Category Archives: War and Peace

Tom Clancy’s back in business

We hear more and more about the return of the bad old days in Putin’s Russia. And now we have a Cold War scenario that reads like a passage from the first few hundred pages of Red Storm Rising. It came this morning via e-mail from International Media Intelligence Analysis, an alert service of Réalité EU. It’s based originally on a Reuters story:

The RAF scrambled four Tornado jets on Thursday to intercept eight Russian long-range bombers, the Ministry of Defence said. The ministry said the Russian aircraft had not entered British airspace. "In the early hours of this morning four RAF Tornado F3 aircraft from RAF Leeming and RAF Waddington were launched to intercept eight Russian "bear" aircraft which had not entered UK airspace," it said in a statement. Russia’s defence ministry published a statement earlier on Thursday which said 14 Russian strategic bombers had started long-range routine patrol operations on Wednesday evening over the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic. The statement said six planes had already returned to base and that the other eight were still in the air. "The planes flew only over neutral water and did not approach the airspace of a foreign state," the statement said. "Practically all the planes were accompanied by fighters from NATO countries." Sky News said the Russian aircraft were heading towards British airspace and did a U-turn when approached by the British fighters. It is at least the second time in recent months that Britain has scrambled jets to intercept Russian bombers.

And so, having collected intel on Britain’s air defense capabilities, they turned toward home. And we are left to wonder why there are Bears, strategic bombers, still conducting — or is it, "once again conducting"? — anything that could be characterized as "long-range routine patrol operations." That’s pure Cold-War, finger-on-the-Doomsday-trigger stuff. And what sort of armament were they carrying?

And of course, Mr. Putin wants us thinking things like that.

Have we lost the war? Dems say yes, most say no

28 Replies

Here’s a crucial split in the electorate: Zogby says that while most Americans say the war in Iraq is not a lost cause, two out of three Democrats take the Harry Reid view:

A majority of Americans – 54% – believe the United States has not
lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between
Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in
three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of
Republicans say the same.

There’s a certain absurdity in focusing on whether Americans think the war is lost, as opposed to whether it is, which is a different thing entirely.

Unfortunately for the soldiers with their lives on the line, whether their struggles are for naught or not depends upon the political environment back home. So, as wrong as it may seem, a professional soldier can be kicking insurgent butt while winning hearts and minds among those Iraqis who want a decent country to live in, but if enough Americans back home are convinced it’s useless, the battle is lost. Why? Because the despair-mongers back home will say — regardless of reality on the ground — come home.

Weird, ain’t it? But so is life in our increasingly democratic republic.

Obama’s right about Pakistan. But who would follow?

24 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BARACK OBAMA was right to threaten to invade Pakistan in order to hit al-Qaida, quite literally, where it lives. And as long as we’re on this tack, remind me again why it is that we’re not at war with Iran.
OK, OK, I know the reasons: Our military is overextended; the American people lack the appetite; the nutball factor is only an inch deep in Iran, and once you get past Ahmadinejad and the more radical mullahs the Iranian people aren’t so bad, but they’d get crazy quick if we attacked, and so forth.
I can also come up with reasons not to invade Pakistan, or even to talk about invading Pakistan. We’ve heard them often enough. Pakistan is (and say this in reverent tones) a sovereign country; Pervez Musharraf is our “friend”; we need him helping us in the War on Terror; he is already politically weak and this could do him in; he could be replaced by Islamists sufficiently radical that they would actively support Osama bin Laden and friends, rather than merely fail to look aggressively enough to find them; fighting our way into, and seeking a needle in, the towering, rocky haystacks of that region is easier said than done, and on and on.
But when you get down to it, it all boils down to the reason I mentioned in passing in the first instance — Americans lack the appetite. So with a long line of people vying to be our new commander in chief, it’s helpful when one of them breaks out of the mold of what we might want to hear, and spells out a real challenge before us.
Most of us believe that the baddest bad guys in this War on Terror have been hiding in, and more relevantly operating from, the remote reaches of western Pakistan ever since they slipped through our fingers in 2001.
The diplomatic and strategic delicacy that the Bush administration (contrary to its image) has demonstrated with regard to the generalissimo in Pakistan has been something to behold. Now we see this guy we have done so much, by our self-restraint, to build up on the verge of collapse. We could end up with the crazy clerics anyway, or at least a surrender to, or sharing of power with, Benazir Bhutto.
But even if all the conditions were right abroad — even if the mountains were leveled and a new regime in Islamabad sent our Army an engraved invitation along with Mapquest directions to bin Laden’s cave — we’d still have the problem of American political shyness.
Same deal with Iran. In the past week a senior U.S. general announced that elite Iranian troops are in Iraq training Shiite militias in how to better kill Americans — and Sunnis, of course.
So it is that the United States is asking the United Nations to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps — less a military outfit than a sort of government-sanctioned Mafia family, with huge legit covers in pumping oil, operating ports and manufacturing pharmaceuticals — a terrorist organization.
What is the response of the Revolutionary Guards to all this? Well, they’re not exactly gluing halos to their turbans. The head of the Guard Corps promised that “America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future.”
General Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted in an Iranian newspaper as adding, “We will never remain silent in the face of US pressure and we will use our leverage against them.”
And the United States is engaged in debate with other “civilized” nations over what names we will call these thugs. The world’s strongest nation — its one “indispensable nation,” to quote President Clinton’s secretary of state — ought to be able to work up a more muscular response than that. If we hadn’t gained a recent reputation for shyness, all we’d really have to do with those muscles is flex them.
The one thing I liked about George W. Bush was that he was able to convince the world’s bad guys (and a lot of our friends, too, but you can’t have everything) that he was crazy enough to cross borders to go after them, if they gave him half an excuse. This worked, as long as the American people were behind him.
If only the next president were able to project similar willingness to act, and be credible about it. A saber rattled by such a leader can put a stop to much dangerous nonsense in the world.
But does the will exist in the American electorate? Not now, it doesn’t. When Obama said his tough piece, the nation sort of patted its charismatic prodigy on his head and explained that he was green and untested, and was bound to spout silly things now and then. (Rudy Giuliani, to his credit, said Obama was right. Others tut-tutted over the “rookie mistake.”)
While we’re thinking about who’s going to lead the United States, maybe we’d better think about whether America will follow a leader who says what ought to be said — whether it’s on Iraq, Pakistan or Iran, or energy policy. Will we follow a president who tells us we should increase the price of gasoline rather than moaning about how “high” it is? How about a president who says we’re going to have to pay more for less in Social Security benefits in the future?
Winning in Iraq and chasing down bin Laden are not necessarily either/or alternatives. This nation is large enough, rich enough and militarily savvy enough to field a much larger, more versatile force. Can you say “draft”? Well, actually, no — within the context of American politics with a presidential election coming up, you can’t. Not without being hooted down.
That crowd of candidates is vying to lead a crippled giant. And the giant, sitting there fecklessly munching junk food and watching “reality” TV, can only blame himself for his condition.

