietnam can be construed to sound simpler. In the end, Vietnam was not worth dieing for in pursuit of our national interest. For history’s sake, it is worth noting that one of Nixon’s campaign planks was to get us out of Vietnam. And Congress did get involved in defunding Nixon’s method of getting out of the war, so one may argue Congress has been involved in the conduct of a war, during a war. Of course all this is muddled because it was never a declared war, an old fashioned historical principle, by the way.
Does any of this history help guide us today? The complicated answer is no. The simple answer is yes. But this is not a John Kerry answer, and it is not cherry picking history.
The American personality of being isolationist is still alive and well. But the idea is a two way street. We do not have to be tied down and dragged in by what others in the world think, and tell us what to do. We can be isolationist, and act in our own national interest, one and the same. So if we are attacked and recruited by some tribe and idea out of the 7th century, we can respond in our own isolationist way, the rest of the world be d**med.
We did such a thing in the late 1930’s with the Neutrality Acts. Unfortunately we could not legislate our way out of evil then. And efforts to legislate Nixon’s exit from Vietnam resulted in the decades of local misery and American unintended consequences. History suggests our prospects, if we do the same, are just as dismal today.
Fortunately, there is at least one alternative. It is called let the Executive run foreign policy, have the Congress fund it, and let the voters decide.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Welcome to the third world, in the USA
It is an advantage to be just old enough to have caught the end of one trend, lived through another trend, and now be at the beginning of a third trend. This is about health care and public policy. It is about the mosquito and all the bad diseases that come with mosquitoes. It has been a quiet issue in the USA thanks to our older ancestors. Now it is a noisier issue thanks to our more immediate ancestors. It is noisy because people are becoming sick, and dieing, because of their public policies, today. Until one gets sick from malaria, or west nile virus, it may seem like an academic issue. For thousands, soon to be millions, it is not.
For the uninitiated, mosquitoes breed in warm stagnant waters in the equatorial areas, and this includes the coastal plain of the USA. And they bring diseases like malaria, and west nile virus. In the USA, malaria was a terrible disease in the South until recently, like the 1930’s. Then our government had an aggressive campaign to drain the wetlands in order to stop mosquito breeding. In one local area in South Carolina, 17,000 acres of upland had 63 miles of ditches cut to drain the wetlands. Incredibly, our government is now paying money to landowners to restore these same wetlands. Enough deaths should bring this policy to an end.
A very big complicating factor was Rachel Carson’s 1960’s book “Silent Spring”. Well it turns out her science was poor, and it has been superceded by the advantages of time; and bottom line, DDT is back in. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes DDT in Africa, and I hope soon, in the USA.
So where does this all lead. As long as environmentalists promote wetlands the future from a disease point of view is dim. Thousands in the USA, and maybe millions, will begin to suffer and die from malaria and even west nile virus. And the environmentalists still want to take away our DDT option already recommended by WHO. Are we stupid or something?
It is an advantage to be just old enough to have caught the end of one trend, lived through another trend, and now be at the beginning of a third trend. This is about health care and public policy. It is about the mosquito and all the bad diseases that come with mosquitoes. It has been a quiet issue in the USA thanks to our older ancestors. Now it is a noisier issue thanks to our more immediate ancestors. It is noisy because people are becoming sick, and dieing, because of their public policies, today. Until one gets sick from malaria, or west nile virus, it may seem like an academic issue. For thousands, soon to be millions, it is not.
For the uninitiated, mosquitoes breed in warm stagnant waters in the equatorial areas, and this includes the coastal plain of the USA. And they bring diseases like malaria, and west nile virus. In the USA, malaria was a terrible disease in the South until recently, like the 1930’s. Then our government had an aggressive campaign to drain the wetlands in order to stop mosquito breeding. In one local area in South Carolina, 17,000 acres of upland had 63 miles of ditches cut to drain the wetlands. Incredibly, our government is now paying money to landowners to restore these same wetlands. Enough deaths should bring this policy to an end.
A very big complicating factor was Rachel Carson’s 1960’s book “Silent Spring”. Well it turns out her science was poor, and it has been superceded by the advantages of time; and bottom line, DDT is back in. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) promotes DDT in Africa, and I hope soon, in the USA.
So where does this all lead. As long as environmentalists promote wetlands the future from a disease point of view is dim. Thousands in the USA, and maybe millions, will begin to suffer and die from malaria and even west nile virus. And the environmentalists still want to take away our DDT option already recommended by WHO. Are we stupid or something?
Dressing up a pig
We can put a pretty skirt and lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The analogy to American culture and society and politics seems similar. And why are we focused on a pig when more noble creatures come to mind that we should be working on … say a Kentucky Derby horse.
Our fixation on the lightweights and lowlifes of Hollywood and same is astounding. When Anna Nicole Smith continued to get coverage long after her death, this was a case of dressing up a pig if I have ever seen one as her coverage beat out Iraq too often. Forget all the other foreign trouble spots that do affect our future.
When affirmative action became quotas here we went again. It was more important to provide an illusion of equal opportunity than the real thing, equal opportunity. And from the customer point of view, say a medical patient, all most wanted was professional care and advice. If ever there were a case for a Kentucky Derby horse objective, it is in the training of our medical doctors and nurses. Skirts on a pig just will not do when it comes to our health care.
Now it is reported that Toyota builds more cars and trucks than GM for the first time in history. But then Toyota is run by engineers while GM is run by marketers. Don’t blame the workers, blame the leadership over decades. One focused on building a superior pig or better, while one focused on dressing up the pig. Guess which one is which.
The American political world seems similar, and it is not party oriented, as in Republican or Democrat. One part of America wants to try build a more perfect union. Another part wants to provide the illusion of a more perfect union if the first is just too hard to achieve. This idea applies to most all of our National problems, domestic and foreign. The political equivalent to dressing up the pig is called band aids and incremental fixes or even another study. The more cynical call it putting heads in the sand, like an ostrich, until the house of cards finally collapses on our descendents. The political equivalent to trying to build a more perfect union is try legislate on social security, immigration, and national and homeland defense. And we know how politically risky it is for those who want to avoid political risk … at all costs, to include our descendents’ costs. For those who are business plan oriented, this is an opportunity just waiting to be exploited. For others, dressing up the pig still seems to be the national choice, so far.
Like the rest of governments and institutions, mass media has allowed itself to be caught up in the priority of dressing up the pig, as opposed to real change. That the thousands, maybe millions, of young people in this industry have been hoodwinked will only come out over time. What a shame, because by then they will be older and perhaps bitter by their experience when they had a chance, and they were led to dressing up their ancestors pig as their application of their energies.
Consumers and voters still do have choices on whether or not to dress up the pig. WalMart under Sam Walton always suggested by shopping with them and their policy of selling American goods if they could, and they did, we were helping fellow Americans. I bought this line, right or wrong. Now WalMart seems like a front store for Chinese manufactured goods at a reasonable quality and price, but it is not the same. And some of the consumer choices are more horizontal. For example most of the poor quality (lowlife) movies coming out of Hollywood will not get my money from any source. One can call it voting often with ones pocket book.
Some of us want the real thing. Where’s the beef? Here’s where the voters assert themselves.
We can put a pretty skirt and lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The analogy to American culture and society and politics seems similar. And why are we focused on a pig when more noble creatures come to mind that we should be working on … say a Kentucky Derby horse.
Our fixation on the lightweights and lowlifes of Hollywood and same is astounding. When Anna Nicole Smith continued to get coverage long after her death, this was a case of dressing up a pig if I have ever seen one as her coverage beat out Iraq too often. Forget all the other foreign trouble spots that do affect our future.
