OK, the irony here is almost funny save that it is so sad. Two gatherings, one protesting the US involvement in Iraq, the other calling for US involvement in Ethiopia. The American public seems awfully fickle.
Aloha
November 2005 Archives
Now, three congressmen have decided that they didn't really want to vote in support of going to war with Iraq (Fox story here). The article goes on to clearly state the political benefits of the statements these three have made. Reversing their positions has been politically expedient especially in light of the fact that their original position made them something of a pariah within their party. These three want us to believe that it is all the president's fault. You see, he lied to us, told us there were weapons of mass destruction. We believed him and voted for the war against Iraq. Ah, so let me get this straight. You voted to permit a war, an action that you knew or should have known would lead to the deaths of thousands and possibly even millions of people simply on the word of the administration? You, members of Congress, with all the resources at your disposal simply believed the administration and voted for war? Wow.
"No really, it's OK. The president told us so and presidents never lie."
Of course, that depends on the meaning of 'never'.
This from the group that pointed fingers at the Republicans when they put the question on the floor, withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. Oh, and by the way, that is exactly what Representative Murtha called for as well. "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." Immediate redeployment of U.S. Troops. That is what Republicans put before the House. When put before the House without dressing or fluff, it is political maneuvering which the Democrats decry. When the Democrats talk about immediate withdrawal in long drawn out discussions it is something that everyone should take seriously.
What I cannot figure out in all of this is the difference between the two positions with regard to deployment of troops. Rep. Murtha's statement called for immediate withdrawal. It's right there in the text of the statement on his own web site. In interviews Murtha said he thought it might take six months. That would be moving pretty quickly given the process required to get troops and equipment out of Iraq. I cannot find the text of the Republican resolution 571 but it also calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops. The Democrats keep telling us that this is all about the good of our troops - one of Murtha's primary points was that our troops had become a target of the insurgency - and our country. If that is truly the case, why did Democrats vote down resolution 571? If the best thing for our country and our troops is to bring them home, why didn't they vote yes on 571? Because the issue is more complicated than that. The right answer here is not a simple one.
The real issue here is politics. All of the debate about Iraq is really about politics. It is about discrediting the Republican party as a whole by discrediting the Republican president. This is not about the troops, this is not about Iraq, this is not about what is good for America. This is about gaining the upper hand in the next battle at the ballot box.
The Iraqi government went before the United Nations and asked that the mandate authorizing Coalition force presence in Iraq be extended. The Iraqi Foreign minister went to Japan and asked them to extend their force presence in Iraq beyond the December 15 deadline currently in place. If Coalition forces were pulled out of Iraq immediately, as Rep. Murtha suggests, most observers believe that Iraq will plunge into civil war. It is the presence of Coalition forces that is keeping the political process moving forward. It is the politic infrastructure currently being built that might allow for a free Iraq. One with a dictator, without torture, and maybe even someday an Iraq without religious persecution.
Aloha
The 'peace' mom is camped out at Bush's house again. I think 'peace' mom is an appropriate monicker. I hope that Sheehan at some point is able to make peace with the loss of her son.
Aloha
I love the holiday season. I love to daydream about a long ago time when Bing Crosby would be heard on every radio station and every department store would be playing Christmas carols. The holiday season was different back in the early forties. The period that gave us songs like "I'll Be Home From Christmas" and Mel Tormes' "The Christmas Song".
It is interesting what the crucible of national hardship can do. We got a glimpse of it on September 11, 2001. For a few days there, it was OK to pray. For a few days there America wondered if maybe there was a god. Now, four years later September 11, 2001 might as well be December 7, 1941.
The commentary of the movie "Pleasantville" is that the color of life is in being real. The color of life is in the conflict, in stepping out of bounds and breaking the rules. While that maybe true, I still think there is something to be said for a Normal Rockwell Christmas or the ideal of a Father Knows Best family. And maybe it's not even the idea but rather to fantasy of the notion.
