Men can be stimulated to show off their good qualities
to the leader who seems to think they have good qualities.
John Richelsen
I Can't Believe Obama Needs to be Told
to Move to the Left
to Move to the Left
O-I-H-O
That'll Cost You 18 Points, Mr. President
 |
| Twitter picture by Christopher Maloney |
2000 American Fatalities in the Afghanistan Theater*
"Our forces shouldn’t be there. It should be over. It’s done. No more."
Marina Buckley, mother of Lance Cpl. Gregory T. Buckley Jr., #1990
Buckley, within days of coming home, was murdered by an Afghan in training
There was once a time I trusted what I was told by our national leaders in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedies. I never did really believe that the small countries of Iraq and Afghanistan constituted a viable military threat from halfway around the world to a country with terrifying weapons.
I always had concerns about this troublesome region of the world: I remember the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, a clear violation of international law, and the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of our peacekeeping forces. I was wary of the nature and extent of the American involvement in the first Gulf War; I understood Saddam Hussein's regional ambitions, including his conquest of Kuwait. I always saw this problem as fundamentally a regional one, and I considered the US and British enforcement of no-fly zones as morally hazardous and operationally unsustainable. Perhaps there was a hint or warning of Beirut in the Khobar Towers bombings.
I never saw the need or wisdom for the nature and extent of our involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. I knew about the Soviet Union's experience in occupying Afghanistan, and George HW Bush also knew about the sectarian tensions in Iraq. I was interested in seeing justice served with regards to Al Qaeda leadership, but I thought that we would have a more focused mission, with limited, surgical tactics, short of a large footprint with boots on the ground and nation building mandate. I thought that Bush would show the same reluctance of his father in eschewing nation building in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War: after all, Bush had condemned, and I concurred, Bill Clinton's nation building in eastern Europe. I never expected Bush to blunder his way into years of occupation in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I was particularly concerned about Democratic talking points about our fighting the "wrong war", i.e., Iraq instead of Afghanistan. As the Iraqi occupation wound down, it was clear that the Democrats wanted to redistribute resources to the Afghanistan theater. I had not been sold on American/NATO occupation, particularly after the first Afghan election in 2004; if anything, I saw our continuing presence as morally hazardous, e.g., Karzai would not make necessary accommodations for power-sharing and a sustainable government. The primary issue I had with Obama's surge decision (besides the obvious process-oriented ones: timing, etc.) was that it was a tacit admission (like Bush's belated surge decision) that the status quo wasn't working: you either fish or cut bait. Were 30,000 new troops enough to stabilize the situation? Not in my judgment. What about the rest of our NATO partner stepping up? Not that I saw.
I was already transitioning to a more libertarian point of view, especially in the excesses of the 111th Congress, and it was self-evident that the Defense Department was no more virtuous than the rest of Big Government: badly bloated, monotonically spreading, overly committed, wasteful, and gold-plated. Additional obligations become permanent budgetary fixtures. A large standing military is a resource waiting to be applied.
We need to leave Afghanistan, sooner rather than later--before 2014. According to countdowntodrawdown, we still have 87,000 troops in Afghanistan. Each new news report (e.g., the Bales massacre, the helicopter crashes, Afghan soldiers turning on Americans, etc.) nauseates me. We've spent more than a decade in Afghanistan; it's way past time due for the Afghan people to stand on their own two feet. We have paid too high a price already in American blood and treasure.
Afghanistan is not worth one more brokenhearted mother's lifetime sentence of tears, each empty birthday and holiday to follow; she gave the greatest gift of all, her irreplaceable son--and in return, she gets a knock on the door, scripted words, a piece of cloth, filled-in documents, trinkets, and fleeting lip service on days that other families enjoy their holiday.