When affirmative action became quotas here we went again. It was more important to provide an illusion of equal opportunity than the real thing, equal opportunity. And from the customer point of view, say a medical patient, all most wanted was professional care and advice. If ever there were a case for a Kentucky Derby horse objective, it is in the training of our medical doctors and nurses. Skirts on a pig just will not do when it comes to our health care.
Now it is reported that Toyota builds more cars and trucks than GM for the first time in history. But then Toyota is run by engineers while GM is run by marketers. Don’t blame the workers, blame the leadership over decades. One focused on building a superior pig or better, while one focused on dressing up the pig. Guess which one is which.
The American political world seems similar, and it is not party oriented, as in Republican or Democrat. One part of America wants to try build a more perfect union. Another part wants to provide the illusion of a more perfect union if the first is just too hard to achieve. This idea applies to most all of our National problems, domestic and foreign. The political equivalent to dressing up the pig is called band aids and incremental fixes or even another study. The more cynical call it putting heads in the sand, like an ostrich, until the house of cards finally collapses on our descendents. The political equivalent to trying to build a more perfect union is try legislate on social security, immigration, and national and homeland defense. And we know how politically risky it is for those who want to avoid political risk … at all costs, to include our descendents’ costs. For those who are business plan oriented, this is an opportunity just waiting to be exploited. For others, dressing up the pig still seems to be the national choice, so far.
Like the rest of governments and institutions, mass media has allowed itself to be caught up in the priority of dressing up the pig, as opposed to real change. That the thousands, maybe millions, of young people in this industry have been hoodwinked will only come out over time. What a shame, because by then they will be older and perhaps bitter by their experience when they had a chance, and they were led to dressing up their ancestors pig as their application of their energies.
Consumers and voters still do have choices on whether or not to dress up the pig. WalMart under Sam Walton always suggested by shopping with them and their policy of selling American goods if they could, and they did, we were helping fellow Americans. I bought this line, right or wrong. Now WalMart seems like a front store for Chinese manufactured goods at a reasonable quality and price, but it is not the same. And some of the consumer choices are more horizontal. For example most of the poor quality (lowlife) movies coming out of Hollywood will not get my money from any source. One can call it voting often with ones pocket book.
Some of us want the real thing. Where’s the beef? Here’s where the voters assert themselves.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The China factor
Let we Americans murder and maim and kill in cars 50,000 people a year and that is pretty bad. But let poor innocent pets suffer from human degradation, and that is intolerable. The introduction of poison into some of our pet food supply is just such an example. And it has all the elements of a Hollywood cover-up to include dead pets, Chinese delay in the visas for American inspectors to China, and the most lame excuses out of China. It makes the present process stink to high heaven, and exposes more embarrassing gaffs on our end of government certification, especially in organic food certification out of China. All this will prompt another cross-over point for we Americans in dealing across our borders.
Americans are among the tolerant groups of people in the world. This applies to the ideas of globalization and fair trade when it adversely affects the older parts of local communities. But the old American expression also comes to mind: “Don’t pee down my leg and tell me it’s raining”. When local people begin to believe that the elected politicians and hired bureaucrats in D.C. better represent the globalization crowd at the expense of small communities and their declining health, then change is on the way. Most remarkable is the association of the China factor with illegal immigration. The pet food tragedy (caused by man) and illegal immigration seem one and the same. Just when is government going to recognize the values of American communities, and promote them as public policy.
There are practical applications to this principle. The usual D.C. based political sales pitches talk about education and retraining. And that is a good factor for the younger types. But what is seldom mentioned are the older types, their value in communities, and helping them appropriately in the transitions. It is hard teaching old dogs new tricks. What is really happening is as bad as the pet food scandal. Older people are being forced onto welfare and public health care (such as it is) and social security. And in this process entire communities and ways of life are being accelerated towards an earlier end that might otherwise have happened. That might be fine but for two things, nobody remembers voting for all this, and illegal immigration has made all this worse in too many local communities. Just research the amount of public health care hospitals being forced out of business by having to treat illegal immigrants. No amount of government dictating of reimbursements can change the bottom line and the service to the community.
There is one small sub-element that also keeps coming up. Are our diplomats and negotiators savvy enough to do their job, and just whose side are they on anyway. Again, all these questions are from a very tolerant group of Americans.
The connection of the China factor and illegal immigration’s effects on many local communities is a rising factor in America. Many think the voters will have to replace about half of each National Party in D.C. to get relief, or at a bare minimum, representation.
Let we Americans murder and maim and kill in cars 50,000 people a year and that is pretty bad. But let poor innocent pets suffer from human degradation, and that is intolerable. The introduction of poison into some of our pet food supply is just such an example. And it has all the elements of a Hollywood cover-up to include dead pets, Chinese delay in the visas for American inspectors to China, and the most lame excuses out of China. It makes the present process stink to high heaven, and exposes more embarrassing gaffs on our end of government certification, especially in organic food certification out of China. All this will prompt another cross-over point for we Americans in dealing across our borders.
Americans are among the tolerant groups of people in the world. This applies to the ideas of globalization and fair trade when it adversely affects the older parts of local communities. But the old American expression also comes to mind: “Don’t pee down my leg and tell me it’s raining”. When local people begin to believe that the elected politicians and hired bureaucrats in D.C. better represent the globalization crowd at the expense of small communities and their declining health, then change is on the way. Most remarkable is the association of the China factor with illegal immigration. The pet food tragedy (caused by man) and illegal immigration seem one and the same. Just when is government going to recognize the values of American communities, and promote them as public policy.
There are practical applications to this principle. The usual D.C. based political sales pitches talk about education and retraining. And that is a good factor for the younger types. But what is seldom mentioned are the older types, their value in communities, and helping them appropriately in the transitions. It is hard teaching old dogs new tricks. What is really happening is as bad as the pet food scandal. Older people are being forced onto welfare and public health care (such as it is) and social security. And in this process entire communities and ways of life are being accelerated towards an earlier end that might otherwise have happened. That might be fine but for two things, nobody remembers voting for all this, and illegal immigration has made all this worse in too many local communities. Just research the amount of public health care hospitals being forced out of business by having to treat illegal immigrants. No amount of government dictating of reimbursements can change the bottom line and the service to the community.
There is one small sub-element that also keeps coming up. Are our diplomats and negotiators savvy enough to do their job, and just whose side are they on anyway. Again, all these questions are from a very tolerant group of Americans.
The connection of the China factor and illegal immigration’s effects on many local communities is a rising factor in America. Many think the voters will have to replace about half of each National Party in D.C. to get relief, or at a bare minimum, representation.
Principles of an exit strategy
We all know we were never going to be in Iraq forever. Armchair experts know one exit strategy (rejected) had our military out in late 2003. And we do have histories of exiting small wars to include the Philippines, the Mexican border with Pancho Villa, the Banana Wars in the Caribbean and Central America, and recently even in Somalia after food relief operations in 1992-1993 and Operation Provide Comfort (1991-1996) in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War. We didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday, though many of our present and recent decision makers in the Executive and the Congress may have.
The principles of an exit strategy are timeless, though every strategy has it own local variations. Thus one can understand these historical principles when asking modern day questions about the small war being exited, in this case Iraq and the immediate region. This post is presented to the reader as about how to think, and not what to think. It can be the basis of asking questions as our Nation considers exit strategies today.
There should be only one person in charge of the war in Iraq, and it should be a person on the ground in Iraq. Until a D.C. based strategic decision to exit Iraq is made, then we are still in a war over winning the peace in Iraq; and that person should be the senior military commander, General Petraeus. The Ambassador Ryan Crocker must report to him, as well as all the other inter-agency groups in Iraq. This includes budget authority.
