Giuliani seems to be leading the polls as the leading Republican candidate for President. Much of the enthusiasm for him seems to come from people who want a strong leader on national defense, and like him because of his actions during 9/11. As noted below, most of his support probably comes from fellow draft dodgers who feel guilty about avoiding the draft during Vietnam.
As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not happy about people who avoided the draft being touted as strong leaders on national security. Look at the mess we got with George Bush II (& Cheney) who ran on exactly that basis. This article links to several other articles about how Giuliani avoided the draft. I suspect that if he pushes 9/11 too hard, it will come back to haunt him; he talked a good game, but he didn't really do much. The World Trade Center is still basically just a hole in the ground. That may not be Giuliani's fault, but he didn't solve the problem either. Casualties of 9/11 got Federal money; I don't know that New York City did much for them. We'll see how it plays.
The strength of Giuliani's campaign has got to be embarrassing to Bush because the main reason that Giuliani gets so much credit for his performance after 9/11 was that Bush and Cheney were essentially missing in action immediately after the attacks.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Obama's Speech to AIPAC
Here's a link to Obama's speech to AIPAC. I haven't read it, yet, but I'm guessing it's better than a lot of Republicans' speeches to AIPAC, but probably not as tough on Israel as I would like. Can't offend those big contributors!
Walter Reed No Surprise
As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not surprised at what happened at Walter Reed Hospital. This country has not respected its veterans since World War II. The difference between World War II and subsequent wars is that almost everybody served in WW II, but fewer and fewer served in subsequent wars. The Korean War was close enough in time to WW II that some of the same respect carried over to Korean veterans, but they did not rate the "Greatest Generation" profusion of thanks that the WW II vets got. Of course, many Korean vets, like my father, were also WW II vets.
In essence, WW II vets looked out for each other. There were enough of them to dominate politics, business, and most other sectors of local and national life. Plus the war had come close enough to home, beginning in Hawaii and affecting every household with rationing, defense jobs, and other direct impacts, so that no one could ignore it, even if they didn't fight. Korea was less intrusive; Vietnam even less, and Iraq, with no draft, almost not at all. How many households today are making significant sacrifices because of Iraq? Outside of military families, not many. And those profiting the most -- Halliburton, and other unscrupulous defense contractors -- seem to represent the very worst of America.
While Vietnam vets were off in Asia, their draft avoiding cohorts were getting ahead in life. But, especially because of avoiding the draft, they felt guilty about it, and therefore tended to do whatever they could to bring down the returning veterans, such as calling them war criminals, baby killers, etc. The draft dodgers tried to make the returning veterans into second class citizens, in order to make themselves feel better about not serving. This was especially harmful to the lower class soldiers, often poor and black, who came back and found it harder to get jobs and re-integrate into society. When I was working at the State Department in Washington, I was struck by the fact that there were probably more Vietnam vets sleeping on the steam grates outside of the State Department than there were working inside of the building.
Iraq is probably somewhat better for the veterans because there is no draft. Thus, their cohorts can feel less guilty about not fighting there, especially if they go around saying they support the troops. Saying they support the troops has the additional benefit of encouraging someone else (besides them) to go fight in Iraq. So, Iraqi veterans are probably treated somewhat better than Vietnam veterans were, despite abuses like Abu Ghraib and the various murders and rapes currently under investigation, which probably surpass the atrocities committed in Vietnam. These things happen; war is hell, but compared to Vietnam, the Iraqi vets pretty much get a pass in the atrocity department. Again, partly because to reduce these atrocities, you need better quality troops, college educated from good families, exactly the type that are avoiding going. But despite all the talk about supporting the troops, Americans really don't. They go on about their lives. Hence, the atrocities at Walter Reed. And Iraqi vets should not think that once the war is over, having "veteran" on their resume will help them get a job; it will probably work against them.
In essence, WW II vets looked out for each other. There were enough of them to dominate politics, business, and most other sectors of local and national life. Plus the war had come close enough to home, beginning in Hawaii and affecting every household with rationing, defense jobs, and other direct impacts, so that no one could ignore it, even if they didn't fight. Korea was less intrusive; Vietnam even less, and Iraq, with no draft, almost not at all. How many households today are making significant sacrifices because of Iraq? Outside of military families, not many. And those profiting the most -- Halliburton, and other unscrupulous defense contractors -- seem to represent the very worst of America.