According to the Gray Lady:
Nearly nine years passed before American forces reached their first 1,000 dead in the war. The second 1,000 came just 27 months later, a testament to the intensity of fighting prompted by President Obama’s decision to send 33,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in 2010, a policy known as the surge.The NYT total includes deaths directly related to the war but not physically in Afghanistan:
- "15 war-related deaths occurred in Pakistan, about a third of which resulted from combat.
- One was in Uzbekistan.
- One was a U-2 pilot, Maj. Duane W. Dively, whose spy plane crashed while on mission somewhere in Southwest Asia in 2005.
- Another five occurred during preparations for the invasion in 2001.
- And six were nonhostile deaths at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Times decided to include those deaths because the troops’ responsibilities have consisted largely of guarding detainees captured in the Afghanistan war."
Charley Reese's Mythical Last Column
I mentioned in Monday's email getting unsolicited emails from friends and relatives. I had also mentioned the fact that many conservative Democrats in Texas had transitioned to the Republican side during the 1980's (technically I changed parties after I graduated from UH and moved to Wisconsin for my first faculty appointment). Not all of them have: my dad's best friend in the San Antonio area, whom I've met on multiple occasions when my dad has taken me to his local American Legion, is still a yellow-dog Democrat, with a visceral hatred of George W. Bush. (He has published a number of letters to the editor in one of the San Antonio newspapers and is even more overbearing in person. I've found myself biting my tongue, basically because I didn't want my dad getting caught in the middle.) It was bad enough I've had this guy's opinions forwarded to me (not worthy of my time and effort), but the same guy has forwarded copies of Paul Krugman's columns. (It's bad enough reading Krugman's opinions a first time, but Krugman reruns?)
Charley Reese in 1999 was rated by C-SPAN as the favorite syndicated columnist, whose columns were carried by up to 150 newspapers or more. There is yet another email variation going on for a Charley Reese column; in fact, I started writing this commentary Monday but a Blogger glitch lost my draft. I've seen scores of websites and blogs site different variations of his famous 'The 545 People Responsible for All of America's Woes' rant (Congress, President, Supreme Court), which was originally published in 1984 or 1985. He updated his column in 1995: "Looking For Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start".
I want to debunk some myths going around with various versions of the rant, some of which have been modified without Charley Reese's knowledge or permission. First, it is often claimed that it was his last column. Let me quote from a relevant newspaper source:
Another myth is that Reese was nonpartisan; in fact, he has been one of the most open journalists on record:
A Response to Charley Reese:
No, Charley: citizens of Virginia (and every other state) still believe there is a Santa Claus. As Sally Brown said it best, "All I want is what I... I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share."
It's not MY Congressman: it's everyone else's. Tax cuts--yes: but don't you dare cut spending! Don't you dare touch my future senior entitlement benefits! I've worked decades for those!
Nobody ever got elected promising to deliver less for more tax revenue or by compromising with the opposition on matters of principle.
It is very difficult to get into a publicly powerful position, say, committee chair or Congressional leadership, by making waves or by challenging the status quo. If and when you take on the status quo, special interests will come out of the woodwork, and they'll fund opposition for your next election. Or you become marginalized, like Ron Paul. You learn to go with the flow to get ahead.
I also disagree with the inclusion of SCOTUS here; the justices are largely constrained by precedent. They don't create bad laws or spend the public's money... All they can do is rule on a measure's constitutionality.
I do agree that the Congress and the President bear ultimate responsibility. But it's much easier to add spending than cut; to add rules and regulations versus repeal them. We currently have mandatory spending--with built-in automatic budget increases--for the 60% of the budget dealing with entitlements. There are ways to modify mandatory spending, but it's politically very difficult. Grandmothers all around the US are terrified of Paul Ryan standing behind them...
Most post offices lose money, but the Congress routinely blocks their closure. We have redundant federal operations everywhere, but Congressmen and Senators will fight any closure at their state or district's expense.
Surely, Charley, you've read Alexis de Tocqueville* and are familiar with this quote:
The road to serfdom is paved one mile at a time. And then one day you discover you are in serfdom.