I love the holiday season, from Thanksgiving through to New Years day. Even if what I love about it is more a memory of yesterday than a reality of today. Because in the end, it is the pomp and circumstance, it is the celebrations that delineate our lives. Every day is special is another way of saying there are no special days.
Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
This is funny. All by itself, me being the politically correct guy that I am.
Aloha
I'd like to publicly wish my father a happy birthday.
Dad, I hope today is wonderful one.
Aloha
This whole business of naming anything and everything after corporations is really kind of odd. Now, we have a town in Texas that is changing its name in exchange for free satellite TV service for a decade. On the face of it, that seems innocuous enough. I mean, who cares what the name of the town is at the end of the day. In World War II the town you were from was the second thing you told almost anyone you met. Listen to the old soldiers tell their stories. Every time they mention some buddy of theirs, they tell you his name and the town he was from.
Yielding to the slippery slope, we seem headed for a society in which everything goes to the highest bidder. Our sports stadiums, fields and ballparks are no longer named after war heros, benefactors and local celebrities. They are named after which ever company bids the highest. I have to wonder what it will cost this society to learn that there's more to life than material things?
$315 million! Wow! And the winners showed up at work the next day. You know, if I won one sixth of $315 million I wouldn't even show up to quit. I think it would be fun figuring out what to do with so much money. I can't even imagine what it must be like to have that much money. $315,000,000 divided by 6 is $52,500,000. Tax laws are the harshest on game winnings so let's assume that the government takes 60% right off the top. That leaves $21,000,000. If the winner were 45 years old at the time of winning, lived to be 85 and did not invest the money in anyway, that would be $52,500 a year for the rest of their life. If they invested $21,000,000 at a very modest 5% interest the money would yield $1,050,000 and that's simple interest, not compounding interest. I could live on $50,000 a year so I'm pretty sure I could manage to live on $1,000,000 a year. More significantly, I could, by myself, make a difference in some of the ills that plague my community. I could demonstrate that private charity is a better way to address community issues than government based solutions. Living on $100,000 a year that would leave some $700,000 (after taxes) to address community issues. Reverse tithing. Now that would be cool.
Military leadership calls setting a timetable for withdrawal "a recipe for disaster." Some interesting points in this article. The General knows exactly how many troops under his command have died. I'd venture a bet he can recite the name and circumstances of each troop. The General says, "that I've lost." I would bet large that any discussion on the matter would see this battle hardened General become emotional. The losses his command has suffered are personal.
Scheduling the withdrawal of Coalition forces by the calendar instead of by the readiness of Iraq to assume the duties currently being handled by Coalition Forces only tells the insurgency how long they need to wait. There seems to be the notion that if US forces pull out, the insurgency will go away. The insurgency has demonstrated that their preferred instrument of change is the use of indiscriminate force and violence. For as long as the government is not of their liking they will continue to use terrorism in their attempt to implement change. The insurgents do not adhere to the Geneva Convention. Civilians, especially women and children, are their favorite targets since they generate the most media coverage. If US and Coalition forces are withdrawn before Iraq is ready to account for its own defence it will only be a matter of time before the country collapses into civil war which will increase the pain, suffering and death suffered by those who should be non-combatants.
But US politicians are only interested in making this unpopular war go away. Rest assured that if the war were popular, both sides of the aisle would be trying to claim the war as their cause.
Foreign fighters in Iraq. Are they the main event? Are they the primary instigator of the insurgency? Probably not. Saddam trained several different groups specifically to be the insurgency during his final years as Iraq's leader. He created closed cells that had no connections to each other or to any other government organization. These cells were trained in the design, fabrication and deployment of explosives. They were trained in the theory of explosives and taught to refine and improve their devices. And this is a reasonable course of action for a man who was paranoid and very skilled in the politics of violence.