That infuriating John McCain, or, How do you pitch to a hero?

6 Replies

Mccain1

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
HOW ARE YOU supposed to do your job with professional detachment when every time you see one of the main guys running for president, every time you read about him, every time he opens his mouth or takes an action in public, you think, “Hero”?
How are you supposed to keep your rep when you keep thinking, I admire this guy? Of all things, admire! It’s embarrassing.
On top of that, how do you do it when so many of the smart, hip, unfettered, scalpel-minded professionals around you snort when the hero’s name is mentioned, and use terms like “has-been” and “loser” and “that poor old guy”?
It’s not easy. Maybe it’s not even possible. It wasn’t possible on Monday, when John McCain visited our editorial board.
I presided as usual, asking most of the questions and so forth. But I never quite hit my stride. I was uneasy; I stumbled in bringing forth the simplest questions. It was weird. I’d pitched to this guy a number of times before with no trouble, even in post-season play. And here he was stepping up to bat in my ball park, where the rubber on the mound has molded itself to my cleats, and I can’t put a simple fastball over the plate, much less a curve.
I kept remembering our last formal meeting with him, in 2000, on the day that we would decide whom Mccain3
to endorse in a GOP primary that would either slingshot him onward toward victory, or enable George W. Bush to stop his insurgency cold. I wasn’t out of sorts like this. I had stated my case — my strong belief that we should endorse Sen. McCain — several days before in a 4,000-word memo to my then-publisher, a committed Bush man. I was fully prepared to make it again to the full board once the candidate left the room. And I was ready to lose like a pro if it came to that. Which it did.
But now, 9/11 has happened. The nation is at war, and bitterly divided, even over whether we’re “at war.” And I keep thinking — as I sit a couple of feet from the candidate, aiming my digital camera with my left hand, scribbling the occasional haphazard note with my right, glancing from time to time at the audio recorder on the table to note how many minutes into the interview he said such-and-such, so busy recording the event that I don’t really have time to be there — this is the guy who should have been president for the past seven years.
The odd thing is, a lot of people who now dismiss the McCain candidacy also believe he should have been president — that we’d be less divided at home, more admired abroad, more successful at war. But they talk like the poor old guy missed his chance. It’s like candidates have “sell by” dates stamped on them like bacon, and his was several years back. Too bad for him, they say. But I think, too bad for the nation — if they’re right.
The best thing for me, as a professional critic, as a jaded observer, would be for those people to be right. I have no trouble assessing the relative merits of the other candidates in either major party. I even like some of them. Life could be good, professionally speaking, if that old “hero” guy really did just fade away.
But he doesn’t. There he is, sitting there, being all honest and straightforward and fair-minded and brave and admirable. Dang.
Go ahead, get mad at him. He’s let the moment get away from him. You can’t take a man seriously as a leader when he’s blown all that money only to lose ground, when he can’t stop his hired rats from diving overboard. Focus on his mottled scars. Murmur about how even the best of men slow down with age.
But then you think about how this guy aged early. You look at his awkwardness as he holds his coffee cup, and you think about how the North Vietnamese strung him up by his broken arms, and all he had to do to end it was agree to go home. But he wouldn’t.
That was then, of course, but it’s just as bad now. Think about how you asked him several months ago why he thought he had to do something about immigration now, when the only people who cared passionately about the issue and would vote on the basis of that one thing were the ones who would hate him forever for being sensible about it. He had no excuse; he just thought it was the right thing to do.
Mccainstarbucks
You think of all the Democrats and “moderates” who egged him on when he was Bush’s No. 1 critic (which he still is, if you actually listen), but who now dismiss him as the president’s “lapdog” because he (gasp!) — supports the surge and actually, if you can stand it, thinks it’s working! These political goldfish forget that their favorite maverick criticized Bush for not sending enough troops, so of course he supports a “surge” when the president knuckles under and implements one.
Oh, but don’t speak of such people dismissively. This ridiculously admirable guy at the end of the table, who long ago forgave both his communist torturers and the protesters at home who would have spit on him given the chance, won’t have it. When I speak less than flatteringly of the impatience of Americans on Iraq, he corrects me, and relates a list of perfectly good reasons for them to be fed up.
So when it’s over, you try to produce a McCain column for Wednesday, but you can’t. Wednesday, Sam Brownback steps to the same plate, and your arm is fine. You interrogate the guy, assess him, reach a conclusion, and slap a column on the Thursday page. Three up, three down. You’ve got your stuff back.
But Sunday’s deadline draws nearer, and it’s gone again. Desperate, you think: How about a bulleted list of what he said Monday? There’s plenty of it. Naw, that’s a news story, not an opinion column.
And you know, you just know, that the one thing you can’t write is the truth, which is that you just admire the hell out of this infuriating old guy. The fans won’t stand for it. You can hear the beer bottles clattering around you on the mound already.
But it’s no use. You just can’t get the ball across today.

