No End in Sight

Quote of the day:
“Online input, offered in real time from legions of customers, is beginning to make traditional focus groups seem old-school.”
--AP, yesterday

Statistic of the day:
Average daily number of insurgent attacks in Iraq:
July 2003: 16
May-July 2007: 161
--Brookings Institution

The news right now is that General Petraeus is saying that we should not remove any troops from Iraq until the fall.

USA Today has published a compelling graphic with both individual information and compiled statistics about the 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq. I highly recommend it.

At the Washington Nationals’ home opener, President Bush was loudly booed from the stands--and it wasn’t just a few cranky loudmouths. We’re talking thousands of people booing the president of the United States.

I’m a fairly respectful person. I know it’s hard to believe, but I am. If any other president in my lifetime had been booed at a baseball game, I would’ve been embarrassed--and I would consider it disrespectful. No matter how I felt about that president’s policies.

I was not embarrassed when Bush was booed, and I was surprised at myself. I never thought I’d lose respect for a president.

This is not because I disagree with the Iraq war or any other policy. It is rather because of the way this presidency has been conducted.

Specifically, this administration has repeatedly neglected or ignored good, reliable information when making decisions. It’s as if the decision is made first, and then information backing it up is cherry-picked from various sources.

If there weren’t such dangerous and deeply tragic consequences from these decisions, this would be merely ridiculous. But this is beyond arrogant. It is blithely, ignorantly cruel and deadly.

This has now been proven time and again, with many different decisions involving many different people. The case began to be made in 2004 in National Security insider Richard Clarke’s excellent book “Against All Odds,” detailing the flawed and ideological thinking after 9/11 that resulted in the Iraq war.

Since then, there has been a steady stream of former administration, military and CIA officials who have spoken of presenting detailed on-the-ground information about a situation to the president, only to have it ignored--sometimes not even read.

The documentary “No End in Sight” presents this very clearly. The film was not made as an anti-Bush polemic. It made very effort to be fair and objective--efforts that were made difficult by the refusal of several senior administration people to even be interviewed.

It is an excellent documentary, but I do have to pass along a warning. When I watched it, I found myself gradually becoming literally enraged watching highly-experienced intelligence and diplomatic people be cavalierly ignored, with the result being nothing but increased chaos, suffering and death.

That is why, for the first time in my life, I can watch thousands of Americans boo the president at a baseball game and not be embarrassed or ashamed.

Instead, I’m embarrassed and ashamed the rest of the time.

An Iraq Veteran Speaks

Quote of the day:
“Montreal is having problems disposing of the snow. One massive mound is around 80-feet high and officials told reporters that unless steps were taken to dismantle the pile, much of it would still be there when next winter started.”
--David Ljunggren, at reuters.com

A few weeks ago, I went to see Hillary Clinton speak at San Diego State. Actually, I was a volunteer, doing crowd control.

I got to talking with a fellow volunteer, who said this would be her first time voting, and her mother’s first time voting. Her mother had just become a citizen and was very interested in politics.

She was about 30 and had just left the military after eight years of service. She’d been to Iraq twice. It really sticks with me how gently and matter-of-factly she said, “we need to get out of there and never do this again. It’s a mess.”

She was looking forward to going to college with the help of the GI Bill, but lamented how little help the GI Bill is these days. Many of her fellow veterans were also having trouble getting the care and the help they needed.

This was not a wild-eyed, fanatic person. She struck me as someone who simply was trying to live a good life and do her part.

Gandhi and Lord Mountbatten

Quote of the day:
“[RNC Chairman Mike] Duncan and his aides want to be ready to go on the offensive against the Democratic nominee presumptive in an effort to define the opposition candidate on GOP terms. Opposition research is already well along, and the plan is for surrogates to talk to the media around the country while a TV ad campaign in key states and media markets as soon as the Democratic nominee is determined.”
--US News and World Report

I saw the 1982 movie “Gandhi” the other day. I remember seeing it when it was first released, and later watching director David Attenborough accept the Academy award for best picture.

