The NY Times is reporting that Robert McNamara died yesterday. For those of you under 45, think of him as the Donald Rumsfeld of his day as he was the lightning rod for Vietnam. Also, like Rumsfeld, he was a super smart guy who would have been a great defense secretary had he not had a war to fight.
What made him unusual is that he clearly struggled with the morality of war, even while fighting it. What made him disgusting was that he didn't act on these thoughts when he had the opportunity to change the course of Vietnam. I remember when going through the LBJ library in Austin and reading a letter he wrote to Johnson right after JFK died saying the the war was unwinnable. But, he still fought the war.
There was a huge shit storm when his autobiography came out (and the subsequent documentary by Errol Morris). This was because his admissions seemed too little and too late. For some things, saying "I'm sorry" just isn't enough.
Obviously, that lesson was wasted on Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rice when it came to Iraq. Hopefully the war mongers of the future will heed his warnings.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Happy Birthday, Iraq War
Sorry for the blogging delay. We're taking the HB and the nephew to DC tomorrow, so between getting ready for that, wrapping up work stuff and the tournament I haven't had all the extra blogging time that I've wanted.
As I reflect on the 5th birthday of the War in Iraq, I'm struck by how much time, effort, money and lives we've spent and what's been gained from it. If you are of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the world and was *this* close to blowing up all of his enemies (or obtaining weapons that could do so), then this whole thing is an unqualified success. Likewise, if you think that our foreign policy should be to depose dictators who treat their populations like shit, then the mission has been accomplished.
I'm of the opinion that the whole thing was a gigantic mistake and I don't think that our policy makers know what "winning" is there (I know that McCain can't define it). Best I can tell, we've swapped one totalitarian regime for another in terms of women's rights and religious freedom. Also, we created a situation where Al Quaeda could flourish where it had not previously. Interestingly, the Bush administration crows about the fact that local Sunnis are NOW fighting against Al Queda. Great, only five years to get without shouting distance of the status quo.
We broke it, and now it's so fucked up it's hard to leave without it imploding militarily (though now that most areas have been ethnically cleansed, it might not be as big of a deal now). And the powers that be in Iraq don't want us to leave because it's our reconstruction spending that props up the economy. Something tells me that no matter the outcome of our election, we'll be putting another candle on this cake next year.
As I reflect on the 5th birthday of the War in Iraq, I'm struck by how much time, effort, money and lives we've spent and what's been gained from it. If you are of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the world and was *this* close to blowing up all of his enemies (or obtaining weapons that could do so), then this whole thing is an unqualified success. Likewise, if you think that our foreign policy should be to depose dictators who treat their populations like shit, then the mission has been accomplished.
I'm of the opinion that the whole thing was a gigantic mistake and I don't think that our policy makers know what "winning" is there (I know that McCain can't define it). Best I can tell, we've swapped one totalitarian regime for another in terms of women's rights and religious freedom. Also, we created a situation where Al Quaeda could flourish where it had not previously. Interestingly, the Bush administration crows about the fact that local Sunnis are NOW fighting against Al Queda. Great, only five years to get without shouting distance of the status quo.
We broke it, and now it's so fucked up it's hard to leave without it imploding militarily (though now that most areas have been ethnically cleansed, it might not be as big of a deal now). And the powers that be in Iraq don't want us to leave because it's our reconstruction spending that props up the economy. Something tells me that no matter the outcome of our election, we'll be putting another candle on this cake next year.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Getting Our Money's Worth
In today's LA Times there's an analysis of the War on Terror. Judging by the authors' affiliations, I wouldn't say that it's an unbiased appraisal of the war. I'm not accusing them of being liars. Rather, someone with a more conservative bent would probably choose to highlight other numbers.
The most telling numbers havde to do with terror-related convictions. There have been several high-profile terrorist arrests (see Detroit and Lodi), and the government doesn't have a real good conviction rate in them. However, here's where the Times article is biased. It says that only two people have been convicted of terrorist related activity in the US while having international connections (note how overly specific the authors are). But, their data cutoff date is over a year ago, so it wouldn't include the guy in Lodi. One could also argue that the goal is convict people of some sort of conspiracy before they blow something up.
The greater message of the data is what have we gained in terms of security from rounding all of these people up and spending $413 billion? The numbers presented look rather bleak. But, how do they compare to conviction rates for other complicated conspiracies (e.g., gang or mafia activity)?
And, what are we to make of the human sacrifices for the war? My sense is that a majority of the 3,867 U.S. soldiers were committed to their task and mission. But, what of the estimated 80,000 Iraqis? Sure, some of them were probably killed while trying to kill their countrymen for no other reason that they type of Islam they practiced. What would the rest say about their sacrifice for the US to remake their country? Perhaps that question will be better answered in the future. Right now, it seems like an awful waste.
