America’s Place in the World (Still More Discussion)

In my last post entitled "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)" I set forth my exchange on this subject with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ, and then set forth a somewhat lengthy exposition on the subject by Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

I decided that I can most effectively juxtapose my views against Nekimken’s by interlineating my comments directly into his. I do so by showing Nekimken’s text in italics and my responses in bold type. Those who may want to re-read Nekimken’s views without distraction can do so by referring to my last post "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)."

I found myself agreeing the most of your reply to Eric Offner, Did you? It doesn't sound that way! even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize, he also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. 

I don't believe that this is a fair criticism. The immigration laws were clear, and these refugees were not eligible for entry under those laws. I don’t think Roosevelt had the power to ignore those laws. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. Again I disagree! There is no indication that Roosevelt had anti-Semitic views. To be sure Cordell Hull, The Secretary of State did, but to a large extent Roosevelt was unaware of this, until much later when Morgenthau brought it to his attention Roosevelt was shocked but did not feel there was much he could do about it without shaking up his Administration and he wasn't about to do that.

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. Not every Administration is equally guilty of this. Democrats are much more given to humanitarian considerations, than Republicans.  Clinton acted in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Carter was always concerned with Human Rights.

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can.

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, Somalia didn't fail! We didn't act! Overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

The listing below I think is the crux of your argument.

·As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. True! , But we can change that perception, if we follow a consistent policy that puts greater emphasis on human rights than national Rights. Can we do that politically, doubtful, but it is worth striving for.

·We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. Not so! Neither Bosnia nor Libya had that effect.

·We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. How reminiscent of the mood in 1939. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. Limited intervention does not have very high costs and non-American lives have just as great value as American ones. Neither Bosnia nor Libya had a major impact on our budget. Iraq is always the bugaboo but that was the wrong war with the wrong commitment.

Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades.

But you and those likeminded keep coming back to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are not relevant models and references to those are misleading and inapplicable.

·For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment. 

This will happen regardless of anything else. Technology, not policy drives this. 

·Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, The will always require human direction though from a remote location. or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyberterrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now.  I don't understand this. Self piloted drones are in use. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. But this is not relevant to policing atrocities.

Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. Now you are talking apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorists is something we are doing, and will continue to do. It has its challenges as you point out. But it has nothing to do with intervening when mass slaughter on the scale of the Nazis, or in Bosnia and/or Kosovo or in Rwanda, takes place, and as we saw in Bosnia and Libya, it does not require boots on the ground, or even huge expenditures. You are raising a great many irrelevancies and bugaboos.

·Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. Chemical weapons have not been the issue until now! It has been the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. Right then and there we should have told Bashar al-Assad, stop or there will be consequences, followed by drone attacks on airfields and on anti aircraft batteries until his capacity to use those weapons was suppressed. Anti tank weapons, to the secular forces would also have made sense.

·Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S.  Nobody has suggested an attack on the chemical weapons.  Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs.

·Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. Erdogan is absolutely right! His country is bearing the brunt of caring for Syrian refugees, while we are doing nothing to help them. He is in no position to unilaterally take on Bashar al-Assad. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.) This last is unworthy of you! As you well know I am not looking for spending more on armaments and the humanitarian actions I am urging, have nothing to do with defense contractors. They will do very well regardless.

The slaughter of innocent civilians, whether Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or Slavs, or Africans, cannot be permitted. Better that we can unite on it, but it cannot be tolerated unless you feel that the worlds polices toward the Jews in the Holocaust was right. Russia or for that matter China cannot be allowed to be the dogs in the manger, who continues the defense of the indefensible and the absolute obstacle of humanitarianism.

It seems to me your instincts are pacifist and even suggest isolationism, which after Iraq and Afghanistan has gripped the country, just as it did after the WWI.

Final comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but not distributed.

America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)

With my temporary return to my blog, I posted my exchange with Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY, in a blog entitled "America’s Place in the World." Subsequently, I posted discussions with Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, PA, Nancy Vierra of Silver Springs, Maryland, and Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ in my blog post entitled "America’s Place in the World (Discussion).

Since the discussion with Reiner has continued, I now want to share that with you, and also add a rather lengthy analysis, which came from Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

Herb Reiner countered my last repost with:

Yes, Emil, I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. In fact I believe we are now giving substantial military aid to groups we believe are secularist. But the situation on the ground is so chaotic and confusing that I doubt our government is flexible and smart enough to insure our weapons won’t end up in the hands of our enemies. This country has been hurt many times because of our failure to understand the limits of our power and the unintended consequences of military action. 

To which I responded with:

I don't agree that we have been hurt primarily by "our failure to understand the limits of our power and the unintended consequences of military action". We have been hurt most when we act in our primary interests; when we are obsessed by a narrow view of our interests. In Iraq, Bush I acted on principle. It served us and the world well. Bush II was obsessed with power. Even when the UN inspectors said "no weapons of mass destruction", he was determined to proceed and then he destroyed the institutions that made governing possible. We should not learn the wrong lessons from that debacle, or from Vietnam where we kidded ourselves that we were fighting Communism, when we were in fact fighting to maintain French colonial interests.

When we act on our "better angels of our nature" to quote Lincoln, we actual serve our national interests best.

Our actions in Syria and elsewhere must be directed by our best humanitarian instincts, and not by a narrow view of National Interest, or at least that is my view.

I doubt that we disagree on principle, but isolationist voices have been loud and have found lots of reasons to support their narrow view. Obstacles can always be found for not doing what one has no interest in doing.

And finally Albert Nekimken set forth his views as follows:

Your commentary arrived yesterday and I received it with great pleasure. 

  

I have been hopelessly behind in attending to my e-mail and other correspondence for some time. I did realize that you were frustrated by your inability to establish any kind of regular, timely dialogue with your correspondents, but the best I was able to do was to set up a dedicated mailbox in my Outlook program to capture and save all of your commentaries. My plan was to reply to them when possible, even if after a rather long delay. It was certainly never my intention to ignore them. 

  

Due partly to the weight of my sense of guilt over this prior neglect and the gravity of the Syrian issue, however, I did want to take a few minutes to send an immediate reply. 