The decision to implement an exit strategy is necessarily a D.C. based one. But once the decision is made, the execution must be by a person on the ground in Iraq, and that person is the Ambassador. Upon the decision to exit, all others to include General Petraeus report to the Ambassador. This is especially important because of the difficulty of coordinating an exit between the military, the politics, the financing and reconstruction efforts, and the security provided by the police, also called the constabulary, gendarmes, guardia, and para-military. Getting the Iraqi military out of the whole police business is part of this exit strategy. How many Americans want the U.S. Army or Marines providing police services in their hometown, or expect them to have much training in this area. The same principle applies in Iraq.
The development of an exit strategy must come out of Iraq, not D.C. Here the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the President, must be ruthless about running interference for those on the ground in Iraq. This is not a case for seeking the least common denominator to keep all sides happy. Those looking for happiness should seek employment elsewhere. Now D.C. does have a strategic interest in controlling the borders of Iraq during an exit. This applies primarily to the Syrian and Iranian border areas. This is a tough nut to crack given the long borders and thousands of years of smuggling that has gone on. But the plan for the securing of the borders must come out of Iraq, and any D.C. frictions must be between the appropriate Secretary and the ground commander, either before and after an exit strategy is the plan. The ground commander in Iraq (war or exit) does not answer to anyone below Secretary level, to include anyone working for the National Security Advisor. The era of too many D.C. and CentCom bosses will come to an end. Those who do a poor job or get in the way get relieved, or voted out as appropriate.
The difficulty of executing an exit strategy is too often one of confusion over timelines. One can imagine the military gunfighters getting out first, but how about the military infrastructure units, or the police trainers, or the reconstruction teams, and even the finance teams. Too often most think of an exit strategy of being one of the gunfighters only, but in reality there are many more players working on different timelines. Again, hence the reason for there being one person in charge of an exit strategy, and it is the Ambassador, with all players reporting to him. The Secretary of State must run interference in D.C. for this Ambassador.
Last, D.C. is part of this process. One good example is a strategic reserve of gunfighters and where to base them and for how long, and who pays. One 2003 exit strategy had such a reserve leaving the cities to go into the Iraq desert. Another Murtha strategy mentions Okinawa, over 10,000 miles away. In either example, funding such a strategy is a D.C. problem; and in the case of Okinawa also a diplomatic problem. The U.S. is presently relocating many ground units away from Okinawa, mostly at Japanese request.
And D.C. should be the main effort for the regional strategies of dealing with the present frictions between Sunnis and Shiites and Persians and Arabs at the regional level. It is here that the Central Command comes into the equation as to military options.* A good example is whether or not to attack Iran’s budding nuclear capability. Any such decision would be D.C. based, but the execution would be at the Central Command level. In this case, General Petraeus will have some of his forces stripped away by Admiral Fallon long enough for this operation. It is a tough business balancing all this, but thank goodness we have really good people that are up to all this. While this discussion has little to do with an exit strategy, it is worth noting as part of the overall discussion.
*Rumsfeld changed the title from Commander to Combatant Commander to emphasize the military aspect vice the proconsul aspect of the job.
We all know we were never going to be in Iraq forever. Armchair experts know one exit strategy (rejected) had our military out in late 2003. And we do have histories of exiting small wars to include the Philippines, the Mexican border with Pancho Villa, the Banana Wars in the Caribbean and Central America, and recently even in Somalia after food relief operations in 1992-1993 and Operation Provide Comfort (1991-1996) in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War. We didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday, though many of our present and recent decision makers in the Executive and the Congress may have.
The principles of an exit strategy are timeless, though every strategy has it own local variations. Thus one can understand these historical principles when asking modern day questions about the small war being exited, in this case Iraq and the immediate region. This post is presented to the reader as about how to think, and not what to think. It can be the basis of asking questions as our Nation considers exit strategies today.
There should be only one person in charge of the war in Iraq, and it should be a person on the ground in Iraq. Until a D.C. based strategic decision to exit Iraq is made, then we are still in a war over winning the peace in Iraq; and that person should be the senior military commander, General Petraeus. The Ambassador Ryan Crocker must report to him, as well as all the other inter-agency groups in Iraq. This includes budget authority.
The decision to implement an exit strategy is necessarily a D.C. based one. But once the decision is made, the execution must be by a person on the ground in Iraq, and that person is the Ambassador. Upon the decision to exit, all others to include General Petraeus report to the Ambassador. This is especially important because of the difficulty of coordinating an exit between the military, the politics, the financing and reconstruction efforts, and the security provided by the police, also called the constabulary, gendarmes, guardia, and para-military. Getting the Iraqi military out of the whole police business is part of this exit strategy. How many Americans want the U.S. Army or Marines providing police services in their hometown, or expect them to have much training in this area. The same principle applies in Iraq.
The development of an exit strategy must come out of Iraq, not D.C. Here the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the President, must be ruthless about running interference for those on the ground in Iraq. This is not a case for seeking the least common denominator to keep all sides happy. Those looking for happiness should seek employment elsewhere. Now D.C. does have a strategic interest in controlling the borders of Iraq during an exit. This applies primarily to the Syrian and Iranian border areas. This is a tough nut to crack given the long borders and thousands of years of smuggling that has gone on. But the plan for the securing of the borders must come out of Iraq, and any D.C. frictions must be between the appropriate Secretary and the ground commander, either before and after an exit strategy is the plan. The ground commander in Iraq (war or exit) does not answer to anyone below Secretary level, to include anyone working for the National Security Advisor. The era of too many D.C. and CentCom bosses will come to an end. Those who do a poor job or get in the way get relieved, or voted out as appropriate.
The difficulty of executing an exit strategy is too often one of confusion over timelines. One can imagine the military gunfighters getting out first, but how about the military infrastructure units, or the police trainers, or the reconstruction teams, and even the finance teams. Too often most think of an exit strategy of being one of the gunfighters only, but in reality there are many more players working on different timelines. Again, hence the reason for there being one person in charge of an exit strategy, and it is the Ambassador, with all players reporting to him. The Secretary of State must run interference in D.C. for this Ambassador.
Last, D.C. is part of this process. One good example is a strategic reserve of gunfighters and where to base them and for how long, and who pays. One 2003 exit strategy had such a reserve leaving the cities to go into the Iraq desert. Another Murtha strategy mentions Okinawa, over 10,000 miles away. In either example, funding such a strategy is a D.C. problem; and in the case of Okinawa also a diplomatic problem. The U.S. is presently relocating many ground units away from Okinawa, mostly at Japanese request.
And D.C. should be the main effort for the regional strategies of dealing with the present frictions between Sunnis and Shiites and Persians and Arabs at the regional level. It is here that the Central Command comes into the equation as to military options.* A good example is whether or not to attack Iran’s budding nuclear capability. Any such decision would be D.C. based, but the execution would be at the Central Command level. In this case, General Petraeus will have some of his forces stripped away by Admiral Fallon long enough for this operation. It is a tough business balancing all this, but thank goodness we have really good people that are up to all this. While this discussion has little to do with an exit strategy, it is worth noting as part of the overall discussion.
*Rumsfeld changed the title from Commander to Combatant Commander to emphasize the military aspect vice the proconsul aspect of the job.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Conventional wisdom gets behind the times
Those using conventional political wisdom and experience from the past are out of step. They just don’t know it yet.
