I've decided there are relatively few rewards for military service beyond those of any other job. If the pay is good and you are not getting shot, then it's as good as any other government job. But any idea of patriotism or idealism is out the window. There is a lot of talk about the importance of those serving in the military, but I don't think most Americans believe it, or even if they claim to believe it, they don't act on it. Companies tout giving jobs to veterans, but it's not because they really care about veterans; it's because it's good publicity for the company.
If there is any psychic benefit to military service, it is only for the person who serves. He or she can be personally proud of serving and protecting the nation but don't expect anybody else to share in that feeling. With the rise in income inequality in the US, soldiers are not protecting their own homes and families so much as they are being paid to protect the enormous wealth of the few at the top of the pyramid. Neither Romney, nor any of his five sons served in the military, but they are willing to pay some poor, dumb redneck to go shoot some Afghans for them.
Things have changed for the better. Veterans returning from Vietnam, like me, were reviled as psychotic baby killers. After 9/11 there was a genuine increase in patriotism and a desire to protect the US from another, similar assault. The diversion into the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 tended to waste that feeling and discredit the service of those who volunteered after 9/11. The military is still more respected than it was after Vietnam, but the spirit of 9/11 is mostly dead.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Keystone Pipeline
The Keystone pipeline is mostly out of the news now, but it's still an important issue. Romney brings it up occasionally; Obama tries to hide it under the rug. Obama is wrong on this issue. The real debate is about use of fossil fuels, not possible pollution from the pipeline. The pipeline itself will have little environmental impact. There are many pipelines crisscrossing America. Most don't leak, and if they do, it's not the end of the world.
The complaints about possible pollution of Nebraska's aquifer is a red herring. Environmentalists just want to break America's dependence on oil. Because they pipeline makes oil cheap and easy to use, they want to stop it, not because the pipeline itself will pollute. Environmentalists argue it would be easier and safer to build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship the oil to China. If the Chinese burn the oil, the world gets the same pollution, but America gets none of the benefits.
It's fine to have a debate about the use of fossil fuels, but it should be a straightforward debate, not one obscured by fake, legalistic arguments about an environmental impact statement for an oil pipeline.
The complaints about possible pollution of Nebraska's aquifer is a red herring. Environmentalists just want to break America's dependence on oil. Because they pipeline makes oil cheap and easy to use, they want to stop it, not because the pipeline itself will pollute. Environmentalists argue it would be easier and safer to build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship the oil to China. If the Chinese burn the oil, the world gets the same pollution, but America gets none of the benefits.
It's fine to have a debate about the use of fossil fuels, but it should be a straightforward debate, not one obscured by fake, legalistic arguments about an environmental impact statement for an oil pipeline.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Congressional Email re Foreign Service
I hope that in the light of the killing of Amb. Christopher Stevens and the attacks on the American diplomatic missions in Libya, Egypt and Yemen, you will stand up for the Foreign Service. Gov. Romney and the Republicans have been very critical of the Foreign Service, and actually seemed to imply that Foreign Service officers deserve to die because they are wimps. This attitude was illustrated by former Sen. Norm Coleman, Romney's surrogate on the PBS NewsHour last night, who strongly criticized the statement issued by Embassy Cairo, which PBS said, "appeared aimed at calming tensions in Egypt over an anti-Muslim film made in California." Fortunately Amb. Nicolas Burns defended the Foreign Service, saying that Romney should not have attacked Embassy Cairo for "the actions of an embassy under siege, under great tension." (See PBS report at - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/candidates-spar-over-foreign-policy-following-attacks-in-libya-egypt.html)
When I was in the Foreign Service many years ago, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms hated it, and would have done almost anything to eliminate it, starting with cutting the State Department budget as deeply as possible. I worry that this same attitude persists in Washington today.
I hope that you will stand up for the Foreign Service and not put the lives of Foreign Service officers needlessly at risk. The Foreign Service was already under great stress because of the burden of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; now the general increase of tensions in Middle East appears likely to increase that burden and the dangers that FSOs face. Please support them.
When I was in the Foreign Service many years ago, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms hated it, and would have done almost anything to eliminate it, starting with cutting the State Department budget as deeply as possible. I worry that this same attitude persists in Washington today.