For actual information regarding the McCain interview, and more, go to http://blogs.
thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

‘Burn, Baby, Burn’: Team Swamp Fox destroys opium worth millions

4 Replies

Just received the latest dispatch from our man on the Kandahar front. Here’s the PDF file of the full report. Here are some excerpts:

Southern Afghanistan 16 AUG 2007
Dear Family and Friends:
Well, three months, 25% of the deployment has passed and Team Swamp Fox is doing very well and making measurable progress mentoring the Afghan National Police (ANP). Since we began combat operations in our AO we have only had one day off. There is a great deal of work to be done and much terrain to be covered. There has been so much that has happened since my last update I am finding it very difficult to begin.

What follows is a series of pictures from numerous missions over the past several weeks which illustrate the challenges the Government of Afghanistan (GoA) faces in eliminating Taliban and Al Qaeda without and the corruption within. I am encouraged each day by my fellow Swamp Fox teammates as well as my ANP counterparts. As you know from my previous emails the ANP is struggling to clean its house of those that would rape, steal and murder the population they are charged with protecting. One of the most encouraging signs developing here is the team of ANP “Regulators” that Team Swamp Fox is mentoring. This is only one of our many responsibilities working with the ANP.

The Regulators are established to receive additional specialized training to exemplify the high standards that should be present in the ANP and be the enforcement of those standards on other ANP throughout the Province at the direction of the Provincial Police Chief. We know that we, the US or ISAF, cannot bring about the necessary and sustainable change ourselves. It must come within the ANP itself. To see ANP officers correcting others and being proud of the uniform they wear and proud of their service to their country gives us all encouragement. Just as impressive to us has been the devotion that has developed in the Regulators for the members of Team Swamp Fox and us for them. When the Regulators finish their training, they will then train others and those will train others and those others and so on.

As you can see from these photos we have demanded a great deal from them and they have met the challenge with each mission and with each training day and as a result security is improving….

Burn baby burn… Millions worth of raw opium goes up in smoke. It took more than a day for it to completely burn. Had these drugs not been destroyed, they would most likely have been processed for sale in the UK and US and the proceeds of which would be used to support TB and Al Qaeda.

Stacks of counterfeit US $100 Dollar bills created in another nearby country unfriendly to US interests to be exchanged into Afghan currency and used to support the TB and Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan….

Having ANP ANA and American and Romanian Soldiers descend upon your home early in the morning can be an unnerving experience no matter your age. With every action we take we accompany an Information Operation (I/O) campaign so that we communicate the “who,” “what” and “why” we are present. By performing the cordon and search with the I/O campaign we connect with the locals and communicate the importance of their help and we send a clear message to the enemy…

The Face of the Enemy… – One of the suspected Taliban fighters charged with
possession of illegal weapons, ammunition, rocket and bomb making material in his compound….

One of the best parts of the job is the kids. The first thing is they remind me of my own children at home and how proud I am of them. When seeing and
speaking with the children and knowing the environment they are growing up in
how could you want anything else that for them than to have a secure and peaceful place in which to grow and learn. The girl’s school, which of course did not exists when the Taliban were in charge, is doing a fantastic job and the courses in both the boys and girls schools look very familiar and remind me of the challenges I had with such subjects as chemistry, algebra, physics and
geometry. They are also being taught English and they are all too proud to share
their knowledge as they point and say “bird” or “boy.”…

We all are privileged to serve our Country in this way. As do all who are deployed away from home, we miss our families and friends and we hope with each days work that it in some way merits the loss of our time with our families … that our work is making a difference. Even more so for those who have given all their tomorrows for this cause, we commit ourselves every morning to making sure that we leave this place better than we found it so that this place, Afghanistan, will never again be a place that exports the terrorism we saw visited upon our Nation on September 11, 2001. We have not forgotten why we are
here.

He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust. Psalm 91
Cheers, J

Sam Brownback of Kansas: The Beatific Conservative

5 Replies

Brownback_028

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
TO SAM BROWNBACK of Kansas, a “kinder, gentler” America is more than just a line from a speech by Peggy Noonan. It’s about who he is, what he believes. It’s about the kind of America he would like to lead.
The bumper-sticker take on Mr. Brownback is that he’s the Christian Conservative in the GOP presidential field — or one of them, anyway. But in his case, we’re talking actual Christianity, as in the Beatitudes.
Or maybe we’re talking Micah 6:8 — as president, he says he would act justly, love mercy and walk humbly.
That’s what drew Columbia businessman Hal Stevenson, a board member and former chairman of the Palmetto Family Council, to the Brownback camp. He was disillusioned by “some of the so-called ‘Christian Right… I was looking for someone who exhibits, and walks the walk that they talk, and that’s a rare thing in politics.”
When Sen. Brownback met with our editorial board Wednesday, I was impressed as well. I was struck by how interesting things can be when you get off the path beaten by national TV news and the covers of slick magazines. You find a guy who brings “Christian” and “conservative” together in ways that belie our common political vocabulary.
Sure, he’s adamantly pro-life. But for him, that means being “whole life” as well — “Life’s sacred in the womb, but I think it’s also sacred in Darfur.” He’s just as concerned about genocide or starvation or slave traffic in Africa or North Korea as about abortion clinics in Peoria. Did he get there, as a Catholic convert, via the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life?” No — he explains that initially, he was more influenced by “the great theologian Bono.”
This sort of atypical association plays out again and again. His plan for Iraq is the same as Joe Biden’s, quite literally. (You know Joe Biden — the Democrat who has campaigned in South Carolina the longest and hardest, the one who’s arguably the best-qualified candidate in that field, but you don’t hear about him much on TV? Yeah, that Joe Biden….) Their bill would partition the country more along the lines of the old Ottoman Empire.
I have some doubts about that plan, but let’s suppose it worked, and we achieved some sort of stasis in Iraq. What about the next crisis, and the next one after that? What about Sudan, Iran, North Korea? What is America’s proper stance toward the world?
“I think we’ve got to walk around the world wiser and more humble,” he said. It’s an answer you might expect from Jimmy Carter, or a flower-bedecked pacifist at an antiwar vigil. Sure, the true conservative position, from Pat Buchanan to George Will, has been one of aversion to international hubris. But Sam Brownback carries it off without a tinge of either fascism or pomposity, and that sets him apart.
“Africa’s moving. Latin America is moving,” he said. “That’s where I’m talking about walking wiser and humbler. The first step in Latin America is going to be to go there and just listen.” Why is it, we should ask ourselves, “that a Chavez can come forward with his old, bad ideas, and win elections?”
“People in Latin America are saying, my quality of life has not improved.” And as a result, they’re willing to go with a dictator. “I think we need to go there and say, what is it we can do to help these economies grow…. It’s our big problem with Mexico and immigration.”
Back to Africa: “This is a place where America’s goodness can really make a big difference to a lot of people in the world, and it would be in our long-term vital and strategic interest.”
Asked about domestic issues, he cites “rebuilding the family” as his top concern. That may sound like standard, right-off-the-shelf Christian Right talk. But he comes to it more via Daniel Patrick Moynihan than James Dobson. He said he’s had it with beating his head against the brick hearts of Hollywood producers, and draws an analogy to smoking: Sure, people knew there was a connection between cigarettes and their nagging coughs, but Big Tobacco had room to dissemble until a direct, scientific line was drawn between their product and lung cancer.
Just as the government now puts out unemployment statistics, he would have it gather and release data on out-of-wedlock childbirth, marriages ending in divorce, and the empirically demonstrable connections between ubiquitous pornography and a variety of social pathologies. He’d put the data out there, and let society decide from there how to react. But first, you need the data.
His second domestic issue is energy (push electric cars) and his third is health care (he would “end deaths to cancer in 10 years”). He’s a conservative, but by no means one who wants government to butt out of our lives.
“Humility, as a nation or as individuals, is an effective thing,” Mr. Stevenson said in explaining his support for Sen. Brownback. “It’s the right thing, and it’s also a Christian principle.”
But that doesn’t mean you don’t take action. The Kansan summed up his attitude on many issues, foreign and domestic, in describing his reaction to Darfur: “Well you look at that, and you know that’s something that ought to be addressed… I mean, you’re the most powerful nation in the world… you can’t learn about these things and then say, well, I guess I’m just not going to do anything about it.”
Well, some could. But it reflects to Sam Brownback’s credit that he says he could not.