It also comes as little surprise that the insurgency in Iraq is being supported, to one extent or another, by foreign elements. We should assume that al Qaida will show up anywhere that Coalition forces are fighting. al Qaida is an international terrorist organization who has declared themselves the enemy of the United States. The creation of a democratic government that guarantees freedom of religion is going to be an unpopular threat to existing religious organizations and governments in the region.
It will be interesting to see what the real involvement of foreigners in the Iraqi insurgency was. I do not think I will get the opportunity to know since the real history of what is happening here will not be written until all the participants are dead. Such is the nature of history.
Ancient war crime? Interesting headline. In order for it to be a war crime, would a war need to be in progress? More importantly, was it a war crime or simply a fairly common occurrence in a world that did not subscribe to our modern day sensibilities? Or maybe it was just an attempt to cash in on current events.
The world's most influencial man passes judgement on the standing administration and the war in Iraq. Even Clinton admits that good things are being done in Iraq which is, at long last, welcome. It is good to see that some things never change. A speech by Bill Clinton still contains statements to please everyone.
And last but not least, we gain another attempt to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. Yes, they are both wars. Yes, politicians in both eras acted like politicians. Wow. What a surprise.
Aloha
I had an interesting conversation with an old friend today. In the course of this discussion a recurring theme came up. "The 'war' in Iraq is not going well?" I have read, heard and seen this a lot. I have to wonder, how do we know? How should it be going? What is it that should be happening and is not? What does a war that is going well look like?
I have already stated that I do not agree with or support the reasons the Bush administration offered in going to war with Iraq. While I suspect that Saddam Hussein had at the very least the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction even the existence of those weapons was not adequate justification for going to war. Saddam Hussein may have had nuclear weapons at some point but that too was not sufficient reason for going to war with Iraq. Having said that, the invasion of Iraq and the displacement of Saddam Hussein was 10 years late in coming and grossly overdue in my opinion. The United States could have gone about it better but it was a job that needed to be done. Kenneth Pollack's book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq offers the best explanation of why. Everyone make not agree with the argument but Mr. Pollack offers the best presentation of that argument.
The war with Iraq is actually over. Saddam Hussein and his government have been toppled. That government is who the United States and her allies were at war with. US forces currently in Iraq are providing security in the instability that always follows the collapse of a government. One might say that we are at war with the insurgents but that is not the same as being at war with Iraq. And, in truth, we are an ally in Iraq's effort to subdue the insurgents but I suppose that might be semantics. Taken to the other extreme Coalition forces do constitute an occupation force. For a time we had in place an occupational government. Given that an interim government has been established in voted into power by the Iraqi people, it is probably no longer accurate to call the Coalition Forces an occupying force. Especially given that the presence of the Coalition Forces has been requested by the Iraqi government.
Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and a democratic government is being constructed. It will not be a perfect government. In fact it is unreasonable to expect that it will be anything close to perfect. What we must see put in place in Iraq is basic infrastructure by which to build a good or even a great government. The governments of Japan and Germany are not the governments that the allied occupational forces put into place at the end of World War II. However, the Japanese government of today has been built on the infrastructure that was put in place by the American occupation. It is highly unlikely that we will install the right leaders in Iraq's new government. It is even likely that the leaders will be friends of the United States. Such is the nature of the beast. It should not be that way but it is. Far more important is putting into place a survivable structure of government that will empower the Iraqi people to take ownership and control of their leadership and their government. If we are successful in building a strong and viable infrastructure for a representative form of government in Iraq where the Iraqi people have the power by which to control runs the government of their country, they will then sort out whatever is wrong with the internal workings of that government.
Pursuant to this, security must be provided so that the Iraqi government can develop without undue influence from terrorism or other use of violence. And this part is, indeed, a sticky wicket. The Iraqi government has requested that Coalition Forces remain in Iraq for the time being to provide security. Presumably, at some point the Iraqis will be able to assume responsibility for their own security. When Iraq is capable of handling its own security, both internally and externally, it will be time for Coalition Forces to leave. There will likely be a drawing down of force strength between now and then. To pull out before Iraq is capable of securing its own borders would be irresponsible. To attempt to fix a timetable to the withdrawal of troops would be foolhardy. There is an exit strategy in place. That strategy does not have a fixed timetable. It is impossible to know how quickly or slowly the building and solidifying of the Iraqi government will go. It would thus be unrealistic to set any kind of timetable for the withdrawal of US or Coalition military forces. As the Iraqis are able to take over more of their own security, Coalition forces will be released from their obligation in Iraq. And that is an exit strategy.