  

I found myself agreeing with most of your reply to Eric Offner, even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize. He also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. 

  

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. 

  

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can. 

  

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons: 

   

1.) As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. 

  

2.) We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. 

  

3.) We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. 

  

4.) Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades. 

  

5.) For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment.  

   

6.) Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyber terrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. 

  

7.) Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. 

  

8.) Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. 

       

9.) Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S. Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs. 

       

10.) Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.)

Next time I will set forth my response to Nekimken. And then once again ride into the sunset.

I no longer invite comments! 

All good things must come to an end and so this discussion too must end.

Inequities In Our Electoral System - Part II

In my June 23 commentary, which can be found here, I discussed how the Constitution mandates a Senate in which the votes of some have far more weight than those of others. I pointed out that each voter or potential voter in Wyoming has his/her vote counted 69 times for each time a Californian voter gets his/her vote counted. I also pointed out that while the House has a better balance, a vote by a resident of Wyoming has almost twice the value of one in Montana.

The comments I received from Robert Malchman, Esq. and Leonard Levenson, Esq. tended to defend the present system even including the filibuster on the ground that these are checks and balances that prevent a temporary majority from running roughshod over a minority. There comments may be sound in theory, but in fact it has made Congress to a large extent impotent so that the President has become increasingly a power center with few effective checks. Furthermore, while theoretically it encourages compromise, the compromises that come out of the present system undermine the objectives of the majority and I believe the American people. Thus to get an increase in the minimum wage Democrats had to agree to undesirable tax cuts. On Iraq they were blocked by filibuster from even getting a bill voted on protecting our soldiers from excessive deployments, and any bill having timetables suffered a similar fate. If Democrats do not get at least a 60 vote majority in the Senate in the next election, and the unfairness of the electoral system, as discussed, makes this extremely difficult, it will be essentially impossible to pass Health Insurance legislation through the Senate, without agreeing to provisions that would undermine it.

But the unfairness of our elections does not stop in its Constitutional morass. It is controlled to a large extent by what has come to be called gerrymandering. Theoretically the voters are the arbiters of election results. But in fact the elections have traditionally been greatly dominated by the way congressional districts are laid out, known as gerrymandering.

To some extent the Supreme Court tried to limit this abuse, e.g. In Grey vs. Sanders, (1963) The Court in an 8 to 1 decision said, "How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power of another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote - whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit. This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions."

While this decision is well founded in logic it has not had the effect of stopping gerrymandering with legislators finding increasingly ingenious ways to get around the court decision, and of course the court does not have the power to correct the inequities that are enshrined in the Constitution.

But we need not stop there. For reasons that are hard to fathom the US is one of the few democratic countries in the world where elections do not depend on getting a majority of the vote. A plurality is all that is needed. Thus, if there are numerous candidates for particular position the one with the largest vote count wins. Multiple candidates are not uncommon in races at the local level as well as in primaries even for the Presidency of the US. Thus, e.g. Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996 with 27% of the vote. There is no provision for run-off elections, as there is in most democratic countries and the result is that third party candidates can be decisive even in Presidential elections.

In our history we have had 16 Presidents elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, usually due to a third party candidate being on the ballot, but even more important is that various states give all their electors to one of the candidates who has not achieved a majority. In the 2000 election 8 states gave all their electoral votes to a candidate who did not get a majority of the vote. Thus in Florida the popular vote split 48% to 48% in the final official tally, Iowa’s tally was 49% to 48%, Maine 44% to 49%, Minnesota 46% to 48%, New Hampshire 48% 47%, New Mexico 48% to 48%, Oregon 47% to 47%, Wisconsin 48% to 48%, and the National vote split 47.87% to 48.38%. Thus where there is a third party candidate in the offing our system does not ask who their second choice would have been, as is true almost everywhere else in the world and to correct this the electoral college would not have to be abolished. We would only need a law that would require a majority to win the electoral votes of any state. No run-of would be required if the ballot where structured to allow the voters to list their second choice. This would also allow third party candidates to run without the spoiler effect, since voters inclined to vote for such a candidate, would know that their votes would not go to waste. It would give voters a chance to express their unhappiness with both candidates and still make sure that the greater of the evils is not elected. At the same time it would enable more voters to choose a third party candidate without having to worry about wasting their vote.

If an interstate compact among states were to be adopted under which state legislatures agree to appoint electors supporting the winner of the national vote, I would still advocate for a system where no President could be elected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. This would require the compact to also call for ballots that allow for voters to vote for their second choice, or it could be dealt with separately through an Act of Congress.

But I would not be satisfied with reform in the Presidential election. I would strongly advocate for a reform in the election of candidates for the Senate and the House and even in state elections by majorities rather than pluralities. Here too laws would have to be enacted allowing voters to set forth their second choice.

I will expand further on this topic, including the all-important aspect of the role of money in American politics, in a future commentary.

Obama vs. McCain

On June 2 I posted a commentary entitled "More about McCain". 

I also published that commnentary in my local newspaper, "The Suburbanite".  This prompted a Mr Chiu to respond with a Letter to the Editor, which appeared in its June 13 edition. This in turn caused me to submit my further response, which will be printed in next Friday's edition of that paper. I think this exchange of letters highlight the issues as seen from both sides, and accordingly I want to post both letters. Below is Mr. Chiu letter.

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to Emil Scheller’s letter entitled "More about McCain".

He uses the standard Democrat fear-mongering tactic of claiming that a hypothetical reversal of Roe v. Wade would take away from a woman’s the right to choose to have an abortion. This debate about Roe is not specifically about abortion itself. It's about the separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches of government. A similar debate about judicial activism is now raging over gay marriage. In high school civics class, students are taught that legislatures make laws and judges interpret the laws.

Even if Roe were overturned, the very next day, the state legislatures, which have not officially legalized abortion in their states (since Roe made it unnecessary) would be pressured to do so and nearly all of them would. May I remind readers that, just to cite two examples, New York legalized abortion in 1970 and New Jersey legalized abortion in 1972. Roe, one way or the other, does therefore not affect New Jersey. But I guess the truth doesn't matter. Mr. Scheller and the Democratic Party will continue scaring people for votes. Because Democrats can't debate the issues, they have come to excel in the politics of fear, whether it's over judicial nominees, Social Security, or anything else.