Past conventional wisdoms included the politics of division, that is, dividing large portions of the body politic to gain block votes. This practice ended up with divisions like rural-urban, black-white, north-south, individual rights vs. group rights, realists vs. idealists, school choices, and abortion. In a large country such as ours, divisions are normal. It is the choice of using the politics of division that is so disturbing and adverse to our country as a whole. That this politics of division continues is mostly because professional political managers have seen it work in the past, and they recommend replicating success using conventional wisdom. And in their past the definition of success was based on Party interests vice National interests.
Many things have brought about this change in conventional wisdom. Most profound is the information available to the entire body politic. Between internet connectivity and satellite TV, more Americans than ever have more informed opinions. And all this has happened quickly, as in the last ten years or so. Some of this quick cultural change is not so good. The old days of reading or playing scrabble in the evening have become watching DVD movies or the Disney channels or MTV.
More informed and interconnected members of the body politic means voters will increasingly consider National interests that will affect their families to include security and education. More narrowly focused Party politics will fade in priority over time as being less advantageous. Politicians using focus groups and polling to lead and garner votes will fail if they continue on the Party themes of the past. Rather, whether a voter lives in Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine or Portland, Texas will make less difference than the common bonds which unite us. No amount of the past politics of division will change this. And it is happening faster than many paid political managers may think.
Those using conventional political wisdom and experience from the past are out of step. They just don’t know it yet.
Past conventional wisdoms included the politics of division, that is, dividing large portions of the body politic to gain block votes. This practice ended up with divisions like rural-urban, black-white, north-south, individual rights vs. group rights, realists vs. idealists, school choices, and abortion. In a large country such as ours, divisions are normal. It is the choice of using the politics of division that is so disturbing and adverse to our country as a whole. That this politics of division continues is mostly because professional political managers have seen it work in the past, and they recommend replicating success using conventional wisdom. And in their past the definition of success was based on Party interests vice National interests.
Many things have brought about this change in conventional wisdom. Most profound is the information available to the entire body politic. Between internet connectivity and satellite TV, more Americans than ever have more informed opinions. And all this has happened quickly, as in the last ten years or so. Some of this quick cultural change is not so good. The old days of reading or playing scrabble in the evening have become watching DVD movies or the Disney channels or MTV.
More informed and interconnected members of the body politic means voters will increasingly consider National interests that will affect their families to include security and education. More narrowly focused Party politics will fade in priority over time as being less advantageous. Politicians using focus groups and polling to lead and garner votes will fail if they continue on the Party themes of the past. Rather, whether a voter lives in Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine or Portland, Texas will make less difference than the common bonds which unite us. No amount of the past politics of division will change this. And it is happening faster than many paid political managers may think.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The methods of exiting Iraq
All the hoopla and politicians talking past each other show an appalling ignorance on the part of many of our national leaders. It is as if things are all or nothing, zero or one-hundred, or even just invented today vs. on-auto-pilot anyway. Then there is another appalling ignorance about whether D.C. is the center of the universe or is it somewhere else away from D.C. And last the finger pointing about getting out of Iraq is somewhat akin to what many of us observed in our high school days. The lack of experience (in this case how to win the peace and leave) has become gamesmanship about keeping up appearances, feigning expertise, and hiding ignorance. Oh, and of course, and being popular.
No citizen of this country expects the U.S. to be in Iraq in 100 years. We expect to have exited somehow and someway. The process for doing so is called a strategy. While many preferred a strategy that would have already had us out of Iraq, the subject was debated, and decisions were made, and we have the present situation today. In other words, we have a strategy, just many people don’t like it or their perception of it. Many think it is a mess worthy of U.S. political debate and an opportunity for political advancement, too.
There is some ethereal principle of life that has not been defined, but suggests that many claim credit for actions that are on auto-pilot anyway. This sounds too much like politics for too many. While there is no known reversal of this principle, a well intentioned citizen can bore through this fog and see the U.S. and its allies exiting Iraq and leaving it to them to sort out winning the peace, their way. Other strategies and timings suggest having won the war, we impose the peace in our way. But that strategy was superceded by what we have today, and so be it. And do keep in mind, strategies are all encompassing … they have elements of the military, politics, finance, and public well being. Any exit means more or less of each, with time-phasing brought in. Time-phasing is a military expression that means we will probably be in Iraq a long time for part of the exit strategy.
The D.C. centric world is understandable with one main caveat. There is yet to be any explanation of the alternatives, or consequences, of just cutting the cord completely. Until this happens, critics are weak in their failure to offer alternatives. At least the pacifist and anti-war types are up front about being against all wars, to include Iraq. That our society can breed and support such idealistic types who still do not recognize 911 for what it was still astounds me. Thank goodness they are a small minority, like 17% of the population, I think.
So we are where the voters lead, not the politicians. We are National Interest driven, not poll and popularity driven. We have an executive with a strategy that will take some few months, not long in world history. The enemy is relatively paltry and pitiful, with one exception being the leaders ability to keep recruiting suicide bombers, and a second exception being the use of oil profits. That the leaders are not willing to die is a good hint that they are morally bankrupt, and on the wrong side of history. Combine all this and the auto-pilot idea, and perhaps politicians should tone down for a while. We Americans have our interests, too. They are National, and not Party.
All the hoopla and politicians talking past each other show an appalling ignorance on the part of many of our national leaders. It is as if things are all or nothing, zero or one-hundred, or even just invented today vs. on-auto-pilot anyway. Then there is another appalling ignorance about whether D.C. is the center of the universe or is it somewhere else away from D.C. And last the finger pointing about getting out of Iraq is somewhat akin to what many of us observed in our high school days. The lack of experience (in this case how to win the peace and leave) has become gamesmanship about keeping up appearances, feigning expertise, and hiding ignorance. Oh, and of course, and being popular.
No citizen of this country expects the U.S. to be in Iraq in 100 years. We expect to have exited somehow and someway. The process for doing so is called a strategy. While many preferred a strategy that would have already had us out of Iraq, the subject was debated, and decisions were made, and we have the present situation today. In other words, we have a strategy, just many people don’t like it or their perception of it. Many think it is a mess worthy of U.S. political debate and an opportunity for political advancement, too.
There is some ethereal principle of life that has not been defined, but suggests that many claim credit for actions that are on auto-pilot anyway. This sounds too much like politics for too many. While there is no known reversal of this principle, a well intentioned citizen can bore through this fog and see the U.S. and its allies exiting Iraq and leaving it to them to sort out winning the peace, their way. Other strategies and timings suggest having won the war, we impose the peace in our way. But that strategy was superceded by what we have today, and so be it. And do keep in mind, strategies are all encompassing … they have elements of the military, politics, finance, and public well being. Any exit means more or less of each, with time-phasing brought in. Time-phasing is a military expression that means we will probably be in Iraq a long time for part of the exit strategy.
The D.C. centric world is understandable with one main caveat. There is yet to be any explanation of the alternatives, or consequences, of just cutting the cord completely. Until this happens, critics are weak in their failure to offer alternatives. At least the pacifist and anti-war types are up front about being against all wars, to include Iraq. That our society can breed and support such idealistic types who still do not recognize 911 for what it was still astounds me. Thank goodness they are a small minority, like 17% of the population, I think.
So we are where the voters lead, not the politicians. We are National Interest driven, not poll and popularity driven. We have an executive with a strategy that will take some few months, not long in world history. The enemy is relatively paltry and pitiful, with one exception being the leaders ability to keep recruiting suicide bombers, and a second exception being the use of oil profits. That the leaders are not willing to die is a good hint that they are morally bankrupt, and on the wrong side of history. Combine all this and the auto-pilot idea, and perhaps politicians should tone down for a while. We Americans have our interests, too. They are National, and not Party.
