Clark: There He Goes Again
Times like these demand a Ronald Reagan. I can't believe he'd sit and wait as his administration and policies get picked to pieces by the Lilliputians. Could be that Bush the Younger has the patience to ride it out. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Clark seems to be completing the hangman's noose about now with his foreign policy ideas spelled out, however incompletely in his new book, Winning Modern Wars. It appears to me that Bush has no problem winning the wars, with the nifty army the US has managed to maintain despite Clintonian attempts to downsize and scrimp. (Remember the peace dividend we were all going to get with the end of the Cold War? Less for defense, more to make the US lazy and fat like Olde Europe.) Clark sees it all as a failure, and proposes a Department of International Assistance to oversee a vastly expanded foreign aid program. The mind boggles. I can only ask: What is this guy smoking? Do we really need another department to argue and squabble and spend money on administrative cots and carve out bureaucratic policies to undermine the policies of the elected branches of government? Does Clark believe what he is saying/
From the Washington Post:
Soon after taking office, the Bush administration launched the country on a different course, Clark says, reflecting "a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp." He cites the U.S. withdrawal from international efforts to address global warming under the Kyoto treaty and the decision to proceed with a national missile defense system. The administration's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks only reinforced these defiant, high-handed tendencies, Clark argues.
"Overnight, U.S. foreign policy became not only unilateralist but moralistic, intensely patriotic and assertive, planning military action against Iraq and perhaps other states in the Middle East, and intimating the New American Empire," he writes.
The result, he says, has been damaging to long-term U.S. interests. The administration's approach has hampered counter-terrorism efforts, undercut NATO and "turned upside down five decades of work to establish an international system to help reduce conflict," he writes.
Clark as stalking horse, Clark as the loose cannon, not really capable of winning anything, but good to say all those intemperate things that even Kerry and Dean won't say. I'm sure our enemies, foreign and domestic must be comforted by Clark decrying US empire-building. I'm sure the Clintons are even crazier about Clark, the more he lets loose. I worry about any man who behaves as Clark does, and really believes that he is heading in a positive direction. I find him frightening.
Monday, September 29, 2003
Thursday, September 25, 2003
More Good News On Iraq You'll never read in the Paper of Record
Interesting piece carried in the NY post by a critic of the war who spent some time there at the end of the war as a judicial observer. His conclusion: We are not getting the whole truth from the news media.
The news you watch, listen to and read is highly selective. Good news doesn't sell. Ninety percent of the damage you see on TV was caused by Iraqis, not by coalition forces. All the damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines and water supplies, as well as shops, museums and semi-public buildings (like hotels)was caused either by the Iraqi army in its death throes or Iraqi civilians looting and rioting.
Great piece. No wonder bush's rating decline as the press covers only the bad news, in the bleakest possible terms, and leaves the good news uncovered.
Interesting piece carried in the NY post by a critic of the war who spent some time there at the end of the war as a judicial observer. His conclusion: We are not getting the whole truth from the news media.
The news you watch, listen to and read is highly selective. Good news doesn't sell. Ninety percent of the damage you see on TV was caused by Iraqis, not by coalition forces. All the damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines and water supplies, as well as shops, museums and semi-public buildings (like hotels)was caused either by the Iraqi army in its death throes or Iraqi civilians looting and rioting.
Great piece. No wonder bush's rating decline as the press covers only the bad news, in the bleakest possible terms, and leaves the good news uncovered.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Clark's House O' Waffles
Clark also was cautious about plunging into battle after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when many Americans were out for vengeance.
Three days after the attacks, he counseled this response: "It's fundamentally a police effort against individuals. It's not a military effort directed against factories and airfields. You may still need to use military force, but you have to use it in a very precise way."
It became a huge military effort to uproot the government of Afghanistan and the terrorist network it harbored. Clark seemed to swing behind the strategy once it was set, and he voiced confidence in the outcome.
On Iraq, before any shots were fired, Clark sketched out the dangers that would follow the fall of Saddam Hussein.
"I think there will be a lot of tensions inside Iraq, and I think that we will be welcomed very warmly at the outset but afterward, as these tensions begin to assert themselves, it'll be convenient for many different groups to look on us as the source of their problems rather than the solution," he said in February. "And I think our troops will be at some risk there."
Once the war started, Clark praised many aspects of the battle plan and provided a steadying voice when things were not going well.
He was particularly impressed with cooperation among the branches of the armed forces and their coordination with the CIA and credited the Bush administration with that result.
"In the first place, this is a trained and experienced team of top leaders," he said.
Clark occasionally sounded as if he'd supported the war all along.
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," he wrote in The Times of London in the first flush of the takeover of Baghdad.
And in June, he spoke as if his only change of heart had been over whether it was vital to capture Saddam, deposed Iraqi president.
"I was one of those before the war who said, `Don't focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government, and you'll take care of things.'" Afterward, he came to the view that Iraq could not be secure with Saddam still at large.