It must’ve been daunting for Ben Kingsley to think of playing the most-influential moral leader of the 20th century. It seems a little odd to say that he does a good job, because his portrayal is so authentic I found myself thinking I was watching Gandhi himself.

After thoroughly enjoying this film, Merrie and I decided to rent the British series “Lord Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy,” which appeared on public television in the 1980s. We had enjoyed it more than the very popular “Jewel in the Crown” series which ran at about the same time.

It’s interesting that both TV series and the movie came out within a few years of each other. They all tell the story surrounding the end of British rule in India in 1947.

Its worth seeing any or all of these productions again in 2008, just because they are all excellent. But there’s another reason.

They all provide valuable perspective on the current situation in Iraq, and in other areas of the world.

When India began planning its independence, violence broke out among its three major population groups: the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. The battles between Hindus and Muslims intensified to the point where there was a real fear of civil war.

Thus the decision was made to partition two parts of the country, creating the Muslim states of east and west Pakistan. The plan for partition created serious new problems as a major Sikh population center was divided.

Also, there were mass migrations of people into and out of the areas to become Pakistan. Violence often broke out between these two columns of refugees, moving in opposite directions.

The leadership of Pakistan was threatened by radical Muslims who claimed they were not getting enough from India. And India’s leaders were threatened by radical Hindus who thought they were giving too much away to the Muslims.

The violence continued for some time after the two nations became independent. About a year later, Gandhi was assassinated by a radical Hindu.

Our Best-Known Politician?

Quote of the day:
"We plan, we toil, we suffer — in the hope of what? ... The title deeds of Radio City? ... A trip to the moon? No, no, no, no. Simply to wake just in time to smell coffee and bacon and eggs."
--JB Priestly

How’s this for a little-heralded event:
The second-best-known Republican in the world recently visited Europe. In a speech there, he said that it was time for the United States to recover the international prestige it has always had.

Just in case you don’t know who the second-best-known Republican in the world is, here’s a hint. Officials in Austria helped him celebrate his birthday.

Yes indeed, it’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

He may be the BEST known Republican worldwide. When he wears his sunglasses.

Selective Use of Intelligence

Quote of the day:
“If someone spends $500 for a television and $2500 for a refrigerator, does that mean they watch the refrigerator five times more than the TV?”
--Preston Creston

Quote of the day no. 2:
“There was precious little consideration, that I’m aware of, about the big picture of what would come next. While some policy makers were eager to say that we would be greeted as liberators, what they failed to mention is that the intelligence community told them that such a greeting would last only for a limited period.”
--George Tenet, former CIA director

That quote comes from Tenet’s book At The Center of the Storm, which is being released tomorrow. He scored an interview with 60 Minutes which will be on tomorrow night.

It looks like we’re hearing from a Bush administration insider about selective use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. There may be a theme developing here.

Former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke made pretty much the same point in his book Against All Enemies. He said that intelligence about al Qaeda activites and locations was simply being ignored in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11.

Clarke’s book came out three years ago, and his major premise has yet to be credibly refuted. Maybe we’re finally getting the message.

Are We Thinking Long Term in Iraq?

Quote of the day:
“It’s great to think outside the box, but some people don’t know where the box is.”
--Preston Creston

Quote of the day no. 2:
“There have been 5,600 years of written history and 14,600 wars have been recorded.”
--James Hillman

Ted Koppel’s most recent documentary for the Discovery channel is called Our Children’s Children’s War. I tuned in, expecting a critique of our military involvement in Iraq. But that’s not what this program was about.

Koppel did some very interesting reporting about some of our long-term military efforts in the Middle East and North Africa. It actually was quite hopeful.

He showed how many small military units have established long-term projects to aid people across the region. One project involves digging wells so villages can begin around them.