Monday, May 07, 2007
There are better alternatives than unions
In the past unions did serve a useful purpose when they protected workers from unsafe working conditions, poor health and sanitation conditions, disproportionally low pay, and benefits like health care and retirement benefits. While such conditions may exist as exceptions in the US, generally most companies address these conditions out of public pride, and often to avoid a union coming in and doing the same.
The long term trend in the manufacturing sector is against unions. Unions represent something less than 15% of the manufacturing work force today. The greatest growth in unions is in the public service sector, or government unions. Teachers have unions, and even State Department Civil Service employees have their own union.
Several other trends are going on today. A small company can tell hourly employees to use Social Security for retirement, and let the government carry the load. In a similar way, hourly workers can be expected to use public health care with the government again carrying the load. In the latter case, worker’s compensation can smooth out the government’s burden. Unemployment is a government responsibility these days, but at least the burden is spread out over a bigger population than any small company might have to endure, and perhaps go bankrupt. And while this article speaks casually about the government picking up the various burdens, taxes usually follow the small company to help the government’s burden.
It is probably fair to say that the benefits provided by a union are better than the benefits provided by the government. But in both cases, there is no free lunch. Over time there have been detrimental effects from the unions. The health benefits are such that when we buy a GM vehicle, over $1,400 is just for health care of its employees and retirees. In comparison, a Toyota vehicle assembled in Japan has the health benefits costs absorbed by the government. That is quite a competitive advantage. No wonder Toyota just put a new assembly plant in Canada since Canada also absorbs the health care costs of its citizens. From the US point of view, we have lost thousands of jobs to Canada, and some think the unions had something to do with all this.
It appears the government employee unions are also going down this path of “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”. While the results may take decades to become apparent, outsourcing and privatizing of basic services like trash will predominate, in the end. The alternative is higher local taxes, and some communities may go this route. Others will go other routes. At the national level, as an example, when the State Department’s union won’t support the President’s surge in Iraq, and the Defense Department has to make up the difference, then the handwriting is on the wall. When union priorities trump National priorities, time is on the side of National priorities. The executive is still in charge … not the union leaders.
The alternatives to unions generally are to out-union the union. This requires astute leadership for the company. Procedures to ensure good communications vertically and horizontally, upward mobility for winners, good grievance procedures, and education for winners with a future are classic examples. And of course, the basics like unsafe working conditions and poor health and sanitation conditions must be ruthlessly attacked. And pay, and benefits like health care and retirement benefits, must be constantly explained. Given the alternative of no jobs, these most basic of human principles are just doing what should be done anyway. Amplify this with hands on management and leadership, and customer service, and we have a win-win.
Our future and our kids future are in our hands, today. Unions, and union techniques, have had value in our past. And there are probably still cases where unions make sense, today. But what we voters must watch out for in regards unions is when a national political party tilts towards unions just to gain block votes. In the case where block vote appeals and party power predominates over national interests, then it is time for the voters to step in and take charge. Polls and schemes are one thing, the vote is another.
In the past unions did serve a useful purpose when they protected workers from unsafe working conditions, poor health and sanitation conditions, disproportionally low pay, and benefits like health care and retirement benefits. While such conditions may exist as exceptions in the US, generally most companies address these conditions out of public pride, and often to avoid a union coming in and doing the same.
The long term trend in the manufacturing sector is against unions. Unions represent something less than 15% of the manufacturing work force today. The greatest growth in unions is in the public service sector, or government unions. Teachers have unions, and even State Department Civil Service employees have their own union.
Several other trends are going on today. A small company can tell hourly employees to use Social Security for retirement, and let the government carry the load. In a similar way, hourly workers can be expected to use public health care with the government again carrying the load. In the latter case, worker’s compensation can smooth out the government’s burden. Unemployment is a government responsibility these days, but at least the burden is spread out over a bigger population than any small company might have to endure, and perhaps go bankrupt. And while this article speaks casually about the government picking up the various burdens, taxes usually follow the small company to help the government’s burden.
It is probably fair to say that the benefits provided by a union are better than the benefits provided by the government. But in both cases, there is no free lunch. Over time there have been detrimental effects from the unions. The health benefits are such that when we buy a GM vehicle, over $1,400 is just for health care of its employees and retirees. In comparison, a Toyota vehicle assembled in Japan has the health benefits costs absorbed by the government. That is quite a competitive advantage. No wonder Toyota just put a new assembly plant in Canada since Canada also absorbs the health care costs of its citizens. From the US point of view, we have lost thousands of jobs to Canada, and some think the unions had something to do with all this.
It appears the government employee unions are also going down this path of “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”. While the results may take decades to become apparent, outsourcing and privatizing of basic services like trash will predominate, in the end. The alternative is higher local taxes, and some communities may go this route. Others will go other routes. At the national level, as an example, when the State Department’s union won’t support the President’s surge in Iraq, and the Defense Department has to make up the difference, then the handwriting is on the wall. When union priorities trump National priorities, time is on the side of National priorities. The executive is still in charge … not the union leaders.
The alternatives to unions generally are to out-union the union. This requires astute leadership for the company. Procedures to ensure good communications vertically and horizontally, upward mobility for winners, good grievance procedures, and education for winners with a future are classic examples. And of course, the basics like unsafe working conditions and poor health and sanitation conditions must be ruthlessly attacked. And pay, and benefits like health care and retirement benefits, must be constantly explained. Given the alternative of no jobs, these most basic of human principles are just doing what should be done anyway. Amplify this with hands on management and leadership, and customer service, and we have a win-win.
Our future and our kids future are in our hands, today. Unions, and union techniques, have had value in our past. And there are probably still cases where unions make sense, today. But what we voters must watch out for in regards unions is when a national political party tilts towards unions just to gain block votes. In the case where block vote appeals and party power predominates over national interests, then it is time for the voters to step in and take charge. Polls and schemes are one thing, the vote is another.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Ignore the Democrats, vote American
Much as the California gold rush wore out, so has the present Democratic Party. This is a shame because our Country benefits from two parties. And as Zell Miller of Georgia said, it is a national party no more. What a shame since they did it to themselves.
The elections of 2006 brought much hoopla and excitement to the national Democratic Party, even though the results were very close. Very close to most means control of the various Committees, but little there after. Very close to most also means doing something about the promises about corruption in Congress. Now that has faded, also. Many are so disappointed, and no amount of spin can change all this. The most aggressive Democratic operatives and optimists will say they can pull it out, and pull the wool over our eyes, and in the time up to the next election. Some of us say we don’t forget, and that National Interests will trump all. Only time will tell.
What is so frustrating is the love of our country by most voters as compared to the politics as usual by our politicians. Bottom line question: is our Country about the citizens or the politicians? Right now it looks like the latter. When candidate Clinton can get in a huff over whether she travels in a Gulfstream 2 of Gulfstream 3 then priorities have changed in ways that hurt our nation. And I wonder about all those paying the big hourly fees if that was what the donation was for?
We Americans do have three choices for change. We were born of a revolution, and changed by a civil war. Most of the time we have used the vote. We should stick to the vote because that is who we are these days.
The apparent divisions in our Country over Iraq seem like a vast replay of our past. Part of our Country’s personality is pacifisms, and isolationism. FDR had to deal with this, and so do we. In FDR’s case, no amount of discussion changed minds. In the end Pearl Harbor changed minds.
So as the various presidential campaigns go on, consider who is promoting America and who is promoting Party. On this hangs the National future.
Much as the California gold rush wore out, so has the present Democratic Party. This is a shame because our Country benefits from two parties. And as Zell Miller of Georgia said, it is a national party no more. What a shame since they did it to themselves.