Aloha
I voted yesterday. I participated in the process by which this great country is run. I'm suppose to be happy and proud that I participated and I guess I am. However, I have to confess some frustration as well. California faced a special election this year. The ballot held a number of propositions but in the end this election was largely about the failure of the California State government to do the job at hand. Our latest movie star governor failed to work with the "girly men" (see my previous post) in the legislature to begin resolving the issues in California that brought this state to the point of recalling its last governor.
So California went to the polls and voted NO down the line. The populous of state rejected all the propositions. I have to wonder how many will understand that this was really a renouncing of the state government as a whole?
Aloha
During a recent visit to Washington State on the Navy's dime I had the opportunity to visit an old friend. I used to work for him when I was at Microsoft. We remained friends after I left some six years ago now.
I always enjoy his company because we can talk about very thing under sun regardless of how opposing our views might be. I learned early in our relationship that it was wise to simply admit my ignorance rather than try to argue a position I did not know much about. His critical thinking skills are well above average and he enjoys debate. Early in our relationship I found these discussions somewhat aggravating and frustrating. I guess I took it as a personal affront that he would point out the flaws in my understanding or my argument. I was offended that he would dare to point out that I didn't seem to know what I was talking about. Over time I learned to check my emotions and that made the conversations a lot more fun and interesting. Once I realized that there was little sense in taking affront or becoming angry I found that I always learned something. Either about myself, my position or something new, something I did not know before.
It is interesting to me that being able to divorce one's emotional self from the topic or position being discussed seems a rare trait. I find that most people want to evade any conversation that encroaches the territory of dissimilar views. This is quite probably the source of the adage that one should never discuss politics, religion or sex in public. I'm pretty happy to leave conversations of sex out of the public eye but our failure to openly discuss our political and religious views -- in fact all of the controversial issues -- brings with it rather disappointing consequences.
In most of cases that I observe when the conversation comes around to a controversial issue and opposing view are participating in the conversation, the conversation quick disintegrates to name calling, personal attacks and other immature behavior that reflects poorly on otherwise intelligent and mature people. It seems that many people are incapable of divorcing the issues and topics from the individuals. It almost seems to reduce to I can only be friends and hang out with those who believe like I do. A position that works only if you do not delve to deeply into any one individual's views and beliefs.
Some examples. Most Republicans tell us that Democrats are idiots. Democrats maintain that Republicans are selfish and self-serving as well as not very bright. Most Atheists maintain that all Theists at the very least are in need of a crutch and at the worst do not think for themselves. Christians have the responsibility of sounding like they are true to their faith so they will couch the terms carefully but among themselves they will say that atheists are stupid. The sum of Mac OSX vs Windows vs *NIX discussion is that all computer users are stupid since each group holds that the other groups are obviously not very smart. In nearly every debate of any controversial matter it will at some point be put forward that anyone who does not believe as the speaker does, at the very least, simply has not thought the issue through fully. More often, the speaker simply calls those who do not agree stupid.
What is the point of conversations that degenerate to calling into question an individual's intelligence? If the point of the conversation is to convince someone of a given position on an issue, calling intelligence into question is a tactic prone to failure. The listener might well concede the point deciding that the issue or at least the position being presented is too complicate to understand. At the very least the listener will note that respect has departed at least one side the conversation. Successful discussion requires mutual respect.