Mr. Scheller even claims that Republican presidential candidate John McCain doesn't know the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. This is an obvious lie. Mr. McCain has made many trips to Iraq. Rick Lynch and other generals gave him many briefings, specifically about how to keep various Iraqi factions from killing each other, whether it's Sunni vs. Shiite, Sunni moderates vs. Sunni al-Qaeda, or Shiite moderates against Shiite radicals.

Mr. Scheller even makes the specious claim that Mr. McCain is unfriendly to veterans. Fortunately, we have a free press in this country and know that Mr. McCain only opposed a bill that gave the same educational benefits regardless of whether a soldier had served two years, five years, or 10 years. What's wrong with giving more benefits to someone who served longer? Democrats are trying to give the impression that Mr. McCain wants zero benefits for veterans. Why do Democrats keep pushing this line even though we all know the truth?

Mr. Scheller even tries to make the argument that Mr. McCain agrees with every position of President George Bush, although it's not a given that Mr. Bush is always wrong. But Mr. Scheller and other Democrats cherry-pick what they want and ignore Mr. McCain's positions that are different from those of Bush and the Republican Party. For example, Mr. McCain opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do Democrats ever mention that? No.

I have many objections to Mr. Scheller's letter but if I go on and on this letter will be even longer than Mr. Scheller's original letter. But one last thing: Mr. Scheller wants Democrats who supported Mrs. Clinton not to support Mr. Cain due to "disgruntlement." However, such Democrats who do vote for Mr. McCain will do so because, as Hillary Clinton pointed out, Barack Obama is not ready for the presidency. Mr. McCain is head and shoulders above Mr. Obama.

My response appears below.

To the Editor:

I am delighted that Mr. Chiu has decided to debate on your pages. Your readers will be well served by such a debate.

I love his way of debating. He uses all the standard Republican canards. Roe vs. Wade is not about abortion he says. It is about. “Legislators make laws and courts and judges interpret the law.” Of course we can all agree that "Legislators make laws and courts and judges interpret the law.” But what happens when the court strikes down laws passed by legislators. Aren’t they overruling the will of the elected representatives? Aren’t they activist? Well not if I agree with the decision Mr. Chui might say, “The court is interpreting the Constitution.” Well isn’t that what the court was doing in Roe vs. Wade. Well, Mr. Chiu might say there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that a women has a right to choose whether to carry a baby". But Mr. Chiu, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court to strike down any laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically provides for the Federal Reserve, or the FDA. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says corporations shall have the same rights as real people. But the court interprets a document, which is short and vague, and we all, at different times, are upset by what they say it means. 

So we need a better measure of what an activist judge is. How about one that looks at it from the standpoint of which judges vote to strike down laws passed by the people’s representatives, most often. The latest statistics I can find on this cover the period from 1994 to 2005, before Roberts and Alito joined the Court, but after all the other judges now there, had been appointed. At that time the “liberal judges” were the same as now. Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, but the right wing judges were, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Renquist, and O’Connor. Not quite as Right as the present court, but it will have to do. How did they stack up on overruling the will of elected representatives? Here are the figures: 

Thomas 65.63 % 
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 % 
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Wow! The liberal judges go against the will of the elected representatives much less often than the Right wing ones. By the way Souter and Stevens were appointed by Republican Presidents, Stevens by Ford and Souter by G.H.W Bush. 

The Court just handed down a decision that says the Constitution means what it says. Habeas Corpus – the right of people not to be incarcerated without being charged on the basis of evidence cannot be suspended, or in the language of that august document “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. (Section 9, Clause 2) I don’t believe we have been invaded, and I am not aware of any rebellion.” and Bush said he disagreed with it. But McCain, intemperate as usual, and anxious to outdo Bush said, “a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." I would ask, worse than locking thousands of Americans in internment camps because they had Japanese ancestry? (Korematsu v. United States -- 1944) worse than forcing African Americans to sit at the back of the bus? (Plessy v. Ferguson -- 1896)...worse than slavery? (Dred Scott v. Sanford -- 1857).

But McCain make it clear on his website that he would not be satisfied with Roe vs. Wade being overturned. He would press on, and work to make abortions illegal wherever he could. So it is all about the Right to Choose. As I quoted in my previous Letter to the Editor, McCain says, “However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.” and in an earlier statement McCain said, according to the Boston Globe of January 31, 2000, that he believed that if Roe vs. Wade were overruled, doctors would be prosecuted “but I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion. See here.

I find it amusing that Chiu turns facts on their head. “Democrats excel in the Politics of fear,” he claims. Mr. Chiu, really. It is not Democrats who invoke 9/11 over and over to instill fear. It is not Democrats who run Willie Horton ads. It is not Democrats who run Swift Boat lies.

As for Social Security, Bush has been pushing to end it and substitute private savings accounts and McCain has been a cheerleader. Democrats don’t scare anyone. Bush and McCain do with the policies they advocate.

Mr. Chiu says McCain has made many trips to Iraq and has had many briefings. That is what makes it so scary. When he confused Al QAEDA with Shiites on his last visit to Iraq, was it a senior moment as Fox News suggested, or was he showing that he can’t grasp the differences, or was he obfuscating to confuse the public, as Bush has done for so long. Can Mr. Chiu offer any other plausible explanation?

On the veterans bill Mr. Chiu claims that McCain wants to give veterans with more service more benefits. That is simply not true. McCain has not introduced any bill giving any veterans more benefits. This is what the Wall Street Journal of May 26 said; “Sen. John McCain used Memorial Day to defend his opposition to a Senate bill that vastly expands education benefits for veterans. The bill passed the Senate last week 75-22 over the objections of Sen. McCain, and President Bush, both of whom argued the benefits were too generous and likely to discourage reenlistment.”