The elections of 2006 brought much hoopla and excitement to the national Democratic Party, even though the results were very close. Very close to most means control of the various Committees, but little there after. Very close to most also means doing something about the promises about corruption in Congress. Now that has faded, also. Many are so disappointed, and no amount of spin can change all this. The most aggressive Democratic operatives and optimists will say they can pull it out, and pull the wool over our eyes, and in the time up to the next election. Some of us say we don’t forget, and that National Interests will trump all. Only time will tell.
What is so frustrating is the love of our country by most voters as compared to the politics as usual by our politicians. Bottom line question: is our Country about the citizens or the politicians? Right now it looks like the latter. When candidate Clinton can get in a huff over whether she travels in a Gulfstream 2 of Gulfstream 3 then priorities have changed in ways that hurt our nation. And I wonder about all those paying the big hourly fees if that was what the donation was for?
We Americans do have three choices for change. We were born of a revolution, and changed by a civil war. Most of the time we have used the vote. We should stick to the vote because that is who we are these days.
The apparent divisions in our Country over Iraq seem like a vast replay of our past. Part of our Country’s personality is pacifisms, and isolationism. FDR had to deal with this, and so do we. In FDR’s case, no amount of discussion changed minds. In the end Pearl Harbor changed minds.
So as the various presidential campaigns go on, consider who is promoting America and who is promoting Party. On this hangs the National future.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts
The usual way most see this statement is during scientific debates, where much is known about the pieces of a thing, as how a watch or a duck works. It’s when one adds the pieces up and combines them that the debate gets going. A good example is in medicine when the drugs one takes individually may have other unexpected effects when combined as a whole.
The emergence of chaos as a new field of complex systems is a modern resurrection of this science debate which goes back hundreds of years. The religious debate about this principle goes back thousands of years.
Seldom I have ever heard this debate applied to human politics. Certainly humans and human political systems are complex, and when science topics like global warming are dragged in, even the subject of religious overtones comes up. What one believes on this debate does affect our societies and nations.
Most laws at all levels tend to be enacted piecemeal. The federal income tax code is an example, where the size is something like 68,000 pages. Most individual tax laws may have some honorable intent, but when taken as a whole, one should worry if there is some adverse effect as in the medicine example earlier. The public policy of social security suffers this way, having been grown in “pieces” and benefits and funding, and now it appears the “whole” thing will collapse and die sometime in the near future. If one buys this line of reasoning, then one may use their imagination to apply it to ideas like globalization, global warming, mainstream religions, size of governments, and even the administration of Yellowstone Park over the last 100 years. Piecemeal application of good intentions without considering the whole can lead to bad results, it seems. And too often lack of information or poor information is not an impediment to those who make the laws and policies.
The alternative of thinking as a “whole” is fraught with political problems, also. Most know the expression “jack of all trades, master of none”. It can apply to presidential debaters, pundits, least common denominator study groups, and arm chair generals and secretaries of state. Any individual or group who proclaim they “know” the truth, if only all would listen to them, and obey their commands or edicts that address the “whole”, make many also ask: “just show me the votes”.
Fortunately, this dilemma has one solution. It is called the vote, and we voters should be influenced by those Americans running for public office who know the difference between the “whole” and the “pieces”; and the effect on human politics. For example, we should avoid voting for those who offer “piecemeal solutions only” to social security, health care, the war in Iraq, etc. We should consider those who display recognition that complicated problems have elements of the “whole” and the “pieces” that come into their thinking, and should come into our thinking. Hopefully, these types of political doctors won’t kill the patients in their prescriptions for the various political drugs we are going to have to take.
The usual way most see this statement is during scientific debates, where much is known about the pieces of a thing, as how a watch or a duck works. It’s when one adds the pieces up and combines them that the debate gets going. A good example is in medicine when the drugs one takes individually may have other unexpected effects when combined as a whole.
The emergence of chaos as a new field of complex systems is a modern resurrection of this science debate which goes back hundreds of years. The religious debate about this principle goes back thousands of years.
Seldom I have ever heard this debate applied to human politics. Certainly humans and human political systems are complex, and when science topics like global warming are dragged in, even the subject of religious overtones comes up. What one believes on this debate does affect our societies and nations.
Most laws at all levels tend to be enacted piecemeal. The federal income tax code is an example, where the size is something like 68,000 pages. Most individual tax laws may have some honorable intent, but when taken as a whole, one should worry if there is some adverse effect as in the medicine example earlier. The public policy of social security suffers this way, having been grown in “pieces” and benefits and funding, and now it appears the “whole” thing will collapse and die sometime in the near future. If one buys this line of reasoning, then one may use their imagination to apply it to ideas like globalization, global warming, mainstream religions, size of governments, and even the administration of Yellowstone Park over the last 100 years. Piecemeal application of good intentions without considering the whole can lead to bad results, it seems. And too often lack of information or poor information is not an impediment to those who make the laws and policies.
The alternative of thinking as a “whole” is fraught with political problems, also. Most know the expression “jack of all trades, master of none”. It can apply to presidential debaters, pundits, least common denominator study groups, and arm chair generals and secretaries of state. Any individual or group who proclaim they “know” the truth, if only all would listen to them, and obey their commands or edicts that address the “whole”, make many also ask: “just show me the votes”.
Fortunately, this dilemma has one solution. It is called the vote, and we voters should be influenced by those Americans running for public office who know the difference between the “whole” and the “pieces”; and the effect on human politics. For example, we should avoid voting for those who offer “piecemeal solutions only” to social security, health care, the war in Iraq, etc. We should consider those who display recognition that complicated problems have elements of the “whole” and the “pieces” that come into their thinking, and should come into our thinking. Hopefully, these types of political doctors won’t kill the patients in their prescriptions for the various political drugs we are going to have to take.
Friday, May 04, 2007
The western world gone wild
Or is it extortionists and anarchists gone wild?
Maybe the business world has met the political world? But it also looks more like bullies and anarchists have found a constituency in the Western leftist types … for the moment.
In either case, the last gasp of the Western baby boom generation, or as the French experienced , the time of summer 1968 is finally washing up and, fortunately, washing back. People have more important things to do like raise families and provide for their security and education. Both societies chose their courses of action that we arrive at today. That the immigration trend is from France to America says it all. If I were any young European I would immigrate away from Europe. Too many do just this. Fortunately, they seek change in their country of birth. We all love our country. I hope most move back.
I also hope most assert themselves in their country of birth. As big as the world is, they need to take care of things at home, first. In the case of the American do gooder types, any attempts to become global types are misplaced. Devote your efforts and support to the locals to take care of things, “at home first”. Any thing else, to this voter, appears to be extortion, anarchism, and uncontrolled egotism. Along the way these types spread themselves too thin in their attitude of arrogant self-importance. In practical terms, let them bleed out.
What are we to think about our fellow citizens of the world who think another way and have different standards and observe all this? This question is not a code world for Muslims, who slowly but surely are making themselves inconsequential, which of course they are doing. This is much more profound, the east and the west meet, and yet never the two meet. If one were eastern trained, then much of the western world gone wild is just: unfathomable. Where is the respect for conniving and the art of duplicity, or the roles of women in society, and last, respect for ancestors and the importance of face? There is much friction to come, but time is on the western side of things. There is no moral equivalence a’la multiculturalism. There is a clash going on, and western ideas will predominate after much friction.
The Eurabia idea is interesting when one gets down to the basics. One basic is that people are getting “away” from their country of birth, and going to a country of “opportunity”. I hope more of these types come to America. We’re better than Europe and the Old World. We are the New World. Families and family opportunity are part of our American personality. Having worked with so many Muslims in Atlanta, this family principle is alive and well there and probably throughout America. In poker terms, we Americans are dealing with a winning hand.