The most telling numbers havde to do with terror-related convictions. There have been several high-profile terrorist arrests (see Detroit and Lodi), and the government doesn't have a real good conviction rate in them. However, here's where the Times article is biased. It says that only two people have been convicted of terrorist related activity in the US while having international connections (note how overly specific the authors are). But, their data cutoff date is over a year ago, so it wouldn't include the guy in Lodi. One could also argue that the goal is convict people of some sort of conspiracy before they blow something up.
The greater message of the data is what have we gained in terms of security from rounding all of these people up and spending $413 billion? The numbers presented look rather bleak. But, how do they compare to conviction rates for other complicated conspiracies (e.g., gang or mafia activity)?
And, what are we to make of the human sacrifices for the war? My sense is that a majority of the 3,867 U.S. soldiers were committed to their task and mission. But, what of the estimated 80,000 Iraqis? Sure, some of them were probably killed while trying to kill their countrymen for no other reason that they type of Islam they practiced. What would the rest say about their sacrifice for the US to remake their country? Perhaps that question will be better answered in the future. Right now, it seems like an awful waste.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
When the Circus Occasionally Comes Back to Town
You may remember this photo:
It was taken of a Marine, Jame Blake Miller, by an LA Times photographer, Luis Sinco before the battle for Fallouja in which Miller would take part. After the photo appeared there were many national stories about Miller.
The LA Times followed up with him in May of 2006 when he was discharged due to PTSD. This weekend the paper started running a story about Miller and Sinco. I suggest that you read it (it requires free registration and I've found it to be spam-free).
It's a must read for a few reasons. First and foremost is Miller's story. Not unlike poor kids from Appalachia, he describes his choice in life is between the Marines and the mines. I'm not naive as wars have always been fought by the poor. But what does Miller's choice say about us a society in the 21st century?
Another interesting aspect of the story is that the photographer tells the story. Sinco tells the story from a personal, rather than detached, view. He takes his journalistic ethics seriously and confronts some of the moral issues of what, if anything, he has done to Miller by taking his picture. He also considers what, if any, responsibility he has in helping and healing Miller.
Lastly, it addresses the permanence of war. Miller's life, and those around him, were going to be changed even if he wasn't the subject of a famous picture. It's easy to think that the war operates on a treadmill until you think about people who are fighting it as individuals. Tonight I had the opportunity to offer the pledge of allegiance at my local Elk Lodge's Veteran's Day ceremony. There were WW II, Korean, Viet Nam era and Iraq vets/service people there. I couldn't help but think of Miller as I spoke to them. In conversation I wondered how their lives, and their families' live were affected by their service. I wonder how many really think it was worth it.
It was taken of a Marine, Jame Blake Miller, by an LA Times photographer, Luis Sinco before the battle for Fallouja in which Miller would take part. After the photo appeared there were many national stories about Miller.
The LA Times followed up with him in May of 2006 when he was discharged due to PTSD. This weekend the paper started running a story about Miller and Sinco. I suggest that you read it (it requires free registration and I've found it to be spam-free).
It's a must read for a few reasons. First and foremost is Miller's story. Not unlike poor kids from Appalachia, he describes his choice in life is between the Marines and the mines. I'm not naive as wars have always been fought by the poor. But what does Miller's choice say about us a society in the 21st century?
Another interesting aspect of the story is that the photographer tells the story. Sinco tells the story from a personal, rather than detached, view. He takes his journalistic ethics seriously and confronts some of the moral issues of what, if anything, he has done to Miller by taking his picture. He also considers what, if any, responsibility he has in helping and healing Miller.
Lastly, it addresses the permanence of war. Miller's life, and those around him, were going to be changed even if he wasn't the subject of a famous picture. It's easy to think that the war operates on a treadmill until you think about people who are fighting it as individuals. Tonight I had the opportunity to offer the pledge of allegiance at my local Elk Lodge's Veteran's Day ceremony. There were WW II, Korean, Viet Nam era and Iraq vets/service people there. I couldn't help but think of Miller as I spoke to them. In conversation I wondered how their lives, and their families' live were affected by their service. I wonder how many really think it was worth it.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Bush Quits in Iraq
As I read (I didn't have a chance to watch) Bush's speech from the other night, it struck me that his heart is just not in the Iraq war anymore. Why?
1. Instead of talking about winning or victory he says things like success. Now, if you and I were talking about competing against each other or someone else those words would be synonyms. However, the words in presidential addresses are looked over like the Rosetta Stone and a change in them from speech to speech indicates a change in thinking or policy.