Charley, it is true that the Congress and President can change if they work together. But instead of blaming legislators, we need to realize that the real responsibility for electing the right leaders begins with ourselves; we need to reward candidates whom are willing to do what it takes, even if it costs them their jobs. The real responsibility rests with each and every voter to demand responsibility and reward political courage.
Political Humor
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
I mentioned in Monday's email getting unsolicited emails from friends and relatives. I had also mentioned the fact that many conservative Democrats in Texas had transitioned to the Republican side during the 1980's (technically I changed parties after I graduated from UH and moved to Wisconsin for my first faculty appointment). Not all of them have: my dad's best friend in the San Antonio area, whom I've met on multiple occasions when my dad has taken me to his local American Legion, is still a yellow-dog Democrat, with a visceral hatred of George W. Bush. (He has published a number of letters to the editor in one of the San Antonio newspapers and is even more overbearing in person. I've found myself biting my tongue, basically because I didn't want my dad getting caught in the middle.) It was bad enough I've had this guy's opinions forwarded to me (not worthy of my time and effort), but the same guy has forwarded copies of Paul Krugman's columns. (It's bad enough reading Krugman's opinions a first time, but Krugman reruns?)
Charley Reese in 1999 was rated by C-SPAN as the favorite syndicated columnist, whose columns were carried by up to 150 newspapers or more. There is yet another email variation going on for a Charley Reese column; in fact, I started writing this commentary Monday but a Blogger glitch lost my draft. I've seen scores of websites and blogs site different variations of his famous 'The 545 People Responsible for All of America's Woes' rant (Congress, President, Supreme Court), which was originally published in 1984 or 1985. He updated his column in 1995: "Looking For Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start".
I want to debunk some myths going around with various versions of the rant, some of which have been modified without Charley Reese's knowledge or permission. First, it is often claimed that it was his last column. Let me quote from a relevant newspaper source:
Like Frankenstein, Charley Reese's "final" column lives again by Mike Lafferty
Charley Reese wrote his last column for the Orlando Sentinel on July 29, 2001. After retiring from the Sentinel, which he joined in 1972, Reese continued writing a nationally syndicated column for King Features until 2008. You wouldn't know it from surfing the Internet. In fact, you wouldn't even get his last column. You'd most likely find a version that the popular columnist wrote for the Sentinel back on Feb. 3, 1984. It still resonates with the public -- maybe more today than 27 years ago -- as Congress and the president wrestle with spending and debt.
Some of them wrongly refer to it as Reese's swan song for the Sentinel. The Sentinel's 1984 version usually shows up, but sometimes it's a variation on the "545 people" theme that Reese used again in 1995.
Some of the online versions of the 1984 column have been doctored, inserting Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner as House speaker for Tip O'Neill, and substituting Afghanistan and Iraq for Lebanon. [Reese is] aware of the online endurance of his "545 people" column, and its manipulation at the hands of users. "I call it the Frankenstein column," he said. "That's one of the problems with the Internet. Once something goes on the Internet, people rewrite."Many of Reese's old columns, including post-Sentinel syndicated ones, are available at a libertarian website here; his last column in August 2008 was a reflection on how the newspaper business has changed during his career, joking about how he beat John McCain, whom he considered too old to be President, into retirement and reflecting on how we now had a national party nominating an African American to the Presidency.
