Why Do Republicans Hate Veterans, Especially Marines?
Apparently the Swift Boat Veterans have another commercial out. As a Vietnam veteran, I have had enough attacks on my patriotism. I don't like Kerry because he attacked veterans in the 1970s, but now I don't like Bush because he is attacking veterans vehemently today. An attack on Kerry because he is a veteran is an attack on all veterans. Claiming that it is an attack on him because of how he got his medals or what he did during some particular 15 minutes in country does not make it any less an attack on him because he is a veteran. Veterans deserve support from their country. I pity the poor soldiers in Iraq who have to come back as veterans reviled by Bush.
In particular, I pity the Marines, whose courage has been called into question by their tours in Iraq. The Marines were the main troops in Fallouja and Najaf, where the US ran into serious resistance and chickened out. It makes the Marines look like cowards, but I doubt that they are. The decision to retreat was probably made by somebody else, but, nevertheless, the Marine Corps' valor is called into question by their conduct in Iraq. An article in the L.A. Times says the whole Marine approach to Fallouja has turned out to be a "fiasco," quoting a Marine colonel. The article says that the Iraqi force that replaced the Marines was created "to avoid a bloodbath," which of course I don't wish on the Marines, but it looks like when they were faced with a bloody battle, the Marines chickened out. The Marines should not allow themselves to appear as cowards because of decisions made by others, who are probably civilian policy makers who have never seen combat and probably avoided service in Vietnam like Bush and Cheney, if they were old enough to face that prospect.
Although the Marines in the field may not be to blame, their senior commanders in Washington certainly are for knuckling under to their cowardly political overseers. The current Marine Corps commandant should resign. The only senior military commander who displayed the courage to stand up to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and company was former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was viciously attacked by them for standing up for his troops.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Friday, September 10, 2004
Why Do Some Christians Put Israel's Interests Ahead of America's?
Following up on the previous posting, I don't understand the position of many fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel's future is more important than America's. One of these is apparently House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
According to his own Congressional website, "DeLay has increasingly taken a leadership role in foreign affairs through his work to expand freedom and his articulation of democratic principles. He was a forceful advocate of President Bush's decision to confront Saddam Hussein's aggression and received the Friend of Israel award this April from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews."
According to MSNBC, during the Republican Convention, DeLay staked "the Republican appeal to Jews on Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein, his commitment to Israel and his ongoing crusade against Islamic fanatics. 'My friends, there is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is only the global war on terrorism,' DeLay told the crowd at the Plaza Hotel Monday." The report continued, "'If Israel falls to the terrorists, the entire free world will tremble. To forsake Israel now would be tantamount to forsaking Great Britain in 1940,' DeLay declared Monday. 'It is unthinkable, and it is unthinkable because the world wants to know if we believe freedom is worth fighting for.'"
As a Christian, I don't see why the the US should tie itself so tightly to a country that is based on non-Christian ideas. Certainly Christianity includes a lot of Jewish ideas, e.g., the Ten Commandments, but it also goes beyond these ideas, e.g., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Why do fundamentalist Christian Americans reject Jesus' teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount? I don't get it. These uniquely Christian ideas go to the heart of what America is about, or used to be about. Maybe that's why torture upsets me, but not the majority of Americans, who seem to have forsaken Christianity for Judaism, with its eye-for-an-eye morality, unlike the Christian turn-the-other-cheek morality.
Following up on the previous posting, I don't understand the position of many fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel's future is more important than America's. One of these is apparently House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
According to his own Congressional website, "DeLay has increasingly taken a leadership role in foreign affairs through his work to expand freedom and his articulation of democratic principles. He was a forceful advocate of President Bush's decision to confront Saddam Hussein's aggression and received the Friend of Israel award this April from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews."
According to MSNBC, during the Republican Convention, DeLay staked "the Republican appeal to Jews on Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein, his commitment to Israel and his ongoing crusade against Islamic fanatics. 'My friends, there is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is only the global war on terrorism,' DeLay told the crowd at the Plaza Hotel Monday." The report continued, "'If Israel falls to the terrorists, the entire free world will tremble. To forsake Israel now would be tantamount to forsaking Great Britain in 1940,' DeLay declared Monday. 'It is unthinkable, and it is unthinkable because the world wants to know if we believe freedom is worth fighting for.'"
As a Christian, I don't see why the the US should tie itself so tightly to a country that is based on non-Christian ideas. Certainly Christianity includes a lot of Jewish ideas, e.g., the Ten Commandments, but it also goes beyond these ideas, e.g., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Why do fundamentalist Christian Americans reject Jesus' teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount? I don't get it. These uniquely Christian ideas go to the heart of what America is about, or used to be about. Maybe that's why torture upsets me, but not the majority of Americans, who seem to have forsaken Christianity for Judaism, with its eye-for-an-eye morality, unlike the Christian turn-the-other-cheek morality.