2. Let's say you're coaching in a football game. After things not going well in the first half your team finds a little bit of rhythm and you stop losing as badly. Would you a) continue the strategy to maybe even the score or b) be satisfied with not getting your ass kicked as badly and go back to the previous strategy? Bush has chosen the second option. Let's take his word for it that the surge has worked/is working, the military has the local Sunni tribes fighting against Al Qaeda and is restoring (permanent) stability in the area. Why would you then plan to reduce troops? Wouldn't you conclude that you have a winning strategy and send more troops to implement it and defeat the enemy? If Bush really thought we were winning he would do the latter.
Why he's quit is bizarre. He's not taking bold enough steps to reduced troops to turn public opinion in his favor (as if he cares). The Democrats in congress have already shown that they are far too chicken shit to really force his hand on the war, so he can pretty much prosecute it they way he wants for the remainder of his term. I think that he's finally seen the light on this misadventure and wants to slink away before people notice.
1. Instead of talking about winning or victory he says things like success. Now, if you and I were talking about competing against each other or someone else those words would be synonyms. However, the words in presidential addresses are looked over like the Rosetta Stone and a change in them from speech to speech indicates a change in thinking or policy.
2. Let's say you're coaching in a football game. After things not going well in the first half your team finds a little bit of rhythm and you stop losing as badly. Would you a) continue the strategy to maybe even the score or b) be satisfied with not getting your ass kicked as badly and go back to the previous strategy? Bush has chosen the second option. Let's take his word for it that the surge has worked/is working, the military has the local Sunni tribes fighting against Al Qaeda and is restoring (permanent) stability in the area. Why would you then plan to reduce troops? Wouldn't you conclude that you have a winning strategy and send more troops to implement it and defeat the enemy? If Bush really thought we were winning he would do the latter.
Why he's quit is bizarre. He's not taking bold enough steps to reduced troops to turn public opinion in his favor (as if he cares). The Democrats in congress have already shown that they are far too chicken shit to really force his hand on the war, so he can pretty much prosecute it they way he wants for the remainder of his term. I think that he's finally seen the light on this misadventure and wants to slink away before people notice.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Look Mom, The Constitution Works!
For years the Bush administration has been arguing for special powers to lock up enemy combatants in the War on Terror. Part of their argument had been that US courts are not setup to handle these kinds of cases, so they setup kangaroo courts. This was what happened in the Padilla case, a US citizen who was arrested on US soil and classified as an enemy combatant. It was one thing to deny rights to citizen of another country captured overseas, but as a US citizen is presumed to have some rights Cheney, I mean Bush, didn't think so. So, after getting bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court (and dropping some of the more outlandish charges), Mr. Padilla (and two others) got their day in court. And they were found guilty.
The Feds have had pretty rotten luck in these federal cases against supposed terrorists. The evidence has been flimsy, bordering on entrapment, so juries haven't been buying it. The Government would argue that they couldn't use all of their good evidence since doing so would give up state secrets. So, we should just trust that they have the goods on these people and let them rot in some gulag. Riiiiiiight.
However, Padilla changes all of this. Even without the "dirty bomb" charge, he was convicted in open court. Hm....funny how when the government has good evidence, people who seek to harm us can be convicted in open court. Perhaps this will open the way for others who are stuck in Gitmo, or who knows where else, to have their day in court. The Padilla case shows that the odds aren't stacked against the government, they just have to get off their asses and prove their case. I don't think that's too much to ask.
The Feds have had pretty rotten luck in these federal cases against supposed terrorists. The evidence has been flimsy, bordering on entrapment, so juries haven't been buying it. The Government would argue that they couldn't use all of their good evidence since doing so would give up state secrets. So, we should just trust that they have the goods on these people and let them rot in some gulag. Riiiiiiight.
However, Padilla changes all of this. Even without the "dirty bomb" charge, he was convicted in open court. Hm....funny how when the government has good evidence, people who seek to harm us can be convicted in open court. Perhaps this will open the way for others who are stuck in Gitmo, or who knows where else, to have their day in court. The Padilla case shows that the odds aren't stacked against the government, they just have to get off their asses and prove their case. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Should We Stay or Should We Go Now?
Among the worst fucking things about being in Iraq is that there is NO good way out. We barged in as uninvited guests then proceeded to completely screw everything up. But, we can't leave because things will be even worse for the Iraqis when we do. I just love our argument to the Iraqi government:
"Umb...I know that we started this war, but you need to take it over now. We'll still help and stuff, but, y'know, it's yours now. Oh, and by the way, we are soooooo pissed at you for not taking over our war sooner. In fact, if you don't start fighting our war better we are going to punish you by leaving and making it harder for you to fight it. That'll teach you. So, when should we leave?"
The big problem now is that neither Bush or the Democrats have a good response. Bush says, "Hey, it's going fine. If we just keep fighting we'll win." The Dems say, "Well, there's no way we can win this, so we should quit fooling ourselves. We should leave on such-and-such date." What's maddening is that they are both half right. Bush is right in that setting a specific date is stupid. All the warring parties will lay low until that date, then all hell will break lose. The Dems are right in that the war is not winnable for the U.S. We might be able to leave conditions so that the Iraqi government can win it (eventually), but there will not be peace in Iraq while our troops are there.