Clark's stance on the validity of the war is still an open question. Last week, he said he probably would have voted for the Iraq war resolution in Congress but asserted the next day: "I would never have voted for this war. Never."
Clark also was cautious about plunging into battle after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when many Americans were out for vengeance.
Three days after the attacks, he counseled this response: "It's fundamentally a police effort against individuals. It's not a military effort directed against factories and airfields. You may still need to use military force, but you have to use it in a very precise way."
It became a huge military effort to uproot the government of Afghanistan and the terrorist network it harbored. Clark seemed to swing behind the strategy once it was set, and he voiced confidence in the outcome.
On Iraq, before any shots were fired, Clark sketched out the dangers that would follow the fall of Saddam Hussein.
"I think there will be a lot of tensions inside Iraq, and I think that we will be welcomed very warmly at the outset but afterward, as these tensions begin to assert themselves, it'll be convenient for many different groups to look on us as the source of their problems rather than the solution," he said in February. "And I think our troops will be at some risk there."
Once the war started, Clark praised many aspects of the battle plan and provided a steadying voice when things were not going well.
He was particularly impressed with cooperation among the branches of the armed forces and their coordination with the CIA and credited the Bush administration with that result.
"In the first place, this is a trained and experienced team of top leaders," he said.
Clark occasionally sounded as if he'd supported the war all along.
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," he wrote in The Times of London in the first flush of the takeover of Baghdad.
And in June, he spoke as if his only change of heart had been over whether it was vital to capture Saddam, deposed Iraqi president.
"I was one of those before the war who said, `Don't focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government, and you'll take care of things.'" Afterward, he came to the view that Iraq could not be secure with Saddam still at large.
Clark's stance on the validity of the war is still an open question. Last week, he said he probably would have voted for the Iraq war resolution in Congress but asserted the next day: "I would never have voted for this war. Never."
The Good News Is
Nearly 2/3 of Baghdadis believe that getting rid of Saddam has been well worth the hardships of the past few months. Despite the incessant drumbeat of bad news from Iraq, the people are optimistic about the future. Hard to explain how they have more positive feelings towards Chriac than Bush and Blair, their liberators, but that goes to show - something? about, Iraquis and media coverage and the power of good PR. Maybe Bush shoudl try to hire Chirac's PR people for election 2004.
Nearly 2/3 of Baghdadis believe that getting rid of Saddam has been well worth the hardships of the past few months. Despite the incessant drumbeat of bad news from Iraq, the people are optimistic about the future. Hard to explain how they have more positive feelings towards Chriac than Bush and Blair, their liberators, but that goes to show - something? about, Iraquis and media coverage and the power of good PR. Maybe Bush shoudl try to hire Chirac's PR people for election 2004.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Judeo-Christian Nation ?
Reuters makes a big deal about Colin Powell calling the US a Judeo-Christian nation, a term once heard regularly. Muslims would like the US to be referred to as a Judeo-Christian-Islamic nation. I fail to understand how a secular democracy based on Enlightenment ideals is in anyway Islamic, despite the presence of Muslims. In recent times especially, the designation Judeo-Christian refers more to the foundations of US government in Western Civilization and its values, (which are, after all, heavily dependent on the Judeo-Christian tradition) than on the actual behavior and beliefs of increasing numbers of US citizens.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell called the United States a Judeo-Christian country on Monday but quickly amended that to "a country of many faiths."
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion -- a provision usually interpreted as requiring strict separation of church and state, though Christian activists dispute that.
Powell made the remark in an interview with the Charlie Rose Show on public television while talking about Washington's vision of what kind of government Iraq should have.
He said he expected it to be "an Islamic country by faith, just as we are a Judeo-Christian..."
"Well, it's hard to tell any more, but we are a country of many faiths now," he added quickly.
The remark was likely to antagonize millions of American Muslims, most of whom want to be included in the mainstream.
Some American Muslims have coined the term Judeo-Christian-Islamic to reflect their ideal of what the United States should be.
Reuters makes a big deal about Colin Powell calling the US a Judeo-Christian nation, a term once heard regularly. Muslims would like the US to be referred to as a Judeo-Christian-Islamic nation. I fail to understand how a secular democracy based on Enlightenment ideals is in anyway Islamic, despite the presence of Muslims. In recent times especially, the designation Judeo-Christian refers more to the foundations of US government in Western Civilization and its values, (which are, after all, heavily dependent on the Judeo-Christian tradition) than on the actual behavior and beliefs of increasing numbers of US citizens.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell called the United States a Judeo-Christian country on Monday but quickly amended that to "a country of many faiths."
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion -- a provision usually interpreted as requiring strict separation of church and state, though Christian activists dispute that.
Powell made the remark in an interview with the Charlie Rose Show on public television while talking about Washington's vision of what kind of government Iraq should have.
He said he expected it to be "an Islamic country by faith, just as we are a Judeo-Christian..."