Mr. Chiu charges me with claiming that McCain agrees with president Bush on every issue. That is again simply not true. I have said he agrees with Bush on most issues, and I gave his voting record. I even gave examples of where McCain disagrees with Bush. I mentioned North Korea, where McCain opposes Bush’s successful use of diplomacy, and I would be the first to admit that on the environment McCain positions are more environmentally friendly than Bush’s.

We are indeed fortunate to have a breath of fresh air in the candidacy of Barack Obama, who more than anyone arouses memories of John F Kennedy. Let us march with him into a world which breaks cleanly with the past, with wars of choice, obfuscation, attacks on our safety net, and deficits as far as the eye can see. Bill Clinton handed this country to Republicans with projected surpluses for years to come, and Republicans turned it into deficits of endless duration. Clinton ran on a platform, “It’s the economy stupid” and brought this country into some of the best eight years in a very long time. Well, can you believe it? “It’s the economy again stupid.” Republicans work their wrecking ball each and every time. Supply side economics indeed.

Before anything else, John McCain is a Republican and he is wed to their attachment to the rich. No, only to the very rich.

They can’t win on the issues and so they deceive and they fear monger. 

Finally, I find it amusing how they always try to attach the label of elitist to Democrats. Let me see. McCain was born to a well to do family. He married an heiress and her father put him into politics.

Obama was raised by a struggling single mother and achieved the American dream through his own talents and struggles.

McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class but was advanced because of his pedigree.

Obama was chosen to be Editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review.

Which of them has more in common with most hard working and struggling Americans, and who comes from an elite background.

More about McCain

With the election for President of the US heading into the General Election, an examination of Democratic charges that McCain is in effect running for a Bush third term is in order. To do this we need to find criteria for the judgment. The criteria I will use are McCain’s voting record and his stated position on the issues.

As to his voting record, the Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan publication tracking developments in the Congress, reports that McCain voted with Bush 89% of the time in 2006, 95% of the time in 2007, and through May 15 of 2008 he voted for the President’s stated position 100% of the time. 

Looking at his website we can find his stated position on a variety of issues, which in most cases are vague. On abortion and the Supreme Court he is crystal clear.

On a Woman’s right to choose the website states “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. 

“Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states.”

But he does not stop there. He adds, “However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.”

In other words, while he does not specifically say so, McCain favors criminalizing abortion. 

This should be of particular concern to women who have been supporters of Hillary Clinton. If any of them are considering not voting, or as some may have threatened, to even vote for McCain, they should think long and hard, for McCain would take away from them the right to control their own bodies.

But it is not entirely fair to give the impression that McCain agrees with the President on all issues. On North Korea Bush followed a hard line for most of his Administration resulting in Korea building an increasing a number of atomic bombs. Recently, under prodding from Condoleezza Rice, Bush adopted a more flexible approach which resulted in Korea actually backing away from its insistence on continuing its nuclear bomb program, has begun dismantling its facilities, and turned over 18,000 documents on its reactor at Yongbyon. But McCain has denounced the Administration for abandoning its hard line approach.

In Iraq McCain echoes the Bush bluster about victory but shows little understanding of the dynamics of that conflict. He talks constantly about defeating El Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that they were a non-factor before the invasion, and appear be a non-factor now. He shows no understanding of the difference between Sunni and Shiite; see here, a misstatement that was dismissed by Fox’s Brit Hume as a senior moment. Here is what Hume had to say: 

“I think it’s probably just a blip, but it was a bigger blip than he wanted or needed at the time. I think the overall impression of the trip was this is a man welcomed by, knowledgeable of and comfortable with foreign leaders across a big part of the globe. But the mistake, nonetheless, raises questions not about his knowledgeability —we all kinda believe he has that—the question, perhaps, about his age, which is an issue. You know, the feeling was not that he’s a dope, didn’t know his way around, that he might have had a senior moment there, and I think that’s unfortunate for him.”

I don’t agree with Hume. I don’t know who the “we” is in that “we all kind of believe that” but in a way it doesn’t matter. We cannot afford a President who either has senior moments or lacks knowledge and understanding of the nature of our enemies. McCain lacks the understanding that no matter how long we stay in Iraq, Iraq’s Shiites will always have a greater affinity for Iran than for the US.”

He fails to understand that the war in Iraq has put strains on our military that has brought it very close to the breaking point; that the policy that has required the men and women of our armed services to bear an unbearable burden, with ever longer tours of duty and ever greater numbers of deployments, can not be sustained. That in order to continue our deployment in Iraq we would have to reinstitute the draft, a step neither Bush nor McCain are willing to embrace because it would be politically unpopular.

He claims to be a friend to our veterans but he actively opposes the bill sponsored by Senator Webb, which would give our veterans the same educational benefits that was given to the veterans of World War II. See here.

At one time McCain occasionally broke with Republican orthodoxy. But now that he is running for President he caters increasingly to the Bush/Republican base.

Anyone who thinks they can allow this man to become President out of peeve or disgruntlement does not appreciate how much the decisions of the next four years will impact our lives and those of our children. McCain, as President, would be a disaster for the US and the whole world.

Iraq Redux II

On April 15 I posted my latest commentary on Iraq.

The comments which I received convincingly argued that a phased withdrawal is a sin qua non for any progress in stabilization. That is clearly not the Administration’s view, but the remarkable thing is that not a single Republican candidate for President is supporting a phased withdrawal, and it appears that despite the President’s incredibly low approval ratings, Republican candidates appear to be vying for who can be the closest clone to the incumbent in the White House.

For example, the Republican front runner for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani, charged that if a Democrat were elected, they would “wave the white flag” in Iraq, cut back on surveillance of terrorists, restrict the ability of law enforcement officials to gather intelligence and limit interrogation techniques, curtailing their effectiveness. He neglected to say how he would deal with what he called, “the defining conflict of our time.” We can, however, get a good idea of how Giuliani would deal with the situation. He would do exactly the same as what Bush is doing and I guess the theory is that in the Republican primaries the American people will not be voting. A small hard core of Bush supporters will be voting and the aim is to get the nomination. After that there will be time enough to flip and flop and say he didn’t really mean all the things he said in trying to get the nomination. But the American people must not have short memories. They must reject the liars. We have had enough of those during the past six years.

