Response to Friends: Say No to a Holy War

For some time in recent months I have exchanged views on various issues with a number of friends for whom I hold the highest respect for their inspiring and challenging intelligence. I plan to add to this Blog those of my responses which may still be relevant to current issues. I recall making this same statement of intent in an earlier entry. I mean it this time. This entry is just one regarding Islamic terrorism from a discussion today. My friend said, in the course of his argument, “This is a war, and it will be a really long war….. Given 1400 years of history, it may never end except for an unlikely collapse of will by the combatants or a catastrophe of world scope.”

My response: You seem to be espousing a crusade, a Christian Holy War against Islam. I believe history does not support your premise nor will history have to come close to your apocalyptic projection. However, one way to assuredly make this future more likely is to agree to definitions of nations as single repositories of the one true religion to the physical expulsion or cultural/political condemnation of any one or all others. This seems to me particularly stupid in the long run when the religions share the same God and only the current interpretations of the “founding books” by a minority of believers are initiating the current violence. The following is an interesting twist from “Democracy in America” by de Tocqueville.

"Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.

"In continuation of this same inquiry I find that for religions to maintain their authority, humanly speaking, in democratic ages, … they confine themselves strictly within the circle of spiritual matters, ….

"The preceding observation, that equality leads men to very general and very vast ideas, is principally to be understood in respect to religion. Men who are similar and equal in the world readily conceive the idea of the one God, governing every man by the same laws and granting to every man future happiness on the same conditions. The idea of the unity of mankind constantly leads them back to the idea of the unity of the Creator; while on the contrary in a state of society where men are broken up into very unequal ranks, they are apt to devise as many deities as there are nations, castes, classes, or families, and to trace a thousand private roads to heaven…..

"It seems evident that the more the barriers are removed which separate one nation from another and one citizen from another, the stronger is the bent of the human mind, as if by its own impulse, towards the idea of a single and all-powerful Being, dispensing equal laws in the same manner to every man. In democratic ages, then, it is particularly important not to allow the homage paid to secondary agents to be confused with the worship due to the Creator alone. Another truth is no less clear, that religions ought to have fewer external observances in democratic periods than at any others….

"Those who have to regulate the external forms of religion in a democratic age should pay a close attention to these natural propensities of the human mind in order not to run counter to them unnecessarily….” http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch1_05.htm

A Thought on the Hasan Matter

"WASHINGTON -- Military officials investigating failures in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings may recommend that individuals be held accountable for failing to perform their duties."

Individuals, if such failure is shown, should be held accountable with direct and strong disciplinary measures. The aftermath of the investigation should also include the issuance of clear and concise guidance on vigilance and reporting. However, it appears to me that there could be an overreaction more detrimental to order and discipline than necessary. Soldiers, without question, need to have trust in each other and in their commanders. Security demands that actual threats be recognized and eliminated. Yet, any official reaction that suggests, in any manner, the need for reporting of all political views possibly contrary to existing policy might establish a form of "political police" not unlike those in the military of the old communist regimes. Commanders in good ol' "CYA" manner might feel compelled in the future to report every rumor or accusation no matter how baseless up the chain rather than apply their own reasoned judgment. I only suggest that the military needs far more than knee jerk rhetoric in responding. I am not sure where the balance point should be.

West Point Honor Code

As you have framed the issue, my friend, I believe the topic [the viability of an honor code] is the most important one we can discuss as grads and I hope it generates a broad response on this Class forum. You wrote that “[t]he goal of absolute honesty would not seem to be debatable.” In another context, self-interest in the market, on the Class forum, I said “Idealism in an aspect of human conduct may be an admirable goal where it has a viable foundation in the nature of man.” Is it in the nature of humanity (more encompassing than “man”) to be able to subdue desires and suppress self-preservation to the point of absolute honesty as defined by a code not to lie, cheat or steal? I believe that it is difficult yet attainable and maintainable.

Putting aside for the moment the concept of individual virtue in an ideal man, absolute honesty under a code seems to me maintainable over individual interests within a community of committed individuals. I have personally (anecdotally) found this to have substantively existed while a cadet and while dealing with fellow grads. To a slightly lesser degree, I have expected and been satisfied to find, in the practice of criminal law, a community of lawyers and judges practicing and applying law in the courts under a strict, statutory code that sanctions lying, cheating and stealing. To this point, I believe that sanctions are a necessary part of any human community code of conduct. The conscience of an ideal man may provide a sufficient punishment within, but I know of no “ideal man.” Accordingly, a “System” has to exist to enforce compliance with the agreed upon code.

I would think that a community of eighteen to twenty-three year olds could have the capacity to judge and sanction one of its own. The peer consciousness should be supplemented with training in, as examples, bias recognition and elimination, due-process concepts, and reliability in evidence. The objective would not be a mini-law school experience but education sufficient for them to provide a just (not necessarily fair in the bigger picture inclusive of life outside of the community) resolution to enforce the code and sanction the transgressor. As far as any application of “wisdom,” I haven’t seen it applied enough (if at all) to be able to argue for it as a prerequisite for any sanctioning entity. If ever attained, it would come, I expect, with maturity which I agree is a limited quality in young people. The Corps now however has within it a significant number of combat veterans who, presumably, have attained a higher level of maturity (more, I would argue, than any number of young jurists now sitting on the bench meting out relatively draconian punishments in the outside world). I would support, however, a gradual application of standards and sanctions to insure that the understanding of and appreciation for the Honor Code and the need for absolute honesty in the service to follow is first instilled in each cadet.

As far as the comment of Gen Maxwell Taylor, I disagree that the formative period need include exceptions to the Honor Code to teach them “early in life to inject toleration, judgment of human factors, and appreciation of sincere repentance into their decisions affecting the careers of their fellow cadets.” There will be ample opportunity in their growth at the Academy and beyond to build on earlier values and experience to that end. The Honor Code should become within their Academy experience an absolute standard. Truth is elusive, as you said, and the justice system deals more in probabilities than in the delivery of “truth.” But it does work to produce a just and often fair result at least often enough to continue to refine it.

It seems to me that the difficulties in enforcement within the Honor system arise with imposition of political and legal intrusions from outside the community of cadets whose code this is presumed to belong to. I do recognize that the Academy is a public entity bound by Constitutional and statutory constraints. Yet, as you point to my friend, “the military profession is fundamentally different.” More so than in the market or social or other civilian communities, absolute honesty is essential, demanded and expected. As you said there are no second chances in combat. Accordingly, the Academy and other leader development venues should be permitted to set and enforce the standard of absolute honesty.

Yesterday's News

Day One – Hour One: Cable news reports “CHICAGO ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION TO HOST 2016 OLYMPICS”

Daniel Shore, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite resurrected and to report for makeup prior to anticipated “News Specials” to air continuously over the next week analyzing the profound effects of President's failure.