Soldiers in Iraq Are Fighting for Israel, Not America
In an article in the New York Review of Books, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., makes no bones about the Israeli/Jewish basis for the war in Iraq. He cites the influence of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago on many of the neo-conservatives who pressed for the war. He quotes from Anne Norton's book, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. She says the post-September 11 strategic plan of Paul Wolfowitz was "built conceptually and geographically around the centrality of Israel.... This strategy could be understood as advancing American interests and security only if one saw those as identical to the interests and security of the state of Israel."
Then he cites James Bamford's book, A Pretext for War. Bamford says that "despite the fact that Israeli intelligence, like that of the United States, had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Israeli government, along with the media, deliberately hyped the dangers of Iraq before the war." Schlesinger does not note that one component of the Israel media, the Jerusalem Post, had a virulent, anti-Iraq neo-con on its editorial board, Richard Perle. According to Schlesinger, Bamford further suggests that the Mossad and Ranaan Gissin, "Sharon's top aide," rivaled Ahmed Chalabi in sending Washington phony intelligence designed to frighten President Bush.
It worries me that it was so easy to frighten Bush. We need a courageous President, who is not necessarily John Kerry, but is certainly not George Bush.
In an article in the New York Review of Books, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., makes no bones about the Israeli/Jewish basis for the war in Iraq. He cites the influence of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago on many of the neo-conservatives who pressed for the war. He quotes from Anne Norton's book, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. She says the post-September 11 strategic plan of Paul Wolfowitz was "built conceptually and geographically around the centrality of Israel.... This strategy could be understood as advancing American interests and security only if one saw those as identical to the interests and security of the state of Israel."
Then he cites James Bamford's book, A Pretext for War. Bamford says that "despite the fact that Israeli intelligence, like that of the United States, had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Israeli government, along with the media, deliberately hyped the dangers of Iraq before the war." Schlesinger does not note that one component of the Israel media, the Jerusalem Post, had a virulent, anti-Iraq neo-con on its editorial board, Richard Perle. According to Schlesinger, Bamford further suggests that the Mossad and Ranaan Gissin, "Sharon's top aide," rivaled Ahmed Chalabi in sending Washington phony intelligence designed to frighten President Bush.
It worries me that it was so easy to frighten Bush. We need a courageous President, who is not necessarily John Kerry, but is certainly not George Bush.
Torture Is a Bad Thing
The papers report that Iraq is not a problem for George Bush, but it is for me. Not only am I disappointed that WMD have never been found and that there is no clear link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, but I am very upset that the administration has not reacted strongly to distance itself from the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and other locations, inside and outside of Iraq. Today, the New York Times reported that the CIA has hidden many more prisoners than at first believed.
As far as I am concerned, this administration went wrong when it first decided that the Geneva Convention did not apply to prisoners in Guantanamo, and then went on to fail to apply the Geneva Convention to other prisoners outside of Guantanamo. I think the whole group that decided not to apply the Geneva Convention should go, presumably including President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as White House and Justice Department staffers. Many high ranking military officers have dirty hands, starting with General Miller, who used to be incharge of Guantanamo, and now is in charge of Abu Ghraib. The recent military claims that many more low ranking soldiers were involved is just a smoke screen to protect high ranking officers. How can America use torture as a political tool? It's awful. The people who do it and approve it are awful.
I've believed since the start of the war that the CIA was using torture, but I thought it was probably sending prisoners to places like Morocco, so that it could claim that Americans were not torturing prisoners. Now, it turns out that nobody cares. It's fine for Americans to torture people. I don't think so. Where is the outrage? Why does American have to follow Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's example? They were the people we wanted to get rid of, and now we are saying that they were using the right tactics!
The papers report that Iraq is not a problem for George Bush, but it is for me. Not only am I disappointed that WMD have never been found and that there is no clear link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, but I am very upset that the administration has not reacted strongly to distance itself from the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and other locations, inside and outside of Iraq. Today, the New York Times reported that the CIA has hidden many more prisoners than at first believed.
As far as I am concerned, this administration went wrong when it first decided that the Geneva Convention did not apply to prisoners in Guantanamo, and then went on to fail to apply the Geneva Convention to other prisoners outside of Guantanamo. I think the whole group that decided not to apply the Geneva Convention should go, presumably including President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as White House and Justice Department staffers. Many high ranking military officers have dirty hands, starting with General Miller, who used to be incharge of Guantanamo, and now is in charge of Abu Ghraib. The recent military claims that many more low ranking soldiers were involved is just a smoke screen to protect high ranking officers. How can America use torture as a political tool? It's awful. The people who do it and approve it are awful.
I've believed since the start of the war that the CIA was using torture, but I thought it was probably sending prisoners to places like Morocco, so that it could claim that Americans were not torturing prisoners. Now, it turns out that nobody cares. It's fine for Americans to torture people. I don't think so. Where is the outrage? Why does American have to follow Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's example? They were the people we wanted to get rid of, and now we are saying that they were using the right tactics!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Spy In The Pentagon Raises Serious Policy and Loyalty Issues
The fact that many of those arguing for war in Iraq were Jews has been crystalized by the reports of security breaches by Pentagon officer Larry Franklin, who reportedly passed classified information to Israel via AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many of the neoconservatives, particularly those connected with the American Enterprise Institute, such as Richard Perle, were Jews. Apparently Franklin is not a Jew, but a strong supporter of Israel.