But let us analyze the meaning of his attacks. “Wave the white flag.” What does Giuliani mean by not waving the white flag. Does he mean we should keep the troops in Iraq until hell freezes over? How long Mr. Giuliani? For four more years? For eight? For ten? Six years ago the man whose clone Giuliani now aspires to be, declared victory, flying on to an aircraft carrier to dramatize that “victory.” See BBC News dated May 2, 2003.

Now four years later after having told us every few month that victory is just around the corner; that things are getting better, we now have the “surge,” and things are getting worse. More Iraqi’s killed! More Americans killed, but they tell us that just proves things are getting better. Give it a chance. How long Mr. Giuliani? And tell us where the troops will come from. Even now troop deployments are being extended more and more because your clone has broken our once proud military. Will you call for a draft? How will you sustain this deployment?

“Cut back on surveillance of terrorists.” Would Mr. Giuliani tell us who wants to cut back on surveillance of terrorists? This is a favored tactic. Set up a straw man and knock him down. If Mr. Giuliani means that Democrats object to giving the President authority to snoop on American’s without court warrants, and he favors it, he should say so. That is certainly a useful way of spying on political opponents as Nixon did, but it has nothing to do with terrorists. 

“Limit interrogation techniques.” Is Mr. Giuliani advocating the use of torture? If so let him say so. It is a matter that should be debated openly, not by indirection.

Who is this hero who runs on his record of 9/11. The media, which is always looking for heroes, whether it is Private Lynch or Pat Tillman, turned Rudy into one after 9/11. What did he do? He stood on the ruins of 9/11 with a bullhorn and gave speeches and posed for photos. Ah yes, these people are good at photo ops. But did Rudy do anything to prevent this catastrophe from happening? If he did it is a well-kept secret. It isn’t as though an attack on the Trade Center could not be anticipated. They had tried once before and failed. But neither Bush nor Giuliani learned a thing from that. 

When the attack came the radio frequencies of the police and fire departments prevented effective communications causing untold confusion and casualties. Where was Giuliani’s leadership then?

Following the disaster the air was dangerously polluted, but Mr. Giuliani let the responders work without masks causing untold additional casualties.

Before the disaster happened Giuliani had the foresight to create an extremely expensive and ultra-sophisticated Emergency Operations Center, which he perched high up above many large tanks of combustible fuel in the Trade Center. And when the planes struck he didn’t do the things that need to be done except in his fictitious telling of events in the book he published. But then he was always good at one thing, and that is in promoting himself. But read the real story entitled, “Rudy's Grand Illusion What Giuliani likes to remember about 9-11—and what he actually did (or didn't do)” which you can find here.

But even before the myth of 9/11 Giuliani was working on his image. Before 9/11 he bragged about how he had brought crime down in the City of NY. Indeed crime had come down. Of course it had come down throughout the U.S., thanks to Bill Clinton’s national drive against crime, under which the Federal government provided money to increase police departments. So just how much credit Rudy deserves is problematic. But he did effectively attack crimes that reduced the quality of life for New Yorkers and that was not a National trend. He did it by appointing William J. Bratton as his police chief, and Bratton was good. He devised police methods that stopped a lot of petty crimes and that carried over to more serious crimes. But then he started to get too much credit. With Giuliani only one person gets credit for anything and we know who that is, so he fired Bratton. Who did he hire? Bernard Kerik! Who is Bernard Kerik? He was Rudy’s Correction’s Commissioner, where he did an undistinguished job, but he was a Giuliani loyalist and so he became police commissioner, and when Rudy left his job as mayor and started a consulting firm he made Kerik a partner and they both became rich. But what is Kerik’s background. According to Wikipedia, Kerik was chief of investigations for the security office at King Faisal’s Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 1984. In 1984 he was fired and deported after an investigation by the Saudi secret police. In May 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kerik was appointed by the George W. Bush Administration as the Interim Minister of Interior of Iraq and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. On December 3, 2004, Kerik was nominated by President Bush to succeed Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security. But on December 10, after a week of press scrutiny, Kerik withdrew acceptance of the nomination. It turned out that there were questions about his past which included Kerik's sale of stock in Taser International shortly before the release of an Amnesty International report critical of the company's stun-gun product; a sexual harassment lawsuit; an affair with Judith Regan the aborted publisher of O.J. Simpson’s “Why I did it”; allegations of misuse of police personnel and property for personal benefit; connections with a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime; and failure to comply with ethics rules on gifts.

By his friends though shalt know him!

What does this tell us about the Republican Party?

Iraq Redux

While Iraq is not the only issue facing our nation it is at the top of our political discourse and accordingly I feel I must address it once again before moving onto other subjects of importance.

I last addressed this issue on January 11, 2007 under the title of “Bush’s new-old Iraq strategy” in which I derided the so-called “surge strategy” as being “to little-to late” and accused the Administration of continuing to be in a State of Denial. I concluded my analysis with:

“UNFORTUNATELY OUR FIGHTING MEN ARE THE VICTIMS OF THESE MISGUIDED AND BIZARRE POLICIES, WHICH ARE NEITHER FISH, NOR FOWL BUT HAVE ONLY ONE PURPOSE IN MIND AND THAT IS TO PASS THE HARD DECISIONS ON TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. TO SACRIFICE UNTOLD LIVES TO THIS ENDEAVOR IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNOMINY.”

Now, however, I am becoming concerned that the opponents of the Administration and Congressional Democrats are in a STATE OF DENIAL as well. I say this because I fear that the subscript to the drive to disengage is that if we just pull our troops out, all will work out for the best, or at least what is likely to happen will not have any effect on us. I believe that is as much of a pipe dream as the Administration’s insistence that this war can be won.

There is little doubt in my mind that when we pull out, the blood bath that is now under way in Iraq will explode, with what we are seeing now being mild by comparison. Some will say that this is the Iraqis’ problem, but it is hard to see how people who consider themselves liberals or humanitarians can place so little value on the lives of people simply because they are not Americans or are Muslims. Yes, it is Iraqis who are causing the bloodbath in their sectarian hatreds, but it is a minority of Iraqis, with the vast majority simply wanting to live in peace. Furthermore, even though it is this Administration that caused this disaster with it’s ill advised invasion and it’s poorly conceived and executed occupation, it is nevertheless our country that must, as a whole, accept responsibility for the acts of its duly elected government.