Intelligent exchange of ideas and viewpoints, in my opinion, makes the society we live in a better place. We don't have to agree with each other. In some cases we will even be put at odds because of our differences. And even in this adversarial relationship, we are better off respecting our opponents than deluding ourselves into believing that they are unintelligent. True idiots seldom raise to a level in society where anyone really cares what they say or think.
Aloha
Wow! It's almost a month since I last blogged. It was definitely easier to blog often when I was overseas. Not sure why. I suppose a big part of it is that while I was overseas I felt like someone might be interested in what I was thinking, feeling, and doing. Now, I feel like my life is just like everyone else's life. Who wants to hear about that? I often run across blogs that don't seem to have anything interesting to say. My friend cls claims that his blog is primarily for his own entertainment. I believe him. Yet, I have to wonder, what's the point of writing and publishing a blog if no one reads it? While I was serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom people were interested in what I had to say because I was going through an experience that most people are curious about and few people will go through.
There are still things about my life that are unique and that other people would be interested in. However, they are much more difficult to categorize, articulate and quantify. I am a middle-aged, white male. Many looking in on my life would say that I'm going through mid-life crisis. I do not consider it a crisis. I left Apple Computer almost a year ago to start my own company. I'm still struggling to get my little company on any kind of a solid footing and I worry about that most days, as I probably should be. I am home schooling my two children. I hear that there is a plethora of weblogs written by parents who are home schooling their kids. I do not read any of them. However, home schooling seems to have a large presences on the web. There are probably other aspects of my life that are unique and would be interesting to read about.
The signal to noise ratio in the blog-o-sphere is very low. For every thousand blogs there are, at best, a few hundred (probably more like a few score) that anyone might actually consider useful 'signal'. Many folks I talk to who do not blog usually state that they do not feel they have anything to say. What drives people to publish a weblog? What drives people to read weblogs? Is it part of the same ethos that makes reality television so popular? [I met with an old friend on Sunday and he made an interesting point. Reality Television is a bit of a misnomer. These shows are anything but reality.] I can only guess that if I examine my reasons for keeping a weblog I will gain at least some insight into everyone else's reasons. Maybe that is presumptuous on my part.
I read through my own blog entries occasionally. As the United States prepared to topple the Iraqi government, I blogged because I wanted an outlet for my thoughts. I wish that I had written more of what I thought back then. As it turns out, I had a bit of insight on how things would turn out. I did not write in my blog but told a friend before we ever invaded that no weapons of mass destruction would be found. I did not write in my blog but told that same friend that I was afraid the US government had no plan for building a nation. I did write in my blog that I wished President Bush would slow down and take the time to gain the full support of the UN. I wish that I had captured the thoughts I had about our going to war and the justifications being offered.
While in Kuwait serving in OIF I blogged mostly for myself. It served as a kind of therapy. It started out as a way to examine what I was feeling and how I was dealing with it. As I began to discover that people were reading it, it became more than that. I do not know -- and probably never will -- how many people were reading my blog while I was overseas. I know it was quite a lot. Couple hundred people, many more.
Now, I suspect that very few people continue to read my blog. For one thing, I do not write often enough to keep people coming back. There's usually nothing to come back for. Secondly, I do not feel like I have much of interest to say. Commentary on the politics of our nation today is over discussed already. I'm not really interested in contributing to the pile of words already out there.
Here is an interesting article on weblogs. The author argues that weblogs constitute community. Hum? Maybe. I am not sure I want community. I'm not sure that I want a bunch of people adding to what I have to say. This weblog is my place to have my say. I want people to read it. I do not want anyone to change it. Maybe I do not even want anyone to criticize it. Because in the end, it is primarily opinion and I do not really care that some one does not agree. I am pretty opinionated and find that people mostly do not agree with me anyway. So, while I find commments interesting and often enjoy them, I'm not sure that is a motivator for maintaining a weblog. At least for me. I do like it when I discover that someone has linked to my blog. It hasn't happened very often and, thus far, no one has linked my blog for the purpose of arguing against or making fun of my position. I suspect I wouldn't like that very much.
aloha