Recent news reports say that AIPAC has been under investigation for years because of national security concerns, presumably something to do with Israel. This indicates that while AIPAC is supposed to be an American organization, it was suspected by the FBI of more sinister activities against the interests of the US. Also, one report said that despite Israel's denials, the US is a principle focus of Israel's intelligence efforts. Dennis Ross, who was the chief US negotiator for the Middle East under both Presidents Bush I and Clinton, now apparently works for AIPAC. So, who has he really been working for during the last 10 or 12 years?
A Wall Street Journal editorial on September 1 said of the scandal, "Nor is it part of a Zionist conspiracy run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith." It went on to criticize the original CBS News report about Franklin's ties to Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The editorial said, "You don't need a secret decoder ring to know that this sentence [in the CBS report] is meant as a bit of innuendo against the Pentagon's 'neoconservatives,' who in this case happen to be Jewish (though Mr. Franklin is not)."
I totally disagree with the Wall Street Journal but compliment it for crystalizing the issues. It does look like Feith is running a Zionist conspiracy made up of neoconservatives, both Jewish and Gentile, that is not in the best interests of the US.
The fact that many of those arguing for war in Iraq were Jews has been crystalized by the reports of security breaches by Pentagon officer Larry Franklin, who reportedly passed classified information to Israel via AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many of the neoconservatives, particularly those connected with the American Enterprise Institute, such as Richard Perle, were Jews. Apparently Franklin is not a Jew, but a strong supporter of Israel.
Recent news reports say that AIPAC has been under investigation for years because of national security concerns, presumably something to do with Israel. This indicates that while AIPAC is supposed to be an American organization, it was suspected by the FBI of more sinister activities against the interests of the US. Also, one report said that despite Israel's denials, the US is a principle focus of Israel's intelligence efforts. Dennis Ross, who was the chief US negotiator for the Middle East under both Presidents Bush I and Clinton, now apparently works for AIPAC. So, who has he really been working for during the last 10 or 12 years?
A Wall Street Journal editorial on September 1 said of the scandal, "Nor is it part of a Zionist conspiracy run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith." It went on to criticize the original CBS News report about Franklin's ties to Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The editorial said, "You don't need a secret decoder ring to know that this sentence [in the CBS report] is meant as a bit of innuendo against the Pentagon's 'neoconservatives,' who in this case happen to be Jewish (though Mr. Franklin is not)."
I totally disagree with the Wall Street Journal but compliment it for crystalizing the issues. It does look like Feith is running a Zionist conspiracy made up of neoconservatives, both Jewish and Gentile, that is not in the best interests of the US.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
General George Marshall and the Politicization of the US Military
General George Marshall was the most senior Army general during World War II, the man who selected and commanded the other senior generals during the war, including General Eisenhower. At the end of the war, President Truman called him the greatest living American. Because of his loyalty to the country of the United States, he did not vote in Presidential elections, so that he could serve whoever was elected with equal loyalty. He would no doubt have been either party's choice to run for President rather than Eisenhower, but he would not run. He did serve as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense after he left the active military service.
As I see former senior military officers running for office, like Wesley Clark, or being used as tools and backdrops in this Presidential campaign, like Tommy Franks, I see the wisdom of General Marshall's position. Both parties make overt appeals to serving military personnel, as they do to firemen and policemen.
Last Friday on PBS' Washington Week, Gwen Ifill made the point that with the bitter polarization of politics, politicians have ceased to see themselves a public servants. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, I think she is right. That means as the military becomes politicized, it will become less a profession of public service, creating the possibility that the military will become a domestic tool of the serving President, as in many dictatorships.
General George Marshall was the most senior Army general during World War II, the man who selected and commanded the other senior generals during the war, including General Eisenhower. At the end of the war, President Truman called him the greatest living American. Because of his loyalty to the country of the United States, he did not vote in Presidential elections, so that he could serve whoever was elected with equal loyalty. He would no doubt have been either party's choice to run for President rather than Eisenhower, but he would not run. He did serve as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense after he left the active military service.
As I see former senior military officers running for office, like Wesley Clark, or being used as tools and backdrops in this Presidential campaign, like Tommy Franks, I see the wisdom of General Marshall's position. Both parties make overt appeals to serving military personnel, as they do to firemen and policemen.
Last Friday on PBS' Washington Week, Gwen Ifill made the point that with the bitter polarization of politics, politicians have ceased to see themselves a public servants. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, I think she is right. That means as the military becomes politicized, it will become less a profession of public service, creating the possibility that the military will become a domestic tool of the serving President, as in many dictatorships.
