July 25, 2008 at 10:37 am
· Filed under Uncategorized
The “troop surge” in Iraq is a “success”, at least as the media increasingly claims, especially the 24 hour news channels. Aren’t we a bit surprised?
Looking for the definition of success can be frustrating. Is the surge successful because Iraqi has made significant progress toward establishing a functional democratic government? Is the surge successful because Iraq now has a peaceful, secure relationship with her neighbors? Is it successful because human rights have been guaranteed to all those who live in Iraq? Or is it successful because the country has been rebuilt and the utilities and economy reestablished?
Since the answer to all the above is no, then what possible reason could our media have for declaring “success”. The only claim for success that is clearly verified is that the U.S. Military is more secure and the incidents of violence have decreased. But, of course, Iraq is not as “secure” as it was before the United States Military invaded Iraq, and we do not really know if the violence is lower now than it was during Saddam’s days in power.
So, dear media, give us a break from your personal opinion. And please stop harassing the current candidates for President on this issue. Stop the loaded questions like “what should your opponent’s position be on the surge.” Why not tell the total unvarnished truth – whatever the facts happen to be. Drop the “spin” and simply report the news.
Permalink
July 19, 2008 at 7:10 am
· Filed under Uncategorized
The New York times recently published two stories on military troubles in Afghanistan. Suddenly, according to the Times sources, we are short of troops to adequately handle Afghanistan, unless we reduce troop levels in Iraq. This is not “sudden”, it is not even a new problem.
Immediately after 9-11 American citizens lined up at recruiting stations for all services. Thousands of veterans of previous conflicts petitioned the military to allow them to return to active duty. Most of these volunteers were turned away. The U.S. government claimed that we did not need a larger force. Poor planning, too few troops, bad strategy, and leaders too proud to listen have finally brought us to this avoidable juncture.
I remember, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the US Army Chief of Staff was pushed aside because his superiors didn’t like the answers he gave to congressional hearings. The General said we needed more than twice the number of troops we had. To his superiors, especially Donald Rumsfeld, this was a bad answer because the Department of Defense did not wish to expand troop levels.
The situation was clear during the first six months of the Iraq war. With our superior military technology and outstanding fighting force the United States military conquered Iraq in just a few weeks. So, yes the military was large enough to defeat the Iraqi military. That, however, was never the real point.
Our nations history demonstrated after WWI and WWII that defeating the enemy force is only the first step. When we conquer a nation, we usually destroy most of their infrastructure. After the battles the conquered foe must repair the government, rebuild their industry and utilities, and reorient their society. The winning military then reverts to an occupation force to provide the security of the new country while they rebuild. Many military experts estimated that to secure the borders of Iraq, protect the many miles of oil pipeline, and keep the peace while retraining the indigenous police and military forces, would require at least an additional fifty thousand troops.
It appears that our government finally, after five years of war, may be discovering the “correct” way. It is a shame that our leaders refused to listen before the invasion of Iraq. It is outrageous that they continued to chart a failing course during five years of war. Shame on them.
Permalink
July 16, 2008 at 5:37 am
· Filed under Uncategorized
According to the Ft. Collins Coloradoan, Marilyn Musgrave, current Congressperson for Colorado’s fourth district, wants to remake her image. She now says she was raised in poverty in an alcoholic home. Marilyn says she knows hard times because she has lived them.Why does she need to remake her image? She has been in Congress for six years and has been re-elected twice. The voters should judge her on her record.Do politicians attempt to re-make their image to distract voters from their record? By Marilyn asking us to focus upon her early life, does she want voters to feel sorry for her? Is Marilyn pledging to fight for those in poverty and support programs for the disadvantaged? Will she put those pledges in writing? Is she asking us to overlook her six year record in congress?A friend of mine, a conservative republican, asked Musgrave what she would do to help the farmers in eastern Colorado survive the current multi year drought. Marilyn suggested that there were many other initiatives more worthy of federal help. Is that how she reacts to those in poverty?
I must know exactly where Marilyn stands before I vote. Who is this new Marilyn? What will she do if we return her to Washington. If she can not tells us we should not vote for her.
Permalink
July 6, 2008 at 6:01 am
· Filed under Torture and War Crimes
The New York Times reported July 3rd that the United States government used an old study from the 1950′s to establish their interrogation procedures for prisoners in the “war on terrorism.” Seems that the Chinese, during the Korean conflict, developed techniques to get American prisoners to confess to “war crimes”. The Chinese were able to force American POWs to confess to crimes they did not commit (like mass use of poison gas).
What possible reason could lead any American official to exploit such materials? The excuse would probably be utilitarian – it worked for the Chinese. But did it? The Chinese purpose was propaganda not intelligence gathering. The pentagon claimed that using these techniques would provide valuable information and save American lives. I fail to see the logic. How could we make the inductive leap of suggesting that techniques useful for obtaining admission of false information would be successful in gaining accurate (true) information? And how would we check the validity of information gained?
The larger concern, however, is ethical and moral. The American nation has long seen itself as an inspiration. We have democracy, freedom, protected human rights, and the rule of law. Ever wonder how that image is now viewed abroad?
As a people, we must stop this activity. Maybe a prisoner will tell us tales after being isolated, subjected to cold, starvation, ridicule, and “water boarding”. Could the information obtained be worth our becoming like our enemies, possibly worse than our enemies?
Let us again stand proud as Americans by outlawing these techniques. Let us again become the beacon of liberty, the symbol of human rights.
Permalink
July 2, 2008 at 3:34 am
· Filed under Uncategorized
Someone told me that the justices on the Supreme Court function in an ivory tower. If that is true, they have lost their way, their perspective. That “ivory” tower can turn to “coal” if they are careless.
Legal decisions on their level should be relevant to the lives of the people of the United States – regular folks. I believe that it is a primary task of the Supreme Court to protect us from our government. Sometimes they do this well (Miranda, Gideon) and sometimes they fail miserably (Bush v Gore). It is part of their job to assess what is happening in life – if they are viewing the rights of a millionaire (as they did recently), they should balance that against the rights of a poor minority person. It is a tough balancing act, but I think it is their job. To me the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter, the Solomon who makes wise decisions involving real people.
There is a danger in having the Court appear to take sides. One of the guiding principles in human rights is that “every right begats a duty.” If I have the right to free speech, the people around me have the duty to respect my right and not interfere with it – today such courtesy is rare. Unless others recognizing my right, I do not really have it.
All to often the Court appears to be taking sides, for example in Bush v Gore they seemed to rule for Bush instead of making a clear interpretation of law. Were the voting results accurate? The court avoided a clear stand. If the Court rules on a case, their ruling ought to be written as a principle. In Bush v Gore, their ruling should have established criteria concerning the rights of voters and the necessary procedures to protect those rights. As a minimum the states needed to be told they must have an audit trail so that after the results are announced the validity of the count can be established.
It is nearly time for another election and whether the counting will be accurate is unclear. We can not afford another election being decided by the court.
Permalink