All network and cable news directors order bureaus and affiliates to prominently display photo of President Obama during all programming on the issue. Fox News adds display of “Unbelievably Devastating Failure for Obama” with photos.

“Country in shock!” CNN Reports. Fox attempts to revive Limbaugh though able to quote his exhaling as “I knew it. I said it. The President has destroyed Chicago and next will be Moline!”

White House sources reveal the President on his way to daughter’s classroom to begin extended reading of Dr. Seuss prior to official announcement. Vice- President Biden seen standing on lawn waiting for someone to listen to him.

Day One – Hour Two: Congressional Budget Office reports ten billion dollar projected increase in Medicare payments due to epidemic of depression among elderly couch potatoes .

Department of Transportation projects substantial revenue loss to domestic airlines due to cancellation of reservations from hookers across the country. Bailout money discussed in congressional offices (for hooker “associates” of congressmen not airlines).

Mexican border crossing “guides” in protest along the border reported to have hired a prominent New York lawyer to sue the city of Chicago due to substantial decrease in labor requirements. At least two Columbian drug cartels to join suit alleging decreased cocaine demand.

Day One – Hour Three: Fox still unable to revive Limbaugh.

Spokesperson for Republican Party contends President incompetent. “How can we trust him on health insurance when he fails at something so simple?”

Austin Times/Fox News Poll just released confirms President’s approval rating drops to single digits.

Senator John Kerry issues a statement saying he plans to throw his Chicago Bears muffler over some, as yet unchosen, fence in protest. Jane Fonda reported confused.

Senator Mitch McConnell calls for the President's resignation and is quoted as saying "Hell, he wasn't legal anyhow."

Day One – Hour Four: Mayor Daley of Chicago attempts to call Mafia political backers but prison regulations preclude. Democrat precinct captains issued “Plan F’em” and begin arming the two hundred thousand no-show city employees in anticipation of invasion of winning city. Teamsters join effort.

O’Reilly and Hannity seen dancing naked together in Central Park. Fox News in turmoil when unable to locate key to Glen Beck’s cage.

White House cancels all meetings scheduled with anyone who had visited Chicago in last three years. Secret Service given classified instructions regarding Mayor Daley of Chicago.

Fox broadcasts interview with Republican John Boehner who charges the President “Never wanted America to win!” Boehner says he cannot dismiss allegations the President actually working for Muslim country in Olympic selection.

Mid Day – One: Rio announced the winner of 2016 Olympics - White House issues statement “Yeah, like they needed another reason to party!” White House source says firing of Acorn in recent weeks destroyed any chance for “Chicago-style” victory.

Day Thirty: Cable News interest in Olympics issue falls and all revert back to Michael Jackson stories.

A Rally by Any Other Name

A friend writes from his rally experience in Santa Fe: " Contrary to media reports, it was not an anti-Obama rally. It was overwhelmingly attended by average folks concerned about the runaway deficits and the growth of government."

I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.

I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.

The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.

Random Thoughts

Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.

Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.

A Response to a Review: "The Hurt Locker"

Your reviewer’s simplistic review of “The Hurt Locker” dis serves your readers and the community. This independently produced film should be seen by every adult citizen. The conservative lip-service given to our “support of the troops” would benefit from an exposure to a portrayal of the intensity and often chaos of combat and of what we are asking of our men and women. This film is a gripping, intense movie of war and not, as your reviewer seemed to suggest, a political piece. The crucible just happens to be Iraq in 2004 but in reality it could be set in a trench in France or a submarine in the Atlantic. The plot is not burdened with the extraneous. This is not to say, as your reviewer put it that the movie is “missing a story.” Your reviewer, I suggest, may have become accustomed to being spoon fed a story line as in the vast majority of Hollywood’s screened comic books. “The Hurt Locker,” with powerful photography that seems to place you at the scene, follows a bomb disposal team of three men jointly confronting fear and death in their assigned mission. Each man is uniquely affected by the external threats as well as the adjustments necessitated when the internal dynamic of the team changes.

I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.

This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009

Let's Get Serious

I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.

A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?

The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.

Iranian Elections

Ayatollah Khamenei spoke (C-Span translation) at Tehran University about the Iranian election and the aftermath of demonstrations. He praised the 85% turnout of some 40 million citizens as proof of the Iranian people’s belief in and trust of the Iranian Revolutionary government. He argued that if the Iranian people were not supporters of the existing revolution they would not have voted. The people had shown their trust in the democratic process of the Revolution. This thesis was central to a presentation for national and international impact. The Ayatollah described each of the principal presidential candidates as long time members, in good standing, of the Revolutionary establishment, a point he argued further spoke to the legitimacy and strength of the existing form of government. Demonstrations were counter-revolutionary and should cease, in large measure, because there are existing legal avenues for challenging “specific” aspects of the voting. Demonstrations might also, he warned, have the unintended consequences of violence and death for which political leaders would be held accountable. Khamenei repeatedly warned about the overt and covert counter-revolutionary actions of the evil nations of the United States and England.

Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.

Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.

Judging the Judge

I am increasingly sickened by the political rhetoric regarding Judge Sotomayor as exploited by the shallow, histrionic “news” media. The latest “reporting” and “analysis” of two comments by Judge Sotomayor is ridiculous in emphasis and baseless in relevance. Judge Sotomayor has some thirty years of public service as an attorney in varied roles. She has through those years openly presented herself, her integrity, her competence, her judgment, her self-control, her intelligence, and her grasp of the law. As an assistant district attorney she made judgment calls on who would be prosecuted and what charges they would face. In the prosecution of these cases her character, demeanor and integrity were open to the scrutiny of the public, the defense bar, the media and the judges before who the cases were tried. In private practice the scrutiny continued by the courts, the New York Bar Association, her clients and, at times again, the public. Sitting as a federal District Court judge, her personal character and grasp of the law would have manifest itself repeatedly in the relatively fast paced, pressure filled dynamic of public trials. As a federal appellate judge her written opinions over the years provide another opportunity for reasoned analysis of her record. I do not know what will surface as the result of the now commencing political process but I do know that it is utterly preposterous to extract two sentences out the context of her career to rationally conclude anything of relevance.

In one of these statements she spoke of the difference in the functions of a trial court from those of the appellate courts. Trial courts deal with the facts and the applicable law in a unique circumstance. In her comment she explicitly referred to the law as “percolating” through the federal appellate courts. She did not suggest that it was a responsibility of any court to “make new law.” Judge Sotomayor correctly referred to policy formulation as a function of appellate courts. Appellate courts put form to the law in response to changed conditions and clarify and/or apply existing precedent to new factual situations, all of which impact cases and situations outside the particular case being decided.