Brownback_037

Slap 55 mph on our ‘friends’ the Saudis

21 Replies

My friend and sometime Energy Party think-tanker Samuel Tenenbaum sees justification for a true, enforced, 55-mph speed limit in many things — including this latest outrage from Saudi Arabia: The Jerusalem Post reports that our good friends over at the house of Saud are threatening to confiscate Christian and Jewish tourists’ Bibles.

Quoth Samuel:

Now why are we sending hundred of millions of dollars to them when they have no respect for any of us? Time for 55mph and deny them petrodollars to teach hate, fund terrorists, and deny all of humanity our equality! Wake up !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let’s stop all the other bromides that much of our establishment is putting out about the war on terror and energy conservation !We are funding our own executioners. Lenin said we would sell the rope that they would hang us with. He is right but he was with the wrong crowd ! Do we have any organization that will stand up? Do we have any leaders out there? Are they so afraid of their own shadow? I am one disgusted human being!

Samuel Tenenbaum

He gets like that, and it’s one of the things I like about the guy.

Yeah, I like Joe Lieberman. So?

10 Replies

As readers of this blog know, I’m a big Joe Lieberman fan. I’m big on John McCain, too. And Lindsey Graham. I like people who take principled stands — in favor of fighting terrorism even when it occurs in Iraq, or instituting rational immigration reform even when it means being fair to Mexicans — and stick to those stands, even when the ideological nutjobs in their respective parties are skinning them alive for doing so.

So I had to smile when somebody who works for Edwards — feeling compelled, to my surprise, to respond to my column, which turned out to be a WAY bigger deal than I would have expected — dismissed my obserrvations by saying we endorsed Lieberman in 2004:

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz suggested the editorial is a farce and noted that columnist Brad Warthen of The State newspaper, based in Columbia, S.C., endorsed Joe Lieberman a day before the Connecticut senator dropped out of the Democratic primary race in 2004.

I smile because I essentially browbeat my colleagues into endorsing Joe, in a three-hour talkathon in which I just plain wore them down, on the very day we had to write our endorsement and put it on the page (John Kerry had not come in until that day, and Howard Dean had requested a second meeting — the one mentioned in the anecdote in my column — so we couldn’t have our discussion until then).

And you know, some of those colleagues drew the same connection as Mr. Schultz — they said the fact that Lieberman was going to get creamed in the S.C. primary had something to do with whether we should endorse him. As I respect my colleagues, I respect Mr. Shultz’s observation. But the two fact had nothing to do with each other in my mind. To me, it didn’t matter whether Joe got a single vote, as long as he was the best candidate in the field. And he was.

Anyway, for your nostalgic pleasure, I hereby copy the column I wrote explaining that editorial decision. I wrote it to exculpate my colleagues as much as anything. I didn’t find endorsing Joe embarrassing after his loss, but I sensed that they did. So I explained how it happened. I do stuff like that. I was doing that this morning — and everybody freaked. I guess that’s because it became a national story and the national folk don’t know me. Anyway, here’s that column:

The State (Columbia, SC)
February 8, 2004 Sunday FINAL EDITION
HERE’S WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
BYLINE: BRAD WARTHEN, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. D2
LENGTH: 972 words

IN THE COUPLE of months leading up to last week’s Democratic presidential primary here, most of the candidates came by our offices for interviews with the editorial board. In chronological order, they were Dick Gephardt, Carol Moseley Braun, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Howard Dean and John Kerry.
The moment John Kerry left – on the Friday afternoon before the primary – we gathered to make a decision on our endorsement, which would run that Sunday. Present were Publisher Ann Caulkins, Associate Editors Warren Bolton, Cindi Scoppe and Nina Brook, Editorial Writer Mike Fitts and yours truly.
It took us almost three hours. For much of the first hour, no one mentioned any candidate by name. Instead, we spent that time discussing the criteria that we should use in making our decision. The points we set out are worth relating because they are relevant not only to the decision we make in the fall on the presidential race, but in some cases to other endorsements we make.
Mike Fitts, who has had primary responsibility for tracking this race for us, started us off, and pretty much mentioned all the main parameters. With the caveats that some criteria would militate against others, and that no candidate was likely to be the best on all counts, he said that based on what we have written and said in the past, anyone we endorse for president should:

Be someone that we, and a consensus of South Carolinians, would be comfortable with philosophically. We have well-defined positions on most issues; so do the candidates. Intellectual consistency would demand that we look for as close a match as possible.