When Zell Miller and John Kerry Meet in Heaven
Well, I don't think Zell Miller is likely to make it to heaven. Zell Miller's speech at the Republican Convention tonight must be some kind of record for a Democratic Senator's personal attack on a fellow Democratic Senator, John Kerry. People talk about the dignity of the Senate, that it's the world's greatest deliberative body. It's obviously home to some maniacal haters. It's hard to imagine how much Miller must hate Kerry, and what an impolite, ungracious man Miller is. But such conduct seems to be typical of Georgia Senators, since his Senate colleague, Saxby Chambliss, got elected by attacking the patriotism of the former Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam. How dirty and filthy Georgia politics and politicians must be!
Well, I don't think Zell Miller is likely to make it to heaven. Zell Miller's speech at the Republican Convention tonight must be some kind of record for a Democratic Senator's personal attack on a fellow Democratic Senator, John Kerry. People talk about the dignity of the Senate, that it's the world's greatest deliberative body. It's obviously home to some maniacal haters. It's hard to imagine how much Miller must hate Kerry, and what an impolite, ungracious man Miller is. But such conduct seems to be typical of Georgia Senators, since his Senate colleague, Saxby Chambliss, got elected by attacking the patriotism of the former Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam. How dirty and filthy Georgia politics and politicians must be!
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
George W. Bush Is A Coward
I got tired of hearing during the Republican Convention tonight how brave George W. Bush is. Since he did not go to Vietnam and never faced combat, the test of his bravery was his reaction when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. After he finally quit reading some children's story about a goat, according to Fahrenheit 911, he got into Air Force One in Florida and flew to Louisiana and then to Nebraska, and finally, after everything was over, he flew back to Washington. If he was the Commander-in-Chief, why didn't he fly straight back to Washington and take charge of the defense of the his country. He was scared to death. He was afraid to go back to Washington. The White House defense is that the Secret Service told him he couldn't go back to Washington until they could make sure it was secure. Neither Bush nor the Secret Service believed that the multi-billion dollar military that we pay to protect him and us was up to the job. But whether the military was up to the job or not, it was Bush's job to lead, and he fled. He was tested and found wanting.
I got tired of hearing during the Republican Convention tonight how brave George W. Bush is. Since he did not go to Vietnam and never faced combat, the test of his bravery was his reaction when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. After he finally quit reading some children's story about a goat, according to Fahrenheit 911, he got into Air Force One in Florida and flew to Louisiana and then to Nebraska, and finally, after everything was over, he flew back to Washington. If he was the Commander-in-Chief, why didn't he fly straight back to Washington and take charge of the defense of the his country. He was scared to death. He was afraid to go back to Washington. The White House defense is that the Secret Service told him he couldn't go back to Washington until they could make sure it was secure. Neither Bush nor the Secret Service believed that the multi-billion dollar military that we pay to protect him and us was up to the job. But whether the military was up to the job or not, it was Bush's job to lead, and he fled. He was tested and found wanting.
Richard Perle's Bad Character Revealed
A report of a special committee the Hollinger International Corporation board has excoriated Richard Perle for poor conduct as a member of the board, enriching himself and CEO Conrad Black at the expense of the corporation and its stockholders, according to the New York Times. The criticism couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. It was through his contact with Conrad Black that he was on the editorial board of the Jerusalem Post.
I first encountered Richard Perle when he was a hard line, right wing Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. More recently he was one of the most outspoken neo-cons promoting the war in Iraq, appearing on almost every news show in the run-up to the war. During that period, however, he had to resign as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board because of conflicts of interest. Hopefully, this terrible report criticizing his competence and integrity will end his public career, but that is probably too much to hope for.
A report of a special committee the Hollinger International Corporation board has excoriated Richard Perle for poor conduct as a member of the board, enriching himself and CEO Conrad Black at the expense of the corporation and its stockholders, according to the New York Times. The criticism couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. It was through his contact with Conrad Black that he was on the editorial board of the Jerusalem Post.
I first encountered Richard Perle when he was a hard line, right wing Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. More recently he was one of the most outspoken neo-cons promoting the war in Iraq, appearing on almost every news show in the run-up to the war. During that period, however, he had to resign as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board because of conflicts of interest. Hopefully, this terrible report criticizing his competence and integrity will end his public career, but that is probably too much to hope for.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Dregs of Society Running for President
As a Vietnam veteran, I find myself caught between the Swift boat veterans for Bush and the Swift boat veteran/anti-war protestor running as the Democratic candidate. I share the Swift boat veterans' contempt for John Kerry because of his denunciation of all Vietnam veterans when he returned from Vietnam (after a cushy assignment finishing his Navy tour of service by accompanying an Admiral around the country). But I also respect Kerry for volunteering to serve in Vietnam, in close combat (after an earlier cushy tour cruising off the coast of Vietnam on a big Navy ship).
The Democrats did this to themselves by nominating someone who brings out the best and the worst of military service. Republican Senators John McCain or Chuck Hagel don't carry this "worst" of Vietnam baggage. I don't know of a Democrat who carries the "best" like they do. But as a Deaniac, I would have preferred that the Democrats nominate someone who did not conjure up these black and white Vietnam passions. I would have preferred someone passionate about today's issues, like the war in Iraq. Kerry is milk toast on Iraq. If they wanted someone wishy-washy, they could have nominated Gephardt, who is a decent, if colorless, man, and they would have avoided the Vietnam pit.