Another myth is that Reese was nonpartisan; in fact, he has been one of the most open journalists on record:
At the end of each calendar year, Reese wrote his annual "conflict of interest" column, in which he disclosed his sources of income, his political affiliation and the organizations of which he was a dues paying member. He would also state his basic political philosophy and other core beliefs in addition to purpose of his columns.Quick summary: he was a conservative Democrat until the election of JFK, whom he regarded as a "pretty boy", all hat and no cattle. He switched back to the Democratic Party around the Presidency of GHW Bush, whom he considered as part of the Rockefeller (moderate/Big Business) wing of the GOP. He then went on to support Pat Buchanan in 1996 (probably because of Buchanan's noninterventionist foreign policy), George W. Bush in 2000, before switching to Kerry in 2004. He didn't believe in third parties. It's fairly clear in context that he must have supported Obama in 2008, atlhough it would seem Obama was subject to the same criticisms he made of JFK. I have to believe that Reese has changed his mind on Obama for a variety of reasons, including the national debt crisis and Obama expanding US meddling all around the Middle East and Gulf region, although he wouldn't be thrilled with Romney's foreign policy: would he consider Romney part of the Rockefeller wing? Probably not. But let me quote from one of his articles saying what he really thinks about the major parties:
The Democrats are practically socialists; the Republicans are closer to corporate fascists. A true conservative believes in a free economy. Laying debt and interest payments on posterity is neither conservative nor liberal. It is just obscenely irresponsible. The Republican Party, with its imperialistic foreign policy, its disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law, its fiscal irresponsibility and its erosion of personal liberty, is not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative party.I should note in all fairness, Reese believes that true conservatives are in the minority. I just want to point out that the Senate Democrats, as the Citizens Against Government Waste has pointed out, have gone over 1000 days without passing a budget, and the President's budget has been voted down by his own Congressional colleagues. The Patriot Act was extended with a Democratic Senate and President. We have nude body scanners and invasive searches at the nation's airports, and there is even discussion of local and state law enforcement using drones to spy on Americans from above. As for a corporatist status quo, it's disingenuous for Reese to put responsibility on the GOP given the fact that it has rarely controlled both the Congress and the Presidency since the 1930's; the economic corporatism has been marked by a steadily growing federal government and the influence of labor unions and certain big businesses with lobbyist connections.
A Response to Charley Reese:
No, Charley: citizens of Virginia (and every other state) still believe there is a Santa Claus. As Sally Brown said it best, "All I want is what I... I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share."
It's not MY Congressman: it's everyone else's. Tax cuts--yes: but don't you dare cut spending! Don't you dare touch my future senior entitlement benefits! I've worked decades for those!
Nobody ever got elected promising to deliver less for more tax revenue or by compromising with the opposition on matters of principle.
It is very difficult to get into a publicly powerful position, say, committee chair or Congressional leadership, by making waves or by challenging the status quo. If and when you take on the status quo, special interests will come out of the woodwork, and they'll fund opposition for your next election. Or you become marginalized, like Ron Paul. You learn to go with the flow to get ahead.
I also disagree with the inclusion of SCOTUS here; the justices are largely constrained by precedent. They don't create bad laws or spend the public's money... All they can do is rule on a measure's constitutionality.
I do agree that the Congress and the President bear ultimate responsibility. But it's much easier to add spending than cut; to add rules and regulations versus repeal them. We currently have mandatory spending--with built-in automatic budget increases--for the 60% of the budget dealing with entitlements. There are ways to modify mandatory spending, but it's politically very difficult. Grandmothers all around the US are terrified of Paul Ryan standing behind them...
Most post offices lose money, but the Congress routinely blocks their closure. We have redundant federal operations everywhere, but Congressmen and Senators will fight any closure at their state or district's expense.
Surely, Charley, you've read Alexis de Tocqueville* and are familiar with this quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."(* ed 1/26/13. This attribution is disputed. The quote first appears in a 1951 op-ed by Elmer T. Peterson.)
The road to serfdom is paved one mile at a time. And then one day you discover you are in serfdom.
Charley, it is true that the Congress and President can change if they work together. But instead of blaming legislators, we need to realize that the real responsibility for electing the right leaders begins with ourselves; we need to reward candidates whom are willing to do what it takes, even if it costs them their jobs. The real responsibility rests with each and every voter to demand responsibility and reward political courage.
Political Humor
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Hodgson/Supertramp, "Take the Long Way Home"