The telling moment in the documentary was when an officer said how difficult it is to expand and even continue this effort with 140,000 troops assigned to combat operations in Iraq.

Will a U.S. City Be Nuked?

Follow-up to Goodbye, VCR:
“I remember what TV was like when it was black and white still. My kids can’t imagine it.”
--Marc Canter, California software developer

Quote of the day:
“The threat to the United States now of a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities, is the greatest threat we face.”
--Vice President Dick Cheney

I’m willing to believe that the explosion of a nuclear device in one of our cities is a significant threat. I’m not sure about it being “the greatest threat we face.” Just because the current vice president says it doesn’t make it so, for me.

There are two serious problems with this statement. First, the vice president said this in response to questions about the course of the war in Iraq. His assumption (and that of the current White House) is that Iraq is the key “front” in a global war on terrorism.

He responds to criticism of the war by linking Iraq with trafficking in nuclear material or technology. Am I supposed to accept that Iraq is the only or even the primary way that nuclear material can find its way into the wrong hands?

The second problem with the vice president’s statement is that it seeks to play on our fear--a fear that may be in our minds if we are watching the TV drama 24, in which terrorists explode a suitcase nuke in the Los Angeles area.

It’s wrong to simply dismiss the nuclear threat. But it is equally wrong to use our fear of that threat to justify continuation of a war in a country that plays a very small role at best in furthering such a threat.

War Is No Longer a Last Resort

Quote of the day:
“Man is the only animal that laughs and has a state legislature.”
--Samuel Butler

Quote of the day no. 2:
“We should view violent Islamic radicals as an international criminal conspiracy. We should make common cause with other nations in destroying this conspiracy, using methods similar to those used against the mafia.”
--Andrew J. Bacevich

As important as it is that we step back from the mess in Iraq in order to gain some rational and historical perspective, we don’t seem to do it. It may be that the situation gets us so worked up that we can’t manage anything but anger, posturing and endlessly repeated catch phrases from all sides.

In his book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, Andrew Bacevich takes this step back. He looks at the development of our attitudes about American power and influence over the last hundred years, and his observations are worth a look.

He says this: “In former times American policymakers treated (or at least pretended to treat) the use of force as evidence that diplomacy had failed. In our own time they have concluded (in the words of Vice President Dick Cheney) that force ‘makes your diplomacy more effective going forward, dealing with other problems.’ Policymakers have come to see coercion as a sort of all-purpose tool.”

In an interview in the March 2007 Sun, Bacevich gives this explanation for why he thinks we cannot win in Iraq: “The leaders of the Arab world took several decades to realize they were not suited for Western-style war, with tanks, bombers, heavy artillery and so on.

“We now have a generation of Arab leaders--and perhaps Muslim leaders in general--who are choosing military techniques that play to the strengths of their people and their societies. They don’t need fighter-bombers; they don’t want tanks. As the resistance in Iraq continues to demonstrate on a daily basis, they have developed a strategy that we don’t know how to defeat. And any statesman with half a brain should know that if you can’t defeat your enemies militarily, then you need to rethink the war option.”

Why do we do this? It’s because “Politicians on both sides are wedded to what I call the ‘narrative of the American century.’ It goes like this: Beginning with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the U.S. finally broke away from its isolationist roots and recognized its responsibility as a world leader.

“From that day forward, according to the narrative, the U.S. has been engaged in a great campaign to spread freedom around the world. We did it to great effect in World War II. We did it again, albeit over a longer period and with some missteps, in the Cold War.

Bacevich says the narrative has continued: “Since September 11, 2001, we have recommitted ourselves to this campaign. Just as we brought freedom to Europe and East Asia and the old Soviet bloc, we are now engaged in an effort to bring freedom to the Muslim world.” That’s what our self-narrative says.