Her second comment at issue seemed to suggest that a person of varied, life experience might make a better judge then one of limited life experience. I agree. Of course, personal experience must be coupled with other qualities, such as, a deep sense of fairness, intelligence capable of understanding legal concepts, and a self-controlled demeanor all hopefully underlying a confident wisdom. Many judges, though there are exceptions, however have risen to that position in a social and professional context dominated by “good old boys” of strikingly similar backgrounds. In my thirty years as an attorney I have found it more the exception than the rule that existing judicial selection processes elevate a man or woman to the bench personally and professionally suited to the task. The search for truth in a trial court and the desire for justice in all courts are played out in crucibles where human emotions, tragedies, ambitions, dreams and expectations are compressed into a formal, legal form. A judge of limited exposure to and appreciation for the realities of life is less likely to correctly or adequately evaluate the facts of the case. The stamping of legal principles unto formless facts of a case would be a relatively easy process for most competent attorneys. Bringing Justice to the process requires a judge of substantive human and legal capacity.

My Friend Proposes "term limits" for Congress ...

I am reminded of another method for limiting legislative abuses:

In the ancient republic of the Locrains "[a] Locrain who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected the innovator was instantly strangled." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Forty-fourth Chapter.

You say "revolution," my friend...

My friend: You present an argument for a return of the American Revolutionary spirit to the citizens to retake control of a government for the people. The focus of your argument appears to be on the unresponsiveness to and derelictions of Constitutional responsibilities by elected politicians. You call for term limits and decry the unchecked spending and budget projections in the current economic crisis. Please consider:

Any "revolution" should carefully consider the circumstances creating the opportunity for dynamic change. To simply strike at the actors and performers would be meaningless. I am increasingly becoming convinced that the only "revolutionary" solution is one that strikes at those paradigms that have corrupted "our experiment." Among these are the wholesale deregulation of human greed which fostered illegal immigration as a cheap labor pool, fills the halls with lobbyists and their "contributions" and permitted securities fraud of unimaginable dimensions; an energy policy blinded by special interests and dangerous to our very existence; and a failure of the nation as a whole to stand up to and within political party systems that reward merely loyalty, ambition and money with apparently little, if any, regard for integrity, honor and commitment to the general welfare.

If it takes a substantial investment by our country to bring about a revolutionary change in these and other fundamental corruptions, so be it. As the founding fathers, we should be ready to personally sacrifice in the relatively short term and invest for the creation of a wiser and stronger United States of America.

To Sue on 3/7/09

My dear friend, you are most certainly correct that what is happening is frightening. And, more frightening is the fact that the fear is justified. I think the first thing that we in America must realize is that this is not a personal problem but rather an international crisis. Even China, now our selfish benefactor, is slipping. Other moderately and more heavily developed countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas are in the same boat. Significantly, they also are “throwing money” into their banks, infrastructure and markets. Now, this is not proof that this approach is the correct one since it could just be that everyone is wrong in choice of solution. Yet, I have to believe that the governments had sought their best available advice. So, it appears to me, that the real consensus is that governments are the only alternative for meaningful and necessary intervention. These are not just the so-called “socialist” countries of Western Europe. GDP’s have fallen across the board (even China) and so looking comparatively at spending as a percentage of GDP past and present is misleading at this time. I respectfully disagree that “every economist in the land” is seriously opposed to what is going on. And Cramer performs as an idiot. In the first place he is not an economist; like Rush (with no respect due to him) he is an entertainer. Cramer made his name on Wall Street as a practitioner during “bubbles.” Throughout the lead up to the crisis Cramer repeatedly screamed for investment and often urging investment in or contending the strength of corporations just prior to their collapse. There is enough on the internet, aside from Republican/Rush conservative sources, to see a broader picture.
Of course there is a great danger that such levels of government spending may create another inflationary crisis in the future. I think this is recognized by all including the Federal Reserve Chairman and the President. This concern is, I believe, the reason the President has announced a plan/intention/proposal to cut the federal deficit by something like a half within a stated time frame. The international community, which rightly still considers us the “strongest” economic entity, and our own market and banking communities need to have their confidence bolstered that the massive spending will have limits. I guess I have to mention the tax “increases” at this point since the lapse of the Bush cuts is a large part of the spending balance. Bush and the then Republican congress, on the verge of enormous expenditures for war, played the big “conservative” card that helped to push us from a negative national debt to the abyss we have today. No, though my exquisite manners and impeccable taste suggest that I am in the upper tax brackets, I fall far, far short. The “over $250,000” will suffer a return to tax levels of something like 39% rather than the present 37%. Actually, pre-Reagan I believe the rate was closer to 90%.
Please recall as well that the first ¾ trillion bailout late last year came at the urgent pleading of the Bush administration and the Fed; all this on top of the deficit of the Bush years. So, I find it quite disingenuous of Republican politicians to now scream about uncontrolled spending. Another tenet of the Republican Party has been the rejection of government interference, i.e. regulation, in business and Capitalism. So, quickly because I tend to ramble, let’s talk about the home mortgage crisis that was and is, by all accounts, a significant though not sole factor in the world-wide crisis. Here the Democrats and Republicans can take some blame, though each was motivated by different objectives, for pressing for expanded home ownership. So, “bad” loans were encouraged. Once these bad loans were in place they became subject to wholly unregulated (another joint mistake of the two Parties) derivatives. And imagination and greed piled more complex derivative upon complex derivative (all based upon the same bad or questionable loans). This was not simply the Fannie and Freddie situation though they were a part of it. Importantly, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, President Bush and Cramer, et al., were all advising and screaming spend, spend, spend. Recall that Bush said after 9/11 that all Americans need to get out and spend. So people, sheep that we are, pushed credit to the max, took out second mortgages, bought investment homes and used home equity to buy bling and gas guzzling trucks and vans. All the while input into the Treasury was cut substantially by the sacrosanct tax cuts. And the bubbles got bigger and bigger while warnings were ignored.
Now, in the first month, focus on that for a moment if you will – the first month, of this administration the Democratic House came up with a ridiculous, far-left package that reasonably was whittled down in the Senate. I accepted that Obama needed some time to assert his control over the congressional Democrats and that control is slowly becoming more evident though not complete by any means. It is significant, I believe, to recall those days long ago in November of last year when the majority of the American people repudiated the professed philosophy and expressed conduct of the conservative Republican Party. It can be argued that the vote for Obama was, to some measure, merely a rejection of the Bush cabal and not his Party values. And that may have some truth, however, it may also be correct that the Obama vote margin would be even greater in his favor, rejecting Republican values, except for the concern for Obama’s lack of experience.
I come from a generation raised with a belief in the reforms of the Roosevelt administration after the last Great Depression. Certainly, WW II changed the whole dynamic in bringing the world out of that depression but, as one example, unemployment dropped from some 25% to 10-12% before WWII based on such spending programs as the CCC’s and WPA. Roosevelt really was not the communist/socialist he is depicted as in some circles today. His policies were intended and did foster capitalism and business growth. I see Obama’s stated positions as similar. We need, in the context of vigorous debate, to give him some time. But, within that debate, ALL must recognize that a fundamental problem with our economy is a lack of confidence. A big part of the world’s problem is a corresponding lack of confidence in us. When our politicians vehemently reject and raise Armageddon as the necessary result of Obama’s policies it undercuts any positive effects of the programs. There must be a cautious balance in the public rhetoric. There will be ample opportunity to get back to the fear mongering of the Bush years during an election but for now they should cool it.
Substantively, I have absolutely no problem with the government spending (remember it is the ONLY source of recovery now) to increase jobs while repairing our roads, bridges and electrical grid (remember the falling bridges, failing dikes and blackouts due to antiquated structure); to enable and encourage start-up companies and entrepreneurs in developing new clean energy sources (rather than diminishing, polluting and foreign fossil fuels); to encourage and support educational opportunities for Americans in fields such as nursing and engineering so that we can BECOME AGAIN a competitive economic power (we now import nurses; high school dropout rates and our comparative (world)testing scores are abysmal); and revamp the medical system so that those companies that still pay or would pay a part of health care would not need to do so and their competitive outlook would be greater against the rest of the civilized world that has generally universal coverage and America would have a healthier work force (again our health care, as expensive as it is, is not as successful as in many other developed countries).
It is frightening and ANY alternative is a gamble based on too many probabilities as well as unintended consequences. The country picked a leader and he is putting out a plan. In combat, any plan may be modified prior to the assault to fit a changing situation and there will have to be adjustments – and there will be mistakes – in the administration plans. However, in combat, once the plan is being executed, even if it is not the optimum, if it is carried through with courage and vigor it can succeed.