"Well, it's hard to tell any more, but we are a country of many faiths now," he added quickly.
The remark was likely to antagonize millions of American Muslims, most of whom want to be included in the mainstream.
Some American Muslims have coined the term Judeo-Christian-Islamic to reflect their ideal of what the United States should be.
Monday, September 22, 2003
Is Media Bias Killing Our Troops?
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq By JIM MARSHALL
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq By JIM MARSHALL
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Blast kills 2 at Iraq’s U.N. compound
Hmmm. This second attack on the UN compound suggests that it's a softer target than it should be, or that the UN is a target. The General Assembly opens this week just up the street. Bush is coming to speak. Maybe a good place to avoid. Call me paranoid, but 9/11 is still very real to me. Plus, there's a war on.
Hmmm. This second attack on the UN compound suggests that it's a softer target than it should be, or that the UN is a target. The General Assembly opens this week just up the street. Bush is coming to speak. Maybe a good place to avoid. Call me paranoid, but 9/11 is still very real to me. Plus, there's a war on.
Martin Sheen Feels More Human in Canada
DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2002®: "American actor and activist Martin Sheen had kind words for Canada when he received an award for being a Christian role model, the CANADIAN PRESS reports.
'Every time I cross this border I feel like I've left the land of lunatics,' Sheen said Saturday, adding he was 'proud' of Canada for not entering the Iraq war.
'You are not armed and dangerous. You do not shoot each other. I always feel a bit more human when I come here.'
Sheen, who has been outspoken recently in his opposition the U.S.-led war in Iraq, was in Windsor to receive the Christian Culture Gold Medal from Assumption University.
The university will offer a new scholarship in his name. "
What's keeping him here?
DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2002®: "American actor and activist Martin Sheen had kind words for Canada when he received an award for being a Christian role model, the CANADIAN PRESS reports.
'Every time I cross this border I feel like I've left the land of lunatics,' Sheen said Saturday, adding he was 'proud' of Canada for not entering the Iraq war.
'You are not armed and dangerous. You do not shoot each other. I always feel a bit more human when I come here.'
Sheen, who has been outspoken recently in his opposition the U.S.-led war in Iraq, was in Windsor to receive the Christian Culture Gold Medal from Assumption University.
The university will offer a new scholarship in his name. "
What's keeping him here?
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Bush Will Tell It to the UN
President Bush said on Sunday he would tell the United Nations he made the right decision to go to war in Iraq despite his failure to obtain Security Council backing for the conflict.
"I will make it clear that I made the right decision and that the others that joined us made the right decision," Bush said in an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.
Fox released an advance transcript of interview excerpts on Sunday. The full interview is to be broadcast at 8 p.m. EDT on Monday.
Hear hear!
President Bush said on Sunday he would tell the United Nations he made the right decision to go to war in Iraq despite his failure to obtain Security Council backing for the conflict.
"I will make it clear that I made the right decision and that the others that joined us made the right decision," Bush said in an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.
Fox released an advance transcript of interview excerpts on Sunday. The full interview is to be broadcast at 8 p.m. EDT on Monday.
Hear hear!
SADDAM Hussein has been in secret negotiations with US forces in Iraq for the past nine days, we can reveal.
So says the Sunday Mirror in the UK. Who knows? I don't doubt the old dictator would like an exile with a stash of cash nearby. I don't want him to have it. True, it would demonstrate to the world that he is a cowardly thug. However, I think we all know that, except for the extreme factions in the Muslim world, and the idiotarians who apologize for everything which is anti-American. They wouldn't see it as cowardice anyway, so let's not negotiate. Capture or kill. The cash and the WMD will turn up eventually, sooner or later.
So says the Sunday Mirror in the UK. Who knows? I don't doubt the old dictator would like an exile with a stash of cash nearby. I don't want him to have it. True, it would demonstrate to the world that he is a cowardly thug. However, I think we all know that, except for the extreme factions in the Muslim world, and the idiotarians who apologize for everything which is anti-American. They wouldn't see it as cowardice anyway, so let's not negotiate. Capture or kill. The cash and the WMD will turn up eventually, sooner or later.
Clark is a Dem by Default
Wow. Newsweek blows the lid off the Clark candidacy. After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. He didn't take the rejection happily. Does this guy really think his brief moment of public attention in Kosovo translates into a real chance at the White House? These remarks of his, along with his waffling on Iraq, have raised real doubts about his judgement and integrity. I don't understand what he has to offer.
Wow. Newsweek blows the lid off the Clark candidacy. After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. He didn't take the rejection happily. Does this guy really think his brief moment of public attention in Kosovo translates into a real chance at the White House? These remarks of his, along with his waffling on Iraq, have raised real doubts about his judgement and integrity. I don't understand what he has to offer.
The Iraq Solution, Courtesy Bubba
Reported in Reuters
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said Sunday that the United States should not try to dominate Iraq and needed to give the United Nations a greater role in restoring security to the war-torn country.