He goes on: “And so we have this catastrophic war in Iraq, which the president sees as the first step toward spreading freedom in the Muslim world. And the Democrats in Washington have trouble articulating a critique of the war because they are bound to the same narrative.

“Both Left and Right are attached to a concept of history that in some way served our purposes back in the forties and fifties, but today has become irrelevant and counterproductive.”

How We Can Leave Iraq

Quote of the day:
“I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don’t know.”
--Mark Twain

Ocean fact of the day:
Factor by which the average noise level underwater has increased since 1965: 3.
--Harper’s Index

Most of the news coverage about Iraq is yes/no. Should we withdraw or not? Should we increase troop levels or not? It’s easy to forget how complex the situation is, and that American interests are just one part of a long equation.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman addressed some of the complexities last week:

“Right now everyone in Iraq is having their cake and eating it--at our expense. We have to change that.

“The Sunnis, who started this whole murderous cycle, participate in the government, negotiate with us and also indulge the suicide bombers and the insurgents.

“The Shiites collaborate with us, run their own retaliatory death squads and dabble with Iran.

“The Saudis tell us we can’t leave, but their mosques and charities funnel Sunni suicide bombers to Iraq and dollars to insurgents.

“Iran pushes its Iraqi Shiite allies to grab more power, while helping others kill U.S. troops. Ditto Syria.”

Then Friedman proposes this solution:

“OK, boys, party’s over: we’re leaving by December 1. From now on, everyone pays retail for their politics. We will no longer play host to a war where we’re everyone’s protector and target.

“If you Sunnis want to go on resisting, we’ll leave you to the tender mercies of the Shiites, who vastly outnumber you. You Shiites, if you want to run Iraq without compromising with Sunnis, fine, but you’ll have to fight them alone and then risk having to live under the thumb of Iran.

“You Saudis and other Arabs, if you don’t use your influence to delegitimize Sunni suicide bombers and press Iraq’s Sunnis to cut a deal, we won’t protect you from the consequences.

“And Iran, you win--yes, if we leave, you win the right to try to manage Iraq’s Shiites. Have a nice day.”

Iraq and Health Insurance

Quote of the day:
“There will be an answer, let it be.”
--Paul McCartney

There has been a lot of talk about the relevance or irrelevance of Tuesday’s State of the Union address. I think there’s a lot of room for discussion and negotiation on each item that President Bush proposed.

Two of his underlying assumptions baffle me. First, I thought that our biggest problem related to health insurance is the huge number of people who cannot afford it. How exactly is making premiums tax-deductible going to make health insurance affordable for people who don’t have it, most of whom are in a tax bracket between 0% and 15%?

If a monthly premium of $500 is not affordable, is 15% less ($425) going to be affordable for a family that is already living paycheck to paycheck? I’m not saying that the tax deduction would not help a few people, and it certainly would be a nice present to those in higher tax brackets. But it seems to me there is a much, much bigger problem that needs attention: providing health insurance for those who most need it and cannot afford it.

The second assumption relates to the possibility of our withdrawal from Iraq. Bush made the obvious point that there would be chaos of we removed our armed forces. Won’t there be chaos whenever we decide to withdraw--whether it be now, in two years or in five years? Former National Security Advisor Richard Clarke said this several months ago--see Iraq Logic.

Watching the chaos and bloodshed that follows our withdrawal will be very difficult. But using the potential for chaos as a reason for not withdrawing from Iraq now is a very weak argument.

Not Islam v. the West, But Islam vs.Islam

Quote of the day:
“I know collectors with 40,000 bottles who if you poured them a glass of Gallo Hearty Burgundy wouldn’t know the difference.”
--Robert M. Parker, Jr.

Many assumptions and stereotypes continue to come to us about Muslims, Arabs, and what 9/11 was about. Some of them need closer examination.