I hope that you will stand up for the Foreign Service and not put the lives of Foreign Service officers needlessly at risk. The Foreign Service was already under great stress because of the burden of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; now the general increase of tensions in Middle East appears likely to increase that burden and the dangers that FSOs face. Please support them.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Sen. Mitch McConnell Is the Problem
One of the biggest problems facing America today is Senate Minority leader Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. Speaker of the House John Boehner is also a problem, but he legitimately has a Republican majority in the House. McConnell does not have a majority but through misuse of the the filibuster, he has been able to require 60 votes to pass any meaningful legislation, and since the Democrats do not have 60 votes, he has been able to block any meaningful work by the Senate. McConnell was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, apparently escaping service because his mentor, Sen. John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, intervened on his behalf with his draft board or with the Army. If McConnell loved America he would have answered his country's call during war, and he would be willing to work to salvage his country's dire fiscal situation.
The Republicans' veto power in the Senate has been particularly harmful in dealing with the country's financial crisis, and is a major concern in the run-up to the "fiscal cliff" of automatic budget cuts at the end of the year. On fiscal issues, the Republicans and the Democrats are at loggerheads, and there appears to be no path to a bipartisan solution or to one-party rule. Meanwhile, the country continues to run up huge budget deficits. Clinton's balanced budgets were due in large part to pressure from Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority, but today a similar scenario seems impossible. The Republicans blame Obama, and he deserves some of it, but I think the main responsibility for the deadlock lies with the Republicans.
McConnell famously said in October 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for Obama to be a one-term president." It would appear that the Republicans are ready to allow terrible things to happen to the US in order to defeat Obama. Partisanship trumps patriotism In that case, the Republicans appear to unlikely to act responsibly when we hit the "fiscal cliff." Even now, by refusing to compromise on raising taxes along with budget cuts, the deficit and the national debt just get bigger.
A starting point for a solution already exists in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report. Obama is partly responsible for not pushing harder to do something with the report, but the House and the Senate are also responsible. The most intransigent position is the Republican opposition to any tax increases. It has made negotiation impossible.
I don't personally know how to handle total intransigence. I encountered it at the State Department in dealing with Reagan's Defense Department. Richard Perle and his office were usually opposed to whatever we at State were trying to do regarding stopping missile proliferation. They wanted an absolute guarantee from other nations on the issue, i.e., the US had to be absolutely sure that other nations would not violate the agreement, but this is impossible when dealing with human beings or other nations. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder. We have laws against speeding, but people still speed. Refusing to outlaw murder because murder will still happen seems silly to me, but that was the Republican position. I couldn't figure out how to deal with it. Although some other people eventually got a Missile Technology Control Regime agreement after I quit working on it because I was assigned to the embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. I'm guessing they somehow figured out how to cut Richard Perle out of the loop. But he showed how successful complete intransigence can be in stopping the government from working.
The Republicans' veto power in the Senate has been particularly harmful in dealing with the country's financial crisis, and is a major concern in the run-up to the "fiscal cliff" of automatic budget cuts at the end of the year. On fiscal issues, the Republicans and the Democrats are at loggerheads, and there appears to be no path to a bipartisan solution or to one-party rule. Meanwhile, the country continues to run up huge budget deficits. Clinton's balanced budgets were due in large part to pressure from Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority, but today a similar scenario seems impossible. The Republicans blame Obama, and he deserves some of it, but I think the main responsibility for the deadlock lies with the Republicans.
McConnell famously said in October 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for Obama to be a one-term president." It would appear that the Republicans are ready to allow terrible things to happen to the US in order to defeat Obama. Partisanship trumps patriotism In that case, the Republicans appear to unlikely to act responsibly when we hit the "fiscal cliff." Even now, by refusing to compromise on raising taxes along with budget cuts, the deficit and the national debt just get bigger.
A starting point for a solution already exists in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report. Obama is partly responsible for not pushing harder to do something with the report, but the House and the Senate are also responsible. The most intransigent position is the Republican opposition to any tax increases. It has made negotiation impossible.
I don't personally know how to handle total intransigence. I encountered it at the State Department in dealing with Reagan's Defense Department. Richard Perle and his office were usually opposed to whatever we at State were trying to do regarding stopping missile proliferation. They wanted an absolute guarantee from other nations on the issue, i.e., the US had to be absolutely sure that other nations would not violate the agreement, but this is impossible when dealing with human beings or other nations. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder. We have laws against speeding, but people still speed. Refusing to outlaw murder because murder will still happen seems silly to me, but that was the Republican position. I couldn't figure out how to deal with it. Although some other people eventually got a Missile Technology Control Regime agreement after I quit working on it because I was assigned to the embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. I'm guessing they somehow figured out how to cut Richard Perle out of the loop. But he showed how successful complete intransigence can be in stopping the government from working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)