Recognize that national security, while not everything, is certainly the first and foremost responsibility of the job. More particularly, given our position, we wanted someone who would be fully committed to bringing positive change to the parts of the world that most threaten national and collective security.

Think for himself rather than adhere to any party’s narrow ideology. We favor people who work across lines and are intellectually diverse.

Have relevant experience in elective office, which is particularly valuable in itself. A candidate might be a natural-born leader and have all the vision in the world, but probably would not achieve much in office without having mastered the give-and-take of politics.

Finally, Mike raised a question: In a primary, to what extent do we take into account whether someone would be the best standard-bearer for his party?
As we went around the table, Warren gave probably the best answer to that one: "We ought to be thinking about who can be the president of the United States, regardless of party affiliation." Nina and Cindi said much the same, with Cindi adding that everyone should feel free to vote in our state’s open primaries. (This was before we knew about the loyalty oath, which fortunately was dropped at the last minute.)
Warren wanted to make sure we agreed that no one criterion should be a disqualifier, noting that while elective experience is worth a lot, it’s not everything. "People bring other things to the table," he said.
To Mike’s list, Nina added that we should also not be afraid to be a conscience for the state, even when we’re a little alone.
I thought Mike and the others had summed it up fairly well, but added two criteria that have long guided my own thinking:

Endorsements should always be about who should win, not who will win. We should endorse the best candidate, even if he or she doesn’t have a chance.

Presidential endorsements are a different animal. With most local and state races, readers have few or no other reliable sources of information on the candidates. With the presidential contest, they are inundated. They will usually come to our endorsement with a well-informed opinion of their own. Therefore our endorsement takes on a more symbolic value; readers can use it as a guide to see whether they want to trust our judgment on the candidates and issues they know less about.

Finally, of course, we got around to discussing the candidates themselves. We quickly narrowed it down to Sens. Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman. That’s when the hard part started.
Once again, Mike helped define the dilemma before us, logically and mathematically.
He divided the field of three into three overlapping sets of two, with each pair having advantages over the remaining candidate. That sounds complicated. Here’s what I mean:

Sens. Lieberman and Kerry had the distinct advantage on experience.

Sens. Kerry and Edwards had more dynamic leadership skills – important in a chief executive.

Sens. Lieberman and Edwards were closer to us and South Carolina politically.

A three-way stalemate.
Still, to me at least, it seemed clear that Joe Lieberman came out ahead on most of Mike’s criteria – good philosophical fit, sterling national security credentials, by far the one most willing to work across party lines, and a distinguished 30-year record of public service.
The sticking point in our discussion was over one of my criteria: The one about who should win versus who will win. We all knew Sen. Lieberman had little chance of surviving beyond Tuesday, and there was considerable sentiment for using our endorsement to boost someone with a better shot. That would have taken the form of either affirming Sen. Edwards’ front-runner status or giving a boost to Sen. Kerry.
In the end, we stood by Joe Lieberman. I’m glad we did.
I share all of this because, even though our guy is out of the race, the same criteria we used will be applied as we look toward November. And while many readers say they just know who we’ll endorse, they’re ahead of me. Based on the criteria we use, it remains a very open question.

Obama’s folks catch Hillary with her foot in it

16 Replies

Well, now, this is interesting. Kevin Griffis, Barack Obama’s communications director for South Carolina, brings my attention to a January statement of Hillary Clinton’s regarding talking to the heads of rogue governments. It looks pretty doggone inconsistent with what she was saying last week about Obama’s intention to do so.

Anyway, here’s what Kevin said:

HEADLINE: how’s this for irony?
Thought I’d send this to you on
background. Just go to the 5:15 mark. I feel like we’re going full
circle. Let me know what you think. The transcript follows.

Here’s the clip:

And here’s the transcript:

OLBERMANN: Would you reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians, even with the tensions between this country and Iran?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I don’t see it as a sign of weakness. I see it as a sign of strength. You know, our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, and you don’t make peace with your friends. You’ve got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours.

Right now we’re flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don’t have good intelligence about Iran, about what their real motivations are, who’s calling the shots; the same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track. And I don’t think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight.

I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let’s get more information before we do that. Let’s figure out, you know, what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push.

Kevin asks what I think. I think that without a whole lot of extenuating explanation that I have not heard from either candidate, both sound awfully naive. There are lots of ways to "deal with your enemies, your opponents," and handing them a propaganda coup is not generally considered the wisest way.

I also think that — unless there was some stuff that explain away this comment that I haven’t seen — Hillary is sounding a lot less tough-minded, and Brooks and Krauthammer might want those bouquets back.

MacGyver, Lion Leopard and the ANP

3 Replies

Fridays are ridiculously busy and long in Editorial, so even though I had received this PDF file from our correspondent "MacGyver" operating out of Kandahar early this morning, I’m just getting to posting it now. To read all of it, with all the pictures, call up the full file. In the meantime, here are excerpts:

27 JUL 2007
Dear Family and Friends:
I hope all is well. Here, this mission is proving to be all that we anticipated and more. Team Swamp Fox had been trained to serve as Embedded Tactical Trainers (ETTs) for the Afghan National Army (ANA) but when we got here we were tasked as ETTs for the Afghan National Police (ANP). Team Swamp Fox is spending most of its time training and mentoring the ANP to be able to defeat TB and Al Qaeda attacks and secure and maintain peace and security after we leave….

