This week many in America watched the Oscars, a rich display of glitter and glitz, cleavage and emotion, talent and yearning.
This week Barak Obama's presidential campaign earned 1.3 million in one day at a fundraiser in Hollywood, and a very rich entertainment mogul, David Geffen, derided the Clintons. According to Geffen, Hillary is "incredibly polarizing figure," and Bill’s transgressions could be huge liability for the Hillary and the Democrats.
The Clintons responding quickly. They did not want to be perceived as soft on rhetoric—a la Kerry in 2004. And they did not want Obama to have all that Hollywood money to himself.
But it was from another story having to do with Washington that we take our cue this week and offer what is hoped will be viewed as an appropriate response to the overindulgences on display this week.
After four months of investigating, Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull published a series of stories. They focused on the pitiable treatment veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan sometimes received, the bureaucratic horrors they often had to endure, and the sometimes awful conditions these veterans had to tolerate. As good reporting often does, the articles sent shock waves through Washington. Investigations were ordered. Promises to reform have been made. The articles represent the splendid work reporters sometimes due and serve as a reminder of how easy it is for a government agency to falter and how difficult it almost always is to do the hard work that often needs to be done to right a spider's nest of wrongs.
Hugh Thompson, Ron Ridenhour
On a March morning in 1968 Hugh Thompson was flying US Army helicopter near a village that came to be called My Lai. He landed his helicopter between some very ugly Americans and some very scared Vietnamese. By doing this, he stopped the madness that was going on in the village. News of the Americans actions in the region was duly reported to the soldiers’ superiors. And, over time, the atrocities that had been committed were buried by the very bureaucracy that was to make sure that Americans conducted themselves professionally. Months later, Rod Ridenhour had accumulated the evidence he needed to bring some light to the darknesses that surrounded the events that occurred that horrible day in March 1968. He wrote letters. The letters prompted investigations.
For Thompson, Riddenhour, and all the other anonymous heroes in the world, I offer this short—and incomplete—list of noble efforts that were recently produced to cast a splash of light upon a few of the darknesses that overpopulate our world.
Mostly DVD’s
The Inconvenient Truth: Director Davis Guggenheim weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore's personal campaign to help the environment. Who would have thought that both Gore the Bore and a PowerPoint presentation would be combined to create a story that is interesting and popular? The movie drew a great deal of attention to the problems Global Warming creates, and it won Guggenheim a well-deserved Oscar. The movie also made many question the campaign Gore ran in 2000 (he should have shown some of the passion and all of the spine so clearly on exhibit in the movie), made more think twice about the votes they cast for President in 2000 (Katrina and Iraq may also have something to do with this). The book is even better.
Darwin’s Nightmare: The Nile perch is a delicacy savored in Europe. The fish flourishes in Tanzania’s Lake Victoria. The perch is destroying the lake—it is a shark among minnows. Industries connected with exporting fish to Europe are destroying the lives of the people who need the resources from the lake to survive. There’s more bad news: pilots who fly the perch to Europe often use one leg of their flight into Tanzania to run guns into the continent. Hubert Sauper's film is enlightening, engaging, and powerful.
The Constant Gardener: This feature film was directed by Fernando Meirelles and stars Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. It is based on one of John Le Carre’s best novels. Tessa Quale (Weisz) is brutally murdered. Her husband shakes off his shy diplomatic ways and embarks on a quest to get to the heart of the matter. He cuts through diplomatic run-arounds, the noise surrounding drug company profiteering, and cover-ups. And he discovers a plan to use Africans as guinea pigs to test a new drug. There are enough likeable characters and engaging plot twists to engage even the most hard-line Disneyfile, and the film showcases inconvenient truths, moral outrage, and a hard-boiled realism rarely found in movies made for the mainstream.
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers: Robert Greenwald's documentary illuminates a ghastly record of sleaze, greed, and other forms of incompetence associated with the American experience in Iraq. Greenwald shows that the American government is neither particularly compassionate in the way it treats its soldiers or the people it is supposed to be winning over, nor is it conservative in the way it dispenses taxpayers’ dollars.
Why We Fight: In his last public pronouncement as president, Eisenhower warned the country about the emerging military-industrial complex. Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight chronicles much of the history and captures many of the complex characteristics of the beast. Real patriots give copies of the documentary to their friends.
Who Killed the Electric Car? In 1996 electric cars were sheik. Tom Hanks drove one. They were fast. They ran without gasoline and so produced almost no pollution. Chris Paine’s Who Killed the Electric Car? explores why the cars which were gaining popularity were rounded up and tossed in what amounted to a dumpster.
Mostly Books
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery by Eric Metaxas: The usual suspects: economic short-term interests, ignorance, racism, and convenience perpetuate the cruel and unusual institution we have come to call slavery. Metaxas intelligently chronicles Wilberforce’s early life as a slave trader and his conversion to Christianity and then to abolitionism. Then with William Pitt, Wilberforce energized a crusade to end the abominable slave trade in England. It was an interesting time—many of the good guys were religious zealots. Wilberforce’s drive to dramatize the horrors of slavery and to motivate others to do the right thing is illuminating—not only for what it tells us about all progressive movements—but also for the nuances that were unique to Wilberforce’s life and times.
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy by George Olah, Alain Goeppert, Surya Prakash: If we tell ourselves the truth, it’s not ethanol, it’s methanol that should be used to transition us from oil. No, you will not hear a presidential candidate who wants to do well in the Iowa caucus says these words. Nor will you hear it from the windbags who are pushing corn-based ethanol. Even the short list of reasons to consider methanol is impressive. It is cheap—a dollar gallon with current technology. With modest changes, methanol may be added to gasoline. That means a whole new distribution system will not have to be built—which we would need to implement a hydrogen based economy. (Unlike methanol, hydrogen creates a host of storage problems.) The many things now made from petrochemicals—for example plastics—may be produced from methanol and its by-products. Methanol may be made from coal, natural gas, or biomass—and other sources. Carbon dioxide, one of the insidious agents of global warming may be used to concoct the stuff. Yes, that means making methanol could take carbon dioxide out of the air. And if hydrogen does prove to be a powerfully good source of energy, it probably will be delivered in the form of methanol. There is more hydrogen in a liter of methanol than in a liter of liquid hydrogen. And there is a downside to the liquid hydrogen—it is stored at – 253 degrees Centigrade.
The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Naiton by Stephen Flynn: Our ports are invitations for terrorist attacks. In California dikes that a minor earthquake could crumble keep salt water separate from the fresh water reservoirs that nourish most of California. Little is being done to protect us from these and a host of other possible terrorist and natural disasters. Flynn offers a gripping inventory of the problems and a sane response.
Winning the Oil Endgame by Amory Lovins, E. Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasgow: How to improve energy efficiency as well as business and public policy models to transition the US to sane energy policies.
One of the silver linings within the horror of the American experience in Iraq is that all along there have been many excellent and provocative books, movies, and articles about the experience. Four titles follow.
Fiasco: the American Military Adventure in Iraq Thomas E. Ricks’ effort is the best book in print about the military side of the debacle.
The inside story about how the decision to go to war was made, sold, and implemented is articulated in these often noble efforts:
Blind Into Baghdad: America's War in Iraq by James Fallows
Greatest Story Ever Sold by Frank Rich
Hubris: the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff
State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III by Bob Woodward
But if you are weary of the Iraq story and want to see how miserably similar it is to America’s experience in Vietnam, pick up About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior by David Hackworth. One of the most highly decorated soldiers in the US Army goes to Vietnam. Over time he learns how to fight a guerilla war. But he runs into a far more complex challenge when he tries to share what he has learned with his superiors in the US Army.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
At The Doug Moe Academy Of Sartorial Splendor And Architectural Design: The Deal with North Korea
You won’t find The Doug Moe Academy for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design in the Yellow Pages. Many who know of the clubs hate the secrecy that surrounds the places. Many think the secrecy is just another slab of evidence that shows to go you that the world is on skids greased with ignorance and idiocy.
Doug Moe Academies for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design exist in every large city in the world.
They are bars for political junkies.
The founding family—it was a group of men and women—therefore, chauvinistic slantings like “founding fathers” (and the more whimsical, “start up sisters”) seem inappropriate.
The founders are—or were—political junkies, and, therefore not automatically the most creative of spirits.
There are all kinds of rumors why the places are named after Doug Moe. None of them make sense.
There are no rumors why the phrase “Architectural Design” is in the title of the establishments. No one in the founding family was interested in architecture. None of the bars are examples of compelling or brilliant architecture. None of the bars are examples of anything other than normal, functional architecture. The bit about the phrase Architectural Design is just one of those things that is.
It’s also appropriate to note that the founders weren’t complete dimwits.
Moe’s Explained
At Doug Moe’s you can buy a drink or shoot pool, find a card game or cruise. But mostly the place is a chat room for political fanatics.
Once you’re in, you’re in for life. This makes becoming a member a good deal like being elected to Congress or confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court—parallels many members loathe.
Way back when I joined, I simply was trying to find someone who would teach me how to roll a sliver dollar over the base of my fingers.
Ah but the lofty goals of youth all too often go unachieved.
Not too long ago, I realized that wandering through the club was an excellent—and almost effortless way—of writing a column.
Each “Academy” has a left wing and a right wing. On a given visit, members go to one wing or the other. They aren’t allowed to mix.
The manager of the Academy I frequent is an ex. She lets me into both wings—probably because she pities me. Once we parted she met and later married a tall, handsome guy, who tells funny stories. And he made a pile of dough and cashed in before the Internet bubble burst.
The Mood In The Left Wing
Going to the left wing lately is a good deal like going to a frat party. The Dems have Hillary. They have Obama. They have Edwards. Obama drew five thousand his first weekend after his announcement—in Iowa! While doing the monotonous and boring things reporters do when covering political campaigns in Iowa, I once came across a grain salesman who was giving away a new seed for free! He barely got two hundred people to show up. And Obama got five thousand.
For the Dems, there’s more good news. The former Chief of Staff for Dick “The insurgency is in its last throes” Cheney is on trial for perjury. Almost no one likes Bush’s surge. The election is too far away to worry about whether or not the Democrats will blow another one.
I’d come to Moe’s to talk about why Bush had elected to escalate in Iraq. Bush calls it a surge; I call it an escalation. I didn’t understand why he’d done it.
But when I got to Moe’s, I stumbled onto a conversation I couldn’t ignore. Two men were talking. But they weren’t talking about the surge. They weren’t talking about Obama, or Hillary, or Edwards, or even GW.
They weren’t talking about the beautiful blonde woman who was a few feet from them. Her date—or perhaps it was her husband--rambled on about water issues in the West. She looked to be a few nanoseconds away from falling asleep.
The two men were talking about the deal that was in the works with North Korea.
The Deal with North Korea, Part One
“There’s an odd couple.“
“Bush and Kim Jong Il?
“Yep.”
“So let me see if I’ve got this straight. North Korea now has one or more nuclear bombs.”
“Yes.”
“And Iraq never did—at least while GW was President.”
“Yes.”
“Yet we didn’t invade the country that did have nuclear weapons—North Korea. But we did invade the country that didn’t have nuclear weapons.”
“Yep.”
“And for a long time we didn’t even negotiate with North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“And while we were not negotiating with North Korea they developed the collateral they needed to leverage their nukes for a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
The Deal with North Korea, Part II
“And they’ll probably get to keep their nukes.”
“Probably.”
“And there’s all this noise about how other countries that yakked irresponsibly about nukes before they got them. Then once they got the nukes, they became more restrained and mature about how they talked about them.”
“Yep.”
“And we hope that happens in North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“Isn’t that kind of silly? Isn’t it silly to think that because one person handled a firecracker well that someone else also will?”
“Of course it is.”
“When I was young—“
“Don’t bother. Same think happened to me when I was a kid.”
“You don’t say.”
“One of my friends could juggle firecrackers—while they were lit. Never got hurt—not once. Another lit just one. He just lit one. And it ripped off a couple of his fingers.”
“And there’s another thing. I thought then when you were being blackmailed, if you delivered the ransom, you got whatever it was they had on you.”
“That’s Hollywood. That’s not reality.”
“Of course. Sorry.”
A Problem Discussed
“You know what the problem with you is?”
“What?”
“You’re logical.”
“Oh.”
“I’ll bet you never buy into that crap they try to sell you on TV.”
“You mean advertisements.”
“Yea, advertisements. Do you ever buy something because you see it on a TV advertisement?”
“Almost never.”
“Well there it is.”
“There’s what?”
“That’s your problem.”
“What’s my problem?”
“There.”
“I don’t see anything there.”
“I wasn’t pointing in a literal sense. I was being figurative.”
“Of course.”
“But if you could be more like me, if you could try to believe the commercials and spend a lot of your time trying to get the things in the commercials, well you wouldn’t have time to worry about all these so-called illogical things you think about.”
“So you’re suggesting that if I thought less and acted on impulse more, that I wouldn’t be bothered by stuff.”
“Not as much.”
“Ya think so.”
“Sure of it.”
“There are other things you can do to cut out this nonsense of yours.”
“Really.”
“Start getting scared of everything. Or better yet, help others to get scared of everything. Fear shuts down logical powers better than almost anything.”
“You don’t say.”
“Works darn near every time.”
“And yet we’re still fighting in Iraq—and not getting any significant supplies of oil from there. And North Korea successfully bribes us and others and gets to keep the bait for the bribe and it gets a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
“Tell me how this makes sense.”
“Bad politics.”
“Should a known.”
“And in America we think it’s the leader of North Korea whose nuts.”
“Isn’t that obvious?”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Doug Moe Academies for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design exist in every large city in the world.
They are bars for political junkies.
The founding family—it was a group of men and women—therefore, chauvinistic slantings like “founding fathers” (and the more whimsical, “start up sisters”) seem inappropriate.
The founders are—or were—political junkies, and, therefore not automatically the most creative of spirits.
There are all kinds of rumors why the places are named after Doug Moe. None of them make sense.
There are no rumors why the phrase “Architectural Design” is in the title of the establishments. No one in the founding family was interested in architecture. None of the bars are examples of compelling or brilliant architecture. None of the bars are examples of anything other than normal, functional architecture. The bit about the phrase Architectural Design is just one of those things that is.
It’s also appropriate to note that the founders weren’t complete dimwits.
Moe’s Explained
At Doug Moe’s you can buy a drink or shoot pool, find a card game or cruise. But mostly the place is a chat room for political fanatics.
Once you’re in, you’re in for life. This makes becoming a member a good deal like being elected to Congress or confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court—parallels many members loathe.
Way back when I joined, I simply was trying to find someone who would teach me how to roll a sliver dollar over the base of my fingers.
Ah but the lofty goals of youth all too often go unachieved.
Not too long ago, I realized that wandering through the club was an excellent—and almost effortless way—of writing a column.
Each “Academy” has a left wing and a right wing. On a given visit, members go to one wing or the other. They aren’t allowed to mix.
The manager of the Academy I frequent is an ex. She lets me into both wings—probably because she pities me. Once we parted she met and later married a tall, handsome guy, who tells funny stories. And he made a pile of dough and cashed in before the Internet bubble burst.