Or is it extortionists and anarchists gone wild?
Maybe the business world has met the political world? But it also looks more like bullies and anarchists have found a constituency in the Western leftist types … for the moment.
In either case, the last gasp of the Western baby boom generation, or as the French experienced , the time of summer 1968 is finally washing up and, fortunately, washing back. People have more important things to do like raise families and provide for their security and education. Both societies chose their courses of action that we arrive at today. That the immigration trend is from France to America says it all. If I were any young European I would immigrate away from Europe. Too many do just this. Fortunately, they seek change in their country of birth. We all love our country. I hope most move back.
I also hope most assert themselves in their country of birth. As big as the world is, they need to take care of things at home, first. In the case of the American do gooder types, any attempts to become global types are misplaced. Devote your efforts and support to the locals to take care of things, “at home first”. Any thing else, to this voter, appears to be extortion, anarchism, and uncontrolled egotism. Along the way these types spread themselves too thin in their attitude of arrogant self-importance. In practical terms, let them bleed out.
What are we to think about our fellow citizens of the world who think another way and have different standards and observe all this? This question is not a code world for Muslims, who slowly but surely are making themselves inconsequential, which of course they are doing. This is much more profound, the east and the west meet, and yet never the two meet. If one were eastern trained, then much of the western world gone wild is just: unfathomable. Where is the respect for conniving and the art of duplicity, or the roles of women in society, and last, respect for ancestors and the importance of face? There is much friction to come, but time is on the western side of things. There is no moral equivalence a’la multiculturalism. There is a clash going on, and western ideas will predominate after much friction.
The Eurabia idea is interesting when one gets down to the basics. One basic is that people are getting “away” from their country of birth, and going to a country of “opportunity”. I hope more of these types come to America. We’re better than Europe and the Old World. We are the New World. Families and family opportunity are part of our American personality. Having worked with so many Muslims in Atlanta, this family principle is alive and well there and probably throughout America. In poker terms, we Americans are dealing with a winning hand.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
A pattern of behavior
Consider this. One of George Tenet’s qualifications to run the CIA was being a Democratic staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee. One of Madeline Albright’s qualifications to be Secretary of State was being too weak to challenge Al Gore as a presidential candidate. Colin Powell was considered too strong a potential challenger to Al Gore. Janet Reno had to be female to qualify as Attorney General. One of Ron Brown’s qualifications to be Secretary of Commerce was being a loyal fund raiser bag man.
Lest this look like a Clinton specific hit piece and a Democratic in general hit piece, the pattern continues.
"This is the most incompetent White House I've seen since I came to Washington," said one GOP senator. " The White House legislative liaison team is incompetent, pitiful, embarrassing. My colleagues can't even tell you who the White House Senate liaison is. There is rank incompetence throughout the government. It's the weakest Cabinet I've seen." And remember, this is a Republican talking.
One more historical note on the pattern theme. Finally one can find a so-called person in charge of the war in Iraq … a deputy director on the National Security Council. What is wrong with this pattern is the D.C. focus, not one person in Iraq, and the bad smell that comes out of the apparent incompetence of all this.
Most have read sometime or another the lament that the continued persecution (media, political, legal) of fellow Americans who come to D.C. to serve may reach a point where people won’t volunteer and take the pay cuts. The famous quote by former Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan is appropriate: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"
America may have passed a tipping point of attracting the best and the brightest to take some time out of their life and career to come to D.C. to do their best in persuing the National Interests. This is not intended to denigrate those who do serve. But how many more are taking a pass and staying home?
Consider this. One of George Tenet’s qualifications to run the CIA was being a Democratic staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee. One of Madeline Albright’s qualifications to be Secretary of State was being too weak to challenge Al Gore as a presidential candidate. Colin Powell was considered too strong a potential challenger to Al Gore. Janet Reno had to be female to qualify as Attorney General. One of Ron Brown’s qualifications to be Secretary of Commerce was being a loyal fund raiser bag man.
Lest this look like a Clinton specific hit piece and a Democratic in general hit piece, the pattern continues.
"This is the most incompetent White House I've seen since I came to Washington," said one GOP senator. " The White House legislative liaison team is incompetent, pitiful, embarrassing. My colleagues can't even tell you who the White House Senate liaison is. There is rank incompetence throughout the government. It's the weakest Cabinet I've seen." And remember, this is a Republican talking.
One more historical note on the pattern theme. Finally one can find a so-called person in charge of the war in Iraq … a deputy director on the National Security Council. What is wrong with this pattern is the D.C. focus, not one person in Iraq, and the bad smell that comes out of the apparent incompetence of all this.
Most have read sometime or another the lament that the continued persecution (media, political, legal) of fellow Americans who come to D.C. to serve may reach a point where people won’t volunteer and take the pay cuts. The famous quote by former Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan is appropriate: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"
America may have passed a tipping point of attracting the best and the brightest to take some time out of their life and career to come to D.C. to do their best in persuing the National Interests. This is not intended to denigrate those who do serve. But how many more are taking a pass and staying home?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Getting out of Iraq and winning in Iraq have too much in common
One has only to go back to reading the fine print in the President’s speech about this issue in January, and the two resolutions from both Houses of Congress. They, and the American people are closer on this issue than the main stream media have reported. That’s their unprofessionalism, not anyone else’s. I bet most did not read the fine print. Now we are at the veto point, with all that misinformation still being reported.
The strategy change has been profound, mostly in D.C. New hardball players are in place in the State Department (John Negroponte as #2 and Ryan Crocker as Ambassador), Gates at Defense, and new Generals (Petraeus) in Iraq and Admirals in CentCom (Fallon). Besides the strategy change to include the Iran factor, is the classical third world insurgency method of treating the local friendly despots as such.
The practical application is simple. No matter how much we dress up the pig, Prime Minister Maliki is still our pig, and he had better listen. Thank goodness we are not treating him as an equal these days. Our support and blood and money are not open ended. This debate went on in 2003, and unfortunately it is still going on. Either way, today, we decide, not Maliki, and just how things have sorted out. If Maliki is not the one, so be it. The key point is that he is not in charge of the Americans, we are.
What seems amazing from the DC point of view is the amount of people talking past each other, apparently pursuing the most base political party goals. How sad, assuming all are Americans at heart. In the same vein is the idea that all this is happening anyway, and for some group to jump in and claim credit debases what is happening anyway.
Back to the basics. Strategies can win and lose. And we Americans have a history of both, unfortunately. The most simple and classic strategy goes back to the Small Wars Manual of 1940. Little has changed since then, except the talk and academia. I am not sure many in the third world listened to all this.
Bottom line: Don’t treat Maliki like an equal. He is not. We Americans are in charge of our future.
One has only to go back to reading the fine print in the President’s speech about this issue in January, and the two resolutions from both Houses of Congress. They, and the American people are closer on this issue than the main stream media have reported. That’s their unprofessionalism, not anyone else’s. I bet most did not read the fine print. Now we are at the veto point, with all that misinformation still being reported.
The strategy change has been profound, mostly in D.C. New hardball players are in place in the State Department (John Negroponte as #2 and Ryan Crocker as Ambassador), Gates at Defense, and new Generals (Petraeus) in Iraq and Admirals in CentCom (Fallon). Besides the strategy change to include the Iran factor, is the classical third world insurgency method of treating the local friendly despots as such.