"We should play a role and spend a lot of money there, but we shouldn't dominate," Clinton said during a brief visit to the United Arab Emirates.
"What we need is for the U.N. to nominally supervise the security situation and NATO to be used as an instrument," he said during a question-and-answer session at the American University of Dubai, where he launched a scholarship program.
"This will enable us to spread both the responsibility and the risks and make it look less like an occupation," he added.
We spend the money, but be careful not to dominate. The UN "nominally" supervises. The UN wouldn't even accept US security for its Baghdad mission, which is one reason it was blown to smitereens. Why would giving a greater role ( as opposed to no role) to the UN improve the security of Iraq? Clinton is long on tossing outvague ideas, short on details.
Reported in Reuters
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said Sunday that the United States should not try to dominate Iraq and needed to give the United Nations a greater role in restoring security to the war-torn country.
"We should play a role and spend a lot of money there, but we shouldn't dominate," Clinton said during a brief visit to the United Arab Emirates.
"What we need is for the U.N. to nominally supervise the security situation and NATO to be used as an instrument," he said during a question-and-answer session at the American University of Dubai, where he launched a scholarship program.
"This will enable us to spread both the responsibility and the risks and make it look less like an occupation," he added.
We spend the money, but be careful not to dominate. The UN "nominally" supervises. The UN wouldn't even accept US security for its Baghdad mission, which is one reason it was blown to smitereens. Why would giving a greater role ( as opposed to no role) to the UN improve the security of Iraq? Clinton is long on tossing outvague ideas, short on details.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
The Relative Scale of Battle
In July of 1863 Americans killed each other for three days in the fields of Pennsylvania. That battle, which ended once and for all time the ambitions of Southerners to make secession stick saw over 51,000 casualties. As weapons became more deadly casualty lists grew. The first Battle of the Marne in 1914 caused 250,000 casualties among the French alone. Even before the days of modern ordnance battles on a massive scale resulted in fearful death tolls. In 216 BC Hannibal's troops killed an estimated 70,000 Romans. It is a measure of Western perceptions that the word "massive" can now be applied to what would have qualified barely as a skirmish in other wars.
September 20, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. troops yesterday arrested 55 pro-Saddam guerrillas believed to have carried out a series of intense, coordinated ambushes on coalition forces in Tikrit that resulted in the deaths of three U.S. soldiers.
The arrests - believed to include those responsible for killing the GIs - came after what commanders are calling one of the biggest battles since the official end of the war in a battle that lasted for almost eight hours.
"We have under control the individuals who attacked our patrol. We fought a battle throughout the night and well into first light," Col. James Hickey, the 1st Brigade commander, told reporters.
The massive battle in Saddam Hussein's restive hometown, the scene of scores of previous attacks on U.S. soldiers, erupted Thursday night as a patrol from the 4th Infantry Division, investigating a suspected launch site for rocket-propelled grenades, was ambushed on the east side of the Tigris River.
Three soldiers were killed and two more were seriously wounded in the attack.
Three soldiers dead is too many. For the soldiers involved it must have seemed like Armageddon. Correspondents who should be engaged in telling us the truth should exercise greater judgement before categorizing military engagements. Maybe they never read their history? Didn't they see Saving Private Ryan? That was massive.
At least mentions of the engagement serve to remind us that there's a war on.
In July of 1863 Americans killed each other for three days in the fields of Pennsylvania. That battle, which ended once and for all time the ambitions of Southerners to make secession stick saw over 51,000 casualties. As weapons became more deadly casualty lists grew. The first Battle of the Marne in 1914 caused 250,000 casualties among the French alone. Even before the days of modern ordnance battles on a massive scale resulted in fearful death tolls. In 216 BC Hannibal's troops killed an estimated 70,000 Romans. It is a measure of Western perceptions that the word "massive" can now be applied to what would have qualified barely as a skirmish in other wars.
September 20, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. troops yesterday arrested 55 pro-Saddam guerrillas believed to have carried out a series of intense, coordinated ambushes on coalition forces in Tikrit that resulted in the deaths of three U.S. soldiers.
The arrests - believed to include those responsible for killing the GIs - came after what commanders are calling one of the biggest battles since the official end of the war in a battle that lasted for almost eight hours.
"We have under control the individuals who attacked our patrol. We fought a battle throughout the night and well into first light," Col. James Hickey, the 1st Brigade commander, told reporters.
The massive battle in Saddam Hussein's restive hometown, the scene of scores of previous attacks on U.S. soldiers, erupted Thursday night as a patrol from the 4th Infantry Division, investigating a suspected launch site for rocket-propelled grenades, was ambushed on the east side of the Tigris River.
Three soldiers were killed and two more were seriously wounded in the attack.
Three soldiers dead is too many. For the soldiers involved it must have seemed like Armageddon. Correspondents who should be engaged in telling us the truth should exercise greater judgement before categorizing military engagements. Maybe they never read their history? Didn't they see Saving Private Ryan? That was massive.