The Mood In The Left Wing
Going to the left wing lately is a good deal like going to a frat party. The Dems have Hillary. They have Obama. They have Edwards. Obama drew five thousand his first weekend after his announcement—in Iowa! While doing the monotonous and boring things reporters do when covering political campaigns in Iowa, I once came across a grain salesman who was giving away a new seed for free! He barely got two hundred people to show up. And Obama got five thousand.
For the Dems, there’s more good news. The former Chief of Staff for Dick “The insurgency is in its last throes” Cheney is on trial for perjury. Almost no one likes Bush’s surge. The election is too far away to worry about whether or not the Democrats will blow another one.
I’d come to Moe’s to talk about why Bush had elected to escalate in Iraq. Bush calls it a surge; I call it an escalation. I didn’t understand why he’d done it.
But when I got to Moe’s, I stumbled onto a conversation I couldn’t ignore. Two men were talking. But they weren’t talking about the surge. They weren’t talking about Obama, or Hillary, or Edwards, or even GW.
They weren’t talking about the beautiful blonde woman who was a few feet from them. Her date—or perhaps it was her husband--rambled on about water issues in the West. She looked to be a few nanoseconds away from falling asleep.
The two men were talking about the deal that was in the works with North Korea.
The Deal with North Korea, Part One
“There’s an odd couple.“
“Bush and Kim Jong Il?
“Yep.”
“So let me see if I’ve got this straight. North Korea now has one or more nuclear bombs.”
“Yes.”
“And Iraq never did—at least while GW was President.”
“Yes.”
“Yet we didn’t invade the country that did have nuclear weapons—North Korea. But we did invade the country that didn’t have nuclear weapons.”
“Yep.”
“And for a long time we didn’t even negotiate with North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“And while we were not negotiating with North Korea they developed the collateral they needed to leverage their nukes for a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
The Deal with North Korea, Part II
“And they’ll probably get to keep their nukes.”
“Probably.”
“And there’s all this noise about how other countries that yakked irresponsibly about nukes before they got them. Then once they got the nukes, they became more restrained and mature about how they talked about them.”
“Yep.”
“And we hope that happens in North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“Isn’t that kind of silly? Isn’t it silly to think that because one person handled a firecracker well that someone else also will?”
“Of course it is.”
“When I was young—“
“Don’t bother. Same think happened to me when I was a kid.”
“You don’t say.”
“One of my friends could juggle firecrackers—while they were lit. Never got hurt—not once. Another lit just one. He just lit one. And it ripped off a couple of his fingers.”
“And there’s another thing. I thought then when you were being blackmailed, if you delivered the ransom, you got whatever it was they had on you.”
“That’s Hollywood. That’s not reality.”
“Of course. Sorry.”
A Problem Discussed
“You know what the problem with you is?”
“What?”
“You’re logical.”
“Oh.”
“I’ll bet you never buy into that crap they try to sell you on TV.”
“You mean advertisements.”
“Yea, advertisements. Do you ever buy something because you see it on a TV advertisement?”
“Almost never.”
“Well there it is.”
“There’s what?”
“That’s your problem.”
“What’s my problem?”
“There.”
“I don’t see anything there.”
“I wasn’t pointing in a literal sense. I was being figurative.”
“Of course.”
“But if you could be more like me, if you could try to believe the commercials and spend a lot of your time trying to get the things in the commercials, well you wouldn’t have time to worry about all these so-called illogical things you think about.”
“So you’re suggesting that if I thought less and acted on impulse more, that I wouldn’t be bothered by stuff.”
“Not as much.”
“Ya think so.”
“Sure of it.”
“There are other things you can do to cut out this nonsense of yours.”
“Really.”
“Start getting scared of everything. Or better yet, help others to get scared of everything. Fear shuts down logical powers better than almost anything.”
“You don’t say.”
“Works darn near every time.”
“And yet we’re still fighting in Iraq—and not getting any significant supplies of oil from there. And North Korea successfully bribes us and others and gets to keep the bait for the bribe and it gets a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
“Tell me how this makes sense.”
“Bad politics.”
“Should a known.”
“And in America we think it’s the leader of North Korea whose nuts.”
“Isn’t that obvious?”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Monday, February 12, 2007
A Silly Rumor (see # 7), Ten reasons why the Democrats are—for the Moment—More Interesting, and—Perish the Thought— (near the end) A Hint of Substance
In the recent past, the Democratic candidates running for President have been more interesting than the Republicans. For your consideration, exhibits one – ten:
The List
1) The Democrats have three—count em—three A-list candidates. A fourth, Governor Bill Richardson is far behind in the polls, but with the pols his status is rising. The Republicans have, at best, two A-list candidates.
2) Two of the A-list candidates aim to be firsts, Clinton intends to be the first woman President and Obama the first African-American. The third A-lister, former Senator John Edwards, has an autobiography that is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story.
3) We’ve never seen anything like Obama before—never. Of course some of the elements of his campaign are derivative. Others (John Kennedy, FDR) have sought to minimize experience by speaking of dreams and a new generation of politics. Others (Howard Dean, Ross Perot) have appealed to many who for long have dropped out of politics. Many others (in election years GW Bush was very good at this) have elevated their candidacy by telling the best story. Others have used a gentle touch and a warm smile to break through the brittle prejudices that have so maligned the past. Many others have run as an outsider and sharpened the perception that one of their opponents (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is an insider. Others have invoked the Almighty in a way that is organic and even appealing to many who find such posturings self-aggrandizing and syrupy. Others have tied the various components of their campaigns together with the soft glue of idealism and the white hot passion charisma brings to any enterprise.
This provokes speculation about when Obama’s bubble will burst. This provokes speculation about what’s in the bubble—is it filled with charisma too? 0r, if he is lifted to his current level of attention by more than a bubble—and given America’s penchant for power—many are wondering why it took so long to find someone with whatever it is that Obama’s got.
4) The Democrats front runner is Clinton. She is ahead in most polls—though not in Iowa. She certainly is ahead in the race for the buckaroos sweepstakes. She has a large and talented staff. She has one of the best political minds in the country advising her—hubby Bill. She has shown herself to be a viable candidate. All that is good news for the junior senator from New York.
But she also is a candidate who has more problems than a US auto maker. She is not a powerful speaker a la Obama and Edwards. She brings new meaning to the phrase “high negatives.” As her recent comments in New Hampshire show, she refuses to say she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq. To those who passionately hate the war, such actions shout she is obtuse. To others she simply looks silly and far too much like the President she is trying to replace. Many think she is over-calculating. Few find her warm. People support her, but there aren’t many who like her. She will not do well with the millions who look upon the presidential campaign as if it were a popularity contest. This is not to suggest that you have to be liked to be elected president—the landslide Nixon won in 68 proves that.
But the longer people look at Clinton, the more it is likely they will see a paradox. For the long term this may be yet another negative, for short term it makes her and her campaign more interesting.
5) You didn’t have to be in Springfield, Illinois shivering in ten degree weather on Saturday to know that when Obama speaks, he fills the air with a rich blend of effervescence, warmth, and high wattage electricity. Edwards always has been a dynamic and invigorating campaigner.
Though it is not one of the more accurate adages, many who follow politics closely like to think that the best campaigner will win most primaries. Kennedy, Reagan (in 80 and 84), and Bill Clinton give credence to this axiom. When Carter beat Ted Kennedy in 80, Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 80, and Mondale beat Hart for the nomination in 84, they provided ample evidence that disproved such maxims. But since Clinton is less than stellar campaigner and because she currently sits atop the heap . . . while two world class campaigners are in the number two and three spots in the polls—well this makes for very interesting politics.
6) Most crowded fields for a nomination quickly dwindle down to two. But if the Democrats three A-list candidates each have some stamina and staying power, the math becomes very complicated. To cite a very simple example. In a two candidate race, let’s say Candidate Red effectively hammers Candidate Blue. Red wins but his/her negatives go up. Given the same scenario and a three person race, Red’s negatives go up and Candidate White gains a significant tactical edge. Having three A-list candidates complicates the strategy a great deal—and makes the race much more interesting.
7) The Democrats have two veteran candidates waiting in the wings. Because the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid—and even that is suspect . . . there are reports from a blog, fromtheotherside.com, that Nixon is still planning a comeback. Rumor has it he plans to balance the ticket with an “established Republican” who is also a longtime hunting partner of Dick Cheney (translation . . . he has nine lives). Those seeking proof of the afterlife or leaks about this rumor may seek out the oracle—some of Nancy Reagans’ letters in the Reagan Library—that Nixon and/or his ghost will make an appearance at the Comeback Diner in Paradise, California—about fifty miles north of Sacramento.
Rumors aside, there is always a chance that Kerry will think and hope (and pray) that people have forgotten his foray into standup . . . and he will attempt to return. But for Democrats, there is more bad news: Gore’s efforts on The Inconvenient Truth may yield an Oscar—another first for someone who was a major party nominee for the presidency. Whether or not the documentary wins the Oscar for best documentary, given the backbone replacement surgery Gore seems to have undergone, many will encourage him to return to the fray. Like the monster in the awful movie that refuses to die, the “Will-he-enter-the-race?” story probably will not go away for months.
8) The Republican front runners McCain and Giuliani have sided with the surge and so basically have placed their bets regarding Iraq. They now must wait and see if the surge works. They probably won’t bicker over Iraq—but the Democrats already are.
9) It appears to many that the pieces are coming together for significant work to be done regarding health care and global warming. These issues favor the Democrats. Add to this the mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq, the ricochets from the conservatives drive to make a great deal of noise about immigration that has alienated Hispanics, the echoes from the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and you have a recipe that all but shouts that the Democrats should win Presidential election in 2008.
10) Most presidential elections are close, and because the Democrats have a knack for losing close elections—well that is just one more reason that for now the Democrats are more interesting than the Republicans.
American Politics and Denver Weather
Of course when it comes to politics, time follows different parameters than it does for most of us. Political winds are often a good deal like what the natives say about the weather in Denver. If you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes. There are plenty of ways the Republicans could start soaking up a greater share of the spotlight. A McCain-Giuliani tiff could jump-start things nicely. But both candidates probably are too smart to attack so early in the campaign. Such confrontations would drive up an attacker’s negative ratings. Should Giuliani remain popular in the polls, the conservative wing of the party could rant, and if not rave, at least spend a lot of money and start some rich rumors. And there are the controversies Mitch Romney’s Mormonism brings—which could be a “story with legs” if he didn’t already have so many issues with the Christian Right.
But for a few spatters and burps, the staple of the media diet for a while probably will continue to be the Democrats.
Substance?
Which finally—thank goodness—brings us to something resembling substance, “Does this amount to a hill of beans?”
For the short term . . . No. It could work very much to the Republicans advantage to lay low, walk quietly, and prepare the big sticks that they will swing later. But if the Democrats continue to appear to be more interesting most of this year and next, then they will appear to . . . or might actually set the agenda. For the short term, sensible interest usually leads to good publicity. Good publicity leads to more good publicity which provides a fast-track to the money express. Money generates more real interest . . . as well as the opportunity to generate it synthetically should the need arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
The List
1) The Democrats have three—count em—three A-list candidates. A fourth, Governor Bill Richardson is far behind in the polls, but with the pols his status is rising. The Republicans have, at best, two A-list candidates.
2) Two of the A-list candidates aim to be firsts, Clinton intends to be the first woman President and Obama the first African-American. The third A-lister, former Senator John Edwards, has an autobiography that is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story.
3) We’ve never seen anything like Obama before—never. Of course some of the elements of his campaign are derivative. Others (John Kennedy, FDR) have sought to minimize experience by speaking of dreams and a new generation of politics. Others (Howard Dean, Ross Perot) have appealed to many who for long have dropped out of politics. Many others (in election years GW Bush was very good at this) have elevated their candidacy by telling the best story. Others have used a gentle touch and a warm smile to break through the brittle prejudices that have so maligned the past. Many others have run as an outsider and sharpened the perception that one of their opponents (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is an insider. Others have invoked the Almighty in a way that is organic and even appealing to many who find such posturings self-aggrandizing and syrupy. Others have tied the various components of their campaigns together with the soft glue of idealism and the white hot passion charisma brings to any enterprise.
This provokes speculation about when Obama’s bubble will burst. This provokes speculation about what’s in the bubble—is it filled with charisma too? 0r, if he is lifted to his current level of attention by more than a bubble—and given America’s penchant for power—many are wondering why it took so long to find someone with whatever it is that Obama’s got.
4) The Democrats front runner is Clinton. She is ahead in most polls—though not in Iowa. She certainly is ahead in the race for the buckaroos sweepstakes. She has a large and talented staff. She has one of the best political minds in the country advising her—hubby Bill. She has shown herself to be a viable candidate. All that is good news for the junior senator from New York.
But she also is a candidate who has more problems than a US auto maker. She is not a powerful speaker a la Obama and Edwards. She brings new meaning to the phrase “high negatives.” As her recent comments in New Hampshire show, she refuses to say she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq. To those who passionately hate the war, such actions shout she is obtuse. To others she simply looks silly and far too much like the President she is trying to replace. Many think she is over-calculating. Few find her warm. People support her, but there aren’t many who like her. She will not do well with the millions who look upon the presidential campaign as if it were a popularity contest. This is not to suggest that you have to be liked to be elected president—the landslide Nixon won in 68 proves that.
But the longer people look at Clinton, the more it is likely they will see a paradox. For the long term this may be yet another negative, for short term it makes her and her campaign more interesting.
5) You didn’t have to be in Springfield, Illinois shivering in ten degree weather on Saturday to know that when Obama speaks, he fills the air with a rich blend of effervescence, warmth, and high wattage electricity. Edwards always has been a dynamic and invigorating campaigner.
Though it is not one of the more accurate adages, many who follow politics closely like to think that the best campaigner will win most primaries. Kennedy, Reagan (in 80 and 84), and Bill Clinton give credence to this axiom. When Carter beat Ted Kennedy in 80, Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 80, and Mondale beat Hart for the nomination in 84, they provided ample evidence that disproved such maxims. But since Clinton is less than stellar campaigner and because she currently sits atop the heap . . . while two world class campaigners are in the number two and three spots in the polls—well this makes for very interesting politics.
6) Most crowded fields for a nomination quickly dwindle down to two. But if the Democrats three A-list candidates each have some stamina and staying power, the math becomes very complicated. To cite a very simple example. In a two candidate race, let’s say Candidate Red effectively hammers Candidate Blue. Red wins but his/her negatives go up. Given the same scenario and a three person race, Red’s negatives go up and Candidate White gains a significant tactical edge. Having three A-list candidates complicates the strategy a great deal—and makes the race much more interesting.
7) The Democrats have two veteran candidates waiting in the wings. Because the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid—and even that is suspect . . . there are reports from a blog, fromtheotherside.com, that Nixon is still planning a comeback. Rumor has it he plans to balance the ticket with an “established Republican” who is also a longtime hunting partner of Dick Cheney (translation . . . he has nine lives). Those seeking proof of the afterlife or leaks about this rumor may seek out the oracle—some of Nancy Reagans’ letters in the Reagan Library—that Nixon and/or his ghost will make an appearance at the Comeback Diner in Paradise, California—about fifty miles north of Sacramento.