Furthermore, the total implosion of Iraq is not likely to remain within its borders. The chaos that will be engendered is likely to draw in its neighbors. Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia, possibly Israel. Warfare on this scale is likely to shut down the Strait of Hormuz interrupting oil shipments from the Middle East, which would trigger a worldwide recession with the worst sufferers being the poorest. 

Does this mean that I now oppose the withdrawal of American troops? The answer is no!

The sad fact is that our troops staying in Iraq can only delay this catastrophe. There is no chance that our troops in their present strength can alter the situation. Their continuing presence can delay but cannot prevent the catastrophe I envision. At some point, whether that is in 2008 or 2009 or 2020, they will have to be withdrawn and when they are catastrophe will follow.

So what is the solution? Ideally, the Vice-President in an act of patriotism ought to resign; somebody like Colin Powell ought to take his place followed by the resignation of the President and the ascendancy of Powell to the Presidency. Then a truly new direction could be undertaken with real diplomacy taking place with and among all the states of the region followed by a pullout. This could not only save the US and indeed the world from the consequences of the follies of the past but could actually save the Republican Party. But that is not going to happen.

So the next best thing is that the Democratic Congress keeps passing bills with a timetable without teeth. Bush will then be faced with the choice of vetoing funding for the war or accepting something which does not actually tie his hands. This is a no-brainer. Bush would have to blink. He could not afford to be in the position of vetoing funding for the troops because he doesn’t like the language. 

It will be up to the next President to extricate us through diplomacy. It can be done. The Middle Eastern states have too much at stake to allow total chaos in their backyard.

But in fighting Bush and the Administration a frank assessment of the dangers must be put forth. We cannot afford for all factions in the United States to share in a State of Denial. Reality must be the watchword. 

If Democrats do not warn of the eventual potential consequences, they will reap the whirlwind of the chaos that will ensue whenever we pull out. Reality must recognize the futility of the military option, but must equally recognize the enormous dangers and potential consequences. Only a frank appraisal and an honest assessment of what we are facing can avoid catastrophe.

"Support Our Troops."

There are so many issues I could address that I find myself in something close to paralysis in deciding which one to address.

One, however, has been bothering me for a long time and that is the slogan and the bumper stickers proclaiming, “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.”

I have often wondered what that means. I know that is used as a euphemism for support of the war and it has been used not only in this war but in past wars as well. But is supporting a war, supporting our troops? How does getting our men and women killed and maimed supporting them?

I don’t for one moment want to suggest that supporting a war is not often a necessary endeavor. Few would question the necessity of our being in the Second World War against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Support for that war was a matter of national survival. But even then I cannot see how support for the war was “SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.” Being of an advanced age I remember how we supported our troops. It wasn’t with slogans like “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” or even by wearing flag pins in our lapels. We didn’t tell them, ““you fight with the Army you have, not the one you want” as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, told our troops. When we went to war we supported our troops by converting our auto industry to making tanks. Nothing was spared into turning our industry into making the armaments our soldiers needed. We didn’t send them into battle under equipped and undermanned as we have in Iraq.

I remember I was a youth in middle school at the time. Both boys and girls learned to knit so as to make woolen squares that could be sown together to make blankets for our soldiers. Nothing was too good for them. That was supporting our troops!

And we even made sure that our allies had all the armaments they needed. We became the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Now our troops are ill equipped and we keep hearing that the Iraqi troops that are supposed to pick up the baton, so our troops can leave, are under trained and ill equipped. Why aren’t we equipping them? Billions are spent and they disappear in corruption and war profiteering and our troops and their allies are ill equipped.

“SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” at the least is equipping them and taking care of their needs, but this administration and their lackeys in this Congress don’t give a damn about supporting our troops. To them our troops simply serve their political agenda. When we have a bunch of cowards at the highest levels of government who lie and cheat what can you expect?

Where was our Vice-President during the Vietnam War when others were dying for their country? He, as he himself stated, “ He had other priorities.” Oh what patriotism!

And our President got himself into the National Guard where he knew he would not have to fight because in that war we used regular Army troops and didn’t decimate our Guard and Reserves and break our Army in the process. And even then he went AWOL because he had more important things to do.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by sending them into an endless war with no clear objectives and no end in sight?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by overextending their deployment and by sending them back again and again far beyond their original enlistment.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by denying them the armor they need?

And now we discover that when they come home they are housed in slum housing outside our Walter Reed Army Medical Center in a dingy former hotel on Georgia Avenue where the wounded were housed among mice, mold, rot and cockroaches. Where was the Republican Congress oversight over the past three years that this couldn’t be discovered? But did anybody really care? I guess they had other priorities.

It took investigative reporting, of which we have had far too little to expose this outrage. Thank God for the Washington Post. Was it a surprise? Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups, and members of Congress for more than three years. What did they do? Nothing! Men and women who served their country in Iraq and came home maimed, with shrapnel in their heads and in their brains, without legs or arms or other horrendous injuries. What do they get? Neglect!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

It is time that we supported them by bringing them home so they can put their lives back together and try to resume normal lives.

But in the meantime give them the medical care they need; give them the armor they need. Equip the Iraqi troops with the weapons they need. It is time that the people entrusted with the safety of our troops stopped having other priorities.

It is time for them to support our troops by truly caring about them. This government obviously does not and never has.

The truly sad thing is that it will be almost another two years before we can send them packing along with their cohorts in the Congress.

Hate (A Rebuttal)

On February 15 I circulated what I considered to be a hate screed and denounced haters. I said among other things “They always want to get the group that the criminals came from which in this case would be Muslims. I also promised that “next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points.” In doing so I particularly want address the comments made by Dr. Joel Etra of Norwich, Conn. who said, “I did not see statements about Muslims in general rather about the deadly excesses of the criminal element.” So here goes! I will reproduce the screed with my comments on it in bold letters so they can easily be distinguished.