Our mission has moved into the execution phase in one of the most difficult areas in country and working with the most challenging indigenous force to mentor. Team Swamp Fox is one of the first mentor teams to work with the ANP in the 205th Corp area – otherwise known as RC South – Southern Afghanistan.
A new man replaced the previously arrested Provincial Police Chief (PPC) by the name of Gen. Yacoub. Gen. Yacoub was formally an ANA Kandak Commander and has the military experience needed in the Province. He has tremendous challenges ahead and has a staff not of his choosing some of which has very close ties to the TB. Team Swamp Fox has traveled most of the province making assessments of the various District Police Chiefs and Ring Road (Hwy 1) Check Point commanders. I have sent photos of these travels in previous email photo updates. Essentially, we found some semi-good ones but many others who steal from the local population, kidnap and hold young boys as sex slaves, assist the TB with food, water and equipment, actively assist in emplacing improvised explosive devices (IEDs), assist the TB in hiding the weapons caches. As part of the insurgency the TB will commit atrocities on the local population in ANP uniforms to undermine the people’s support of the Government of Afghanistan (GoA). One of our challenges will be separating the good from the bad….

This MAJ Shay Pallan (translated his name means Lion Leopard) [Pictured above]. MAJ Pallan has been in combat for 25 years and formally a Mujahadeen Tank Commander. MAJ Pallan and I hit it off and got along real well almost right away. Despite his countenance in this photo, he has a great sense of humor and understands military discipline and its importance on the battlefield. Most importantly, he makes sure his policemen/soldiers have what the need.
That brings me to another point… Although these guys are called policemen, the really don’t do police work like we understand it to be. The are no statutes to enforce and they essentially are a domestic security force that operates more militarily to defeat the TB – Al Qaeda insurgency – which is good for us because we are not policemen and can’t teach that but we can teach them military tactics to increase their survivability….

Civilians are always a primary concern for us and the TB all too often use civilians as a shield, a violation of the law of war…(not that such a violation would be a concern of theirs). In many cases they will fire upon Coalition and Government of Afghanistan (GoA) forces from buildings containing civilians. This young boy handled those sheep like a master – he was moving his sheep through the area we were operating and I took a moment to speak with him and provide him with a bottle of water….

I love the Sat-phone – anytime anywhere – well anywhere outside – because the antenna has
to be outside – I can call anywhere in the world… I think of my family who has fought in previous wars… and what kind of communication they have had or not have had… to be so far in the middle of no where and simply dial a few numbers and speak to your loved ones keeps you connected to home…

They were so proud when they returned – they turned on their blue lights and sirens and paraded through the streets of Qalat – they were very proud of their hard work and felt honored to be working with Americans… the ANP has been largely left alone without supervision or oversight and the increased focus on the ANP will replicate the ANA success of the past… The ANP seemed to be very devoted to the work and desirous of being a professional force… as you can see we have a lot of work to do … but they are ready for the hard work ahead…

[This goes with picture below] I told them how proud Team Swamp Fox was to be working with them but it is up to them to secure their country – they have to want it and be willing to give everything for it… we would be with them side by side as we were in this operation but if “Asadi” (Freedom) is what they want for their Country then it is ultimately up to them, the ANA and the people of Afghanistan…

Thank you for your continued prayers. The Team is doing very well and making a difference for the American and Afghan peoples. The Taliban and Al Qaeda cannot and will not be able to train and export terrorist activities from Afghanistan. As a soldier here, I hope that our nation will not wait and allow Pakistan to become the next Afghanistan.

Cheers, MacGyver

As always, I feel privileged to know "MacGyver," and stand in awe of the job that the men of Team Swamp Fox are doing in Afghanistan.

Debrief

‘Plan A’ for Iraq: the perfect course of action

9 Replies

This is another one of those comments that went on and on until I decided to turn it into a post. It started like this: Uncle Elmer wrote, in part…

Brad you’re completely wrong when you say "it’s not about Bush," of
course it’s about him! He’s still in charge, and still following the
same pattern of bad decision making and ignoring history that has
become his trademark. Given his absolute refusal to work with other
countries, build consensus support here in the US, or even explain
himself in any other way than beating the Al Qaeda drum what choice is
there? I think a lot of the "pull out now" crowd is really saying "I
don’t trust him and won’t trust him" and what they are hearing you say
is "trust him!"

Exactly (to that last part). And I’m trying to get them to hear the opposite, which is that Iraq has a real-world existence that is independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks of that serial bungler in the White House. What we do from this moment on is what matters. We’re stuck with Bush as president until January 2009, which is really, really bad, but it has nothing to do with whether we need to maintain our commitment in Iraq. The only issue we have before us in terms of who the president is, or what we think of the president, is the 2008 election.

Let’s say there is some "Plan A" that is the perfect thing to do with regard to Iraq. Maybe it’s go with the surge. Maybe it’s run like a scalded dog. Maybe it’s a phased pullout. Maybe it’s institute a draft and inundate the country with U.S. troops. Maybe it’s declare martial law. Maybe it’s to pull back to remote bases, or try the Biden plan of partitioning the country. Whatever.

Now mind you, even though "Plan A" is the one most perfect thing to do, it "won’t be a fairy-tale ending," as RTH said in the same string. The "perfect" plan under such circumstances (that is to say, in the real world) is merely the best result you can get. That is not, and never was, the bogus "Jeffersonian democracy" that various people who didn’t want us there to begin with seem to set as the impossible standard, short of which we should just give up. (If they’re waiting for us to have a "Jeffersonian democracy" in THIS country, I hope they’re not holding their breaths. Given that reality, we would be looking for something short of that in Iraq.) No, the standard is that things will be better. Greater peace, greater prosperity, greater stability, greater self-determination, better relations with neighbors and with the West, etc. And Plan A gets things "more better" than anything else.

Whatever "Plan A" is, it’s what we should do — at this point in time, in this situation. And let’s say we can just wave a wand and make it happen. Of course, one thing we CAN’T do, because it’s a one-wish wand, is change who the president is. We’re stuck with Bush until January 2009, just like in the real world.

That means, when you wave the wand, whatever orders have to be issued — whether the orders are to keep fighting, withdraw to neutral corners, skedaddle, whatever — will go through him, acting as the commander-in-chief. Just like in the real world.

