Calvin Trillin Is Right

Calvin Trillin's op-ed in the NY Times is probably right, although it pretends to be humorous. To some extent, the problem is all those smart people on Wall Street. It reminds me of the old Jonathan Winters routine in which he plays a senator; when they ask him about reports that he is inept, he replies that it's all those "ept" people that we have to worry about. When both the bankers and the regulators were somewhat inept, we didn't have to worry too much, but when the bankers became so much smarter than the regulators, we ran into huge problems. Or as Trillin says, when the traders became so much smarter than their bosses, so that the bosses at the big banks did not understand what their subordinates were doing, except that they were all getting insanely rich.

It's the same joke they told about law school: the A students because professors, the B students became judges, and the C students became rich. It's as if the A students have left the classroom for the courtroom, where they are winning huge judgments for undeserving plaintiffs.

Scale Back Afghanistan

After thinking about Afghanistan some more, I believe it's time to start leaving, or at least to scale back. My first consideration, as a Vietnam draftee, is what would happen if we started drafting people to fight in Afghanistan. We would have a rebellion just like we had during Vietnam. Very few people would go. Right after 9/11/2001 there was a patriotic impulse, personified by Pat Tillman, to go fight al-Qaeda there, but that impulse has gone cold. Our main mission there was to find and punish al-Qaeda, especially Osama bin Laden, and we have so far failed at that for over eight years. Now there's concern that the Taliban will return to power and give sanctuary to al-Qaeda again. First, the Taliban is not exactly our enemy, although they are awful people, oppressing women, destroying Buddhas, etc. Al-Qaeda is our enemy, but what do they get from the Taliban? Probably unfettered access to a few square miles of land to use as training bases to plan attacks on the West. Can't we interdict these bases without bringing Jeffersonian democracy to Afghanistan, reportedly an impossible job? I think we can. We can reach some kind of agreement with the Afghans to shoot missiles at any such bases or send in airborne commandos or some such arrangement. Karzai will be happy to have us our of his day to day affairs and let him get back to the corruption that's making him rich. The goal of protecting America does not require us to turn Afghanistan into a Western democracy.

There is the matter of Bush/Cheney sacrificing hundreds of lives of American troops for nothing. That's awful, but there is no sense in sacrificing more lives in a wasted effort. The thing to do is for America to do all it can for the families of the fallen and the wounded.

I am skeptical that America will care for the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. They are too isolated from the rest of American society. They come from a relatively small cohort in terms of income and political views. They are basically mercenaries, although they come from within American society, except for the significant number who are immigrants who are not citizens. If my return from Vietnam is any indication (and I think in some ways the return of these veterans will be worse) they can't expect much from American society. Few people are going to help them find jobs, for example, except a few who think they can get some good publicity from hiring a few veterans. Vietnam veterans returned to active hatred or at least opposition from those who refused to go; today's veterans return just to indifference, and many have an even more difficult job adjusting because they have served so many tours in such difficult conditions. With the draft, in general, people just went once. "Lifers" kept going back, but they planned to make the military their career. There are more lifers today, but there are a lot who are disillusioned, but find it very difficult to leave, but they don't fit into the society they left behind.

Afghanistan Quandry

As Obama is seized with the issue of what to do in Afghanistan, there is more and more discussion of Pakistan, which is good.

I don't think you can blame Obama for the position he has taken to date on Afghanistan. He correctly determined that the Bush administration had failed terribly in Afghanistan by starting a war and then walking away from it to fight a new war in Iraq. It was unconscionable to walk away from a war while leaving thousands of US troops fighting there. Bush and Cheney flushed the lives of soldiers who died in Afghanistan down the toilet, starting with Pat Tillman. Obama said that we were going to stop killing these troops for nothing. But in doing so, he stepped into quicksand, because there was no coherent strategy for Afghanistan, just as there was none in Iraq until Gen. Petraeus came up with one for Bush and Cheney. But so far, Petraeus, who oversees Afghanistan from the US, has failed to come up with an Afghan strategy, apparently leaving that task to the general on site, Gen. McChrystal, whose proposal has become a political football. It's ironic that McChrystal replaced a general there who was fired because of insubordination, although publicly he appeared to be as quiet as a mouse, much quieter than McChrystal. Either this was a botched change of command, or there's something going on that's not getting reported, some kind of kabuki drama to get us to a place that's not currently apparent.