Rumors aside, there is always a chance that Kerry will think and hope (and pray) that people have forgotten his foray into standup . . . and he will attempt to return. But for Democrats, there is more bad news: Gore’s efforts on The Inconvenient Truth may yield an Oscar—another first for someone who was a major party nominee for the presidency. Whether or not the documentary wins the Oscar for best documentary, given the backbone replacement surgery Gore seems to have undergone, many will encourage him to return to the fray. Like the monster in the awful movie that refuses to die, the “Will-he-enter-the-race?” story probably will not go away for months.
8) The Republican front runners McCain and Giuliani have sided with the surge and so basically have placed their bets regarding Iraq. They now must wait and see if the surge works. They probably won’t bicker over Iraq—but the Democrats already are.
9) It appears to many that the pieces are coming together for significant work to be done regarding health care and global warming. These issues favor the Democrats. Add to this the mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq, the ricochets from the conservatives drive to make a great deal of noise about immigration that has alienated Hispanics, the echoes from the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and you have a recipe that all but shouts that the Democrats should win Presidential election in 2008.
10) Most presidential elections are close, and because the Democrats have a knack for losing close elections—well that is just one more reason that for now the Democrats are more interesting than the Republicans.
American Politics and Denver Weather
Of course when it comes to politics, time follows different parameters than it does for most of us. Political winds are often a good deal like what the natives say about the weather in Denver. If you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes. There are plenty of ways the Republicans could start soaking up a greater share of the spotlight. A McCain-Giuliani tiff could jump-start things nicely. But both candidates probably are too smart to attack so early in the campaign. Such confrontations would drive up an attacker’s negative ratings. Should Giuliani remain popular in the polls, the conservative wing of the party could rant, and if not rave, at least spend a lot of money and start some rich rumors. And there are the controversies Mitch Romney’s Mormonism brings—which could be a “story with legs” if he didn’t already have so many issues with the Christian Right.
But for a few spatters and burps, the staple of the media diet for a while probably will continue to be the Democrats.
Substance?
Which finally—thank goodness—brings us to something resembling substance, “Does this amount to a hill of beans?”
For the short term . . . No. It could work very much to the Republicans advantage to lay low, walk quietly, and prepare the big sticks that they will swing later. But if the Democrats continue to appear to be more interesting most of this year and next, then they will appear to . . . or might actually set the agenda. For the short term, sensible interest usually leads to good publicity. Good publicity leads to more good publicity which provides a fast-track to the money express. Money generates more real interest . . . as well as the opportunity to generate it synthetically should the need arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Biden’s Blooper
At a time when the war in Iraq is going miserably, General George Casey, the officer who oversaw the mess that is now the American experience in Iraq is about to be promoted to supervise the entire army. Troubles in the Middle East continue to steam and percolate. Bad news roars out of Africa. The harsh and cruel realities of global warming gain more credibility almost every week. There is an absurdist drama unfolding in Boston as a bureaucratic post 9 -11 mentality collides with reckless guerilla marketers. We are in the middle of the annual celebration of commercials and capitalism, hyperbole and hype, glisten and glitter known as the run-up to the Super Bowl. And if all that did not provide enough for people to write, talk, and argue about, many were in a mood to criticize what was obviously a well-intentioned but inelegant comment from the Senior Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden.
For Joe Biden last Wednesday was supposed to be a good day. He was beginning his formal presidential campaign. And he had one quality none of the top tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have—a surplus of international experience. When Biden joined the Senate way back in 1973, Hillary Clinton was doing a year of post-graduate study at Yale. She hadn’t even met the man many would later call “Slick Willy.” Barak Obama was a seven-year-old living in Jakarta, Indonesia.
As he took the first official steps of his presidential bid, Biden was supposed to look confident and experienced. But in an interview with a reporter from The New York Observer, Biden said Senator Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
As Senator Biden later noted, if he had substituted “fresh” for clean, the comment would not have provoked the uproar it did.
The Reaction
To suggest that Biden’s comment provoked controversy is to imply that the tsunami of trappings, the plethora of parties, the overpriced commercials, and the vast quantities of glitz that make up the Super Bowl experience are all part of an exercise in restraint and modesty.
Soon it was obvious that Biden had committed a blunder.
Biden did what any political veteran should do. Via the privacy the telephone offers, he apologized to Obama. In public he apologized some more. Four hours after the original comment was posted on-line, Biden issued a statement, ''I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent.''
He tried to soften the comments by putting them in the context of a phrase his mother often invoked, “clean as a whistle.”
He dropped in on The Daily Show and hoped to put a comic spin on what quickly became an awful day for the Senator.
The comment allowed pundits and those courageous warriors on conservative talk radio to note that this was not the first time the Senator had put a foot in one of his orifices. Last summer, while C-Span’s cameras were on, Biden spoke to an Indian-American activist and commented, "You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." There also was that ugly moment in the Senator’s 1988 president bid when he was accused of plagiarizing speeches delivered by a British Labor Party leader—Neil Kinnock. His presidential bid ended soon after the accusation.
Biden’s gaffe is most unfortunate. He is a smart guy with a lot to offer his party and his country. His proposal to divide Iraq into three federations is one of the few on any table that might reduce Iraqi sectarian violence. His years of experience might help the Democrats balance a ticket where the presidential candidate is sorely lacking tenure.
But there are other issues circulating within the hubbub his comment provoked that cut to the heart of the way the complicated mêlée we oh so politely refer to as politics is played in the US.
Truth has an uneasy place in American political life. Americans have long responded to fear (and loathing). We lap up American chauvinism—especially when it is married with narrow-mindedness. Americans almost always find the flights of fancy politicians and the media dish out far more interesting and provocative than the often bad old fashioned truth.
Obama’s Tap Dance
Biden’s most recent verbal flub allowed Senator Clinton, who has recently displayed periods where she appeared to be omnipresent, to spend a day away from the national political limelight. Biden’s comment gave Senator Obama a chance to perform a political tap dance even a veteran pol could envy. Via a prepared statement, the Illinois Senator responded, "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.''
Obama wisely responded with a comment about how many African-American candidates were articulate. But it wasn’t the comment Biden made about Obama being articulate that provoked controversy.
Nor was Biden’s comment directed at Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun, or Al Sharpton. None were “mainstream” candidates.
Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 national political campaign was engaged to give black politicians an aura of legitimacy.
In 2004 Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton conducted presidential campaigns that were more exercises in vanity than serious politics—though the clouds of rhetoric that tended to gravitate around Sharpton’s campaign often were leavened with his jovial nature and discerning wit. During the 2004 presidential campaign, after Howard Dean’s scream shattered his image as a bright, promising, and credible candidate, Sharpton commented, “I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.”
Sharpton responded to Biden’s blunder by stating that he took a bath every day.
Biden’s comments were about mainstream candidates. Other than Obama, the only African American mainstream political candidate for the presidency has been Jesse Jackson.
Center of the Controversy
This brings us to the center of the controversy Biden’s comments provoked—the use of the word “clean.” The first responders to the comment used the word in the context of personal hygiene—and all the ugly racist and inelegant inferences that may be drawn from it.
It wasn’t meant to address such matters.
It is possible that Biden was referring to rumors. Many suggest that for the services Jackson provided as he campaigned for candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, the good Reverend charged a great deal of money. If the rumors are accurate, neither Jackson nor the then candidate Clinton violated either the letter of the campaign laws or the spirit of American entrepreneurialism. But the transactions certainly weren’t clean.
It is more likely that Biden was referring to the liaisons Jackson had with a woman who was not his wife. When revelations about the relationship were made public, Jackson who often was accused of never meeting a microphone he didn’t like, withdrew from the microphones and the attention he is so brilliant at garnering.
So the young upstart Obama executed a savvy dodge—he did not address Jackson’s political hygiene, he did not really address the whole truth of Biden’s comment, and won praise for being sober and conciliatory. While Biden told what many consider a verifiable truth—and got skewered for it.
Such is life in America.
An obvious lesson of all of this is that Senator Biden never should have put himself in a situation where he made a comment that though true, could provoke controversy. It is likely that before Senator Biden’s first day in the presidential race was over, he and others realized that it is not experience that really matters, it is learning the lessons it is so willing to teach that counts. Clearly the experienced Senator has a lot to learn.
And Finally
But there is a larger lesson. Every candidate fumbles. In 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton made some silly comments about not inhaling marijuana. During that campaign, Clinton made many imprudently vague comments about women he was accused of having an extra-marital affair with. These comments often did not end the controversy, they continued it. George W. Bush’s actions prior to his 40th birthday may be viewed as one long and erratic fumble. In 1963 the woman who would become his wife was seventeen and driving to a party with some friends. She committed what was obviously a severe error in judgment and did not stop for a stop sign. Her car rammed into another and killed the only person in it—one of her classmates.
Clinton trudged through the dark and grey wildernesses his unwise comments elicited and became President.
When asked about his youth, George W. Bush told a story that always sounded something like this, "I know there are all kinds of rumors, but that's the political process. Let me tell you something. When people investigate my background, they're going to find that I have been loyal to my wife for 21 years, and that I've been a dedicated dad, and that, given the responsibility of the high office of my state, I have brought honor and dignity to that office." The rumors that related to Bush’s drinking and cocaine use were recently verified by a former “friend.” But years before that happened, when Bush was seeking to be elected president, he was often asked about his checkered past. The story Bush told created coils of protective concertina wire for the candidate.
George W. Bush survived his reckless past and was twice elected President. And today Laura Bush is now one of the most admired people in America.
Certainly for those who hope to entertain the idea of spending decades in American politics, it is better to act as Obama did last week. Dancing around and dodging the truth usually is a much better tactic than telling the truth—as Biden did. Many who spend their professional lives observing and commenting on politicians of all shapes and political colorings conclude that when a politician makes a mess, those who have a long career in one of the strangest and oldest of professions either suffer through (a la Clinton) or extricate themselves relatively cleanly (a la George W. Bush).
But there probably is something else at work as well. Those rare few who play the game at a high level for a long time seem to have a special armor that not only allows them to endure in spite of their mistakes but also to prevail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
For Joe Biden last Wednesday was supposed to be a good day. He was beginning his formal presidential campaign. And he had one quality none of the top tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have—a surplus of international experience. When Biden joined the Senate way back in 1973, Hillary Clinton was doing a year of post-graduate study at Yale. She hadn’t even met the man many would later call “Slick Willy.” Barak Obama was a seven-year-old living in Jakarta, Indonesia.
As he took the first official steps of his presidential bid, Biden was supposed to look confident and experienced. But in an interview with a reporter from The New York Observer, Biden said Senator Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
As Senator Biden later noted, if he had substituted “fresh” for clean, the comment would not have provoked the uproar it did.
The Reaction
To suggest that Biden’s comment provoked controversy is to imply that the tsunami of trappings, the plethora of parties, the overpriced commercials, and the vast quantities of glitz that make up the Super Bowl experience are all part of an exercise in restraint and modesty.
Soon it was obvious that Biden had committed a blunder.
Biden did what any political veteran should do. Via the privacy the telephone offers, he apologized to Obama. In public he apologized some more. Four hours after the original comment was posted on-line, Biden issued a statement, ''I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent.''
He tried to soften the comments by putting them in the context of a phrase his mother often invoked, “clean as a whistle.”
He dropped in on The Daily Show and hoped to put a comic spin on what quickly became an awful day for the Senator.
The comment allowed pundits and those courageous warriors on conservative talk radio to note that this was not the first time the Senator had put a foot in one of his orifices. Last summer, while C-Span’s cameras were on, Biden spoke to an Indian-American activist and commented, "You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." There also was that ugly moment in the Senator’s 1988 president bid when he was accused of plagiarizing speeches delivered by a British Labor Party leader—Neil Kinnock. His presidential bid ended soon after the accusation.
Biden’s gaffe is most unfortunate. He is a smart guy with a lot to offer his party and his country. His proposal to divide Iraq into three federations is one of the few on any table that might reduce Iraqi sectarian violence. His years of experience might help the Democrats balance a ticket where the presidential candidate is sorely lacking tenure.
But there are other issues circulating within the hubbub his comment provoked that cut to the heart of the way the complicated mêlée we oh so politely refer to as politics is played in the US.
Truth has an uneasy place in American political life. Americans have long responded to fear (and loathing). We lap up American chauvinism—especially when it is married with narrow-mindedness. Americans almost always find the flights of fancy politicians and the media dish out far more interesting and provocative than the often bad old fashioned truth.
Obama’s Tap Dance
Biden’s most recent verbal flub allowed Senator Clinton, who has recently displayed periods where she appeared to be omnipresent, to spend a day away from the national political limelight. Biden’s comment gave Senator Obama a chance to perform a political tap dance even a veteran pol could envy. Via a prepared statement, the Illinois Senator responded, "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.''
Obama wisely responded with a comment about how many African-American candidates were articulate. But it wasn’t the comment Biden made about Obama being articulate that provoked controversy.
Nor was Biden’s comment directed at Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun, or Al Sharpton. None were “mainstream” candidates.
Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 national political campaign was engaged to give black politicians an aura of legitimacy.
In 2004 Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton conducted presidential campaigns that were more exercises in vanity than serious politics—though the clouds of rhetoric that tended to gravitate around Sharpton’s campaign often were leavened with his jovial nature and discerning wit. During the 2004 presidential campaign, after Howard Dean’s scream shattered his image as a bright, promising, and credible candidate, Sharpton commented, “I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.”
Sharpton responded to Biden’s blunder by stating that he took a bath every day.
Biden’s comments were about mainstream candidates. Other than Obama, the only African American mainstream political candidate for the presidency has been Jesse Jackson.
Center of the Controversy
This brings us to the center of the controversy Biden’s comments provoked—the use of the word “clean.” The first responders to the comment used the word in the context of personal hygiene—and all the ugly racist and inelegant inferences that may be drawn from it.
It wasn’t meant to address such matters.
It is possible that Biden was referring to rumors. Many suggest that for the services Jackson provided as he campaigned for candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, the good Reverend charged a great deal of money. If the rumors are accurate, neither Jackson nor the then candidate Clinton violated either the letter of the campaign laws or the spirit of American entrepreneurialism. But the transactions certainly weren’t clean.
It is more likely that Biden was referring to the liaisons Jackson had with a woman who was not his wife. When revelations about the relationship were made public, Jackson who often was accused of never meeting a microphone he didn’t like, withdrew from the microphones and the attention he is so brilliant at garnering.
So the young upstart Obama executed a savvy dodge—he did not address Jackson’s political hygiene, he did not really address the whole truth of Biden’s comment, and won praise for being sober and conciliatory. While Biden told what many consider a verifiable truth—and got skewered for it.
Such is life in America.
An obvious lesson of all of this is that Senator Biden never should have put himself in a situation where he made a comment that though true, could provoke controversy. It is likely that before Senator Biden’s first day in the presidential race was over, he and others realized that it is not experience that really matters, it is learning the lessons it is so willing to teach that counts. Clearly the experienced Senator has a lot to learn.