Seppuku

As reported on nytimes.com today: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. senator gibed that executives of the troubled insurer American International Group Inc might consider suicide, adopting what he called a Japanese approach to taking responsibility for their actions.

Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, made the comments Monday in an interview with a radio station in his home state of Iowa."

The Senator's comments brought out expressions of shock from the talking heads. I also am shocked. I am shocked that Senator Grassley would appear to believe that the executives in these "recently successful" business enterprises possess a level of moral character sufficient for them to accept responsibility and to publicly acknowledge their dishonor. Seppuku, as suggested here, is premised on a true sense of personal honor. Honor is manifest by the conscience and will of a person to do the right thing. The reflex of this honor is a sense of personal shame. Neither honor nor shame are admired qualities within capitalism or, presently, within our society. We must demand more of our leaders.

Stimulus and Support for the Presidency

Senator Lindsey Graham is being interviewed on a Fox News program as I write this. He charges that the President has “failed” and has lost an opportunity to bring the country together by going forward with a recovery bill that could only gain the support of three Republican senators. The senator’s commentary directly called into question the competence of the President to lead the country. Apparently this senator speaks for the entrenched 41 Republican senators who reject a compromise worked out in joint sessions today. Three Republicans, according to media reports, will vote with the Democratic majority to pass the compromise.

The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.

We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.

The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.

Life as a Voyage

I ran across this quote tonight from the autobiography," Wanderer," of Sterling Hayden, an actor, and a member of the OSS during WW II who ran guns to guerrillas fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Apparently, he loved the ocean and sailing. I thought it is interesting, beyond sailing.

"To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea... cruising, it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about. "I've always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can't afford it." What these men can't afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of security. And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone. What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, the dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?"

A thought about Obama

There is a long road ahead for him, but I appreciate President-elect Obama's having begun his day on the 19th of January with an unscheduled visit to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He did this a day after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Each of these actions by a president-elect were, I understand, unprecedented in the days immediately preceding an inauguration.

I was not a supporter of Obama in the election and still have serious concerns. But, in a few hours he will be our President, and, accordingly, he deserves our respect and support. I am, frankly, angered by the emails that I receive continuing to replay the political diatribes of the election cycles. I understand that many of the actors in Congress have records and views and some are now asserting intended political actions that are worthy of criticism. And there will be a time when those political actions, if pursued within this administration, will bring those personalities and issues into the arena of vigorous debate and discourse. But, let's at least not politically castigate this President, directly or indirectly, before he has taken an action, proposed legislation or violated his oath. After all, the affirmative vote of 69,456,897 Americans deserves some respect as well.

Cheney's farewell.

According to a report moments ago – "Vice President Dick Cheney will be in a wheelchair during Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration, after pulling a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said" (CNN)

I cannot envision his recreating a more appropriate iconic image wholly representative of his character, demeanor and role these last eight years. Can you?

A letter to a friend: Unions

I have not been watching the auto industry issues very closely but I am concerned about some of what I read. My mother and father were both union members and often the best Christmas gift I received as a child was from the union. Having been raised in Chicago, I remember well the stories of the violence against union organizing in the early twentieth century. The unions made the difference between a living wage and basically indentured servitude. I remember my mother speaking of the difference in wages after her laundry unionized. I think her wage for hand pressing and folding a shirt went up to about .03 cents a shirt. She was 15. My dad worked for US Steel at its mill in South Chicago and, though wages were a continuing issue, safety concerns were paramount. Most importantly in each situation there was a structure that spoke for the workers. Prior to that, to speak up about conditions would cost a worker a job or a beating. To be sure, if one survived the career in the mill or sweat shops, the companies ultimately provided retirement and health benefits. A situation not unlike the Armed Services though each time a union contract came up for renewal all benefits and wage amounts were up for renegotiation. In my parent's situation, the contract that he was under from US Steel called for all benefits to end upon his death. So my mother lost all health benefits when he died. Other workers under different contracts may not have had their elderly spouses abandoned. Remember, in that generation most women were housewives.

The point, it seems to me, is that contracts for future benefits were always subject to market forces. The retirees now benefiting from contracts entered into years ago are in that situation because of the give and take of market power and negotiation. These were not the result of largess on the part of the companies or extortion of the workers.

The disparity between UAW wages in the North and foreign companies in the Southern states comes from market forces and, I expect, from the lack of unions in Southern states. As an attorney in private practice here in Richmond I saw first hand the substantial and heavily moneyed effort to keep unions out. I represented the companies. It seems to me that there is little difference in the actual wages paid whether North or South. [see the articles below] This lack of disparity is due in part to the existing market situation of higher existing UAW wages. Otherwise, I am confident that Toyota to South Carolina would be paying close to Mexican wage scales. Further, the plants in the South are relatively new and accordingly do not have added weight of existing, negotiated benefits for retirees and current employees.

Our country has come a long way with established safety regulations and so that effort on the part of unions need not be as needed or confrontational. But laborers have value in a capitalist system. The most effective way to insure a correct value for labor is by matching the power of the corporate structure against a unified, labor structure. There is no compassion in capitalism. Our country has dramatically moved away from employer health and retirement benefits. We are now in the transitional period when substitutes for employer programs and even social security are developing daily.