In McChrystal's defense, I think he is opposed to continuing to see the lives of the troops he commands being flushed down the toilet. Therefore, he might be amenable to a strategy that draws down the troops in harm's way, if that can be done. On the other hand, if Richard Engel of NBC was right on "Morning Joe" recently, saying that unlike Iraqis the Afghans in general hate the US and just want us out, then there may be no small-footprint strategy that protects US troops. There's some poll that people cite that only six percent of Afghans like the Taliban, but what if an even smaller percentage like the US?

The other big unknown in this equation is Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda appear to have migrated from Afghanistan to Pakistan. For a while, it looked like the Taliban were successfully challenging the government of Pakistan. Now Washington Post columnist David Ignatius is omnipresent saying the Pakistan is doing much better against the Taliban and that things are not as bad as they were. But to what extent are the Taliban and al-Qaeda in league with elements of the Pakistani government and leadership elite? Can we be sure they didn't just agree to cool it to get the US off Pakistan's back and resume its aid. Once the US is out of Afghanistan, it will much more difficult for it to interfere in Pakistan's affairs. If you have doubts about the ability of the current Pakistani government to control its nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future, then that's an argument not to leave Afghanistan.

It's a little less provable, but it's arguable that Bush/Cheney led to this impasse in Pakistan by unquestionably supporting former President Musharraf in the absence of any popular democratic support for him. Thus when he left, there were no institutions in place to replace him, especially after the assassination of Mrs. Bhutto.

In any case, Obama is faced with a very difficult decision about a war that he inherited. For him the easiest thing for him to do politically would be to wind it down and walk away from it, declaring it a Bush/Cheney quagmire that he has decided to crawl out of. But is that the best thing for the US? Does that continue the Bush/Cheney decision to flush the lives of fallen American soldiers in Afghanistan down the toilet, i.e., does it devalue eight years of valiant service by American soldiers? Does it undermine American security by allowing Afghanistan to again become a sanctuary for anti-American terrorists? Will it make it easier for terrorists to gain access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

I don't envy Obama.

Jews Still Hate Roosevelt

The New York Times reports that Jews called on President Roosevelt to bomb Auschwitz-Birkenau during World War II. I guess the idea was that bombing would put the gas chambers out of commission, but on the other hand, it would have killed hundreds or thousands of Jews who were prisoners. It seems like a crazy idea, but it reflects the turmoil of American and Israeli Jews who escaped the camps and who must feel horribly guilty.

It's unlikely the US could have done anything, even if the Jews had been united in requesting the bombing. Because Poland was so far east, it was difficult for the allies to reach it with bombers or any other kind of support, including when the whole of Warsaw fought against the Germans during the Warsaw uprising.

In any case, I'm not crazy about the Holocaust Memorial on the mall criticizing the US performance in World War II. First of all, why does the Memorial only remember the Jews, when Gypsies (or Romas) and blacks in Germany were subject to almost the same treatment. While Polish Christians may not have been singled out to be gassed as the Jews were, many ordinary Poles died in the death camps from disease, starvation, overwork, etc. Are their deaths less important than Jewish deaths? And what about all the others who died in World War II, tens of millions of Soviets, millions of Eastern Europeans, not to mention allied countries. Are they chopped liver? Jews ignore the deaths of gentiles while they mourn the deaths of other Jews. And we have a monument on the National Mall that criticizes America for the way it fought World War II, which of course included liberating the surviving Jews at Auschwitz and the other death camps. Maybe the war profiteering Jews who stayed in America and became rich off the war would have been happier if they didn't have to face the death camp survivors.