And Finally
But there is a larger lesson. Every candidate fumbles. In 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton made some silly comments about not inhaling marijuana. During that campaign, Clinton made many imprudently vague comments about women he was accused of having an extra-marital affair with. These comments often did not end the controversy, they continued it. George W. Bush’s actions prior to his 40th birthday may be viewed as one long and erratic fumble. In 1963 the woman who would become his wife was seventeen and driving to a party with some friends. She committed what was obviously a severe error in judgment and did not stop for a stop sign. Her car rammed into another and killed the only person in it—one of her classmates.
Clinton trudged through the dark and grey wildernesses his unwise comments elicited and became President.
When asked about his youth, George W. Bush told a story that always sounded something like this, "I know there are all kinds of rumors, but that's the political process. Let me tell you something. When people investigate my background, they're going to find that I have been loyal to my wife for 21 years, and that I've been a dedicated dad, and that, given the responsibility of the high office of my state, I have brought honor and dignity to that office." The rumors that related to Bush’s drinking and cocaine use were recently verified by a former “friend.” But years before that happened, when Bush was seeking to be elected president, he was often asked about his checkered past. The story Bush told created coils of protective concertina wire for the candidate.
George W. Bush survived his reckless past and was twice elected President. And today Laura Bush is now one of the most admired people in America.
Certainly for those who hope to entertain the idea of spending decades in American politics, it is better to act as Obama did last week. Dancing around and dodging the truth usually is a much better tactic than telling the truth—as Biden did. Many who spend their professional lives observing and commenting on politicians of all shapes and political colorings conclude that when a politician makes a mess, those who have a long career in one of the strangest and oldest of professions either suffer through (a la Clinton) or extricate themselves relatively cleanly (a la George W. Bush).
But there probably is something else at work as well. Those rare few who play the game at a high level for a long time seem to have a special armor that not only allows them to endure in spite of their mistakes but also to prevail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
They’re Laughing in Heaven
For decades Art Buckwald brought his unusual penchant for wisdom cloaked in wit to his newspaper column, various books, and to the dinner circuit. He was more than a columnist. He was an institution.
He died last week.
No doubt heaven is now a happier place than it was a few days ago.
Favorite Story
My favorite Art Buckwald story harkens back to his days as a Paris Reporter. He was covering a political convention, and hordes of onlookers were waiting outside the event. It was late. It was dark. And the crowd was starved for attention.
Buckwald stood before a large window and raised his hand. The crowd responded. He raised his hand even higher. They responded with more enthusiasm. And so it went. They assumed or wanted to assume he was a bigwig at the event. He was in fact a short man who at the time was little more than a columnist for the Herald Tribune.
He and his sisters were orphans. He lied and bribed his way into the Marines. He lied his way into USC where the GI Bill funded his activities. He learned he could get the GI Bill in France. And so he went to France, and lived a leisurely life until his funding began to run dry.
He talked his way into a job with Variety. This eventually led to a job and various columns he wrote for European edition of the New York Herald Tribune. Eventually he and his wit returned to the United States.
Some of Buckwald’s More Notable Achievements
At his peak, his column, Capitol Punishment, was published in over 500 newspapers. He published over thirty books.
He married in 1952. He and his wife adopted three children.
He is rumored to have had an affair with Marylyn Monroe.
He was one of the first European reporters to do an in depth interview with Elvis Presley.
He persevered through two painful bouts with depression.
He won a lawsuit against a movie studio. He asserted that the Coming To America—which started Eddy Murphy—was based on a treatment he had written. The movie made over 350 million dollars but according to the accounting wizards in Hollywood did not make a substantial profit.
In February of last year he refused kidney dialysis. He said it was too expensive. He survived.
He good naturedly helped a friend out of a real pinch. Unless this was an unusual act for me, he probably was a very nice guy.
In 1982 his syndicated column won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
He established a scholarship at USC for the most irreverent student.
Throughout his lifetime he made various comments that suggested that as fantastic and bizarre many of the exaggerations he wrote about in his columns were, he could not compete with the bizarre realities that occurred in life.
A few of Buckwald's More Notable Comments
Before Nixon resigned, in 1974, Buchwald told Holy Cross College graduates, "As a humor columnist, I need President Nixon more than he needs me. I worship the quicksand he walks on."
He wrote:
"What is the patriotic consumer to do? I went into a shopping mall the other day to purchase a Star-Spangled Banner Sweat Suit. The salesman said they had some from Hong Kong for $10, some from Taiwan for $15 and a few from Pakistan for $4.
`Don't you have any that were made in America?'
`No. The only American-made items we have are these Buddhist robes. They are hand-sewn in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, by the Amish people.'"
"In the good old days, smokers could be counted on to die far before their time, and therefore did not use up their Social Security benefits or health plan credits. Nonsmokers, on the other hand, live too long and to this day are a tremendous drain on the country's finances. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. So, every time we turn a smoker into a nonsmoker we're destroying the entire pension system of the United States."
"I don't want to be a wimp, but senior citizens have to pay $140 for a prescription. To make it up to them, they only pay $5 to go to the movies."
"President Bush keeps referring to the discovery of Iraq's missiles as `the tip of the iceberg.' There are some, not many, who feel that if weapons are the tip of the iceberg, then Mr. Bush is the captain of the Titanic.”
"Every two years I put out a new book and then make a tour of the talk shows plugging it. I can't do it any more because this year it's impossible for someone who is not really weird to get on TV."
"I am known in the hospice as `The Man Who Would Not Die.' How long they allow me to stay here is another problem. I don't know where I'd go now, or if people would still want to see me if I weren't in a hospice. But in case you're wondering, I'm having a swell time the best time of my life."
“Dying isn't hard. Getting paid by Medicare is.”
____________________________________________________________
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary on the convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from de Gaulle’s comment, “Politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
He died last week.
No doubt heaven is now a happier place than it was a few days ago.
Favorite Story
My favorite Art Buckwald story harkens back to his days as a Paris Reporter. He was covering a political convention, and hordes of onlookers were waiting outside the event. It was late. It was dark. And the crowd was starved for attention.
Buckwald stood before a large window and raised his hand. The crowd responded. He raised his hand even higher. They responded with more enthusiasm. And so it went. They assumed or wanted to assume he was a bigwig at the event. He was in fact a short man who at the time was little more than a columnist for the Herald Tribune.
He and his sisters were orphans. He lied and bribed his way into the Marines. He lied his way into USC where the GI Bill funded his activities. He learned he could get the GI Bill in France. And so he went to France, and lived a leisurely life until his funding began to run dry.
He talked his way into a job with Variety. This eventually led to a job and various columns he wrote for European edition of the New York Herald Tribune. Eventually he and his wit returned to the United States.
Some of Buckwald’s More Notable Achievements
At his peak, his column, Capitol Punishment, was published in over 500 newspapers. He published over thirty books.
He married in 1952. He and his wife adopted three children.
He is rumored to have had an affair with Marylyn Monroe.
He was one of the first European reporters to do an in depth interview with Elvis Presley.
He persevered through two painful bouts with depression.
He won a lawsuit against a movie studio. He asserted that the Coming To America—which started Eddy Murphy—was based on a treatment he had written. The movie made over 350 million dollars but according to the accounting wizards in Hollywood did not make a substantial profit.
In February of last year he refused kidney dialysis. He said it was too expensive. He survived.
He good naturedly helped a friend out of a real pinch. Unless this was an unusual act for me, he probably was a very nice guy.
In 1982 his syndicated column won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
He established a scholarship at USC for the most irreverent student.
Throughout his lifetime he made various comments that suggested that as fantastic and bizarre many of the exaggerations he wrote about in his columns were, he could not compete with the bizarre realities that occurred in life.
A few of Buckwald's More Notable Comments
Before Nixon resigned, in 1974, Buchwald told Holy Cross College graduates, "As a humor columnist, I need President Nixon more than he needs me. I worship the quicksand he walks on."
He wrote:
"What is the patriotic consumer to do? I went into a shopping mall the other day to purchase a Star-Spangled Banner Sweat Suit. The salesman said they had some from Hong Kong for $10, some from Taiwan for $15 and a few from Pakistan for $4.
`Don't you have any that were made in America?'
`No. The only American-made items we have are these Buddhist robes. They are hand-sewn in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, by the Amish people.'"
"In the good old days, smokers could be counted on to die far before their time, and therefore did not use up their Social Security benefits or health plan credits. Nonsmokers, on the other hand, live too long and to this day are a tremendous drain on the country's finances. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. So, every time we turn a smoker into a nonsmoker we're destroying the entire pension system of the United States."
"I don't want to be a wimp, but senior citizens have to pay $140 for a prescription. To make it up to them, they only pay $5 to go to the movies."
"President Bush keeps referring to the discovery of Iraq's missiles as `the tip of the iceberg.' There are some, not many, who feel that if weapons are the tip of the iceberg, then Mr. Bush is the captain of the Titanic.”
"Every two years I put out a new book and then make a tour of the talk shows plugging it. I can't do it any more because this year it's impossible for someone who is not really weird to get on TV."
"I am known in the hospice as `The Man Who Would Not Die.' How long they allow me to stay here is another problem. I don't know where I'd go now, or if people would still want to see me if I weren't in a hospice. But in case you're wondering, I'm having a swell time the best time of my life."
“Dying isn't hard. Getting paid by Medicare is.”
____________________________________________________________
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary on the convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from de Gaulle’s comment, “Politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
On Spineless, Spiritless, Bumbling Fools—Yes, This is About Democrats
To imply that politics is always logical or always anything is to be foolishly naive. But some things are logical: In US presidential politics, content matters; style matters a lot—perceptions matter a great deal.
The last two Democratic presidential candidates were exceedingly careful. Both split hairs and massaged their prepared statements and formal comments so much that many a yellow dog Democrats found themselves nearly gagging. Gore and Kerry made so many oh so careful and flat out timid comments that many voters thought that Gore and Kerry were spineless, spiritless, bumbling fools.
Milquetoast Hall of Fame
Every political junkie has his or her lists of favorite rhetorical nonsense. One uttered by Gore way back when he was vice-president belongs in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame. While trying to distance himself from charges concerning campaign fundraising irregularities, Gore said, “And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law." As the comment suggests, the phrase “no controlling legal authority” was repeated by Gore during his presentation. Eventually, Gore was cleared of any legal wrongdoing. But his comment about there being ”no controlling legal authority” was such a nasty equivocation that Gore’s awful comments contributed to the image that he was a positioning machine—and therefore not a person with the ability to speak clearly and with some modicum of intelligence.
Worse, he was perceived by many to be a candidate without a spine.
Sadly, bland, overly massaged comments are not limited to presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Bush’s troop surge contain so many switchbacks, rhetorical figure eight’s, and other vacillations that they may deserve a separate room in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame.
It’s easy of course to blame handlers for these gaffes. One of the best political sages in the country, Joe Klein adroitly discusses the role of handlers in recent national political campaigns in Politics Lost. Clearly the handlers don’t want the candidate they work for to make a comment that ruins the candidate’s credibility. Dean’s scream after the 2004 Iowa primary is perhaps the most recent and obvious example of a candidate making one comment that destroys his ethos and sabotages his chances.
Evidence in Klein’s book and simply listening to Gore and Kerry on the campaign trail make a couple things obvious. The motives of the handlers may be sincere and sound, but too much soft-pedaling and carefulspeak turns off many voters.
Gore probably is now kicking himself a couple hundred times a day. If he had shown half the passion and a fraction of the spine very much on display in the documentary, The Inconvenient Truth, he might now be President . . . instead of the man who once was an upstart Texan governor who spoke of compassionate conservatism and provoked many conservatives to dream of sunnier days.
While the skies have darkened and various sharks—and no doubt a lot of other nasty things—are swirling around Bush and his presidency now, most Democrats are surveying the terrain and weighing their options for 2008. Which brings us once again to the current Democratic frontrunner—Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has great name recognition. But the name carries with it a considerable amount of baggage. One of the heavier bags is similar to one that weighed down Gore and later Kerry. By trying to position herself very adeptly in the middle, Clinton, like Gore and Kerry may overdo it with this positioning thing.
One of the more obvious (and logical) rules of politics is that a candidate who is not the current favorite must distinguish him or herself from the front runner. Which no doubt is one reason why Edwards tossed his hat into the presidential sweepstakes contest so early. Separating himself from Clinton is one reason why he has been trying to recruit young people (with short movies posted in the Internet and a whole slew of other overtures). Distancing himself from Clinton no doubt is one of many reasons why last Sunday Edwards stood behind the podium at Riverside Church in New York City.
It was at Riverside, nearly forty years ago that Dr. King gave a speech that articulated his stance against the US involvement in South Vietnam. Most of King’s comments resonate today.
King’s Speech
King’s speech was logical. Early in the speech King listed the reasons he opposed the war: It would drain resources for campaigns against poverty. Negroes were dying in unreasonably high proportion to whites (which was true at the time of the speech, but not so when US involvement in Vietnam ended); change comes “most meaningfully not via war but through non-violent action.” War damages the very fiber of what is best about America. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize increased his commitment to work for “the brotherhood of man.” It is a natural outgrowth of a Christian minister to follow Christ’s calling to love thy enemies, to increase the feelings of brotherhood amongst peoples, and to strive to end suffering.
King’s speech was provocative. He offered his version of the history of the region and of the student protests against the war. He attacked the arrogance that led Americans to think “that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.” He condemned many of the forces he thought were essential to continuing the war, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” And he called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
The speech was poetic: “If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam.” “One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.”
King’s speech was unusually perceptive. Where other commentators who praised or condemned the war relied on reason and rhetoric, King sought a deeper understanding. When he spoke at the Riverside Church, King said, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” King urged America to “get on the right side of world revolution” and called for a revolution of values, which to him was “our best defense against communism.”
Edwards’ speech pales in comparison. But it is noteworthy.
It did not get extensive media coverage, so significant portions are included here.
Edwards praised King for not directing “his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war.” Edwards praised King for making “a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.”
Edwards said:
Escalation is not the answer, and all you have to do is listen to our own generals to know it's not the answer. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in that part of the world to take responsibility, to take responsibility for their own country. The best way for that to happen is for America to make clear that we are leaving Iraq, and the best way to make clear that we are leaving Iraq is to actually start leaving Iraq.
It's why Congress must step up, now, and stop this President from putting more troops in harm's way.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now.
And I say to all of you—not just members of Congress, all of you who are here today—and the millions like us around the world who know that this is a mistake—your job is to reject the easy way of apathy and to choose instead, to choose the hard path, the path of action.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out.
Our purpose must be to restore America's leadership, moral leadership, in the world. When we speak out about the ongoing genocide in Sudan and Darfur, when we speak out against thousands and thousands of children in Africa being born with AIDS, an entire new generation of children with AIDS--(Why? Because their mother can't pay for a four-dollar dose of medicine.)—the United States of America is better than this. . .. Our people are better than this. When we speak out against human rights abuses in China and other parts of the world, when we speak out, not just about . . . poverty in the United States of America, but poverty across the globe—half of our planet, three billion people, live on two dollars or less a day—the United States of America is better than this.