The bottom line for me is that the auto industry, as with American manufacturing, is not failing because of labor costs. The paradigm has changed. The globalization of United States corporations attracted by exceptionally cheap labor overseas is merely the logical extension of capitalism. Corporations are not good citizens. They have no patriotism. American labor can perform as well or better than any other national group. Maybe they just have to accept wages comparable to those in a village outside Ho Chi Minh City or wait for those villagers to organize for appropriate wages and benefits.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050

Proportionate Terrorism 12/27/08 ?

The article on NYTimes.com read simply "Israeli Gaza Strike Kills 225" and wounds some 700 Palestinians. The article gave an explanation for the attack: "But in some ways the [upcoming Israeli] elections have made it impossible for officials like Mr. Barak not to react, because the public has grown anxious and angry over the rocket fire, which while causing no recent deaths and few injuries is deeply disturbing for those living near Gaza."

The world has for years been "anxious and angry" and has experienced terrorism and death while Israeli governments alternate factions cold and colder to resolution and Palestinian "authorities" feign or hide behind claims of sincere desires for resolution. And each side must continue to use the imposition of terror to express the validity of its position.

Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people deserve death because of the intransigence of their respective rulers and the criminally inept policies of the United States. This visceral reaction on my part to this day's news must be followed with a broader analysis though it will benefit only the writer.

Government in Illinois

Chicago/Illinois politicians generally hone their criminal talents from birth within the party system. They should be given some credit for the unswerving commitment to a life of cutting edge bribery. These are not amateurs at corruption but they are, invariably, so greedy as to cross the line into stupidity. Growing up in Chicago under the wing of the old Mayor Daley the corruption in the city was systemic. But the city ran exceptionally well with a shadow government of democratic precinct captains and corrupt officials. As a resident driver back then, one knew to have a five or ten dollar bill wrapped around the driver's license on the chance one was stopped for a traffic offense. The corrupt office holders, contractors and appointees picked up the trash, shoveled the snow, cleaned the parks, acquitted the guilty and protected the bookies. But if you didn't especially need justice or honest official conduct, life was calm and stable.

A note to the ASPCA

I take issue with the decision to place an ASPCA ad calling attention to the great number of animals abandoned during the holidays during the CNN report tonight by Ms. Amanpour on the genocide of humans in Darfur. There is no measure of equality between these two situations. The juxtaposition of these issues by the ASPCA during this program was more than insensitive, it was sickening and obscene. Your organization should be ashamed of this insensitive stupidity.

End of an Era - Worth Repeating

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE)

Interesting how "BCE" might also refer to "Bush/Cheney Era.

Merely an Observation

Have you ever waited in a checkout line while a women ahead of you searches through, readjusts, drops and replaces all or a portion of the contents of an oversized shoulder bag? Of course, we all have. We sigh, groan or cuss under our breath but we learn to expect, with a high degree of probability, this activity because such conduct seems to be in the nature of the beast. Apparently, this lesson had been lost on NASA.

'Oh Great': Astronaut Loses Tool Bag During Spacewalk
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (Associated Press)
HOUSTON — A spacewalking astronaut accidentally let go of her tool bag Tuesday after a grease gun inside it exploded, and helplessly watched as the tote and everything inside floated away.
It was one of the largest items ever to be lost by a spacewalker, and occurred during an unprecedented attempt to clean and lube a gummed-up joint on a solar panel.
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper was just starting to work on the joint when the mishap occurred.
She said her grease gun exploded, getting the dark gray stuff all over a camera and her gloves. While wiping off herself, the white, backpack-size bag slipped out of her grip, and she lost all her other tools.
"Oh, great," she mumbled.

A Continued Response

The friend answered with his observation that "many were jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon." Taking this personally I responded:
"It seems to me that everyone standing in line is not waiting to jump on any "bashing" bandwagon. I think the lines we see are quite simply the growing - though relatively static - lines for unemployment insurance, company grade officer resignations, Veterans care, bank/401K withdrawals, small business/student/home mortgage loans, criminal legal representation (primarily former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, et al.) and voter registration (OK. This last one has almost all Bush bashing democrats)."

The friend then commented that he felt confident that he could show the democrats at least equally as responsible. And, so I said:
"Generally, you will not get an argument from me. It's an "Imperial Presidency" that I condemn. The elected representatives from both political parties, for most of at least the last 16 or so years, have consistently set the table in Washington so as to ignore, corrupt and devalue our country's higher ideals and the true common good of the people."

The friend then suggested that we might all agree that less government would be better. And, so I felt compelled to add:
"I agree - with a footnote. Cutting federal and state is certainly a very worthy effort. However, the cuts should be well considered. Wholesale chopping that eliminates or guts effective oversight has repeatedly shown human nature or "the market" incapable of sustained, reasoned, fair and legal conduct. The current financial crisis has a genesis in unrestrained greed and overreaching (bottom and top) in the mortgage market and, most significantly, in the derivatives markets where oversight was non-existent. In my own personal experience as a federal criminal prosecutor I saw the aftermath of the lifting of regulatory oversight in the airline industry with wide spread use of counterfeit/surplus repair parts and negligent repair and maintenance. I had ample job security when the savings and loan institutions were taken to account, again, as a direct result of the gutting of effective oversight by elimination of inspection positions and targeted budget constraints. So, I agree with the cutting of the duplicated, ineffective and unnecessary. Yet, until there is an even playing field for each and among all, there must be reasoned oversight. Caveat emptor is not a substitute for "Equal Justice for All."

Wasn't there an old NCO adage to the affect: "The only thing that is done well is that which is inspected."?" [My friend was kind to correct me. "The hero of St. Vith--BG Bruce Clarke wrote in his book for the Commander and Leader that a unit does well that which the commander checks."

This is not Plato, but, it has been cathartic.

A Response

A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:

Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.

We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.

An Aside

I must admit that I have been anxious to put pen to paper or, rather, finger to key, given the events and propaganda pervading the media during these closing days of the presidential campaign. For example, I wanted to write about how McCain is being disserved by those running his campaign from my perspective as a target independent swing voter. And, I expect I soon will do that. But, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have wasted a moment of my time to write to the on-screen personages of a television program that I never watch. After seeing a clip from "The View" and reading associated commentary, I sent the following into the bowels of their website:

"Elizabeth Hasselbeck is correct in her view of the importance of the personal associations chosen by candidates. Of course, there are general issues presented in this presidential election that are important for the electorate to consider. However, the character of the person who would be president is above all other matters the most crucial of these. It is not a "smear" to seriously discuss the associations a candidate choses to maintain in his or her personal and professional life. Recall the discusssions in the past of a candidate's membership in an "all-white" country club or an "all-male" business club. It is one thing to question the weight to be given any relevant issue and a far different matter to deny its relevance entirely. "You are known by the company you keep." Can the others on the show reasonably deny that?"