My own theory is that Kerry only got the nomination because Dean and Gephardt killed each other off in Iowa, and left the number three candidate, Kerry, standing. He did not get the nomination because of any great preference for him by Iowa and New Hampshire voters. But now the Democrats are stuck with him. He does represent contradictions, although not exactly as portrayed by the Republican negative ads. He is a Vietnam war hero who opposed that war, just as he was a senator who supported the Iraq war, but voted against the money to fight it.
Once again, maybe deservedly, we Vietnam veterans are left holding the bag, looking bad on both sides. The Swift boat veterans look bad for their attacks on Kerry, which are not supported by the written, historical record; they appear to be motivated by hatred of him because of anti-war statements after his return. Kerry looks bad because of his unfounded attacks on all Vietnam veterans as war criminals after his return.
I would like to support a Vietnam veteran like Kerry, but not one who has vilified other Vietnam veterans as he has. So, despite my contempt for the Swift boat veterans and their ads, I may still support Ralph Nader, who is at least honest, a man of integrity, even if this vote helps Bush, whom I now despise for his "pre-emptive" war on Iraq, certainly one of the most horrible foreign policy adventures of our generation, one motivated by hatred, hubris, fear, and every other bad motive you can imagine.
The atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib under his command only illustrate his depravity. He is commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and the whole war, not just the parts he likes. I am outraged, not that the Abu Ghraib atrocities occurred (horrible things happen in war), but that Bush and other senior officials were so slow and spineless in responding to them. If Bush were a true Christian, he would have taken strong actions up and down the chain of command immediately to show his revulsion, instead of hiding behind a long, drawn-out series of studies and reports, and show trials of low-ranking individuals.
As a Vietnam veteran, I find myself caught between the Swift boat veterans for Bush and the Swift boat veteran/anti-war protestor running as the Democratic candidate. I share the Swift boat veterans' contempt for John Kerry because of his denunciation of all Vietnam veterans when he returned from Vietnam (after a cushy assignment finishing his Navy tour of service by accompanying an Admiral around the country). But I also respect Kerry for volunteering to serve in Vietnam, in close combat (after an earlier cushy tour cruising off the coast of Vietnam on a big Navy ship).
The Democrats did this to themselves by nominating someone who brings out the best and the worst of military service. Republican Senators John McCain or Chuck Hagel don't carry this "worst" of Vietnam baggage. I don't know of a Democrat who carries the "best" like they do. But as a Deaniac, I would have preferred that the Democrats nominate someone who did not conjure up these black and white Vietnam passions. I would have preferred someone passionate about today's issues, like the war in Iraq. Kerry is milk toast on Iraq. If they wanted someone wishy-washy, they could have nominated Gephardt, who is a decent, if colorless, man, and they would have avoided the Vietnam pit.
My own theory is that Kerry only got the nomination because Dean and Gephardt killed each other off in Iowa, and left the number three candidate, Kerry, standing. He did not get the nomination because of any great preference for him by Iowa and New Hampshire voters. But now the Democrats are stuck with him. He does represent contradictions, although not exactly as portrayed by the Republican negative ads. He is a Vietnam war hero who opposed that war, just as he was a senator who supported the Iraq war, but voted against the money to fight it.
Once again, maybe deservedly, we Vietnam veterans are left holding the bag, looking bad on both sides. The Swift boat veterans look bad for their attacks on Kerry, which are not supported by the written, historical record; they appear to be motivated by hatred of him because of anti-war statements after his return. Kerry looks bad because of his unfounded attacks on all Vietnam veterans as war criminals after his return.
I would like to support a Vietnam veteran like Kerry, but not one who has vilified other Vietnam veterans as he has. So, despite my contempt for the Swift boat veterans and their ads, I may still support Ralph Nader, who is at least honest, a man of integrity, even if this vote helps Bush, whom I now despise for his "pre-emptive" war on Iraq, certainly one of the most horrible foreign policy adventures of our generation, one motivated by hatred, hubris, fear, and every other bad motive you can imagine.
The atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib under his command only illustrate his depravity. He is commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and the whole war, not just the parts he likes. I am outraged, not that the Abu Ghraib atrocities occurred (horrible things happen in war), but that Bush and other senior officials were so slow and spineless in responding to them. If Bush were a true Christian, he would have taken strong actions up and down the chain of command immediately to show his revulsion, instead of hiding behind a long, drawn-out series of studies and reports, and show trials of low-ranking individuals.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
State Department Has Vietnam Veterans; Pentagon Doesn't
As a Vietnam veteran and a retired Foreign Service officer, I found the article in today's Washington Post, "Old Vietnam Hands in Charge in Iraq," an interesting comparison between the State Department and the Pentagon. The State Department has quite a few people who served in Vietnam now serving in Iraq. The senior civilian leadership of the Pentagon is devoid of Vietnam veterans. What's wrong with this picture? To me it means that more people at the State Department are concerned about their country than people at the Pentagon. People at State answered their country's call in the 1960's, while those at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz and company, had better things to do. (Of course, Wolfowitz served at State, too, in previous administrations.) Retired General Barry McCaffrey particularly points to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as someone who did not serve in Vietnam, and thus who is first-hand unfamiliar with the problems encountered there. However, Rumsfeld did serve in the military during peacetime. Of course, the military leadership at the Pentagon probably has a lot of Vietnam veterans, but they are aging and may be retiring too fast to remain in the military leadership. The one general I felt some connection with was Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinsheki, who served in the same general area of northern I Corps (near the DMZ) that I served in, and who was vilified by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for calling for more troops to occupy Iraq.
I think it is significant that the leadership of the State Department, which has the reputation of being dovish, actually has more combat experience than the civilian leadership of the Pentagon.
As a Vietnam veteran and a retired Foreign Service officer, I found the article in today's Washington Post, "Old Vietnam Hands in Charge in Iraq," an interesting comparison between the State Department and the Pentagon. The State Department has quite a few people who served in Vietnam now serving in Iraq. The senior civilian leadership of the Pentagon is devoid of Vietnam veterans. What's wrong with this picture? To me it means that more people at the State Department are concerned about their country than people at the Pentagon. People at State answered their country's call in the 1960's, while those at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz and company, had better things to do. (Of course, Wolfowitz served at State, too, in previous administrations.) Retired General Barry McCaffrey particularly points to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as someone who did not serve in Vietnam, and thus who is first-hand unfamiliar with the problems encountered there. However, Rumsfeld did serve in the military during peacetime. Of course, the military leadership at the Pentagon probably has a lot of Vietnam veterans, but they are aging and may be retiring too fast to remain in the military leadership. The one general I felt some connection with was Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinsheki, who served in the same general area of northern I Corps (near the DMZ) that I served in, and who was vilified by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for calling for more troops to occupy Iraq.
I think it is significant that the leadership of the State Department, which has the reputation of being dovish, actually has more combat experience than the civilian leadership of the Pentagon.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Is Carnegie Endowment Still Wedded to Neoconservative Pre-Emptive War?
Recently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a conference on nuclear nonproliferation, which I thought at least started a useful discussion. Bush has called for major reforms to the nonproliferation treaty regime, and IAEA chief ElBaradei has echoed Bush.
However, in an article in the Washington Post on the failure of Bush's pre-emptive foreign policy, Robin Wright quotes Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment as an unrepentant Neoconservative. So, that makes me worry that the Carnegie nonproliferation initiative is pre-emption under a different name. After all the first justification for our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation is an important issue, but maybe we shouldn't yet throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the existing nonproliferation regime.
Recently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a conference on nuclear nonproliferation, which I thought at least started a useful discussion. Bush has called for major reforms to the nonproliferation treaty regime, and IAEA chief ElBaradei has echoed Bush.
However, in an article in the Washington Post on the failure of Bush's pre-emptive foreign policy, Robin Wright quotes Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment as an unrepentant Neoconservative. So, that makes me worry that the Carnegie nonproliferation initiative is pre-emption under a different name. After all the first justification for our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation is an important issue, but maybe we shouldn't yet throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the existing nonproliferation regime.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Diplomats vs. Bush
While I have not seen the text of the letter signed by a number of senior American diplomats, I support what I have heard about it. I never understood why the US thought it had to go it alone in Iraq. If we had gotten some international organization on board -- the UN, NATO, or some regional organization (unlikely, but conceivable) -- to support our intervention, we would now be in a much better position to defend what we did, Abu Ghraib and all. If we had had some partners, the Red Cross might have used them to get our attention to stop Abu Ghraib before it got out of hand, as it did. Now we are really hanging out there all alone. We need someone besides Bush, someone nicer, someone more devoted to the US constitution, and someone with higher class advisers, particularly as Secretary of Defense and Attorney General.
While I have not seen the text of the letter signed by a number of senior American diplomats, I support what I have heard about it. I never understood why the US thought it had to go it alone in Iraq. If we had gotten some international organization on board -- the UN, NATO, or some regional organization (unlikely, but conceivable) -- to support our intervention, we would now be in a much better position to defend what we did, Abu Ghraib and all. If we had had some partners, the Red Cross might have used them to get our attention to stop Abu Ghraib before it got out of hand, as it did. Now we are really hanging out there all alone. We need someone besides Bush, someone nicer, someone more devoted to the US constitution, and someone with higher class advisers, particularly as Secretary of Defense and Attorney General.