If anything has been proven over the last few years, it is that raw power alone will not make you a leader. You have to actually have the moral authority to lead.
Our purpose has to be to ignite the revolution of values that Dr. King dreamed about.
You have to take action. You have to take responsibility. That's exactly what Dr. King was talking about 40 years ago from this pulpit. It is not okay to stand idly by. Silence is betrayal.
To solve these problems, we have got to counter apathy with action. We have to replace cynicism with service. We have to stop looking to others, and start looking to ourselves. To solve these problems, we have to break the silence. We need to break the silence about the extraordinarily deep divisions between the haves and the have-nots. We have to break the silence . . . about the millions of our own people who are trying every day just to survive. We need to break the silence about 46-47 million of our own people who are worried sick that if they wake up in the middle of the night with a sick four-year-old, they're going to have to go to the local emergency room and beg for health care. We need to break the silence about our country's addiction to fossil fuels and about the damaging effect that these greenhouse gases are having on God's gift to us, this green Earth.
It is time. In fact, patriotism is about refusing to support something that you know is wrong and having the courage to speak out with strength and passion and backbone for something you know is right.
The world needs to see our better angels.
Separation and a Whole lot More
Edwards’ speech, along with other statements he has made recently, make it apparent that he can speak clearly and logically.
Edwards is trying to make it obvious to the people and to the political elites that he will not make the same mistakes concerning style and carefulspeak that his Democratic predecessors made.
So in a way Edwards is doing what every upstart needs to do, separating himself in terms of content and style from the front runner. Speaking at Riverside also had other delightful sweeteners for Edwards. Because the church is in New York City, it is in the heart of Clinton’s turf. Edwards’ speech shows that he—or his advisors—know something about history—which would have benefited the US and many of its often spineless institutions while President Bush prepared the country to go to war in Iraq.
In a very important way, Edwards is doing much more than putting some distance between himself and Clinton. His stance on the war actually coheres with his policies on poverty, the environment, and foreign policy. Edwards hopes that many will perceive him to be the rarest of all Democratic presidential candidates—one with a backbone.
Clinton’s poll numbers in Iowa are down. Edwards’ numbers are up. Considering the events of last weekend, this should not come as a surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” Charles De Gaulle
The last two Democratic presidential candidates were exceedingly careful. Both split hairs and massaged their prepared statements and formal comments so much that many a yellow dog Democrats found themselves nearly gagging. Gore and Kerry made so many oh so careful and flat out timid comments that many voters thought that Gore and Kerry were spineless, spiritless, bumbling fools.
Milquetoast Hall of Fame
Every political junkie has his or her lists of favorite rhetorical nonsense. One uttered by Gore way back when he was vice-president belongs in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame. While trying to distance himself from charges concerning campaign fundraising irregularities, Gore said, “And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law." As the comment suggests, the phrase “no controlling legal authority” was repeated by Gore during his presentation. Eventually, Gore was cleared of any legal wrongdoing. But his comment about there being ”no controlling legal authority” was such a nasty equivocation that Gore’s awful comments contributed to the image that he was a positioning machine—and therefore not a person with the ability to speak clearly and with some modicum of intelligence.
Worse, he was perceived by many to be a candidate without a spine.
Sadly, bland, overly massaged comments are not limited to presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Bush’s troop surge contain so many switchbacks, rhetorical figure eight’s, and other vacillations that they may deserve a separate room in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame.
It’s easy of course to blame handlers for these gaffes. One of the best political sages in the country, Joe Klein adroitly discusses the role of handlers in recent national political campaigns in Politics Lost. Clearly the handlers don’t want the candidate they work for to make a comment that ruins the candidate’s credibility. Dean’s scream after the 2004 Iowa primary is perhaps the most recent and obvious example of a candidate making one comment that destroys his ethos and sabotages his chances.
Evidence in Klein’s book and simply listening to Gore and Kerry on the campaign trail make a couple things obvious. The motives of the handlers may be sincere and sound, but too much soft-pedaling and carefulspeak turns off many voters.
Gore probably is now kicking himself a couple hundred times a day. If he had shown half the passion and a fraction of the spine very much on display in the documentary, The Inconvenient Truth, he might now be President . . . instead of the man who once was an upstart Texan governor who spoke of compassionate conservatism and provoked many conservatives to dream of sunnier days.
While the skies have darkened and various sharks—and no doubt a lot of other nasty things—are swirling around Bush and his presidency now, most Democrats are surveying the terrain and weighing their options for 2008. Which brings us once again to the current Democratic frontrunner—Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has great name recognition. But the name carries with it a considerable amount of baggage. One of the heavier bags is similar to one that weighed down Gore and later Kerry. By trying to position herself very adeptly in the middle, Clinton, like Gore and Kerry may overdo it with this positioning thing.
One of the more obvious (and logical) rules of politics is that a candidate who is not the current favorite must distinguish him or herself from the front runner. Which no doubt is one reason why Edwards tossed his hat into the presidential sweepstakes contest so early. Separating himself from Clinton is one reason why he has been trying to recruit young people (with short movies posted in the Internet and a whole slew of other overtures). Distancing himself from Clinton no doubt is one of many reasons why last Sunday Edwards stood behind the podium at Riverside Church in New York City.
It was at Riverside, nearly forty years ago that Dr. King gave a speech that articulated his stance against the US involvement in South Vietnam. Most of King’s comments resonate today.
King’s Speech
King’s speech was logical. Early in the speech King listed the reasons he opposed the war: It would drain resources for campaigns against poverty. Negroes were dying in unreasonably high proportion to whites (which was true at the time of the speech, but not so when US involvement in Vietnam ended); change comes “most meaningfully not via war but through non-violent action.” War damages the very fiber of what is best about America. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize increased his commitment to work for “the brotherhood of man.” It is a natural outgrowth of a Christian minister to follow Christ’s calling to love thy enemies, to increase the feelings of brotherhood amongst peoples, and to strive to end suffering.
King’s speech was provocative. He offered his version of the history of the region and of the student protests against the war. He attacked the arrogance that led Americans to think “that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.” He condemned many of the forces he thought were essential to continuing the war, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” And he called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
The speech was poetic: “If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam.” “One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.”
King’s speech was unusually perceptive. Where other commentators who praised or condemned the war relied on reason and rhetoric, King sought a deeper understanding. When he spoke at the Riverside Church, King said, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” King urged America to “get on the right side of world revolution” and called for a revolution of values, which to him was “our best defense against communism.”
Edwards’ speech pales in comparison. But it is noteworthy.
It did not get extensive media coverage, so significant portions are included here.
Edwards praised King for not directing “his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war.” Edwards praised King for making “a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.”
Edwards said:
Escalation is not the answer, and all you have to do is listen to our own generals to know it's not the answer. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in that part of the world to take responsibility, to take responsibility for their own country. The best way for that to happen is for America to make clear that we are leaving Iraq, and the best way to make clear that we are leaving Iraq is to actually start leaving Iraq.
It's why Congress must step up, now, and stop this President from putting more troops in harm's way.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now.
And I say to all of you—not just members of Congress, all of you who are here today—and the millions like us around the world who know that this is a mistake—your job is to reject the easy way of apathy and to choose instead, to choose the hard path, the path of action.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out.
Our purpose must be to restore America's leadership, moral leadership, in the world. When we speak out about the ongoing genocide in Sudan and Darfur, when we speak out against thousands and thousands of children in Africa being born with AIDS, an entire new generation of children with AIDS--(Why? Because their mother can't pay for a four-dollar dose of medicine.)—the United States of America is better than this. . .. Our people are better than this. When we speak out against human rights abuses in China and other parts of the world, when we speak out, not just about . . . poverty in the United States of America, but poverty across the globe—half of our planet, three billion people, live on two dollars or less a day—the United States of America is better than this.
If anything has been proven over the last few years, it is that raw power alone will not make you a leader. You have to actually have the moral authority to lead.
Our purpose has to be to ignite the revolution of values that Dr. King dreamed about.
You have to take action. You have to take responsibility. That's exactly what Dr. King was talking about 40 years ago from this pulpit. It is not okay to stand idly by. Silence is betrayal.
To solve these problems, we have got to counter apathy with action. We have to replace cynicism with service. We have to stop looking to others, and start looking to ourselves. To solve these problems, we have to break the silence. We need to break the silence about the extraordinarily deep divisions between the haves and the have-nots. We have to break the silence . . . about the millions of our own people who are trying every day just to survive. We need to break the silence about 46-47 million of our own people who are worried sick that if they wake up in the middle of the night with a sick four-year-old, they're going to have to go to the local emergency room and beg for health care. We need to break the silence about our country's addiction to fossil fuels and about the damaging effect that these greenhouse gases are having on God's gift to us, this green Earth.
It is time. In fact, patriotism is about refusing to support something that you know is wrong and having the courage to speak out with strength and passion and backbone for something you know is right.
The world needs to see our better angels.
Separation and a Whole lot More
Edwards’ speech, along with other statements he has made recently, make it apparent that he can speak clearly and logically.
Edwards is trying to make it obvious to the people and to the political elites that he will not make the same mistakes concerning style and carefulspeak that his Democratic predecessors made.
So in a way Edwards is doing what every upstart needs to do, separating himself in terms of content and style from the front runner. Speaking at Riverside also had other delightful sweeteners for Edwards. Because the church is in New York City, it is in the heart of Clinton’s turf. Edwards’ speech shows that he—or his advisors—know something about history—which would have benefited the US and many of its often spineless institutions while President Bush prepared the country to go to war in Iraq.
In a very important way, Edwards is doing much more than putting some distance between himself and Clinton. His stance on the war actually coheres with his policies on poverty, the environment, and foreign policy. Edwards hopes that many will perceive him to be the rarest of all Democratic presidential candidates—one with a backbone.
Clinton’s poll numbers in Iowa are down. Edwards’ numbers are up. Considering the events of last weekend, this should not come as a surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” Charles De Gaulle
Friday, January 12, 2007
Why Bush’s New Way Forward Will Take the US Backward
At 9:30 PM on November 3, 1969, President Richard Nixon made a televised address to the nation. The speech was timed to come between two large anti-war protests. One had occurred in mid-October and the other would occur in mid-November. Nixon’s motives for giving the speech were very similar to the motives George Bush had for delivering the speech he gave on January 10. Both hoped their speeches and the actions associated them would energize their bases and buttress support for very controversial wars. Additionally, Nixon hoped his speech would dull any momentum the two huge protests might create.
During his speech, Nixon presented his plan to end the war in Vietnam. Much of what he said was old news:
o the US would strengthen the South Vietnamese army so that the South Vietnamese could defend themselves;
o this would allow the US to continue to withdraw US forces from South Vietnam;
o compromise with the North Vietnamese was possible—if they recognized the US backed Thieu [ever mention election make him sole legitimate leader?] regime in the South;
o if the North Vietnamese and/or Vietcong (a group of fighters from North and South Vietnam) increased their actions, Nixon would take “strong and effective measures.”
He concluded his speech, “And so tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support. Let us be united in peace. Let us be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”
A choreographed response followed. Republicans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, members of the American Legion and others sent telegrams and letters—and made phone calls. A man who was then a mostly anonymous but very successful businessman, Ross Perot, delivered thousands of letters supporting Nixon. The messages went to Nixon and to other legislators.
Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, went into attack-dog mode. Agnew claimed the news media was a “small unelected elite” that did not “represent the view of America.” Briefly network executives criticized the attacks. But they feared that the Nixon administration would influence the renewal of their licenses to broadcast, so they acted with extreme caution. The three television networks gave Nixon and Agnew’s speeches extensive coverage and attention. The proponents of the anti-war demonstrations were not so fortunate.
Nixon’s actions controlled the news and muted the impact of the two anti-war protests that came before and after the speech. A bipartisan majority in Congress approved of Nixon’s Vietnam policy. His ratings in the polls rose dramatically.
Nixon commented to his aides, “We’ve got those liberal bastards on the run now, and we’re going to keep them on the run.”
Bush’s speech on September 10 has garnered a great deal of attention—as well it should. The speech marks a major turning point in the war. Bush’s actions in Iraq make it obvious that neither he nor his advisors are intelligent students of history. Bush’s speech on September 10 also makes it obvious that neither he nor his advisors have learned what they should have from Nixon’s handling of the war in Vietnam.
* * *
From the prospective available today, Nixon’s great silent majority speech may be viewed as platitudes punctuated by big, fat, juicy lies:
o The South Vietnamese Army, acting by itself, never was strong enough to defend South Vietnam. It was a mess when Nixon came into office in 1968. It was a mess when in November 1969 he said that the South Vietnamese would eventually be able to defend themselves. It was a mess when the US withdrew from South Vietnam.
o Nixon reneged on his demand that the North Vietnamese had to recognize Thieu’s regime.
o Nixon took strong measures, but, in the long term, they were not effective. Before Nixon gave his speech, the US had taken strong measures in North and South Vietnam before. When he gave the speech, there was little evidence that Nixon’s strong measures would be effective militarily.
o And in a few short years, the North Vietnamese defeated the South Vietnamese and humiliated the US.
Ignoring what happened years later and only looking at the short-term reactions to the speech yields entirely different conclusions. The speech Nixon gave in November 1969 and the political machinations he put in place to accent it enabled Nixon to perform some amazing political alchemy. The war in Vietnam had helped to undermine the presidency of Nixon’s predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. However, Nixon was able to manipulate the war to make him appear to most Americans to be both tough and fair. Under the spell of Nixon’s political wizardry, the dark, ugly morass the war in Vietnam became, briefly, a political goldmine. Under Nixon’s guidance, a strong and loyal following supported his efforts in Vietnam. The same core of voters who rallied to support him after the speech served as the basis for the blocs of voters who reelected him via a landslide in November 1972.
For the short term, Nixon’s plans worked—for reasons that are not surprising. Nixon knew the truth about his stance in Vietnam. He realized he was vulnerable. The US was waging a violent, deadly, and expensive war. Nixon confided to his aides how complex the conflict was and how unlikely it was that the US would prevail. So he trotted out the pomp and prestige of the Presidency, told some very big and juicy lies—especially about the abilities of the South Vietnamese Army. His comments about his willingness to compromise implied he was flexible—and therefore, fair.
Though the speech was largely a brief on why the US should continue a violent, deadly, expensive and controversial war, he used the word “peace” thirty-nine times. And Nixon emphasized that the US was handing the war over to the South Vietnamese and that the US was extricating itself from the war. Nixon appeared to be acting boldly and assertively.
At the very least, having his Vice President attack the media gave reporters something else to write about. Comments attacking the media certainly invigorate the Republican conservative base. And Agnew’s comments may even have blunted the criticism Nixon might have gotten from the print media.