While Vietnam vets were off in Asia, their draft avoiding cohorts were getting ahead in life. But, especially because of avoiding the draft, they felt guilty about it, and therefore tended to do whatever they could to bring down the returning veterans, such as calling them war criminals, baby killers, etc. The draft dodgers tried to make the returning veterans into second class citizens, in order to make themselves feel better about not serving. This was especially harmful to the lower class soldiers, often poor and black, who came back and found it harder to get jobs and re-integrate into society. When I was working at the State Department in Washington, I was struck by the fact that there were probably more Vietnam vets sleeping on the steam grates outside of the State Department than there were working inside of the building.
Iraq is probably somewhat better for the veterans because there is no draft. Thus, their cohorts can feel less guilty about not fighting there, especially if they go around saying they support the troops. Saying they support the troops has the additional benefit of encouraging someone else (besides them) to go fight in Iraq. So, Iraqi veterans are probably treated somewhat better than Vietnam veterans were, despite abuses like Abu Ghraib and the various murders and rapes currently under investigation, which probably surpass the atrocities committed in Vietnam. These things happen; war is hell, but compared to Vietnam, the Iraqi vets pretty much get a pass in the atrocity department. Again, partly because to reduce these atrocities, you need better quality troops, college educated from good families, exactly the type that are avoiding going. But despite all the talk about supporting the troops, Americans really don't. They go on about their lives. Hence, the atrocities at Walter Reed. And Iraqi vets should not think that once the war is over, having "veteran" on their resume will help them get a job; it will probably work against them.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Aid to Israel
In his February 28 column in the NYT, Tom Friedman wrote about Israel:
Meanwhile, the US continues to send billions in "foreign assistance" to Israel, which according to Tom Friedman has one of the most vibrant economies in the world. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report on Israel (page 18):''The economy is blooming, growing in the last quarter of 2006 by almost 8%,'' said Sever Plocker of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, who is one of Israel's top economics writers. ''Foreign direct investment is flowing in at unprecedented rate -- $13.4 billion in 2006. The high-tech sector exports are approaching $18 billion, and the stock exchange is at an all-time high. The shekel is stronger than ever, the inflation nonexistent. Interest rates are lower than in U.S. or Britain, the budget deficit less than 1% of G.D.P., and the balance of payments is positive, which means Israel achieved its economic independence and is actually a net creditor to the rest of the world.
''In short, we never had it so good in the economy.''
Yossi Vardi, one of the founding fathers of Israel's high-tech industry, told me that in the last month alone, four start-ups that he was an investor in were sold: one to Cisco, one Microsoft, and two to Israeli companies. ''In the last nine months I've probably invested in at least nine new companies,'' added Mr. Vardi, all started by ''kids 25 to 35 years old.''
According to State Department budget documents, for 2008 the budget requested $2.4 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel out of a total budget of $4.536 billion, or about 53% of all of this assistance for the entire world. On the other hand, the budget includes no funds for Israel from the Economic Support Fund, which also totals over $4 billion worldwide.Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since 1976. In 1998, Israeli, congressional, and Administration officials agreed to reduce U.S. $1.2 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) to zero over ten years, while increasing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion. The process began in FY1999, with P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998. Separately from the scheduled ESF cuts, Israeli has received an extra $1.2 billion to fund implementation of the Wye agreement (part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) in FY2000, $200 million in anti-terror assistance in FY2002, and $1 billion in FMF in the supplemental appropriations bill for FY2003. P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2006, provided $240 million in ESF, $2.28 billion in FMF, and $40 million for the settlement of migrants to Israel. H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, FY2007, passed in the House on June 9, 2006, appropriates $120 million in ESF, $40 million for migration and refugee assistance, and $2.34 billion in FMF (of which $610 million may be spent for defense acquisitions in Israel), for Israel. The Senate has not yet passed a bill....
Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. Since the 1980s, ESF and FMF have been provided as all grant cash transfers, not designated for particular projects, and have been transferred as a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in periodic increments. Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States. Finally, to help Israel out of its economic slump, P.L. 108-11, April 16, 2003, provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008 and may be extended further. As of September 2006, $4.5 billion of the guarantees remain unexpended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)