At least mentions of the engagement serve to remind us that there's a war on.
Newsweek Admires It's Own Efforts:Drudge reports:President Bush's job approval rating continued to drop in the Newsweek Poll, to 51 percent. And by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, registered voters say they would not like to see Bush re-elected to another term.
For the first time in the Newsweek Poll, Bush's approval for his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped below 50 percent to 46 percent, a drop of 5 percentage points from the Newsweek Poll of September 11-12, 2003. Forty-seven percent of all those polled disapprove of how he's handling the situation in Iraq, an increase of 5 percentage points from the earlier poll. Bush's approval slide continues in ratings for his handling of other issues. On the economy: approval dropped to 38 percent (from 41%) but disapproval jumped six points to 57 percent. Bush also scores in the low 40s on the environment (43%) and taxes (42%). The only area where Bush continues strong support is his handling of policies to prevent and minimize terrorism at home: 66 percent, the poll shows.
For the first time in the Newsweek Poll, Bush's approval for his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped below 50 percent to 46 percent, a drop of 5 percentage points from the Newsweek Poll of September 11-12, 2003. Forty-seven percent of all those polled disapprove of how he's handling the situation in Iraq, an increase of 5 percentage points from the earlier poll. Bush's approval slide continues in ratings for his handling of other issues. On the economy: approval dropped to 38 percent (from 41%) but disapproval jumped six points to 57 percent. Bush also scores in the low 40s on the environment (43%) and taxes (42%). The only area where Bush continues strong support is his handling of policies to prevent and minimize terrorism at home: 66 percent, the poll shows.
First the good news:
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who announced his presidential candidacy this week, leads all Democratic contenders who are currently in the race with 14 percent of the vote among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. He's followed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who both get 12 percent of the vote.
HoweverClark's impressive debut is undercut, however, by the sizable percentage of all those polled (45%) who say they've never heard of him before now, the poll shows.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who announced his presidential candidacy this week, leads all Democratic contenders who are currently in the race with 14 percent of the vote among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. He's followed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who both get 12 percent of the vote.
HoweverClark's impressive debut is undercut, however, by the sizable percentage of all those polled (45%) who say they've never heard of him before now, the poll shows.
"Americans are wrong to vilify the French according to the International Herald Tribune."
"French leaders have been remarkable in recent weeks in studiously avoiding gloating about the difficulties encountered by the Americans in Iraq. No French representative has been heard to say anything like "I told you so," although the temptation must be quite strong."
Why would the French be gloating? Because some holdouts in Saddam's stronghold are managing to kill US soldiers despite the end of major combat? May I remind the French and anyone else tempted to gloat that the US acheived a remarkable military victory, marred only by the fact that Iraqis fled the battlefield before we could put more of the militants out of action. Permanently. Did anyone expect that this would be fast? Or easy? Just because the French surrendered to the Nazis in six semaines (weeks, to those of us in the Anglosphere) doesn't mean all military engagements are Vietnam-like mires. Speaking of Vietnam, we could discuss the French at Dienbienphu, but let's not. Instead let's ponder why the French would feel like gloating about anything, ever. Even in the area of food Spain has come to be called the new France.
Do I take these things too seriously? Remember, there's a war on.
"French leaders have been remarkable in recent weeks in studiously avoiding gloating about the difficulties encountered by the Americans in Iraq. No French representative has been heard to say anything like "I told you so," although the temptation must be quite strong."
Why would the French be gloating? Because some holdouts in Saddam's stronghold are managing to kill US soldiers despite the end of major combat? May I remind the French and anyone else tempted to gloat that the US acheived a remarkable military victory, marred only by the fact that Iraqis fled the battlefield before we could put more of the militants out of action. Permanently. Did anyone expect that this would be fast? Or easy? Just because the French surrendered to the Nazis in six semaines (weeks, to those of us in the Anglosphere) doesn't mean all military engagements are Vietnam-like mires. Speaking of Vietnam, we could discuss the French at Dienbienphu, but let's not. Instead let's ponder why the French would feel like gloating about anything, ever. Even in the area of food Spain has come to be called the new France.
Do I take these things too seriously? Remember, there's a war on.
HAIL MARY
Vols grab lead over Gators with miraculous pass
Irreverence. Time for sportswriters and commentators the world round to find another idiom.
Vols grab lead over Gators with miraculous pass
Irreverence. Time for sportswriters and commentators the world round to find another idiom.
And Then There Were Ten
As the field of Dems seeking Bush the Younger's job swelled witht he addition of Wesley Clark it's hard to see how Clark can make any democrat happy. His stance on Iraq is hardly crystalline, he has no experience in areas where democrats hope to make headway, and his general demeanor, is well, that of a general, not a genial Ike-like general, but a rather stern general. Besides, hes' from Arkansas. Do we need a second chief exective from Arkansas so soon? What Democrat scould be singing about this obvious attempt to slow down the Dean bandwagon, except for Bill and Hill? As a placeholder for Hillary while she decides whether GWB can be taken, Clark works. That seems to be about it. I wonder about the judgement of a man who enters upon so serious an undertaking with so little supporting reason.