Later in his presidency, when Nixon talked about ending of the war in Vietnam, he often used the phrase “peace with honor.” The pledge showcases the US’s historical amnesia and provides yet another example of how the US media failed to do its job during the conflict. Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain used the phrase in 1938. In September 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich. There the two leaders brokered the Munich Agreement that Chamberlain hoped would endure and keep England out of war. The agreement gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. At the time the agreement was announced, it was enormously popular in England. Within a few months, Chamberlain’s actions would be viewed as a capitulation that allowed Hitler’s Germany to gobble up much of Europe. But weeks before that happened, Chamberlain returned to England from his trip to Munich. The Prime Minister greeted well-wishers and said that he had not just brought back peace; he had brought back “peace with honor.”
The lies Nixon told during his great silent majority speech (and later repeated) covered up Nixon’s biggest vulnerabilities about the war and distracted the US public from them. Nixon’s political magic allowed his administration and the American people to deny the truth about what was happening in Vietnam. Though Nixon’s short-term political brilliance helped Americans deny the truth about what was happening in Vietnam, it did not dilute the power of the mistakes the US made. The truth about the war in Vietnam eventually surfaced. The US lost the war it fought in Vietnam—for many of the reasons the US is losing the war in Iraq:
1) The US entered into the conflict without understanding the implications of the history of the region.
2) The US did not study its opponent thoroughly.
3) Other processes related to beginning the conflict were flawed. There were not nearly enough credible voices articulating the hazards of involvement.
4) Distortions muddled the “logic” for entering the conflict—proponents of the conflict sought evidence for the story they wanted to be true rather than the whole truth.
5) The US entered the conflict based on a series of lies it told itself. In Vietnam it convinced itself that it had to keep Communism in check, when both the Soviets and the People’s Republic of China sent various signals that it did not want to confront the US. The clearest were the actions the Soviet Union and later the People’s Republic of China took to end the war the Vietnamese were fighting with the French in the fifties. In Iraq, the US was convinced it needed the oil in the region and that US efforts in the region would facilitate the flow of oil to companies based in the US. History shouts that in the past, US efforts in the region—notably Iran—have been very counterproductive. Senior US officials also convinced themselves that turning Iraq into a functional democracy would be a relatively easy task. This would provide the US leverage in the Middle East and serve to check the growing animosity toward the US in Iran.
6) In both Vietnam and Iraq, the US senior officials told other lies to itself: it overestimated its abilities to influence events. It overestimated the abilities of technological muscle and economic superiority.
7) The US’s institutions let down the people of the US. There was not sufficient demand from the media, senior armed forces officers who had retired, the active senior officers of the armed forces, or the US’s politicians to demand that the difficult questions about the war be answered. This is true during all phases of the conflict. Even today, the US’s institutions have not devoted nearly enough time to the poor planning that preceded the conflict in Iraq, the number of civilian casualties, the role of corruption in the conflict, and the ineffectiveness of the US to address the high number of US soldiers killed by friendly fire. (Hearings on some of these issues will begin in the House and the Senate soon. But there should have been a much more meaningful response concerning these matters years ago.)
8) The US entered the conflict unprovoked by its perceived adversaries.
9) The US entered the conflict with an insufficient force. (Senior military officers in the US said that a million soldiers were needed to win in South Vietnam. At its peak, the US had a little more than over half that number.)
10) The US entered the conflict with a poor plan. Both conflicts were mostly political problems that demanded mostly a political solution—strong, dynamic, honest, and fair national government in conjunction with broad and successful US efforts to win the hearts and minds of the civilians in the region. A second component, having the country develop a powerful and effective army was essential for the efforts of the US to succeed. A third component, overt US military action was, like all the components, important.
11) In both conflicts, the US was abysmally slow to train the armies of the nations they were assisting. In both conflicts a failure to develop young infantry officers and a core of seasoned non-commissioned officers severely hampered US efforts to help the armies become an effective fighting force.
12) The US entered the military conflict with miserable military strategy. It planned to fight what was often an unconventional war by very conventional means.
13) Chauvinism, egocentricity, and ignorance made the US overconfident to the point of being reckless. It did not seek to investigate nor did it learn from the early mistakes it made in the region. In both conflicts on the domestic and military fronts the tactics, especially during the early years of the conflict, were horribly flawed.
14) In both conflicts the US was far too slow to attempt to win the war of ideas in the region. In South Vietnam, the US supported a series of often silly and routinely abusive governments. In Iraq, the US was far too slow to set up a legitimate and honest alternative media and to send emissaries to the people to explain how and why their world would soon be a much better one. Nor has Bush taken any significant actions to show how profoundly charismatic and fear-oriented leaders in Iraq have twisted the classical Islam to suit their purposes. Following elections, the US did not pressure the Iraqis enough to set up a government fast enough. When the government was established, the US was far too slow to mandate reforms that would make the government a more fair, stable, and reliable one.
15) Military successes at the beginning of the conflict delayed any intention the US should have had to revise tactics to address specific needs the troops had.
16) For years the US celebrated falsely optimistic reports. This is really a double-barreled mistake—the country is neither seeking out nor responding to the truth, and the falsely optimistic reports perpetuate a series of lies.
17) The US vastly underestimated its opponent.
18) The tactics and the tenacity of the insurgents muted the advantages of technological superiority.
19) For far too long, the vast majority of the senior US military officers had ample opportunity to realize that the plans for military action were flawed but continued to serve rather than articulate their concerns or resign. In Iraq, this has a particularly nasty resonance. The Powell Doctrine, articulated by General Colin Powell prior to the Gulf War was an attempt to avoid future Vietnams. The very people the doctrine was put in place to help have largely ignored it. The doctrine states that all eight questions it poses have to be answered affirmatively before an action may be taken. Clearly the US actions in Iraq led most aspects of the doctrine to be violated. Many argue that all aspects of the doctrine were.
1. Is a necessary national security interest threatened?
2. Does the US have a clear and achievable objective?
3. Have the costs and the risks been thoroughly and honestly analyzed?
4. Have all non-violent policy options been exhausted?
5. Is there a reasonable strategy to extricate the US and avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of the proposed action been thorougly considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Does the US have genuine, broad international support?
20) Both conflicts were plagued by corruption. In South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government and the South Vietnamese Army were corrupt. In Iraq, there remain clouds of mystery surrounding many of Halliburton’s dealings and far too little investigation has been done by our elected representatives or by the media to address allegations of corruption in the dispersal of US funds in Iraq and corruption in the new Iraqi government.
21) The US created and continued policies that alienated the people US wanted to win over—in Vietnam, this was the result of taking people from villages and supporting a corrupt and ineffective army and government; in Iraq failing to get basic services operating quickly (police protection, power, and water), supporting a weak and often ineffective government, and stories of prisoner abuse did a great deal to contaminate the atmosphere.
22) Someone who knew little about tactics and the various arts involved with war—especially guerilla war—ran US Defense Department during the conflict.
23) A failure to address the high number of US soldiers killed by friendly fire perpetuated these tragedies rather than reduced them.
24) There was a severe problem getting appropriate materials to the troops. In Vietnam, soldiers especially at the beginning of the conflict, had trouble getting the proper boots as well as the materials needed to clean their weapons. Gun cleaning kits were particularly needed because the weapon most soldiers used, the M-16, was such a fussy weapon. In Iraq, the US was far too slow to give all its soldiers body armor as well as armor for its vehicles.
25) The military effectiveness of US soldiers was hampered by the power of and the finickiness of the M-16. In Vietnam, the light bullet the weapon fires often prevented soldiers from mowing down jungle or trees that were in their way. Their opponent’s weapon, the AK-47, was excellent at performing these tasks. In Iraq, the light bullet the M-16 fires will not go through stucco or even many doors. When it is necessary to use the weapon in dirty or dusty environments, the weapon often jams. The weapons the Iraqi insurgents use, the AK-47 or the AK-74, work in almost any situation.
26) Senior US officials appeared callous about the number of civilians killed or wounded—not until December 2005 did President Bush mention that about 30 thousand have died. This is similar to the way senior US officials seemed unconcerned about the loss of Vietnamese life.
* * *
Though the American debacle in Vietnam provides an appropriate yardstick to show how completely the US has failed in Iraq, the US experience in Vietnam does not provide an appropriate model for an exit strategy.
To end the US experience in Vietnam, Nixon and his chief consigliere, Henry Kissinger, started secret back channel conversations with diplomats from North Vietnam. The two parties constructed an elaborate agreement that enabled the US to declare peace with honor had been achieved, withdraw its soldiers, and withdraw US forces from Vietnam. And through it all, Nixon had the trump card bombing provided. Bombing North Vietnam allowed Nixon to look tough and keep his base energized. Additionally, the massive bombing done immediately before the agreement was signed gave Nixon the false hope that the bombing would slow the North Vietnamese so much that their inevitable takeover of the South would occur long after his term was over.
Some of Nixon’s other big, fat, juicy lies connected with the cover-up that followed the burglary at the Watergate sped his departure from the Presidency long before his term was over. For all his short-term political brilliance, Nixon’s actions during the Vietnam war make it obvious that the lies—even big, fat juicy ones—and bombs are little match for an effective, determined, and often ruthlessly violent insurgency.
The agreement that ended the US involvement in South Vietnam led Nixon to announce that peace with honor had been achieved. The agreement brought neither peace nor honor. The North used the lull that followed the agreement to start to rebuild the North and to re-supply the South. Soon the North was seizing large chunks of South Vietnam. Because the peace did not last, there was no honor associated with the agreement.
During the four years that Nixon negotiated with the North Vietnamese, the US conceded most of its demands. The North Vietnamese conceded only one—that the leader of South Vietnam had to go.
During that period over 34,000 US and over 100,000 Vietnamese were killed; a million Vietnamese and 100,000 Cambodians were killed; over 100,000 US troops and a million Vietnamese were wounded; about 150,000 children were made orphans and 60, 000 women were made widows.
Nixon’s “honor’ came at quite a price.
* * *
The Bush Administration and many of the country’s senior political leaders have failed to understand one of the most important aspects of the war in Vietnam: to win, at the very least, the US had to back a sound and fair government, train the South Vietnamese army, and, for the short term, win the military component of the war. In South Vietnam, to some extent the US did perform the later, but the failure to address the other two components of the conflict effectively insured the US would lose in South Vietnam.
A similar scenario is unfolding in Iraq. The US has botched any chance it had of supporting a dynamic, effective, and trusted political regime in Iraq. The corruption in Iraq and the ethnic hatreds there all but doom the modest efforts the US has made to turn the Iraqi army into an effective fighting force.
In South Vietnam, most senior military officers were corrupt, This gave the junior officers little reason to risk doing the hard work necessary to prepare for or to win a battle. In Vietnam, the US failed to create a sufficient number of non-commissioned officers—high ranking enlisted men. Without a large pool of talented and determined non-coms, no army can be an effective fighting force.
The Iraqi army rarely takes an resourceful and active role in the fighting. And there is little evidence that it will now or in the near future be an efficient fighting force. Last summer eight battalions of Iraqi solders were to do sweep through Baghdad and severely reduce the number of insurgents there.
Half the Iraqi soldiers did not show up.
Clearly the Iraqi army did not succeed in its mission. There is considerable evidence that training of Iraqi Army has been bungled as badly as the training of the South Vietnamese army was all those years ago.
There is more bad news: The situation the US is in Iraq is, in some ways, worse than it ever was in Vietnam. In Vietnam, the US dealt with an organized, effective top-down insurgency. The insurgency in Iraq is a very loose confederation of many groups of unusually angry people. Even if Bush were willing to negotiate with the insurgents, they are so decentralized that he would not be able to find two or ten—or a hundred people who could honestly say they can effectively dictate their desires to all the insurgents. This means a negotiated agreement in Iraq is not possible.
There are other problems. Bush has long been unresponsive to the sectarian issues that divide and trouble Iraq. He has done next to nothing to calm these rifts. And attempts to curb them with force also have proved ineffective. Civil unrest is almost sure to continue because the Iraqis neither have nor are they close to having an effective police force.
Because of the sectarian violence, there are many wars going in Iraq. The US is fighting the insurgents and al-Qaida. The Sunni’s and al-Qaidi are fighting the Shia. The Kurds are trying not to fight anyone. If they win, the Sunni will fight al-Qaidi.
There are many reasons why the Iraqi army is not effective. It is difficult to realize how ineffective it is. General Abizaid, the man in charge of the US Central Command stated when speaking before a Senate committee in November that there was not one Iraqi unit that is battle ready. The Army’s own inspector general reports state that the units are understaffed, under-equipped. Some soldiers do not even have weapsons. Perhaps most importantly, sectarian issues haunt the Iraqi army. They are perceived to be so pro Sunni, that Shia’s fear them.
Iraq’s large urban population lacks, in addition to a reliable police force, the other necessities of urban life: clean water, reliable power, and access to the engines of commerce.
These failures all but guarantee that the US’s efforts in Iraq will not succeed.
* * *
During the mid-term elections the US public clearly stated that it wanted a change in US policy in Iraq. Obviously, Bush has elected not to begin an incremental withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Had he wanted to do this, he could have used the ample political cover the bipartisan commission on Iraq provided. Bush has elected not to tell big, fat juicy lies—per the Nixon model. He has elected not to implement bold initiatives. Instead, years after the US began to encounter problems in Iraq, on January 10 Bush stated there will be a modest increase in troops in Iraq—called a surge—and a short list of other offerings.
There was some good news. Bush’s stated, ”the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” This may be read to mean that if the government in Iraq has not stepped forward by November, the US will begin to withdraw. That the Iraqi army will be working in concert with US forces is good. That there will be more advisors for the Iraqi army and more economic aid for Iraq is also a good thing.
But almost all the remainder of Bush’s new way forward is bad news. The centerpiece of Bush’s initiative is an increase of 21,500 US troops. Most will serve in Baghdad. Bush asserts that the added troops will provide enough to “clear, hold and build” in Iraq. Bush plans that the newfound security in Iraq will provide much needed support for the Iraqi government.
There are at least two problems with the plan. One is that there simply will not be enough troops. Senior Pentagon officials lately have been trotting around the statistic of 1:15. One soldier for every 15 civilians appear to be needed to suppress an insurgency. The new troop levels with US forces, with the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi police will get the numbers to that 1:15 ratio. But counting the Iraqi police as present or even accounted for is a huge mistake. Therefore, even using the Pentagon’s own numbers, even with the increase there will not be enough soldiers to calm the troubled waters in the city.
Another shortcoming of Bush’s initiative is that all the plans to end the sectarian violence are military based solutions. The short history of the US in the region shows that military solutions to insurgencies lead only to a wider conflict with the insurgents. The long history of fighting insurgents tells a similar story. Insurgents must be attacked militarily. But to defeat them, they must be coerced and corrupted from the within. In the middle of a civil war, ideas seem a pretty weak weapon. But they must be employed to attempt to weaken the insurgents. Economic or other means must be employed to alter their structure and corrupt their circular hierarchy.
The key to accomplishing this will vary from insurgency to insurgency. Decades ago the US government fought the Apaches. For years, the US government failed. The US would strike and kill—and the Apaches would adapt. They became brilliant guerilla fighters. And they endured. Then the US gave the Apaches cattle. The Apaches became materialistic. They fought amongst themselves about the cattle. They wavered from their circular hierarchy and began to adopt some vertical organizational structures. Their passion for fighting the US waned.