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people - it was done by people of the islamic faith-this phraseology is clearly intended to tar the whole religion with the acts of the perpetrators - who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Yes, they were mostly Americans but there were a great many from other nationalities and religions among them including approximately 100 Muslims.

“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? - Indeed they did.

“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? - The desecration of a religious object is always an insult to all the members of that religion. I think that Christians would be very insulted if a Christian bible were spit on, stamped on or otherwise treated with disrespect. The Nazis when they started their persecution of the Jews first and foremost desecrated the Jewish holy book, the Torah, because they knew how painful it would be to members of that faith.

“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. - Here again the linkage is that since Osama Bin Laden is evil that until he repents we are justified in treating his religion with contempt.

“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia is an intolerant society – do we really want to copy them; and even if we wanted to retaliate against the Saudis do we really want to also insult the religion of 52 countries having a population of which a majority is Muslim. India, which has a majority of Hindus, has a minority of Muslims totaling174 million. Some of our most important allies, e.g. Pakistan are Muslim states and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are shedding their blood to try to make those Muslim countries into viable states. Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda attacks, notably Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan and many others. Turkey a Muslim country is a member of NATO. There are between 700,000 and 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Between 1 and 6 million Muslims reside in the U.S. most live quiet law abiding lives and no American Muslim has been identified as being part of Al Qaeda but insults hurled at their religion helps to radicalize and helps recruitment everywhere.

“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. - What this has to do with insulting and desecrating a religious text is beyond me. But it is not the media that pays attention to International law. It is our government and the US Supreme Court. International law is binding on us all, often by treaty approved by the US Senate. But First Amendment liberties have never been and are not derived from international law. It should be noted, however, that in the declaration of independence there is a reference to “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. - It was hardly a college hazing incident. It was intended to humiliate and degrade.

“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. - First the issue is not the prisoners complaint, but the insult to all members of that faith. Second none of these prisoners have ever been convicted of any crimes. In fact, they have never even been accused of any.

“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! ! - Another way to insult the Muslim faith.

“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your a-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country. - Whoa, if I don’t agree then I am responsible for any possible future acts of terror! This is hate directed not only against Muslims but against all those who don’t agree with her vision of a world, where we disrespect the faith of huge numbers of people; the second largest faith in the world.

First rule for a sane world! Do not disrespect other religions or their Holy Books or Holy Symbols.

Hate

I recently received a hate screed being circulated by e-mail. Rather than simply delete it I believe it is important that we are all aware of the type of poison being circulated. The polemic originated from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia. I will reproduce it below, followed by my general comments on it. Next time I will circulate it again with my specific comments on each point made. The polemic is reproduced below:

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care! ! ! ! !

“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.”

I am always fascinated by people who hate. What is there in them that makes them hate so? In this case the polemic was directed against Muslims but what I find fascinating is that people like this will always hate some group. These are the kind who blindly hated Japanese-Americans and provoked the panic that caused the internment of 120,000 American citizens during the Second World War to our everlasting shame. Yes, Japan had attacked us, but these American citizens had nothing to do with it, except that they shared a common ancestry.

It is the haters who are killing each other in Iraq. To them if some Sunnis blew up their Shiite mosque they will not seek out the perpetrators, but will hate and kill all Sunnis randomly. And then the haters among the Sunnis will not look for the killers of Sunnis, but they will kill Shiites randomly and innocent people on both sides of the religious divide suffer and die.

It is the haters who manage to always find reason to lump a whole ethnic group together for hate. Sometimes it is Jews and sometimes it is African-Americans. At one time we hated Chinese and barred them from immigrating. At one point the haters hated Catholics; they called them Papists and Jews were Christ killers.

When a crime is committed they can never focus on the individuals and their coconspirators who committed the crime and hunt them down and bring them to justice and dismantle their network. They always want to get the group that the criminals came from. These are the haters who supported the lynching of large numbers of African-Americans every time they thought that one of them had committed a crime.

Haters have never been a force for good, or justice, or for success in war, or in any other endeavor. God spare us from their poison.

Next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points. I find the fact that it was well written more disturbing because it suggests that the writer is not an ignorant person and yet the contents smack not only of hate but of ignorance.

Bush’s New-Old Iraq Strategy.

As I listened to The President's speech I could only think: He is still in a State of Denial. What we have here is more of the same failed policy and a refusal to face up to reality.

What is evident is that to Bush there is only one reality that he is concerned with, and that is the disillusionment of the American people; that he is now facing a Democratic Congress ready to ask hard questions and wavering Republicans fearful of their fate in the next election. The country wants out of Iraq. The people understand what Bush does not. The mistakes of the past can no longer be undone. Iraq is a disaster and our pulling out will cause a larger disaster. But that will happen no matter when we pull out. Our staying may delay an all out civil war but it can no longer change the dynamics on the ground.

Bush realized even before the election that the American people had enough of the same. So a commission of wise men from past Administrations, of Democrats and Republicans was formed. It was known as the Baker/Hamilton commission and it was generally agreed that this was the source from which a new policy could spring. The commission spent a great deal of time studying the situation and they came up with a new plan. Not one that guaranteed success, but one that at least has a chance.

The President has totally ignored those recommendations just as he failed to implement most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

In the meantime the media is failing to give us the whole story. In drawing up his “new plan” he was greatly influenced by recommendations made by Frederick W. Kagan, a military historian who has taught at West Point, and whose education consists of B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University and Jack Keane who is a retired Army general. Both are scholars at the right wing Enterprise Institute. In an article written for that think tank and published here they write, “It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.” So Bush true to his past does a halfhearted job of following the recommendations for stepping up our commitment instead of phasing it down. Thus it is evident that even Bush’s strongest supporters make it clear that Bush’s plan is doomed to failure.

They emphasize this when they say; “The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.

Furthermore it is interesting to note that Bush did not tell us exactly what neighborhoods in Baghdad are to be targeted. The article does. It says, “Reducing the violence in the SUNNI AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS (emphasis added) in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.” Please note the absence of any mention of Shiite neighborhoods or Sadr’s militia. What they are evidently advocating and what Bush is apparently planning is to take sides in the Civil war on the side of the Shiite against the Sunni’s.