As the field of Dems seeking Bush the Younger's job swelled witht he addition of Wesley Clark it's hard to see how Clark can make any democrat happy. His stance on Iraq is hardly crystalline, he has no experience in areas where democrats hope to make headway, and his general demeanor, is well, that of a general, not a genial Ike-like general, but a rather stern general. Besides, hes' from Arkansas. Do we need a second chief exective from Arkansas so soon? What Democrat scould be singing about this obvious attempt to slow down the Dean bandwagon, except for Bill and Hill? As a placeholder for Hillary while she decides whether GWB can be taken, Clark works. That seems to be about it. I wonder about the judgement of a man who enters upon so serious an undertaking with so little supporting reason.
Schroeder OP ED
In this piece published by the NYT the German Chancellor pledges humanitarian aid, training for police and help in rebuilding Iraq. They want to help and that's good, but he makes the usual reference to one country going it alone, i.e. without Germany and France
"... we must not forget that security in today's world cannot be guaranteed by one country going it alone; it can be achieved only through international cooperation. Nor can security be limited to the activities of the police and the military.
Then"If we want to make our world freer and safer, we must fight the roots of insecurity, oppression, fanaticism and poverty — and we must do it together." Note how fanaticism gets tossed in with the other problem threatening the peace and security of the world.
Continuing
"The international community has a key interest in ensuring that stability and democracy are established as quickly as possible in Iraq." Let us not forget that the international community is a big place, incluidng many who want stability and democracy in Iraq over there dead bodies. Which can be arranged.
Don't forget: there's a war on
In this piece published by the NYT the German Chancellor pledges humanitarian aid, training for police and help in rebuilding Iraq. They want to help and that's good, but he makes the usual reference to one country going it alone, i.e. without Germany and France
"... we must not forget that security in today's world cannot be guaranteed by one country going it alone; it can be achieved only through international cooperation. Nor can security be limited to the activities of the police and the military.
Then"If we want to make our world freer and safer, we must fight the roots of insecurity, oppression, fanaticism and poverty — and we must do it together." Note how fanaticism gets tossed in with the other problem threatening the peace and security of the world.
Continuing
"The international community has a key interest in ensuring that stability and democracy are established as quickly as possible in Iraq." Let us not forget that the international community is a big place, incluidng many who want stability and democracy in Iraq over there dead bodies. Which can be arranged.
Don't forget: there's a war on
UNITED NATIONS, New York A mood of skittish uncertainty has descended on the leaders of the United Nations. They are eager to overhaul their institution, but worry whether any change can give it the freedom it needs to survive without being seen as either a lackey of the United States or an easily swattable gadfly.
That the UN is at a crossroads, and must change in order to survive is an opinion I can support. That the Security Council needs to reflect the realities of the modern world is a great idea. Start by taking the seat occupied by the French and give it some nation which has a larger GDP, greater population, and a nationality which is other than Gallic. Europe holds an incredible three of five seats as permanent members of the Security Council, with the veto that comes with it, based on the world of 1945. Here's a radical proposal: one seat for the EU on the Security Council.
The UN General Assembly gathers next week, just a few blocks from where I am writing. In the wake of the bombing of UN headquarters last month security will be tighter than ever, and the constant stream of motorcades that passes through my neighborhood as diplomats and heads of state arrive from local airports and heliports will be accompanied by a larger police presence, I'm guessing. The charge is made in this article that the US views the UN as ..."a tool to be used when handy." They must know up there at the UN that the terrorists of the world are no respecters of the light blue, and view it as a tool to be used when handy, a stage on which they can strut and bluster with impunity. That blast in Baghdad must have rattled a few portfolios.
That the UN is at a crossroads, and must change in order to survive is an opinion I can support. That the Security Council needs to reflect the realities of the modern world is a great idea. Start by taking the seat occupied by the French and give it some nation which has a larger GDP, greater population, and a nationality which is other than Gallic. Europe holds an incredible three of five seats as permanent members of the Security Council, with the veto that comes with it, based on the world of 1945. Here's a radical proposal: one seat for the EU on the Security Council.
The UN General Assembly gathers next week, just a few blocks from where I am writing. In the wake of the bombing of UN headquarters last month security will be tighter than ever, and the constant stream of motorcades that passes through my neighborhood as diplomats and heads of state arrive from local airports and heliports will be accompanied by a larger police presence, I'm guessing. The charge is made in this article that the US views the UN as ..."a tool to be used when handy." They must know up there at the UN that the terrorists of the world are no respecters of the light blue, and view it as a tool to be used when handy, a stage on which they can strut and bluster with impunity. That blast in Baghdad must have rattled a few portfolios.