No doubt corrupting the insurgents in Iraq will be considerably more difficult that giving them cattle. The US did not defeat the Apaches militarily, the US corrupted them from within. The US has to attempt to take similar measures if it intends to defeat the insurgents.
The idea that increased military security will boost the credibility of Iraq’s political regime is flawed. It implies that Iraq’s government is wobbling now because of the insurgency. The political regime in Iraq is wobbling now because it is spineless and because it is corrupt. It is not fighting the war aggressively—it is far too kind to the insubordinate Shia forces. It lacks the tenacity necessary to fight a long and grueling war. And there are many indications that funneling finances for personal gain is happening on a scale that endangers the credibility of the regime.
There were portions of the speech Bush gave on January 10 that stretched the limits of absurdity. Bush stated that the Iraqi army will lead the way in joint exercises with the US. He also implied that relations between the US and the Iraqi government were downright sunny.
Where Nixon acted boldly, and told big lies, on January 10 Bush offered a very modest proposal. Its characteristics are compromise, false hopes, platitudes and, worse, further evidence that he lacks the most important trait of a great liar—the ability to know the truth and use the lie (or new initiatives) to distract the public from it. Clearly, Bush’s speech on January 10, will not garner the praise and generate the optimism Nixon’s great silent majority speech garnered. But, like Nixon’s speech, Bush’s will be used to buy more time for failed policies. It will be used to deny the truth about the war. It will be used to create a false sense of honor.
The US does not do itself or its future any good by being too gentle about how badly the Bush Administration has blundered in Iraq. The US does not do itself any good by responding to meek, overly modest proposals to change the situation in Iraq with muted comments or shallow criticism.
Bush’s new plan to win the war will not work. It offers far too little and it offers it years too late. Most importantly, it does not do nearly enough to address the non-military aspects of the conflict—a failed Iraqi government and an anemic Iraqi police force. It does not do enough to help improve the quality of the Iraqi army.
A tangled web of lies, distortions, and incompetencies led the US to make the mess it made in Iraq; modest efforts like the ones Bush proposed on January 10 to change certainly will not make the situation in Iraq significantly better or speed the US’s exit from the disaster.
If it was not already clear, Bush’s announcement on January 10 makes it obvious that Bush is incapable of pulling off a bold initiative in Iraq at this point in his presidency.
Nixon’s actions in Vietnam demonstrate that when running a controversial war, the tendency of politicians to tell wild and audacious lies presents at best only short-term positive results. Nixon also made it clear how much false honor can cost a country and its reputation.
Clearly, staying the current course in Iraq will not work. If modest efforts and small lies do not offer a reasonable chance of helping the US succeed in Iraq, there are not many alternatives—except seeking out and telling the cold, hard, brutally honest truth. In his speech, Bush went so far at to say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” Pollyannas may find cause to celebrate Bush’s comment. This would be a mistake. Bush’s comment was a poorly defined bone tossed to the masses to imply Bush has undergone careful introspection and profound soul searching. The comment is far too formless and tentative to qualify as a pledge to find and respond to the unvarnished, cold, and often brutal truth.
It is very unlikely that Bush will do anything as radical as embrace and celebrate the truth about the US’s incursion into Iraq. This is because the truth presents real problems for Bush. Telling the truth means he would have to admit his shortcomings, his mistakes, and his failures. It means he would have to tell the American people that the US has failed in the region. It means that the US’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraqis and Iraqi oil to American companies have failed. It means that acknowledging the US’s efforts to make Iraq a better place have made the Middle East a worse one.
The war in Iraq is a disaster on steroids. The time for modest changes to the US’s actions in the country ended years ago. If Bush has any hope of winning the war in Iraq, huge buildups are necessary—probably on the order of 150,000 troops. The US forces must quickly learn the nuances of fighting a guerilla conflict. The US must not only fight the insurgents militarily, it must end the flow of money and material that keeps the insurgents armed and well funded. It must fight the insurgents in ways that are less violent and perhaps in the long-term more effective. It must turn the Iraqi army into an effective and respected fighting force. It must eliminate the reasons for sectarian violence and the reasons why so many Iraqi’s hate the US and its cohorts. It must play hardball with the current government in Iraq so that it becomes an effective and fair institution. It must provide essential services to the people in the cities. It must pull off a miracle of miracles and turn the Iraqi police into an effective and respected organization. It must cut a deal with the various factions so that Iraqi oil revenues are shared fairly. It must negotiate with Iraq’s neighbors to make sure that they do not take advantage of the current situation. It must take the drastic steps necessary to reduce the anxieties the Iraqis feel toward the US and its soldiers. And when it stumbles, the US senior staff in charge of the war has to regroup, learn from their mistakes, and make adjustments. To do that it has to find and assess the truth. To do otherwise is to put an old and tattered band-aid on a huge and gaping wound.
In short, to win the war, Bush must do what he and his administration has not done in the last years. To suggest that Bush, the great denier will make these changes is a fantasy.
To some, Bush’s new way forward will be American’s last best hope.
To others, it will be yet another series of pompous compromises designed to mask a refusal by Bush and his advisors to address the hard truths about the war in Iraq.
Histories lessons are clear. Corrupt governments and inadequate armies do not suppress effective insurgencies. Denial does not weaken the truth. False honor is very expensive. Failure to learn the lessons history offers to teach speeds the way for great tragedies.
During his speech, Nixon presented his plan to end the war in Vietnam. Much of what he said was old news:
o the US would strengthen the South Vietnamese army so that the South Vietnamese could defend themselves;
o this would allow the US to continue to withdraw US forces from South Vietnam;
o compromise with the North Vietnamese was possible—if they recognized the US backed Thieu [ever mention election make him sole legitimate leader?] regime in the South;
o if the North Vietnamese and/or Vietcong (a group of fighters from North and South Vietnam) increased their actions, Nixon would take “strong and effective measures.”
He concluded his speech, “And so tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support. Let us be united in peace. Let us be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”
A choreographed response followed. Republicans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, members of the American Legion and others sent telegrams and letters—and made phone calls. A man who was then a mostly anonymous but very successful businessman, Ross Perot, delivered thousands of letters supporting Nixon. The messages went to Nixon and to other legislators.
Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, went into attack-dog mode. Agnew claimed the news media was a “small unelected elite” that did not “represent the view of America.” Briefly network executives criticized the attacks. But they feared that the Nixon administration would influence the renewal of their licenses to broadcast, so they acted with extreme caution. The three television networks gave Nixon and Agnew’s speeches extensive coverage and attention. The proponents of the anti-war demonstrations were not so fortunate.
Nixon’s actions controlled the news and muted the impact of the two anti-war protests that came before and after the speech. A bipartisan majority in Congress approved of Nixon’s Vietnam policy. His ratings in the polls rose dramatically.
Nixon commented to his aides, “We’ve got those liberal bastards on the run now, and we’re going to keep them on the run.”
Bush’s speech on September 10 has garnered a great deal of attention—as well it should. The speech marks a major turning point in the war. Bush’s actions in Iraq make it obvious that neither he nor his advisors are intelligent students of history. Bush’s speech on September 10 also makes it obvious that neither he nor his advisors have learned what they should have from Nixon’s handling of the war in Vietnam.
* * *
From the prospective available today, Nixon’s great silent majority speech may be viewed as platitudes punctuated by big, fat, juicy lies:
o The South Vietnamese Army, acting by itself, never was strong enough to defend South Vietnam. It was a mess when Nixon came into office in 1968. It was a mess when in November 1969 he said that the South Vietnamese would eventually be able to defend themselves. It was a mess when the US withdrew from South Vietnam.
o Nixon reneged on his demand that the North Vietnamese had to recognize Thieu’s regime.
o Nixon took strong measures, but, in the long term, they were not effective. Before Nixon gave his speech, the US had taken strong measures in North and South Vietnam before. When he gave the speech, there was little evidence that Nixon’s strong measures would be effective militarily.
o And in a few short years, the North Vietnamese defeated the South Vietnamese and humiliated the US.
Ignoring what happened years later and only looking at the short-term reactions to the speech yields entirely different conclusions. The speech Nixon gave in November 1969 and the political machinations he put in place to accent it enabled Nixon to perform some amazing political alchemy. The war in Vietnam had helped to undermine the presidency of Nixon’s predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. However, Nixon was able to manipulate the war to make him appear to most Americans to be both tough and fair. Under the spell of Nixon’s political wizardry, the dark, ugly morass the war in Vietnam became, briefly, a political goldmine. Under Nixon’s guidance, a strong and loyal following supported his efforts in Vietnam. The same core of voters who rallied to support him after the speech served as the basis for the blocs of voters who reelected him via a landslide in November 1972.
For the short term, Nixon’s plans worked—for reasons that are not surprising. Nixon knew the truth about his stance in Vietnam. He realized he was vulnerable. The US was waging a violent, deadly, and expensive war. Nixon confided to his aides how complex the conflict was and how unlikely it was that the US would prevail. So he trotted out the pomp and prestige of the Presidency, told some very big and juicy lies—especially about the abilities of the South Vietnamese Army. His comments about his willingness to compromise implied he was flexible—and therefore, fair.
Though the speech was largely a brief on why the US should continue a violent, deadly, expensive and controversial war, he used the word “peace” thirty-nine times. And Nixon emphasized that the US was handing the war over to the South Vietnamese and that the US was extricating itself from the war. Nixon appeared to be acting boldly and assertively.
At the very least, having his Vice President attack the media gave reporters something else to write about. Comments attacking the media certainly invigorate the Republican conservative base. And Agnew’s comments may even have blunted the criticism Nixon might have gotten from the print media.
Later in his presidency, when Nixon talked about ending of the war in Vietnam, he often used the phrase “peace with honor.” The pledge showcases the US’s historical amnesia and provides yet another example of how the US media failed to do its job during the conflict. Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain used the phrase in 1938. In September 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich. There the two leaders brokered the Munich Agreement that Chamberlain hoped would endure and keep England out of war. The agreement gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. At the time the agreement was announced, it was enormously popular in England. Within a few months, Chamberlain’s actions would be viewed as a capitulation that allowed Hitler’s Germany to gobble up much of Europe. But weeks before that happened, Chamberlain returned to England from his trip to Munich. The Prime Minister greeted well-wishers and said that he had not just brought back peace; he had brought back “peace with honor.”
The lies Nixon told during his great silent majority speech (and later repeated) covered up Nixon’s biggest vulnerabilities about the war and distracted the US public from them. Nixon’s political magic allowed his administration and the American people to deny the truth about what was happening in Vietnam. Though Nixon’s short-term political brilliance helped Americans deny the truth about what was happening in Vietnam, it did not dilute the power of the mistakes the US made. The truth about the war in Vietnam eventually surfaced. The US lost the war it fought in Vietnam—for many of the reasons the US is losing the war in Iraq:
1) The US entered into the conflict without understanding the implications of the history of the region.
2) The US did not study its opponent thoroughly.
3) Other processes related to beginning the conflict were flawed. There were not nearly enough credible voices articulating the hazards of involvement.
4) Distortions muddled the “logic” for entering the conflict—proponents of the conflict sought evidence for the story they wanted to be true rather than the whole truth.
5) The US entered the conflict based on a series of lies it told itself. In Vietnam it convinced itself that it had to keep Communism in check, when both the Soviets and the People’s Republic of China sent various signals that it did not want to confront the US. The clearest were the actions the Soviet Union and later the People’s Republic of China took to end the war the Vietnamese were fighting with the French in the fifties. In Iraq, the US was convinced it needed the oil in the region and that US efforts in the region would facilitate the flow of oil to companies based in the US. History shouts that in the past, US efforts in the region—notably Iran—have been very counterproductive. Senior US officials also convinced themselves that turning Iraq into a functional democracy would be a relatively easy task. This would provide the US leverage in the Middle East and serve to check the growing animosity toward the US in Iran.
6) In both Vietnam and Iraq, the US senior officials told other lies to itself: it overestimated its abilities to influence events. It overestimated the abilities of technological muscle and economic superiority.
7) The US’s institutions let down the people of the US. There was not sufficient demand from the media, senior armed forces officers who had retired, the active senior officers of the armed forces, or the US’s politicians to demand that the difficult questions about the war be answered. This is true during all phases of the conflict. Even today, the US’s institutions have not devoted nearly enough time to the poor planning that preceded the conflict in Iraq, the number of civilian casualties, the role of corruption in the conflict, and the ineffectiveness of the US to address the high number of US soldiers killed by friendly fire. (Hearings on some of these issues will begin in the House and the Senate soon. But there should have been a much more meaningful response concerning these matters years ago.)
8) The US entered the conflict unprovoked by its perceived adversaries.
9) The US entered the conflict with an insufficient force. (Senior military officers in the US said that a million soldiers were needed to win in South Vietnam. At its peak, the US had a little more than over half that number.)
10) The US entered the conflict with a poor plan. Both conflicts were mostly political problems that demanded mostly a political solution—strong, dynamic, honest, and fair national government in conjunction with broad and successful US efforts to win the hearts and minds of the civilians in the region. A second component, having the country develop a powerful and effective army was essential for the efforts of the US to succeed. A third component, overt US military action was, like all the components, important.
11) In both conflicts, the US was abysmally slow to train the armies of the nations they were assisting. In both conflicts a failure to develop young infantry officers and a core of seasoned non-commissioned officers severely hampered US efforts to help the armies become an effective fighting force.
12) The US entered the military conflict with miserable military strategy. It planned to fight what was often an unconventional war by very conventional means.
13) Chauvinism, egocentricity, and ignorance made the US overconfident to the point of being reckless. It did not seek to investigate nor did it learn from the early mistakes it made in the region. In both conflicts on the domestic and military fronts the tactics, especially during the early years of the conflict, were horribly flawed.
14) In both conflicts the US was far too slow to attempt to win the war of ideas in the region. In South Vietnam, the US supported a series of often silly and routinely abusive governments. In Iraq, the US was far too slow to set up a legitimate and honest alternative media and to send emissaries to the people to explain how and why their world would soon be a much better one. Nor has Bush taken any significant actions to show how profoundly charismatic and fear-oriented leaders in Iraq have twisted the classical Islam to suit their purposes. Following elections, the US did not pressure the Iraqis enough to set up a government fast enough. When the government was established, the US was far too slow to mandate reforms that would make the government a more fair, stable, and reliable one.
15) Military successes at the beginning of the conflict delayed any intention the US should have had to revise tactics to address specific needs the troops had.
16) For years the US celebrated falsely optimistic reports. This is really a double-barreled mistake—the country is neither seeking out nor responding to the truth, and the falsely optimistic reports perpetuate a series of lies.
17) The US vastly underestimated its opponent.
18) The tactics and the tenacity of the insurgents muted the advantages of technological superiority.
19) For far too long, the vast majority of the senior US military officers had ample opportunity to realize that the plans for military action were flawed but continued to serve rather than articulate their concerns or resign. In Iraq, this has a particularly nasty resonance. The Powell Doctrine, articulated by General Colin Powell prior to the Gulf War was an attempt to avoid future Vietnams. The very people the doctrine was put in place to help have largely ignored it. The doctrine states that all eight questions it poses have to be answered affirmatively before an action may be taken. Clearly the US actions in Iraq led most aspects of the doctrine to be violated. Many argue that all aspects of the doctrine were.