From a management point-of-view you would think that if we set certain standards (x number of Iraqi combat ready troops, y number of police, etc) we could leave after those are met. However, to this point we don't seem to be making good progress on those kinds of things because of how poorly the war and its aftermath was planned (not sending enough troops to maintain security, firing all of the low-level Baathists from the military/police, etc.).
Given that the House bill on the troop funding doesn't have a hope in hell of passing in the Senate (let along having enough votes in the House to override a veto), the Dems are going to have to negotiate with Bush to get something done. Unless their real motive is to use the war as a political stick for 2008. Nah....they wouldn't do that.
"Umb...I know that we started this war, but you need to take it over now. We'll still help and stuff, but, y'know, it's yours now. Oh, and by the way, we are soooooo pissed at you for not taking over our war sooner. In fact, if you don't start fighting our war better we are going to punish you by leaving and making it harder for you to fight it. That'll teach you. So, when should we leave?"
The big problem now is that neither Bush or the Democrats have a good response. Bush says, "Hey, it's going fine. If we just keep fighting we'll win." The Dems say, "Well, there's no way we can win this, so we should quit fooling ourselves. We should leave on such-and-such date." What's maddening is that they are both half right. Bush is right in that setting a specific date is stupid. All the warring parties will lay low until that date, then all hell will break lose. The Dems are right in that the war is not winnable for the U.S. We might be able to leave conditions so that the Iraqi government can win it (eventually), but there will not be peace in Iraq while our troops are there.
From a management point-of-view you would think that if we set certain standards (x number of Iraqi combat ready troops, y number of police, etc) we could leave after those are met. However, to this point we don't seem to be making good progress on those kinds of things because of how poorly the war and its aftermath was planned (not sending enough troops to maintain security, firing all of the low-level Baathists from the military/police, etc.).
Given that the House bill on the troop funding doesn't have a hope in hell of passing in the Senate (let along having enough votes in the House to override a veto), the Dems are going to have to negotiate with Bush to get something done. Unless their real motive is to use the war as a political stick for 2008. Nah....they wouldn't do that.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The War On...
There's a man in his 70's who lives around the corner from us who walks in the morning. I saw him today as I was getting the paper. He asked me (out of the blue), "So, has George W. called you for any advice?" I paused for a moment, then responded, "Yeah, but he doesn't seem to listen to it." I bring this up since last week the administration had the balls to say that Bush's strategy of fighting them (Al Quaeda, presumably) over there isn't going so well. Even more conservative papers reported on it. A couple of things come to mind:
1) Where is the outrage? I can see how Bush/Cheney put the WMDs front and center when selling the war. Seeing bad guy with bombs is something people can relate to. But, wasn't getting Al Quaeda the *real* reason for going over there. Or was it toppling Hussein? At least he got that done (for better or for worse).
2) This really shows how Bush took the his eye off of the ball by going to Iraq. Fuck, he can barely walk and chew bubble-gum, let alone handle to complex things at once. Iraq wasn't a threat, but now we are ass deep in that quagmire. Al Quaeda was, and now is even more so.
So, we've been fighting a preemptive war for four years and the enemy is getting STRONGER. Oh, and by the way, the Taliban (remember them, the ones who were in bed with Bin Laden?) tried to off Cheney today.
One thing that I'm already sick of are the Dems trying to justify their votes on going to war (or, in Obama's case, crowing about what he might have done). You know what? Right now, I don't give a shit as to whether they bought Bush's story. Tell me how you will get us out of there and the ramifications of doing so. Not that I would vote for any of them, but it would be good information for those still making up their minds.
1) Where is the outrage? I can see how Bush/Cheney put the WMDs front and center when selling the war. Seeing bad guy with bombs is something people can relate to. But, wasn't getting Al Quaeda the *real* reason for going over there. Or was it toppling Hussein? At least he got that done (for better or for worse).
2) This really shows how Bush took the his eye off of the ball by going to Iraq. Fuck, he can barely walk and chew bubble-gum, let alone handle to complex things at once. Iraq wasn't a threat, but now we are ass deep in that quagmire. Al Quaeda was, and now is even more so.
So, we've been fighting a preemptive war for four years and the enemy is getting STRONGER. Oh, and by the way, the Taliban (remember them, the ones who were in bed with Bin Laden?) tried to off Cheney today.
One thing that I'm already sick of are the Dems trying to justify their votes on going to war (or, in Obama's case, crowing about what he might have done). You know what? Right now, I don't give a shit as to whether they bought Bush's story. Tell me how you will get us out of there and the ramifications of doing so. Not that I would vote for any of them, but it would be good information for those still making up their minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