187 Billion
One of the first things I learned about government spending as an undergrad (back when the world still believed that reason and diplomacy would solve the problems of the world. More on that later.) was that government spending was not a matter of "we'll spend $187 on this instead of that." If we decide not to spend $187 on the war in Iraq and reconstruction of that country we won't spend the money on education, or health care or AIDS or any of the programs Newsweek rants about. We won't spend the money. Or at least we won't spend it in any meaningful way. It will be frittered away on a Sen. Byrd's projects for the exclusive benefit of West Virginians, or packaged in inventive ways to appeal to special interests and special constituencies. Newsweek's Jonathan Darman disagrees.
Instead of a war in Iraq, here’s what America could be getting for its money I have a hard time agreeing that increasing the EPA's budget "more than tenfold" is preferable to ending the tyranny of Saddam, and turning Iraq into a flypaper with which to ensnare the terrorists who might otherwise find their way to NYC. I don't say this lightly, in view of the tragic losses incurred by the US on an ongoing basis in Iraq, but as Bush the Younger said: "bring 'em on".
BTW, Newsweek, what did 9/11 cost the US in economic terms alone. Try that on your opportunity cost analysis.
Remember, There's a war on
One of the first things I learned about government spending as an undergrad (back when the world still believed that reason and diplomacy would solve the problems of the world. More on that later.) was that government spending was not a matter of "we'll spend $187 on this instead of that." If we decide not to spend $187 on the war in Iraq and reconstruction of that country we won't spend the money on education, or health care or AIDS or any of the programs Newsweek rants about. We won't spend the money. Or at least we won't spend it in any meaningful way. It will be frittered away on a Sen. Byrd's projects for the exclusive benefit of West Virginians, or packaged in inventive ways to appeal to special interests and special constituencies. Newsweek's Jonathan Darman disagrees.
Instead of a war in Iraq, here’s what America could be getting for its money I have a hard time agreeing that increasing the EPA's budget "more than tenfold" is preferable to ending the tyranny of Saddam, and turning Iraq into a flypaper with which to ensnare the terrorists who might otherwise find their way to NYC. I don't say this lightly, in view of the tragic losses incurred by the US on an ongoing basis in Iraq, but as Bush the Younger said: "bring 'em on".
BTW, Newsweek, what did 9/11 cost the US in economic terms alone. Try that on your opportunity cost analysis.
Remember, There's a war on
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
WE'RE WINNING THIS WAR
So say MarK Steyn, and he makes a good case for it, taking on the irrational hatred of America shared by leftists all over the world and the equally irrational extremist Muslim world. (Would that be most of it?) If Muslims and Western elites share the same opinions, is that like two patients presenting the same symptoms though afflcited by two distintly different diseases? Anyway, I can't do justice to Steyn, so just get over there and read it yourself. Please.
So say MarK Steyn, and he makes a good case for it, taking on the irrational hatred of America shared by leftists all over the world and the equally irrational extremist Muslim world. (Would that be most of it?) If Muslims and Western elites share the same opinions, is that like two patients presenting the same symptoms though afflcited by two distintly different diseases? Anyway, I can't do justice to Steyn, so just get over there and read it yourself. Please.
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Monday, September 15, 2003
The NYT observes it's handiwork:
From the paper of record:
A week after President Bush's speech seeking to rally support for the campaign in Iraq, the nation appears increasingly anxious about the war effort and worried that the United States may be trapped in an adventure from which there is no evident exit...
It never ceases to amaze me how the press can beat a message into people's heads for a couple of months, then step back and point out that people - gasp, can it be! - have come to believe the message. Of course the nation will be "anxious" about the course of the war if news outlets provide a steady stream of reportage about setbacks and casualties. I do not suggest that these real problems be ignored, but find somewhere in there to mention the successes which are evident in Iraq as well.
From the paper of record:
A week after President Bush's speech seeking to rally support for the campaign in Iraq, the nation appears increasingly anxious about the war effort and worried that the United States may be trapped in an adventure from which there is no evident exit...
It never ceases to amaze me how the press can beat a message into people's heads for a couple of months, then step back and point out that people - gasp, can it be! - have come to believe the message. Of course the nation will be "anxious" about the course of the war if news outlets provide a steady stream of reportage about setbacks and casualties. I do not suggest that these real problems be ignored, but find somewhere in there to mention the successes which are evident in Iraq as well.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
La Plus ca change...
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said before the Geneva talks that any new U.N. resolution should contain a timetable putting a provisional Iraqi government in place within a month, followed by a draft constitution by the end of the year and elections next spring- MSNBC
Given that the French have had cinq (or five as we say in the Anglosphere), republics since 1789, plus Vichy, it's small wonder that de Villepin wants to rush to Iraqi self-governance. If it's premature, if the wheels fall off the wagon before it goes a hundred yards, no matter, Zut!
Cobble out a new republic! Works for them.