This would certainly get the support of the Shiite Prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, a Shiite, the head of the Dawa Shiite party and an ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. We have ostensible tried to get him to be a peacemaker between the warring factions but it is increasingly evident that Maliki like most Shiites in Iraq, has an agenda which can be summarized as, the Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, ruled over us under Sadam Hussein-now it is our turn to rule over the Sunnis. We are the majority, we won the election, and it is our turn to rule.

To support this may sound tempting to the authors of this article and to the Administration but it ignores that except for Iran, who we have dubbed our enemy, the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, to Egypt to Jordan, etc are all Sunnis. They will not stand by idly and Iran will benefit hugely as will the Shiite terrorists, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Is this what victory now means to the President.

Finally, it should be noted that in the Army’s first field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations issued in twenty years, which was published in December of 2006 and which can be found here, the following is stated:

"1-67…. MOST DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF 20 TO 25 COUNTERINSURGENTS FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS IN AN AO. TWENTY COUNTERINSURGENTS PER 1000 RESIDENTS IS OFTEN CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM TROOP DENSITY REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE COIN OPERATIONS; (emphasis added)

If we take the recommended density recommendations of the Army and we take into account the fact that there are 5 million residents in Baghdad it becomes obvious that the Army believes that nothing less than 100,000 troops are required for Baghdad alone.

This Administration has learned nothing. It ignores the recommendations of its greatest supporters in the political sphere; it ignores the Army manual; it ignores the recommendation of its generals and of-course it ignores the recommendations of the independent commission.

Even the Washington Times, that stalwart ally of Bush, believes the plan to be folly.

Unfortunately our fighting men are the victims of these misguided and bizarre policies, which are neither fish, nor fowl but have only one purpose in mind and that is to pass the hard decisions on to the next Administration. To sacrifice untold lives to this endeavor is the height of ignominy.

Iraq - Whence from Here?

In my last column I pointed out that the Democrats’ victory in this election does not assure success in the next election two years hence.

I urged Democrats to focus on the climate of corruption in Washington. They have made a good start in this area. Hastings was denied the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee and while Jefferson will be seated, he will be denied any consequential committee assignment. All earmarks have been shelved.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Iraq. Here there have been many voices demanding that Democrats come up with a plan. The Left calls for an immediate withdrawal or at least a timetable, and on the Right there is a call for Democrats to come up with a plan for victory or the latest euphemism, “Success.”

I submit that this is not the time for Democrats to take a position as a party and to allow free discussion among its members.

I urge this because the decisions will in any case be made in the White House and the Congress can only marginally affect policy. In addition there is no good solution. Of course Congress has the purse strings but I would seriously doubt the wisdom of cutting off funds for our troops.

Furthermore, too many on the left at times sound too much like isolationists and/or pacifists and these positions are disastrous both from a policy and a political standpoint.

Not to recognize the serious consequences of a failed state in Iraq is as serious a “State of Denial” as the Administrations claim that things are going well, or that the decision to invade was wise. Of the few things that this Administration is right about is that failure in Iraq will have serious consequences.

The withdrawal of American troops will mean a heightened civil war in Iraq with enormous civilian casualties both among Sunnis and Shiites and is very likely to draw other states in the region into the conflict. The Saudis have already announced that if American troops withdraw they will go to the aid of the Sunni population in Iraq. This could draw Iran further into the conflict on the side of the Shiites, and potentially could lead to hostilities between those states. If this were to happen the Kurds might well decide it is time to get away from the mess and declare their independence. This would probably cause the Turkish Kurds to want to join their brethren, which would bring Turkey into the fray because they would not allow part of its territory to break away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have already begun to flee their homeland to escape the violence. Such increased violence would multiply the exodus to neighboring states, particularly Sunni Jordan, causing destabilization of that nation. It is almost inconceivable that with such a scenario Syria and ultimately Lebanon would not be drawn in. The conflagration is hard to imagine. Ultimately it would cause a flood of refugees to leave the Middle East and overwhelm Europe and possibly the U.S., which could not effectively keep out desperate people.

If anyone thinks that such a conflagration, or even a much smaller one, would not seriously interrupt the flow of oil they are dreaming, and while some on the left don’t think that this should be a major concern, there is little, if any, doubt, that a major reduction in Middle East oil would cause a world wide depression at least on the scale of 1929. It might eventually force a return of US troops and be the beginning of a World War on an unimaginable scale.

Lest I be accused of playing the role of Cassandra, let me remind the reader that Cassandra’s predictions were true. But even if this is a worst-case scenario, isn’t it about time that we dealt with the worst case rather than, as this Administration has done, always expecting the best and never preparing for the worst.

If this sounds like I am advocating the Bush policy of “stay the course”, or the McCain policy “of a surge” which may soon become the Bush policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, the damage is done and our troops at present levels are not improving the situation. While a much larger troop deployment early on could have made a major difference, it is now too late, which appears to also be the view of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thus we are caught in a dilemma. To stay serves no purpose and leaving spells disaster. What are we to do? The President is the Commander in Chief. For as long as Bush holds that position he will call the shots and any attempt to lay out a policy by the opposition serves no purpose. Ultimately, it is highly likely that we will still be in Iraq in 2008 and that it will be a major issue in the Presidential and Congressional elections. At that time the Democratic Presidential candidate will have to take a position, but it will be a position on the basis of the facts, as they then exist.

I believe that our best hope will be to make the Middle Eastern nations see a Pandora’s box opening before them, and realize that only they can deal with the situation. Before 2008 or right after the election we will have to advise them that we have done all that we can and are withdrawing. We should urge one of those countries, be it Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Jordan to convene a regional summit and try to reach agreement among them. Their future is even more at stake than ours. They must form a multinational, multi ethnic, all Muslim (drawn from both sects) military, and impose a settlement on Iraq. We can lend logistical support, but our armies will have no further role to play. Will this work? It is a long shot, but it is less of a Hail Mary pass than any of the alternatives.