Now you can either wave that wand and implement Plan A, or refuse to do so because it will involve that guy you don’t like. Me, I’d wave the wand. There seem to be a lot of people who would refuse to do so, because as soon as they tried to implement it, "Plan A" would seem to them like the "Bush plan," and they would feel obliged to hate it.

And what I’m saying is that that’s crazy thinking.

Now, the Petraeus Plan is not "Plan A," in my opinion, and probably not in yours, either. The difference between us is that MY idea of "Plan A" would be more like institute the draft and and blockade every crossroad in the country. But you know what? There’s no chance of my plan A being implemented. That’s because there is no magic wand. But Petraeus’ approach — that of far more targeted reinforcements applied where they will do to the most good toward creating a more secure environment in which to seek political solutions — is as close to Plan A as we’re going to get, and more likely to produce a good result than anything else we are likely to do.

So I support it, and I do all I can to get other Americans to support it, because if they don’t, then neither this nor any other plan will ever succeed in making things appreciably better.

That doesn’t work, for you? OK, how about this: "(Extremely rude four-letter word starting with an "F") Bush. Forget him. Nothing you can do about it. All we can do about Iraq is the best we can do. We get to change presidents 18 months from now. Let’s do whatever we can to make the situation there as good as it can be when that new president takes over."

McCain on The Extremely Dramatic and Sincere Showdown in the Senate

4 Replies

I hadn’t really paid much attention to the "filibuster" going on last night, because I’ve been extremely busy (Mike called in sick today, so I’m doing all our production today again on top of my regular job, which doesn’t have anything to do with blogging, either), and because, well — they didn’t do it for me.

They did it as a show for all those really, really emotional people out there who want to see them trying really hard to magically make the Iraq war go away. They don’t intend to make the war go away, of course, because they don’t have the slightest idea how to do that, because it’s not possible to get a 60-vote majority together to do it (David Brooks, to whom I can’t link because he’s New York Times, so sorry, spelled out the senatorial math on that a few days ago), and, I suspect, because some of them are smart enough to realize it would be crazy to pull out, they’re just not about to say so out loud.

OK, I was really guessing on that last reason, so if it’s not true, sorry again.

Anyway, John McCain is a U.S. senator and doesn’t have the luxury of not paying attention to the histrionics. If I were in his position — forced to deal with such theater as though it were a real thing going on in the real world (like the war itself) — I’d probably say something like what he said on the Senate floor this morning:

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.
In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.
During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating "staying the course," which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.
Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of "staying the course," though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.
   I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will — and I am as sure of this as I am of anything seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.
   I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.
   I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’
s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

MacGyver on patrol in Afghanistan

18 Replies

Our citizen-soldier correspondent today sent us our first glimpses of his Team Swamp Fox on patrol in the vicinity of Kandahar.

Here are excerpts from his report, which I include here in PDF format:

While our work at times may involve direct action against the enemy, we achieve our biggest victories by building relationship with the people. And that
takes time… lots of it….

A child’s heart is a loving heart… The children are always the first to great us and they have no doubt been conditioned a bit as US soldiers at times give treats while they pass but it always reminds me of my alma mater’s, the University of South Carolina’s motto – “Education humanizes the heart and does not permit it to be cruel.” I have never seen that pronounced so clearly and with such exclamation as when I pass each day and village and people here. And I believe the converse of that is true. A heart of hatred has to be trained and conditioned to hate… Those that would follow the Taliban and intentionally kill themselves and those completely innocent with them have to be taught to hate us and others like us. Despite our different languages and cultures and vastly different wealth… as peoples those things really important in life we share. The value of our families and our communities and a desire for the opportunity for our families to live and grow in a safe, healthy, peaceful and secure environment.

Children

Video: Graham, Lieberman, others on Iraq

2 Replies

Just got this video release. I haven’t even had time to look at it — except to see that Lindsey Graham (whose office sent it) and Joe Lieberman appear on the screen. It appears initially to be about this:

AP-BC WAR POST
//Senate Signals Move Toward Major Change in Iraq Strategy//(Washn)
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan consensus to dramatically alter the U.S. military mission in Iraq began to emerge Wednesday in the Senate, but no specific approach has yet attracted the broad support necessary for a veto-proof majority.

… Wednesday, on the first in a series of Iraq amendments to the annual
defense policy bill, seven GOP senators voted with Democrats to break a
Republican filibuster of a proposal from Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to
require longer troop rest periods between combat deployments. Six of
the seven Republicans are vulnerable 2008 incumbents. The effort still
failed 56 to 41, with 60 votes needed for passage. But the seven
Republican votes were surprising, considering that a similar measure in
the House last spring was roundly denounced by Republicans as a "slow
bleed strategy."…

I’ve got several hours of work before I can stop to review it myself. You look, and react if you choose…

Moving forward in Iraq — the one good idea

52 Replies

The Wonderland of Washington, driven by polls and 24/7 TV, is its own, separate reality. Unfortunately, the TV-watching public and partisan activists think it’s the reality.

Meanwhile, over in Iraq, the surge is doing what it was intended to do, as this piece back on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal — under the appropriate headline, "Moving Forward in Iraq" — reports:

In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.
This isn’t an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.
This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?

That’s the way it starts. I hope the link works so that you can read the whole thing. The next 10 or so paragraphs go into greater detail about the ways in which the surge is working. The author, Kimberly Kagan, is "an affiliate of Harvard’s John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, is executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. She even tries to express some optimism about Mr. Maliki’s efforts to achieve the strategic aim of the surge, a political solution. That part is somewhat less convincing. But the part about what our military is achieving is convincing.

What would be wonderful — what we owe our troops — is to praise and applaud and encourage what they are accomplishing. But that’s not what we’re doing back in this country, is it?

The piece ends this way:

This is war, and the enemy is reacting. The enemy uses
suicide bombs, car bombs and brutal executions to break our will and
that of our Iraqi allies. American casualties often increase as troops
move into areas that the enemy has fortified; these casualties will
start to fall again once the enemy positions are destroyed. Al Qaeda
will manage to get some car and truck bombs through, particularly in
areas well-removed from the capital and its belts.
But we should not allow individual atrocities to
obscure the larger picture. A new campaign has just begun, it is
already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing
daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a
deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a
new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.