Gut Reactions

The first debate has just concluded and I can get back to the Cubs game. Since they are losing I’ll try to multi-task and write my initial reaction to the debate. I expected the debate to present the candidates in a forum and within a debate structure that would permit exposure of their comparative knowledge and “performance” skills. No one should make a decision on a candidate based on observations of a television debate. I had very limited expectations of the value of the exercise. This debate lived down to my expectations. First of all, there should have been tighter control of the timing. Each candidate appeared at times to be satisfied with their response but the moderator pushed simply for more of the same. Had the moderator asked a more focused second or third question we would have learned more about the stated position. McCain clearly showed more self-control and appeared the more secure. Sen. Obama frequently showed impatience and an immaturity in his facial expressions, body movements and attempts at interruption when Sen. McCain spoke. Sen. McCain’s expressions were, at worst, paternalistic at times.

Substantively, over an hour was spent discussing the current economic crisis although the debate was scheduled to concern foreign policy. With the relatively unbridled economic discussion there was little time remaining for foreign policy and a good portion of that time was spent on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Assuredly, these countries are important for our country and there was a limited time for discussion of Russia. Other important areas of foreign policy were left out completely. I have repeatedly heard their positions on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran and allowing the repetition was of no value to anyone but, possibly, a Van Winkle. I hoped to hear how they perceive and would deal with China, Venezuela, Cuba, Africa, India/Pakistan, India, or how about genocide, globalization, or differentiated Muslim extremism in the world. The debate as structured and controlled was a major disappointment.

During the movement through the channels to the Cubs channel, I heard the talking heads begin to discuss what they thought were the most important issues of criticism of the debate. McCain was expected to “hit a home run” in this debate on foreign policy and in their view he had not, so “points to Obama.” “Obama stood tall.” “Obama held his own.” I should admit that I never got over to Fox. Well, although I disagreed with McCain on a few of the issues and am sympathetic to Obama’s counter positions, I believe McCain was the clear winner of the overall debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will be seen to have won on the economic portion. However, his strength in that portion of the debate is neither his substantive policies nor his abilities. Any perceived victory is purely the result of the effects now felt by Americans of the Bush/Republican debacles. Viewing the overall debate, McCain came across with confidence, knowledge and relevant experience and expressed himself clearly and decisively. Even Sen. Obama repeatedly said that he “agreed with John.” McCain was unnecessarily repetitious at times but a good part of the blame for that was in the structure of the debate and the lack of control by the moderator. Sen. McCain is still the best candidate but he still carries ugly luggage.

Love Thyself

This is a brief thought regarding the reaction of the media (Letterman included) to the possibility of a delayed presidential debate. Since Sen. McCain announced his desire to go to Washington and delay the debate scheduled for tonight there has been a chorus of wailings from talking heads who are part of the television media. Certainly, McCain's decision warrants a legitimate discussion and debate. Yet, it strikes me that the real basis behind their emphasis and comment is their belief in their own self worth. "They" seem to consider the candidate's selection of the financial crisis as more important then the televised debate as an affront to their perceived position of power and influence. The American people "want to see the candidates together on television." We are the real and essential dynamic of our system, they seem to be saying. They ask how a candidate can refuse to put himself out before fifty million Americans that "we" can provide? They have made this very personal. The correct answer was given by an interviewee on one of these "essentials" when he said that the work to be done for the 300 million Americans was the more important.

Crisis vs. Campaign

The descriptions are frightening to some and seriously troubling to all. “Financial meltdown,” "the most serious financial situation since the Depression,” “crisis” seem to be the milder terms. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are quoted as saying the situation, if not immediately addressed, could have dire consequences for our Wall Street as well as international markets. They also assert that, unaddressed, the situation would directly harm an American’s ability to maintain her home, his job and savings.

Senator Obama’s staffers contacted the McCain campaign staffers this morning and proposed a joint declaration of principles on the crisis by the candidates which would be presented to Congress and the Bush Administration. Senator McCain called back and, apparently speaking directly with Sen. Obama, agreed with the proposal. Sen. Obama showed initiative and Sen. McCain showed a willingness to adopt a reasonable proposal, even from an opponent.

Later, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to engage in the resolution of congressional/Administration efforts. In this announcement he asked Sen. Obama to do the same and join him in meeting directly with the President to help resolve the differences between the Administration’s proposal and congressional objections. McCain asked that the debate scheduled for Friday on foreign policy, perceived by a vast majority of knowledgeable people to be a McCain strength, be postponed. McCain’s campaign also announced that he had directed all campaign media efforts on his behalf to cease while this suspension continued. Senator Obama has rejected the McCain concept and said that the joint proposal would be sufficient to get their points across and that the American people were anxious to see the debate. Up until moments ago Democrats, Speaker Pelosi included, today (N.P.R. interview) spoke of a substantial gap between the Administration and Congress. Beginning tonight with the six o’clock news, however, a couple of Democrats, when questioned about the McCain effort, said it wasn’t needed and that an agreement was nearly completed. So sayeth the Dervishes.

“Ride to the sound of the guns," has been around in military lore and tradition for centuries. The sound of the cannons is considered to be where the center of action is on the battlefield. A leader belongs at the place of battle where the outcome may be influenced by the exercise of leadership. In some situations the presence of the leader may be enough to influence the outcome while at other times the leader’s continuing decisions are significant to the outcome. If you need me to state an example of the soundness of this exhortation I suggest you go back to your copy of “People” magazine.

Sen. McCain is “riding to the sound of the guns.” This most important debate on the financial crisis facing this country, at least, in our lifetimes is ongoing in Washington. If there are principles and issues of import to a sitting United States Senator on this issue, that Senator belongs in Washington within the arena fighting for those principles and issues. The idea of sending a document of concerns in lieu of standing and asserting those concerns, debating, negotiating, and compromising where essential for the best interests of our country, is not the action of a leader. Each of these candidates is the presumptive leader of his party and one will inherit the results of this effort. Being the leader of the party includes leading the party. Sen. Obama cannot respond “present” in this crisis. As far as the desire of Americans to see a debate, that position is now overtaken and overwhelmed by the concerns of the citizens about their own and the country's financial future.

The Bush proposal is a mere skeleton yet contains Cheneyesk demands that have to be eliminated. The Congress must report for duty whatever the impact on their political futures. McCain is correct in taking this action in moving to the sound of the guns. Obama presents himself as what we used to refer to as a “base camp warrior.” I refer you down the page to my quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, “[T]he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…”

Trust me. Again.

Today, President Bush spoke of the economic instability on Wall Street and his approach to Congress for immediate implementation of his proposed response. "The whole world is watching to see if we can act quickly to shore up our markets and prevent damage to our capital markets, businesses, our housing sector, and retirement accounts," Bush said Monday. "Failure to act would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."

On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.

Decision

I believe that John McCain is the best candidate for the office of the President of the United States. I believe that the Republican Party during the administration of George W. Bush has actively pursued and passively permitted policies contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the best interests of this country.

So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.

I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.

McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.