Monday, April 19, 2004
US Review of Death Penalty Cases Under Vienna Convention
I strongly support the view in today's New York Times editorial that the US comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice calling on the US to review the convictions of foreigners in the US who were denied access to consular officials from their home countries, which is a right granted under the Vienna Convention, to which the US is a signatory. As the editorial points out, the main concern is that US consular officials be granted access to US citizens arrested in foreign countries, who are much more likely to be subjected to torture or lesser mistreatment, than foreigners are in the US. It is a simple matter of protecting Americans. I suppose Bush's solution, given his contempt for law and diplomacy, is to forget the law and instead send in US troops to kill the foreign prison guards and release any Americans who he thinks have been arrested and treated improperly.
I strongly support the view in today's New York Times editorial that the US comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice calling on the US to review the convictions of foreigners in the US who were denied access to consular officials from their home countries, which is a right granted under the Vienna Convention, to which the US is a signatory. As the editorial points out, the main concern is that US consular officials be granted access to US citizens arrested in foreign countries, who are much more likely to be subjected to torture or lesser mistreatment, than foreigners are in the US. It is a simple matter of protecting Americans. I suppose Bush's solution, given his contempt for law and diplomacy, is to forget the law and instead send in US troops to kill the foreign prison guards and release any Americans who he thinks have been arrested and treated improperly.
Woodward Book
I am glad that Secretary of State Powell appears to be getting his view out in Bob Woodward's new book, although the book is apparently not released, yet. Powell is probably worried about his place in history, since he has spent his career at State surrounded by a bunch of uneducated idiots in other parts of the government, i.e., Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not idiots, but they have not used their minds in their current positions. According to Woodward on "60 Minutes" last night, President Bush is totally uninterested in his place in history. He told Woodward, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." Bush probably never read a history book anyway.
I am glad that Secretary of State Powell appears to be getting his view out in Bob Woodward's new book, although the book is apparently not released, yet. Powell is probably worried about his place in history, since he has spent his career at State surrounded by a bunch of uneducated idiots in other parts of the government, i.e., Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not idiots, but they have not used their minds in their current positions. According to Woodward on "60 Minutes" last night, President Bush is totally uninterested in his place in history. He told Woodward, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." Bush probably never read a history book anyway.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Casey at the CIA
In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's Against All Enemies, he describes Bill Casey's role at CIA in supplying Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But it reminded me of my tour in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) before Clarke was there. I worked on National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-12-80 "Prospects for Soviet Military Technology and R&D" which has since been almost entirely declassified. I was concerned that this NIE tended to make the Soviets look too powerful, and was not an accurate depiction of their military technology and R&D. I was surprised to find that then Secretary of State George Shultz shared that opinion of the intelligence produced by Casey's CIA. What was happening then was not unlike what happened with the CIA's intelligence on Iraq prior to the Iraq war, but Shultz was aware of it and took account of it better than his successors did.
In his memoir, Turmoil and Triumph, Secretary Shultz wrote that he was displeased by the way that Casey cooked intelligence to reflect his personal views. Shultz wrote:
I was also increasingly uneasy about CIA director Bill Casey. He had very strong policy positions, which were reflected in his intelligence briefings. He claimed he was objective. But his views were so strong and so ideological that they inevitably colored his selection and assessment of materials. I could not rely on what he said, nor could I accept without question the objectivity of the “intelligence” that he put out, especially in policy-sensitive areas. (p. 691)
In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's Against All Enemies, he describes Bill Casey's role at CIA in supplying Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But it reminded me of my tour in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) before Clarke was there. I worked on National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-12-80 "Prospects for Soviet Military Technology and R&D" which has since been almost entirely declassified. I was concerned that this NIE tended to make the Soviets look too powerful, and was not an accurate depiction of their military technology and R&D. I was surprised to find that then Secretary of State George Shultz shared that opinion of the intelligence produced by Casey's CIA. What was happening then was not unlike what happened with the CIA's intelligence on Iraq prior to the Iraq war, but Shultz was aware of it and took account of it better than his successors did.
In his memoir, Turmoil and Triumph, Secretary Shultz wrote that he was displeased by the way that Casey cooked intelligence to reflect his personal views. Shultz wrote:
I was also increasingly uneasy about CIA director Bill Casey. He had very strong policy positions, which were reflected in his intelligence briefings. He claimed he was objective. But his views were so strong and so ideological that they inevitably colored his selection and assessment of materials. I could not rely on what he said, nor could I accept without question the objectivity of the “intelligence” that he put out, especially in policy-sensitive areas. (p. 691)
Battleship New Jersey
In Chapter 2 of Against All Enemies, Dick Clarke writes about the battleship New Jersey firing "shells as big as Volkswagens" from off the coast of Lebanon to protect the American Embassy in Beirut. I remember shooting with the New Jersey in Vietnam. My heavy artillery battery was stationed with the 101st Airborne at LZ Sally near the coast, south of Quang Tri. The 101st got into a big firefight not far to the north, and since the New Jersey was in the area, someone invited them to join us in shelling the North Vietnamese in this firefight. When we would talk on our little radios to the infantry in the field or to our artillery battalion headquarters, the signal would be weak and full of static. When we talked to the New Jersey, it was like listening to a powerful, clear FM station back in the States. We could see the firefight clearly; the sky to the north was full of tracers. However, after we fired our guns, we all ran out to see the New Jersey's shells land. When you fire near friendly troops, you always give "Splash" over the radio about 5 seconds before the shells land, so that our troops know to duck. The New Jersey gave "Splash," but we never saw or heard any shells land a few seconds afterwards. I've always wondered where those shells went.