Indeed. And that demand is coming from both Democrats and Republicans. What is happening in this country is an appalling spectacle.

I just blew my chance to be on the Lehrer show

Appetite for victory: Can we get hungry by September?

12 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
HOPE CAN come suddenly from the oddest directions. It can also be just as quickly dashed. But quickness to seize upon it can, if nothing else, be a measure of how badly we want it — and need it.

Page A4 of Thursday’s paper was topped with this proclamation: “U.S. shows appetite for victory.” I hadn’t encountered such an encouraging headline in quite a while. But my joy was short-lived: It was about an American winning the world title for eating the most hot dogs in a 12-minute period (66), defeating six-time champion Takeru Kobayashi of Japan.
Take whatever satisfaction and pride from that you can. I’m still hoping the nation develops an appetite for something that it might find harder to choke down.
Lower on the same page was the subject I was thinking of: President Bush, in speaking to a Fourth of July National Guard gathering, said victory in Iraq “will require more patience, more courage and more sacrifice.”
The bitter irony of Iraq is that we have far more reason to have confidence in the troops’ courage and willingness to sacrifice than in the public’s patience.
“However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it,” Mr. Bush said. “We must succeed for our own sake.”
He’s right. He might not be right about much else, but he’s right about that.
If you go to NPR.org, you’ll find this headline on an item I heard over my clock radio as I was waking Thursday morning: “Military: Iraq strategy can work, over years.” Below that is a blurb: “Most military strategists say it is a feasible plan, but it could take three to five years to see results.”
Exactly. And how far off is the September update on the surge? Hmmm. Not nearly far enough.
NPR Defense Correspondent Guy Raz reported the following regarding the surge:
“(T)here are signs of its working.” But “the lifeblood of the strategy requires two main elements — commodities that commanders don’t really have, which is time, and troop strength.”
So much for military reality. He then switched to political reality, which is far more dire: “Ultimately, of course, with pressure coming down from Congress and the American public, military commanders in Iraq know that they… simply may not have those commodities.”
He expects the Pentagon to try to play down expectations of Gen. David Petraeus’ September report as “make or break,” and it should.
But we seem to lack the appetite for any such dish as patience. The general’s subtext for the September report is that Congress and amorphous “public opinion” will view it with the following attitude: Are we done? Can we go now? Few seem prepared to conclude: OK, this can work, but it’s going to take a lot more time.
With multiple presidential candidates already reinforcing the “are we there yet?” mood, there’s just no way that the folks in TV land are going to suddenly adopt patience as their operative mode, and give military commanders the time that they need. And yet that patience, that appetite, is something we must develop.
Unfortunately, the president keeps telling us this. That would be an odd way to put it in any other historical context, but in 2007, our commander-in-chief is the one guy least likely to persuade the public to do something it doesn’t want to do (which is the definition of leadership).
Here’s how bad things are: The candidate for 2008 most clearly identified with his determination to provide commanders with the time and troop strength they need to succeed is increasingly dismissed as politically nonviable because of that. In case you’ve been living in a spider hole, I’m referring to John McCain.
Mind you, pretty much all of the serious Republican candidates say we’ve got to win, we can’t back down, etc. But they have the luxury of engaging the issue no more deeply than the usual Republican national security swagger. Sen. McCain has the problem of being specifically identified with what it will take to succeed, and what not backing down truly means, so all the “smart” analysts say he’s in trouble. And in politics, when they say you’re in trouble, you’re in trouble.
That’s the big difference between what the military does and what politicians do — the military deals with ultimate reality: Apply force here, don’t apply it there, and here are the results. It’s an elemental equation — kill or be killed; win or lose. There’s no denying such reality. Only on the playground does “Bang! You’re dead!”/“No, I’m not!” work.
In politics, from the now-smokeless back rooms to the woman on the street, what is said becomes reality, because if the public has no appetite, the military isn’t allowed that critical, real-world element of time.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has written many discouraging things lately about Iraq. So I was encouraged this week to see him state again a simple truth that he had set forth often back when he was more optimistic: “Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.” And in this case, “it is still in our national interest to try to create a model of decent, progressive, pluralistic politics in the heart of the Arab world.”
The very mess that we have looked upon in Baghdad and the surrounding country is our preview of what real failure will look like. Only two things will turn that “mess” into success — time and troop strength.
But the only way our troops will receive those two elements — as essential to victory as bullets and training — is if America works up the appetite before September. That’s a huge if, but it’s the only hope we, and Iraq, have.

Bushwva

Unintentional terror target

2 Replies

Whenever any kind of bomb goes off, there is likely to be collateral damage. At least, that’s the case with our bombs, since we’re not trying to hurt the innocent when we drop them.

With terrorists, it’s sort of different. The randomness of the victim’s identities is sort of the point. The more random, the more a bomb is likely to spread terror.

But at least in the case of these intended bombings, it seems highly unlikely that the whackos intentionally tried to damage Paul DeMarco’s campaign for single-payer health care.

And yet, what are we to think when the British National Health Service intentionally recruits foreign doctors, and they turn out to be terror-minded?

Well, I’ll tell you what I think: Keeping our current system is no way to avoid that problem. If you don’t think we’re drawing a lot of foreign medicos to this country, you haven’t been to a major hospital or to a local doc-in-the-box lately.

This is not to cast aspersions upon physicians with accents. It is to say that as long as we remain the kind of country that attracts the educated and ambitious from abroad (we can agree on that, can’t we, even though a lot of y’all out there don’t want to attract folks to come pick our strawberries?), we will be vulnerable — unless those societies over there change.

Hence my preference for offense over defense in the war on terror. And in baseball, for that matter — I certainly prefer batting to standing in the outfield. Don’t you? Sure, we have to play some tenacious D, but it’s crazy to let the bad guys be the ones batting all the time.

I want us to remain a free and open land of opportunity. That means encouraging other countries to be the same.

One more giddy guess

Capt. Smith checks in from Kandahar