Financial Markets

Treasury Secretary Paulson in a briefing at the White House moments ago expressed relief and, more significantly, satisfaction that the private sector has come together to take over or bolster the failing financial institutions. Private commercial solutions would, I expect, relieve the federal government from direct intervention. Yet, it also appears to me that we are merely allowing bigger, more powerful profit-driven entities unregulated growth.

President Bush should immediately assemble an advisory panel consisting of non-partisan experts from a broad range of financial disciplines to review the current "corrective" efforts in the market and advise on immediate regulatory approaches. His Office and his administration, standing alone, have neither the confidence of the American people nor of the international community. Congress will take a long term view in the not distant future but by the time new books of regulations and new federal agencies are approved Congress will be able to merely massage rather than tame the beast.

Palin Did Well While McCain Faltered.

Gov. Palin's speech at the convention should do more than bring a sigh of relief to Republicans. She showed the right combination of her personal strength and nature. She seemed to come across honestly. That was Sarah Palin; and I am more confident.

Frankly, it was McCain that caused me some concern after the speech. As he came on the stage after she had completed her speech and greeted her family, he seemed uncomfortable and unsure how to continue or fit into the energy of the crowd. More significantly to me, however, was his way of handling these moments. Although his vice presidential candidate stood to his immediate left McCain repeatedly turned away from her and directed comments to her husband as the crowd continued to cheer. McCain seemed to feel more comfortable with a "man to man" exchange than one with Palin. Palin had just made a most successful speech. McCain should have been able to show that he is personally comfortable with his choice. Had Palin been a more experienced politician she might have taken the initiative. Hopefully McCain and Palin will learn how to be natural together.

Palin and the Media (Chapter One)

The attacks on the candidacy of Gov. Palin, both direct and inferential, being presented now in the media are baseless and ridiculous. The question as to whether the mother of young children can handle substantial leadership responsibilities should have long been buried in the sands.

The lead to a New York Times "news report" today reads: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket." The NYT should have more correctly read "This newspaper is calling into question...." since the article describes it's own reporters calling the issue into question.

After referring to the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter, the NYT article immediately continued: "Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge." These items, as presented by the NYT, individually and collectively, are meaningless. Certainly, the underlying issues of the ethics investigation are important and relevant to her qualifications. However, the fact, alone, that she has a lawyer to represent her in the investigation is suggestive of nothing more than her wisdom in seeking an advocate to insure her rights are protected. The NYT presents this as part of a "Law and Order" script where the detective announces "She lawyered -up." and the audience immediately concludes that she is guilty. I don't know the background of the "Independence Party" but it certainly doesn't have the ring of the Communist Party or anarchism. The secession of Alaska, or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico or Staten Island (which have each given it some consideration) is not a prelude to another Civil War though there is no telling what image that same "Law and Order" audience would conjure at the suggestion. Assuming Mr. Palin has matured since his marriage to the Governor and after his other adult accomplishments his arrest (conviction?) 22 years ago should be nothing more than a footnote. Her daughter's pregnancy is simply irrelevant to Gov. Palin's candidacy. Although the media appears to accept this, there are continuing and unnecessary references to the irrelevance thereby keeping the issue before the public as if it mattered. It doesn't.

The manner of the media's presentation of accumulated, insignificant events and conjectures may influence those Americans who read the headlines on the magazines at the checkout counter and walk out of the store wondering whether or not Jennifer Anniston really is a Russian spy. The conjectures are picked up and spun and re-spun on the 24 hour "news" channels with the addition of "analysis" by talking-heads who are vacuous, advocates for one side or the other. And my friends, on both ends, pick up this, so-called, news and analysis and their emails then bolster the truth and importance of nothing.

A Few Favorite Quotations

It is not the critic who counts; not the one who points out how the strong man or woman stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the one who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends themselves in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. (T.Roosevelt)[modified]

"I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder." Mohandas K. Ghandi, Autobiography.

"Desire life like water, yet drink death like wine." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.

"With enough courage you don't have to worry about reputation." Rhett Butler, Gone WithThe Wind.

"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself must be either a beast or a god." Aristotle, Politics.

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE) (Interesting, how "BCE" might also refer to the Bush/Cheney Era.), The Peloponnesian War.

McCain's choice of Palin

First of all, after the self-centered, morally corrupt years of the Clinton presidency and the corruption of our Constitution and national moral values by the Bush/Cheney cabal, I want to see, in anyone who would lead this Country, strength of character and integrity. That integrity should itself be premised upon a high personal moral code. The strength of character I look for is suggested in the words of the West Point Cadet Prayer: "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole truth can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy." I want an American who will defend not just America's shores against attack but also will defend the People's Constitutional and evolved liberties and sustain their pursuit of happiness.

For my adult life I have been a political independent. I grew up in Chicago where the Democratic precinct captain was the link to all political services. On one wall of our rented flat was a crucifix and a picture of FDR. I stood near and listened to JFK speak. I believed in him and believed in "The Impossible Dream" of that man from La Mancha. Later, despite the warning that voting for him would place me in Viet Nam, I voted for Goldwater.

I now understand more about the growth of this country than was presented in the history classes of the fifties and early sixties. I appreciate more the complexities of international policies and national politics. I have repeatedly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I believe that whatever value to the United States there may be to "free-trade" and globalization, they are not a substitute for the evolved values of liberty and justice in our country. In other words, it is imperative that our leaders believe that the core of this "experiment" must be protected. There will be change, as in all things. But, the strength, the beauty, the value, the promise of the American experiment has now given way to self-centered consumerism and unbridled capitalism. The rhetoric of politicians espousing "our American values" is, and has been for some time, hypocritical in view of their actions and their inaction's.

I see hypocrisy in the McCain of 2008 as he does himself. I wholly disagree with some of his proposals; continuing the Bush tax cuts, for example. With the editors of The Economist (Aug. 30, 2008), I prefer McCain One. The Republican Party agenda under Cheney/Bush has been an affront to the vast majority of Americans. Yet, I have a confidence in McCain's integrity and strength of character that I just cannot find in Obama. The fluffy rhetoric of the Democratic Party and expansive promises are hollow. I am angry that the opposition party could do no better than Obama after the debacles of Bush. I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president though I may shudder and say a prayer as to some of his stated policies. His decisions in office will be made, I believe, after honest, intellectual consideration of options for the common good within this country. I am encouraged by his honesty when he answers "I don't know the answer but I'll get back to you" to some off-the-wall question. But, let me get back to the questions surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin.

