The President just gave the nation a pep talk on Iraq. The gist of the talk seemed to be that the American people are becoming the problem. We don’t have the fortitude to persevere for the long haul. We lack the insight to see that all of the Administration’s actions were made necessary by 9/11. And most important, in questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq, we are letting down our men and women in uniform.
To make up for our shortcomings, we need to look for ways to express support for our troops. We need to fly the flag on July 4. And implicitly, we need to stop questioning the competence of our leaders.
Well, I’m not buying it. It is not the American people who are letting down our troops but our civilian leaders. As an example of the ineptitude with which the war in Iraq has been waged, the President said in his speech that if his generals said they needed more troops, he would give them more troops. But shortly before or after that statement, he said more troops were not the answer because more troops would send a message to the Iraqis that we were never leaving.
The issue at this stage should not be whether the war in Iraq was necessary. That Rubicon has been crossed. Let the historians, and the presidential candidates in 2008, rehash that matter. The issue today is whether we are pursuing our national goals, including our goals in Iraq, in a competent manner. Another Republican president in another time of national testing was not afraid to punish failure by making changes. Abraham Lincoln went through several generals before he finally found one, Grant, who could get the job done.
George Bush needs to take a similar approach. His team has made a number of mistakes in the war in Iraq. Instead of blaming the American people, he should look at the architects of those mistakes. And the primary architect is the Secretary of Defense. If George Bush really wants to get the American people back on his side, as they were in those months following September 11, 2001, he should start by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
DSH
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
More Taxes Mean Tax Relief
Since The Washington Post is unlikely to publishing the following letter to the editor, I heareby offer it to you, dear readers:
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Thursday, June 09, 2005
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
A letter to the editor in the New York Times of Sunday, June 5, 2005, cogently summarized the thoughts of at least a few Americans. In its entirety, the letter, from Joseph Chianese of Oakland, California, stated:
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
TROUBLE IN PARADISE
There’s trouble in Paradise, Paradise being Alexandria, Virginia. How is Alexandria Paradise, you ask? Well, it must be. Why else would real estate values be so astronomical?
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)