1. Is a necessary national security interest threatened?
2. Does the US have a clear and achievable objective?
3. Have the costs and the risks been thoroughly and honestly analyzed?
4. Have all non-violent policy options been exhausted?
5. Is there a reasonable strategy to extricate the US and avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of the proposed action been thorougly considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Does the US have genuine, broad international support?
20) Both conflicts were plagued by corruption. In South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government and the South Vietnamese Army were corrupt. In Iraq, there remain clouds of mystery surrounding many of Halliburton’s dealings and far too little investigation has been done by our elected representatives or by the media to address allegations of corruption in the dispersal of US funds in Iraq and corruption in the new Iraqi government.
21) The US created and continued policies that alienated the people US wanted to win over—in Vietnam, this was the result of taking people from villages and supporting a corrupt and ineffective army and government; in Iraq failing to get basic services operating quickly (police protection, power, and water), supporting a weak and often ineffective government, and stories of prisoner abuse did a great deal to contaminate the atmosphere.
22) Someone who knew little about tactics and the various arts involved with war—especially guerilla war—ran US Defense Department during the conflict.
23) A failure to address the high number of US soldiers killed by friendly fire perpetuated these tragedies rather than reduced them.
24) There was a severe problem getting appropriate materials to the troops. In Vietnam, soldiers especially at the beginning of the conflict, had trouble getting the proper boots as well as the materials needed to clean their weapons. Gun cleaning kits were particularly needed because the weapon most soldiers used, the M-16, was such a fussy weapon. In Iraq, the US was far too slow to give all its soldiers body armor as well as armor for its vehicles.
25) The military effectiveness of US soldiers was hampered by the power of and the finickiness of the M-16. In Vietnam, the light bullet the weapon fires often prevented soldiers from mowing down jungle or trees that were in their way. Their opponent’s weapon, the AK-47, was excellent at performing these tasks. In Iraq, the light bullet the M-16 fires will not go through stucco or even many doors. When it is necessary to use the weapon in dirty or dusty environments, the weapon often jams. The weapons the Iraqi insurgents use, the AK-47 or the AK-74, work in almost any situation.
26) Senior US officials appeared callous about the number of civilians killed or wounded—not until December 2005 did President Bush mention that about 30 thousand have died. This is similar to the way senior US officials seemed unconcerned about the loss of Vietnamese life.
* * *
Though the American debacle in Vietnam provides an appropriate yardstick to show how completely the US has failed in Iraq, the US experience in Vietnam does not provide an appropriate model for an exit strategy.
To end the US experience in Vietnam, Nixon and his chief consigliere, Henry Kissinger, started secret back channel conversations with diplomats from North Vietnam. The two parties constructed an elaborate agreement that enabled the US to declare peace with honor had been achieved, withdraw its soldiers, and withdraw US forces from Vietnam. And through it all, Nixon had the trump card bombing provided. Bombing North Vietnam allowed Nixon to look tough and keep his base energized. Additionally, the massive bombing done immediately before the agreement was signed gave Nixon the false hope that the bombing would slow the North Vietnamese so much that their inevitable takeover of the South would occur long after his term was over.
Some of Nixon’s other big, fat, juicy lies connected with the cover-up that followed the burglary at the Watergate sped his departure from the Presidency long before his term was over. For all his short-term political brilliance, Nixon’s actions during the Vietnam war make it obvious that the lies—even big, fat juicy ones—and bombs are little match for an effective, determined, and often ruthlessly violent insurgency.
The agreement that ended the US involvement in South Vietnam led Nixon to announce that peace with honor had been achieved. The agreement brought neither peace nor honor. The North used the lull that followed the agreement to start to rebuild the North and to re-supply the South. Soon the North was seizing large chunks of South Vietnam. Because the peace did not last, there was no honor associated with the agreement.
During the four years that Nixon negotiated with the North Vietnamese, the US conceded most of its demands. The North Vietnamese conceded only one—that the leader of South Vietnam had to go.
During that period over 34,000 US and over 100,000 Vietnamese were killed; a million Vietnamese and 100,000 Cambodians were killed; over 100,000 US troops and a million Vietnamese were wounded; about 150,000 children were made orphans and 60, 000 women were made widows.
Nixon’s “honor’ came at quite a price.
* * *
The Bush Administration and many of the country’s senior political leaders have failed to understand one of the most important aspects of the war in Vietnam: to win, at the very least, the US had to back a sound and fair government, train the South Vietnamese army, and, for the short term, win the military component of the war. In South Vietnam, to some extent the US did perform the later, but the failure to address the other two components of the conflict effectively insured the US would lose in South Vietnam.
A similar scenario is unfolding in Iraq. The US has botched any chance it had of supporting a dynamic, effective, and trusted political regime in Iraq. The corruption in Iraq and the ethnic hatreds there all but doom the modest efforts the US has made to turn the Iraqi army into an effective fighting force.
In South Vietnam, most senior military officers were corrupt, This gave the junior officers little reason to risk doing the hard work necessary to prepare for or to win a battle. In Vietnam, the US failed to create a sufficient number of non-commissioned officers—high ranking enlisted men. Without a large pool of talented and determined non-coms, no army can be an effective fighting force.
The Iraqi army rarely takes an resourceful and active role in the fighting. And there is little evidence that it will now or in the near future be an efficient fighting force. Last summer eight battalions of Iraqi solders were to do sweep through Baghdad and severely reduce the number of insurgents there.
Half the Iraqi soldiers did not show up.
Clearly the Iraqi army did not succeed in its mission. There is considerable evidence that training of Iraqi Army has been bungled as badly as the training of the South Vietnamese army was all those years ago.
There is more bad news: The situation the US is in Iraq is, in some ways, worse than it ever was in Vietnam. In Vietnam, the US dealt with an organized, effective top-down insurgency. The insurgency in Iraq is a very loose confederation of many groups of unusually angry people. Even if Bush were willing to negotiate with the insurgents, they are so decentralized that he would not be able to find two or ten—or a hundred people who could honestly say they can effectively dictate their desires to all the insurgents. This means a negotiated agreement in Iraq is not possible.
There are other problems. Bush has long been unresponsive to the sectarian issues that divide and trouble Iraq. He has done next to nothing to calm these rifts. And attempts to curb them with force also have proved ineffective. Civil unrest is almost sure to continue because the Iraqis neither have nor are they close to having an effective police force.
Because of the sectarian violence, there are many wars going in Iraq. The US is fighting the insurgents and al-Qaida. The Sunni’s and al-Qaidi are fighting the Shia. The Kurds are trying not to fight anyone. If they win, the Sunni will fight al-Qaidi.
There are many reasons why the Iraqi army is not effective. It is difficult to realize how ineffective it is. General Abizaid, the man in charge of the US Central Command stated when speaking before a Senate committee in November that there was not one Iraqi unit that is battle ready. The Army’s own inspector general reports state that the units are understaffed, under-equipped. Some soldiers do not even have weapsons. Perhaps most importantly, sectarian issues haunt the Iraqi army. They are perceived to be so pro Sunni, that Shia’s fear them.
Iraq’s large urban population lacks, in addition to a reliable police force, the other necessities of urban life: clean water, reliable power, and access to the engines of commerce.
These failures all but guarantee that the US’s efforts in Iraq will not succeed.
* * *
During the mid-term elections the US public clearly stated that it wanted a change in US policy in Iraq. Obviously, Bush has elected not to begin an incremental withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Had he wanted to do this, he could have used the ample political cover the bipartisan commission on Iraq provided. Bush has elected not to tell big, fat juicy lies—per the Nixon model. He has elected not to implement bold initiatives. Instead, years after the US began to encounter problems in Iraq, on January 10 Bush stated there will be a modest increase in troops in Iraq—called a surge—and a short list of other offerings.
There was some good news. Bush’s stated, ”the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” This may be read to mean that if the government in Iraq has not stepped forward by November, the US will begin to withdraw. That the Iraqi army will be working in concert with US forces is good. That there will be more advisors for the Iraqi army and more economic aid for Iraq is also a good thing.
But almost all the remainder of Bush’s new way forward is bad news. The centerpiece of Bush’s initiative is an increase of 21,500 US troops. Most will serve in Baghdad. Bush asserts that the added troops will provide enough to “clear, hold and build” in Iraq. Bush plans that the newfound security in Iraq will provide much needed support for the Iraqi government.
There are at least two problems with the plan. One is that there simply will not be enough troops. Senior Pentagon officials lately have been trotting around the statistic of 1:15. One soldier for every 15 civilians appear to be needed to suppress an insurgency. The new troop levels with US forces, with the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi police will get the numbers to that 1:15 ratio. But counting the Iraqi police as present or even accounted for is a huge mistake. Therefore, even using the Pentagon’s own numbers, even with the increase there will not be enough soldiers to calm the troubled waters in the city.
Another shortcoming of Bush’s initiative is that all the plans to end the sectarian violence are military based solutions. The short history of the US in the region shows that military solutions to insurgencies lead only to a wider conflict with the insurgents. The long history of fighting insurgents tells a similar story. Insurgents must be attacked militarily. But to defeat them, they must be coerced and corrupted from the within. In the middle of a civil war, ideas seem a pretty weak weapon. But they must be employed to attempt to weaken the insurgents. Economic or other means must be employed to alter their structure and corrupt their circular hierarchy.
The key to accomplishing this will vary from insurgency to insurgency. Decades ago the US government fought the Apaches. For years, the US government failed. The US would strike and kill—and the Apaches would adapt. They became brilliant guerilla fighters. And they endured. Then the US gave the Apaches cattle. The Apaches became materialistic. They fought amongst themselves about the cattle. They wavered from their circular hierarchy and began to adopt some vertical organizational structures. Their passion for fighting the US waned.
No doubt corrupting the insurgents in Iraq will be considerably more difficult that giving them cattle. The US did not defeat the Apaches militarily, the US corrupted them from within. The US has to attempt to take similar measures if it intends to defeat the insurgents.
The idea that increased military security will boost the credibility of Iraq’s political regime is flawed. It implies that Iraq’s government is wobbling now because of the insurgency. The political regime in Iraq is wobbling now because it is spineless and because it is corrupt. It is not fighting the war aggressively—it is far too kind to the insubordinate Shia forces. It lacks the tenacity necessary to fight a long and grueling war. And there are many indications that funneling finances for personal gain is happening on a scale that endangers the credibility of the regime.
There were portions of the speech Bush gave on January 10 that stretched the limits of absurdity. Bush stated that the Iraqi army will lead the way in joint exercises with the US. He also implied that relations between the US and the Iraqi government were downright sunny.
Where Nixon acted boldly, and told big lies, on January 10 Bush offered a very modest proposal. Its characteristics are compromise, false hopes, platitudes and, worse, further evidence that he lacks the most important trait of a great liar—the ability to know the truth and use the lie (or new initiatives) to distract the public from it. Clearly, Bush’s speech on January 10, will not garner the praise and generate the optimism Nixon’s great silent majority speech garnered. But, like Nixon’s speech, Bush’s will be used to buy more time for failed policies. It will be used to deny the truth about the war. It will be used to create a false sense of honor.
The US does not do itself or its future any good by being too gentle about how badly the Bush Administration has blundered in Iraq. The US does not do itself any good by responding to meek, overly modest proposals to change the situation in Iraq with muted comments or shallow criticism.
Bush’s new plan to win the war will not work. It offers far too little and it offers it years too late. Most importantly, it does not do nearly enough to address the non-military aspects of the conflict—a failed Iraqi government and an anemic Iraqi police force. It does not do enough to help improve the quality of the Iraqi army.
A tangled web of lies, distortions, and incompetencies led the US to make the mess it made in Iraq; modest efforts like the ones Bush proposed on January 10 to change certainly will not make the situation in Iraq significantly better or speed the US’s exit from the disaster.
If it was not already clear, Bush’s announcement on January 10 makes it obvious that Bush is incapable of pulling off a bold initiative in Iraq at this point in his presidency.
Nixon’s actions in Vietnam demonstrate that when running a controversial war, the tendency of politicians to tell wild and audacious lies presents at best only short-term positive results. Nixon also made it clear how much false honor can cost a country and its reputation.
Clearly, staying the current course in Iraq will not work. If modest efforts and small lies do not offer a reasonable chance of helping the US succeed in Iraq, there are not many alternatives—except seeking out and telling the cold, hard, brutally honest truth. In his speech, Bush went so far at to say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” Pollyannas may find cause to celebrate Bush’s comment. This would be a mistake. Bush’s comment was a poorly defined bone tossed to the masses to imply Bush has undergone careful introspection and profound soul searching. The comment is far too formless and tentative to qualify as a pledge to find and respond to the unvarnished, cold, and often brutal truth.
It is very unlikely that Bush will do anything as radical as embrace and celebrate the truth about the US’s incursion into Iraq. This is because the truth presents real problems for Bush. Telling the truth means he would have to admit his shortcomings, his mistakes, and his failures. It means he would have to tell the American people that the US has failed in the region. It means that the US’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraqis and Iraqi oil to American companies have failed. It means that acknowledging the US’s efforts to make Iraq a better place have made the Middle East a worse one.
The war in Iraq is a disaster on steroids. The time for modest changes to the US’s actions in the country ended years ago. If Bush has any hope of winning the war in Iraq, huge buildups are necessary—probably on the order of 150,000 troops. The US forces must quickly learn the nuances of fighting a guerilla conflict. The US must not only fight the insurgents militarily, it must end the flow of money and material that keeps the insurgents armed and well funded. It must fight the insurgents in ways that are less violent and perhaps in the long-term more effective. It must turn the Iraqi army into an effective and respected fighting force. It must eliminate the reasons for sectarian violence and the reasons why so many Iraqi’s hate the US and its cohorts. It must play hardball with the current government in Iraq so that it becomes an effective and fair institution. It must provide essential services to the people in the cities. It must pull off a miracle of miracles and turn the Iraqi police into an effective and respected organization. It must cut a deal with the various factions so that Iraqi oil revenues are shared fairly. It must negotiate with Iraq’s neighbors to make sure that they do not take advantage of the current situation. It must take the drastic steps necessary to reduce the anxieties the Iraqis feel toward the US and its soldiers. And when it stumbles, the US senior staff in charge of the war has to regroup, learn from their mistakes, and make adjustments. To do that it has to find and assess the truth. To do otherwise is to put an old and tattered band-aid on a huge and gaping wound.
In short, to win the war, Bush must do what he and his administration has not done in the last years. To suggest that Bush, the great denier will make these changes is a fantasy.
To some, Bush’s new way forward will be American’s last best hope.
To others, it will be yet another series of pompous compromises designed to mask a refusal by Bush and his advisors to address the hard truths about the war in Iraq.
Histories lessons are clear. Corrupt governments and inadequate armies do not suppress effective insurgencies. Denial does not weaken the truth. False honor is very expensive. Failure to learn the lessons history offers to teach speeds the way for great tragedies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)