I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president on critical international and national issues. I see no reason, at this point, not to trust his judgment on Palin. McCain will define the role and responsibilities he wants from his Vice President just as he will define the policies of the Republican Party for this election. I share the concern of others who question whether the scope and substance of Gov. Palin's life experience has given her the strengths necessary to lead a nation. As I see her in these first few days, I like the fact that she appears to have entered into politics more with a sense of selfless service to her community than political party ambition. I like her "frontier" persona. I like her positions and actions to bring integrity into government and on care for the environment. I like the choice of a strong woman who has shown the ability to lead, to make tough decisions. Her shortcomings in international affairs are the shortcomings of Obama as well. I do not have confidence in Obama's character. Presidents and Vice Presidents have the strengths of intellectual and experienced advisers. The "3:00 o'clock AM" calls are events in evolving situations that have been studied and briefed. The Pentagon, Homeland Defense, the CIA, et al. have contingency studies and plans. The real questions are in the personal character, intelligence, wisdom and decisiveness of the leader. These questions apply equally during the regular work day of the leader.

Gov. Palin should begin with the benefit from us of a trust in McCain's judgment and with a confidence in herself. As for me, I want to believe.

In the News 3/4/08 and Beyond

"Venezuela and Ecuador sent troops to the Colombian border on Sunday in response to Colombia’s military raid on a rebel encampment in the jungle about a mile inside Ecuador. Colombian forces killed 21 guerrillas belonging to ... FARC, Colombia’s largest rebel group." In an announcement from the White House, President Bush announces his support for Columbia.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.

Another Retrospective

I received a notice yesterday announcing the premier of "Inside the Vietnam War" on the National Geographic Channel onMonday, February 18 at 8 PM EST. The program is three hours long.

Maybe I should just trust the proponents of this program but I have seen too many Vietnam retrospectives that simply p---- me off. In everything I have seen as time has passed there seems to be a need by these "historians" to give the vast number of non-veteran, baby-boomers who protested, evaded the draft or simply enjoyed the good life at home a "feel-good" sense of approval. Their protest, evasion or indifference has become an essential part of these productions because Vietnam was the "wrong war" or because of the My Lai atrocities or tales of fabrications of body counts or whatever. The narrations always point to the "big picture." The in-country portion invariably shows the same napalm run over a seemingly peaceful village, the naked child running from conflict and the early stages of the Tet Offensive. Of course, there are the interviews with troops who suffer from PTSD. My view or the conclusions of others on the "big picture" or the politics are not relevant to my views here.
It seems that it has taken 60 years to present, truthfully and dramatically, the bravery, integrity and selflessness during combat of the World War II grunts. A visitor to the magazine section at any bookstore will find multiple shelves reporting the battles and heroics of the Civil War and World War II. You may find a bi-monthly magazine on Vietnam. Maybe it will take a like period of time for the retrospectives or documentaries or motion pictures to pick up on the fact that the men, draftees or volunteers, who fought in the jungles of Vietnam have their own singular, monumental story. Those who fought all know some of those stories and those of the nurses and doctors, of those on the rivers and off the coast, of the chopper pilots and gunners, of the close air support, et al. The only venue for these stories now seems to be the scattered, almost anonymous, Internet web sites sought out primarily by other veterans.

The men and women now fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are now rightfully the focus of the public's interest. And there have been some good productions from Iraq on television. Even now, however, the fickle great-American-public seems to be losing interest in these combat experiences. "Hamburger Hill," like "Pork Chop Hill" before it, presented some of the best qualities of the veteran in combat. That snapshot is overwhelmed, however, by these supposedly historical documentaries. The bottom line for me is until the bravery, integrity and selflessness of the men and women who fought and died in Vietnam is made the singular thesis of a documentary I don't care to watch another supposedly "balanced" history.

A letter to a classmate.

With all due respect, now, more than ever, is the time for such discussions. Your comment suggests that there had been an earlier conversation [about the Iraq War] among the class. I regret that I missed that opportunity. I believe that the conversation should have never ended. Our country is in an approach to a general election. Notwithstanding the cherry-picked issues of the candidates and the media during the primaries, the fundamental concern must be the character, competence and qualification of those who would be our elected leaders. The decisions of this present administration over the course of the past seven years now form the framework of what we as a nation have become and, to a great measure, define the position we maintain in each “crisis” situation around the world. Now is precisely the time, for example, to educate ourselves and discuss the events and actors that pulled us out of Afghanistan and put us into Iraq. Now is the time to discuss the competence, character and policies of the current administration and to apply those negative or positive lessons and value-judgments in our evaluation of which direction our country should now move.

I suggest that is it our duty, a duty greater than most other Americans, to the men and women now serving and who will serve over the next generation, to continue to educate ourselves and others about the leadership lessons of the Iraq war. One of my concerns has been that we as a nation will now blindly accept the status quo and not call to account the decisions and “deciders” that brought us to this point in Iraq. It is far too easy just to say “We are in Iraq so we need to support the troops.” I fully support the magnificent effort of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot pullout precipitously. However, the fact that this effort is finally being applied in a tactically sound, counter-insurgent manner with increasing success, should not, must not, cause us to ignore the nature and conduct of the leaders who brought us to this moment. These lessons should control the present, presidential political debate. Who knows, there may even be time to discuss the use of torture, Middle-East policy, the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus or even why the Army forgot the lessons our men died teaching us in Vietnam. Having graduated in the bottom five percent of our class I have always admired the intelligence of my classmates [including those few whose names are found after my own]. With the experience and education gained since June 1965 I think we might just have something to contribute.

In The News

In the news today: "Fire in Executive Office Building near Cheney's "ceremonial" office."

In the news tomorrow: "Cheney claims subpoenaed documents destroyed in fire."

OR

In the news tomorrow: "Cheney staffer admits fire started following weekly ceremonial burning of US Constitution."

The Reality of the Petraeous Report

I consider the exchange between General Petraeous and Senator John Warner (R. VA) to be significant in understanding the perspective of General Petraeous and essential to weighing its value in the debate of our country's "strategy" toward Iraq. Senator Warner asked the General if he were able to say whether the strategy as he had laid it out would make America safer. The General initially responded that he believed the strategy was the best course to reach our objectives in Iraq to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force Iraq. Pressed again by Warner, Petraeous explained that he had tried to focus on what commanders are supposed to do. Petraeous concluded that his strategy was "the best recommendation to achieve the objectives of the policy from which the objectives are derived." His approach then was merely to accept the finality of the existing force structure and the administration's woefully inadequate "strategy." Acceptance of the General's recommendations then is to agree to nothing more than a face-lift to the "stay the course" road to debacle of President Bush.

It is appropriate to reexamine the comments of Gen. Mathew B. Ridgway, Chief of Staff of the Army in 1953-55. "The point I wish to make here, and to repeat it for emphasis, is that the professional military man has three primary responsibilities:"First, to give his honest, fearless, objective, professional military opinion of what he needs to do the job the Nation gives him."Second, if what is given is less than the minimum he regards as essential, to give his superiors an honest, fearless, objective opinion of the consequences."Third, and finally, he has the duty whatever the final decision, to do the utmost with whatever is furnished." Regrettably, General Petraeous approached his task only as to how "to do the utmost with whatever is furnished." We were wrong to expect more from a soldier.