Which is not to suggest I don't want to see Iraqis ruling Iraqis as soon as possible. Ruling and policing and defending and feeding themselves and doing all those things of which they are capable, given the chance. I suspect world events on other fronts will make installing an Iraqi government a matter of some urgency, but I also suspect French motives are not the same as mine.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said before the Geneva talks that any new U.N. resolution should contain a timetable putting a provisional Iraqi government in place within a month, followed by a draft constitution by the end of the year and elections next spring- MSNBC
Given that the French have had cinq (or five as we say in the Anglosphere), republics since 1789, plus Vichy, it's small wonder that de Villepin wants to rush to Iraqi self-governance. If it's premature, if the wheels fall off the wagon before it goes a hundred yards, no matter, Zut!
Cobble out a new republic! Works for them.
Which is not to suggest I don't want to see Iraqis ruling Iraqis as soon as possible. Ruling and policing and defending and feeding themselves and doing all those things of which they are capable, given the chance. I suspect world events on other fronts will make installing an Iraqi government a matter of some urgency, but I also suspect French motives are not the same as mine.
There's A War On
Bush said it would take a while, a long while to defeat the terrorists. I expect it will continue past my lifetime, and we'll only win if we continue to fight. I'd like to think we will. Politicians talk a good game:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
JFK Inaugural, 1961
But I don't know whether politicians have the stomach for it. The drums from the political hustings are sure beating a retreat right now. Instant success with no loss of life, no great expense, no challenges to be overcome is out of Hollywood. I think we used to know that.
Clifford D. May in National Review:
Had anyone asked President Roosevelt how much the war would cost, he would probably have answered: "However much it takes." Had anyone asked how long we'd be at war, he probably would have answered: "For the duration." But it's difficult to imagine anyone having the nerve to ask FDR such questions; difficult to imagine a 1940s version of Ted Kennedy or Pat Buchanan demanding an "exit strategy."
Read it all:
Bush said it would take a while, a long while to defeat the terrorists. I expect it will continue past my lifetime, and we'll only win if we continue to fight. I'd like to think we will. Politicians talk a good game:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
JFK Inaugural, 1961
But I don't know whether politicians have the stomach for it. The drums from the political hustings are sure beating a retreat right now. Instant success with no loss of life, no great expense, no challenges to be overcome is out of Hollywood. I think we used to know that.
Clifford D. May in National Review:
Had anyone asked President Roosevelt how much the war would cost, he would probably have answered: "However much it takes." Had anyone asked how long we'd be at war, he probably would have answered: "For the duration." But it's difficult to imagine anyone having the nerve to ask FDR such questions; difficult to imagine a 1940s version of Ted Kennedy or Pat Buchanan demanding an "exit strategy."
Read it all:
While the wailing and the gnashing of teeth of the doomsayers continues, read Victor Davis Hanson and take heart.
">"In our current feeding hysteria that diminishes astounding success to quagmire or worse, what disinterested observer would ever believe that in just 24 months we have liberated 50 million people, destroyed the odious Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and routed 60% of the al Qaeda leadership — all at the cost of less than 300 American dead? It is almost as if the more amazing our accomplishments, the more we must deprecate them."
read it all, read him every week in National Review.<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson091103.asp">
">"In our current feeding hysteria that diminishes astounding success to quagmire or worse, what disinterested observer would ever believe that in just 24 months we have liberated 50 million people, destroyed the odious Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and routed 60% of the al Qaeda leadership — all at the cost of less than 300 American dead? It is almost as if the more amazing our accomplishments, the more we must deprecate them."
read it all, read him every week in National Review.<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson091103.asp">
A Meaty Start
"President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. " So says Madeleine Albright in an interview with Time Magazine, which seems to serve the primary purpose of providing her a stage from which to throw brickbats at the Bush Administration. I'm certainly glad to know at last what Clinton's focus was.
"Frankly, if there was a President Gore, we wouldn't be in this particular mess." Albright again, and from her choice of words I can only presume we would be in a different mess with a President (Shu-u-u-dder) Gore.
"The Administration immediately tied Sept. 11 to Saddam." MA
I'll have to do some research on this one, I don't remember the Administration pinning 9/11 on Saddam, but the fact is we waited a year and a half after 9/11 to root out that abcess.
Read the entire ten softball piece yourself:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030922-485697,00.html
"President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. " So says Madeleine Albright in an interview with Time Magazine, which seems to serve the primary purpose of providing her a stage from which to throw brickbats at the Bush Administration. I'm certainly glad to know at last what Clinton's focus was.
"Frankly, if there was a President Gore, we wouldn't be in this particular mess." Albright again, and from her choice of words I can only presume we would be in a different mess with a President (Shu-u-u-dder) Gore.
"The Administration immediately tied Sept. 11 to Saddam." MA
I'll have to do some research on this one, I don't remember the Administration pinning 9/11 on Saddam, but the fact is we waited a year and a half after 9/11 to root out that abcess.
Read the entire ten softball piece yourself:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030922-485697,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