In Chapter 2 of Against All Enemies, Dick Clarke writes about the battleship New Jersey firing "shells as big as Volkswagens" from off the coast of Lebanon to protect the American Embassy in Beirut. I remember shooting with the New Jersey in Vietnam. My heavy artillery battery was stationed with the 101st Airborne at LZ Sally near the coast, south of Quang Tri. The 101st got into a big firefight not far to the north, and since the New Jersey was in the area, someone invited them to join us in shelling the North Vietnamese in this firefight. When we would talk on our little radios to the infantry in the field or to our artillery battalion headquarters, the signal would be weak and full of static. When we talked to the New Jersey, it was like listening to a powerful, clear FM station back in the States. We could see the firefight clearly; the sky to the north was full of tracers. However, after we fired our guns, we all ran out to see the New Jersey's shells land. When you fire near friendly troops, you always give "Splash" over the radio about 5 seconds before the shells land, so that our troops know to duck. The New Jersey gave "Splash," but we never saw or heard any shells land a few seconds afterwards. I've always wondered where those shells went.
Diego Garcia
In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's book Against All Enemies, he writes about President Reagan's decision to get involved in the Middle East, which included setting up an American base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. One of the classic State Department telegrams I remember was a reply to a worried inquiry sent to a number of American embassies about how their governments would respond to our setting up such a base. One embassy replied, "Our government thinks Diego Garcia is a cigar."
In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's book Against All Enemies, he writes about President Reagan's decision to get involved in the Middle East, which included setting up an American base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. One of the classic State Department telegrams I remember was a reply to a worried inquiry sent to a number of American embassies about how their governments would respond to our setting up such a base. One embassy replied, "Our government thinks Diego Garcia is a cigar."
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Powell Admits Iraq Intelligence Flawed
I am pleased that Secretary of State Powell has admitted that the US intelligence on Iraq that he presented to the UN a year ago was flawed. According to reports, he singled out the intelligence on mobile chemical weapons laboratories as some of the most misleading, apparently because the CIA told him that it had several sources for that information, but it did not. I doubt that Powell would have made such a statement if others in the administration, such as Richard Clarke and David Kay, had not begun to break through the cone of silence on the issue. Powell is a team player, as he demonstrated in the run-up to the war on Iraq. The administration paraded him at the UN for a presentation that has ended up making him look foolish and unprofessional, a stark contrast to Adlai Stevenson's presentation during the Cuban missile crisis. However, I think Powell, although he was wronged by this episode, would have stayed quiet, if others had not started screaming their heads off about it. I imagine that Powell is just biding his time until he can leave this administration gracefully, having had his fill of seeing the President do the bidding of wild men like Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, his deputy Wolfowitz, and Vice President Cheney, while Powell recommended a more prudent course of action that the President rejected.
I am pleased that Secretary of State Powell has admitted that the US intelligence on Iraq that he presented to the UN a year ago was flawed. According to reports, he singled out the intelligence on mobile chemical weapons laboratories as some of the most misleading, apparently because the CIA told him that it had several sources for that information, but it did not. I doubt that Powell would have made such a statement if others in the administration, such as Richard Clarke and David Kay, had not begun to break through the cone of silence on the issue. Powell is a team player, as he demonstrated in the run-up to the war on Iraq. The administration paraded him at the UN for a presentation that has ended up making him look foolish and unprofessional, a stark contrast to Adlai Stevenson's presentation during the Cuban missile crisis. However, I think Powell, although he was wronged by this episode, would have stayed quiet, if others had not started screaming their heads off about it. I imagine that Powell is just biding his time until he can leave this administration gracefully, having had his fill of seeing the President do the bidding of wild men like Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, his deputy Wolfowitz, and Vice President Cheney, while Powell recommended a more prudent course of action that the President rejected.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Dick Clarke & Me
For the record, I worked for Richard Clarke, of Against All Enemies and 9/11 commission fame, for two years when he was Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, from 1988 to 1990 on missile proliferation. We were not exactly two of a kind. He was a much more ruthless and efficient bureaucratic operator than I was. In any case, it was an interesting time for me, since Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Condi Rice (then NSC staffer for the old Soviet Union) were involved in missile proliferation issues, as was Charlie Duelfer, who is now the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, but then was also a State/PM staffer.
For the record, I worked for Richard Clarke, of Against All Enemies and 9/11 commission fame, for two years when he was Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, from 1988 to 1990 on missile proliferation. We were not exactly two of a kind. He was a much more ruthless and efficient bureaucratic operator than I was. In any case, it was an interesting time for me, since Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Condi Rice (then NSC staffer for the old Soviet Union) were involved in missile proliferation issues, as was Charlie Duelfer, who is now the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, but then was also a State/PM staffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)