Reza Aslan graduated from the Harvard Divinity School, where he did a scholarly study of the Koran. His book "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam" helped to dispel some of our questionably broad assumptions, but they are persistent. He was interviewed in the December "Sun," and made some very interesting observations:

“We have this idea in the U.S. that we’re the primary target of the jihadists, but we’re not. They call us the ‘far enemy.’ The primary target is the older Islamic institutions.”

“By bin Laden’s own admission, al-Qaeda will never reestablish the caliphate. A few years ago the majority of Muslims didn’t even know what the caliphate was, let alone want it to come back. But when the president of the United States of America, the most powerful man on earth, announced that he was afraid bin Laden could re-create the caliphate, it gave an air of legitimacy to this absurd idea.... For Bush, talking about the caliphate may have been a good strategy for getting reelected, but it is a terrible strategy for winning this ‘war on terror’ that we’re supposed to be fighting.”

“Five years later [after 9/11], and we’re still asking ‘Why did they attack us?’ That question has been answered a hundred times over by the jihadists. In their own words they have said the purpose of the attacks of September 11 was to goad the United States into an exaggerated retaliation against the Muslim world. Then they could frame the U.S. military response as a ‘war against Islam.’

“The irony is that it didn’t work at first. The war in Afghanistan had almost unanimous support in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even from some of the U.S.’s staunchest enemies.

“In one Muslim country, immediately after September 11, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets, lot candles, and prayed in an exuberant display of compassion for the U.S. That country was Iran.”

Iraq Logic

Seasonal reminder of the day:
The USDA recommends not stuffing the turkey, but baking the stuffing separately.

Quote of the day:
“Yeah, maybe. Whatever. Again, I don’t really care.”
--Darby Conley, in today’s Get Fuzzy

Richard A. Clarke is a former counter-terrorism expert in the Clinton and Bush administrations. His excellent book about Al Qaeda and September 11th, Against All Enemies, is a compelling summary of the U.S. government’s knowledge of, and response to, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in the years leading up to September 11, 2001.

One important point he made, in detail, was that the Bush administration was aware of the immediate risks that al Qaeda posed, yet chose to focus its attention on other matters. Clarke’s thesis in that book has yet to be refuted in any major way. On Monday, he wrote this about Iraq:

“Too often in the Iraq debate, we have let intuitions, slogans and appealing thoughts cloud logic. Perhaps the most troublesome example is the argument that we must honor the American dead by staying until we can build something worthy of their sacrifice.

“Stripped of its emotional tones, this argument is, in economic analysis, an appeal to sunk cost. An MIT professor once threatened to fail me if I ever justified actions based on sunk cost--so I learned what is gone is gone, and what is left we should conserve, cherish and employ wisely.

“A similarly illogical argument for staying in Iraq is that chaos would follow any near-term U.S. withdrawal. The flaw lies not in the concept that chaos will happen, but rather in thinking that chaos would only happen if we withdraw in the near term. Chaos will almost certainly follow any U.S. withdrawal, whether in 2008 or 2012.”

Frack!

Quote of the day:
“There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.”
--Steven Wright

Quote of the day #2:
“Frack.”
--Expletive often used on the TV series "Battlestar Gallactica." The current plotline of the show features human beings battling to win their freedom from tyrannical cyborgs and clones. The humans’ main tactics are insurgency and suicide bombings.

Quote of the day #3:
“Iraq is the most xenophobic, sexist and reactionary society on earth.”
--David Brooks

When I read this quote in the September 24th "New York Times," I assumed Brooks was giving an opinion. It turns out that the statement is based on research by the World Values Survey. I highly recommend a brief visit to their website, www.worldvaluessurvey.com. Click on the Inglehart Values Map to view a matrix of where the world’s nations fall along the axes of “traditional” to “secular-rational” values, and “survival” to “self-expression” values. (Iraq has not been added to the matrix yet.)

Note that the United States is on the right side, rated -.5 “traditional” and +1.5 “self-expression.” This is an interesting place to be, because traditional values do not especially support self-expression. And vice-versa.