The practical application is simple. No matter how much we dress up the pig, Prime Minister Maliki is still our pig, and he had better listen. Thank goodness we are not treating him as an equal these days. Our support and blood and money are not open ended. This debate went on in 2003, and unfortunately it is still going on. Either way, today, we decide, not Maliki, and just how things have sorted out. If Maliki is not the one, so be it. The key point is that he is not in charge of the Americans, we are.
What seems amazing from the DC point of view is the amount of people talking past each other, apparently pursuing the most base political party goals. How sad, assuming all are Americans at heart. In the same vein is the idea that all this is happening anyway, and for some group to jump in and claim credit debases what is happening anyway.
Back to the basics. Strategies can win and lose. And we Americans have a history of both, unfortunately. The most simple and classic strategy goes back to the Small Wars Manual of 1940. Little has changed since then, except the talk and academia. I am not sure many in the third world listened to all this.
Bottom line: Don’t treat Maliki like an equal. He is not. We Americans are in charge of our future.
A noble soldier
The dogs of war at many families doorsteps
The strains of seeming peace so near and so far
The laments of loved ones far far away,
The blood on the ground mixing together until it decays to some future
Why here and now
Why me and my comrades
Can I think about it?
I will always do my duty
But in a far far away land just what is that
They have fought each other for millennia, with or without me
My duty is in my mind
I connect it to my families at home because this is what I am taught
Maybe they’re right … I think so because I am dieing for this duty
And for my comrades
And I do love my family
The dogs of war at many families doorsteps
The strains of seeming peace so near and so far
The laments of loved ones far far away,
The blood on the ground mixing together until it decays to some future
Why here and now
Why me and my comrades
Can I think about it?
I will always do my duty
But in a far far away land just what is that
They have fought each other for millennia, with or without me
My duty is in my mind
I connect it to my families at home because this is what I am taught
Maybe they’re right … I think so because I am dieing for this duty
And for my comrades
And I do love my family
Time marches on
How many think all the friction over Iraq today will be more than a squib in the history books in 50 years? How many think the world will be vastly different in 50 years? How many think the US will be here in 50 years?
On the first question, the answer is that Iraq will be an historical squib in 50 years.
On the second question, soothsaying is much more difficult as to details, but the principles are a little easier. The President’s strategy of “democracy” in the middle east, middle east style of course, is changing the whole balance of powers in much of the third world, not just the middle east. That he has unleashed the battle in the west and the east is good enough. Even the slightest shift in many peoples opinion about loyalty to something other than tribes is profound. In turn if nation-states in the third world even provide the most basic of human services like family security and the most minimal health care, that too is a profound change. If they don’t, then little will change. The normal wars and diplomacy over the status quo may look much the same as today.
On the third question, the US and New World is different from the Old World. While travel means and communication means have shrunk the world, the ideas are still profoundly different. When the baby boom generation effects die off over time, the American personality of hard work, entrepreneurship, the golden rule, don’t tread on me, and respect for ideas will trump all that has gone in the last 50 years. It won’t be nirvana … it will be just as ugly as today. And along the way the voters will decide how it all goes.
How many think all the friction over Iraq today will be more than a squib in the history books in 50 years? How many think the world will be vastly different in 50 years? How many think the US will be here in 50 years?
On the first question, the answer is that Iraq will be an historical squib in 50 years.
On the second question, soothsaying is much more difficult as to details, but the principles are a little easier. The President’s strategy of “democracy” in the middle east, middle east style of course, is changing the whole balance of powers in much of the third world, not just the middle east. That he has unleashed the battle in the west and the east is good enough. Even the slightest shift in many peoples opinion about loyalty to something other than tribes is profound. In turn if nation-states in the third world even provide the most basic of human services like family security and the most minimal health care, that too is a profound change. If they don’t, then little will change. The normal wars and diplomacy over the status quo may look much the same as today.
On the third question, the US and New World is different from the Old World. While travel means and communication means have shrunk the world, the ideas are still profoundly different. When the baby boom generation effects die off over time, the American personality of hard work, entrepreneurship, the golden rule, don’t tread on me, and respect for ideas will trump all that has gone in the last 50 years. It won’t be nirvana … it will be just as ugly as today. And along the way the voters will decide how it all goes.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The chicken or the egg
The preverbal argument about the answer applies to many more things. One is nation-states. Which came first, the nation-state or the nation? Are nation-states some recognition that many peoples have enough in common to become nation-states, or are the present nations and boundaries and tribes some extension of the past? Did all the imperial and colonial diplomats 100 or so years ago draw up boundaries that were good for them then, and expect these boundaries to go on in perpetuity. Most of these paper boundaries have always been ignored by the people who live there. In the end, numbers and demographics and customs and tribes count.
A colonial sweep of the drawing pen, for example the British Durand Line in 1921 to divide the Pashtuns, doesn’t help much in hunting down Bin Laden in Warziristan, the exact same area by another name. Here in America British and French boundaries did not sort out, in the end. We Americans ignored them and drew our own lines.
This principle unfortunately is universal. People and demographics still count, too. The gross physical immigration on the Mexican border confirms we can legislate, but not necessarily control. An old novel from the 1980’s called this border area a new state with the name of Altzan. It was a little bit of both; Mexico and the US, with a decidedly US flavor.
Nation-states are a recent idea in human history. They are both not normal and a product of human social evolution. Rather the idea has many parents, all western, and they include the Council of Vienna, and the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Before nation-states were nations, and empires, tribes provided local democracy and family security, albeit at the local leaders judgment, usually secured by willingness to go along with success.
Our world future is decidedly better. Our western ideas which focus on infrastructure are powerful. Clean water and electricity come to mind.
Those who ignore, tolerate, or even promote dictators and other omnipresent leaders of what ever ilk, are on the wrong side of history.
The obvious future leaders of humanity are from the western mold, albeit with a lot of tampering down for human reasons. However they sort out the question about nation-states vs. nations, one old person hopes that these people recognize that the common people vote with their feet and pocket books, not some ethereal political cause.
The preverbal argument about the answer applies to many more things. One is nation-states. Which came first, the nation-state or the nation? Are nation-states some recognition that many peoples have enough in common to become nation-states, or are the present nations and boundaries and tribes some extension of the past? Did all the imperial and colonial diplomats 100 or so years ago draw up boundaries that were good for them then, and expect these boundaries to go on in perpetuity. Most of these paper boundaries have always been ignored by the people who live there. In the end, numbers and demographics and customs and tribes count.
A colonial sweep of the drawing pen, for example the British Durand Line in 1921 to divide the Pashtuns, doesn’t help much in hunting down Bin Laden in Warziristan, the exact same area by another name. Here in America British and French boundaries did not sort out, in the end. We Americans ignored them and drew our own lines.
This principle unfortunately is universal. People and demographics still count, too. The gross physical immigration on the Mexican border confirms we can legislate, but not necessarily control. An old novel from the 1980’s called this border area a new state with the name of Altzan. It was a little bit of both; Mexico and the US, with a decidedly US flavor.
Nation-states are a recent idea in human history. They are both not normal and a product of human social evolution. Rather the idea has many parents, all western, and they include the Council of Vienna, and the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Before nation-states were nations, and empires, tribes provided local democracy and family security, albeit at the local leaders judgment, usually secured by willingness to go along with success.
Our world future is decidedly better. Our western ideas which focus on infrastructure are powerful. Clean water and electricity come to mind.
Those who ignore, tolerate, or even promote dictators and other omnipresent leaders of what ever ilk, are on the wrong side of history.
The obvious future leaders of humanity are from the western mold, albeit with a lot of tampering down for human reasons. However they sort out the question about nation-states vs. nations, one old person hopes that these people recognize that the common people vote with their feet and pocket books, not some ethereal political cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)