Years from now, how will the world recall the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis?  How will the abandonment of between a quarter million to a million or more people to certain death by the world be viewed?

Of course, killing fields are all too common so this line of questioning is pointless.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Dar Fur, the Congo.  All have witnessed “the treatment”, international hand-wringing and the occasional hiccup of half-hearted measures to stem the dreadful tide of death.  History repeats itself, especially in this fashion, early and often.

Burma seems destined to join these ranks.  Credible reports of aid theft, continued obstruction and delay of accepting the necessary aid workers and whispered observations of ethnic minorities getting nothing intentionally (we call that ethnic cleansing in some places) mean nothing to the world at large.

 What then could be done?

Military intervention is highly unlikely and probably not advisable. 

Inaction is preferable to most but morally repugnant.

Begging the junta publicly and privately to accept aid is disgraceful.

Once again, the US finds itself in a position where it could influence events but cannot because it lacks the capacity in most instances to operate on multiple levels of policy and activity.  The crisis develops to America’s policymakers as an either/or fallacy, either intervention or nothing, or like Dar Fur, intervention or half-hearted measures.

There is more to the picture. The following are examples of other measures that could be explored, some in tandem, some obviously cancel the other out.

- The US could dangle the prospect of a lifting of sanctions against Burma in exchange for a firm agreement to allow aid and (perhaps) engage in a real dialogue with China, India, Thailand and ASEAN or the UN present with regime opponents. The sanctions have a symbolic effect but little else in a country where the above countries enjoy far greater influence and economic pull than we do.

- The US could muster the “democracies” as John McCain and Robert Kagan are fond of claiming can be “aligned” and push at the UN and through the global media for an ICC related indictment of the junta as war criminals (Crimes against humanity, to include ethnic cleansing).  Even if the Chinese and Russians veto it, push and push harder until the Olympic Games are set to begin.  Control the narrative of the global media by influencing events relentlessly that builds up pressure on more affected parties like India, Singapore and Thailand.  Failure is still likely but lessons learned from this may come in handy in future potential disasters like Bangladesh, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, etc.

- Find an answer to the question of how influential are the Chinese in Burma? How many of the officers in the junta are in their pocket?  What it would take if the possibility existed for China to support a coup in Burma? How could the US push this forward? 

- Start arming the rebels in abundance. Such a tactic may be morally dubious at worst (though given the ruthless assault on ethnic minorities via rapine, aerial bombardment, murder of children, food weaponization and enslavement by the regime it isn’t that repugnant) but it will be China, Thailand & India’s mess to clean up after the failed state finally totters over.  Their choice to worship the false deity of “Burmese stability” that supporting the generals represents is tantamount to that of an accessory to mass murder.  

Is anything else available? Perhaps a long-term goal of opening the regime through trade (again, the lifting of useless sanctions) is the best option to be explored, though its also the most unlikely due to the idea of sanctions being a sanctified sacred cow in bipartisan American foreign policy.

Note none of these require an intervention by the US military.  Just as a variety of diplomatic possibilities were not explored before and during Dar Fur, failure to identify the RPF as preferential to Hutu Power (Or even jamming the Hutu Power radio signals) and how realpolitik trumped humanity (supporting the ghastly Khmer Rouge versus the Vietnamese), matters are regularly portrayed in Washington as “either-or” and actual understanding of the problem at hand (and the opportunities open to explore) suffers greatly as a result.

Above all else, the world today and in the near to mid future will likely be as hostile and unpromising to the application of American military power to address such tragedies. The need for potential alternatives besides doing nothing will only increase.  

This blogger is not egotistical enough to believe the ideas presented here are the best alternatives for Burma, yet considers the need for options beyond “just do something” or “do nothing” imperative to having a fighting chance at achieving some measure of our goals for Burma and respond to the enormous injustice regularly inflicted upon the many Burmese peoples in the future.

* Besides, stunned silence in the face of such depravity and craven shortsightedness from the generals and politicians in Asian and Western capitals is too much to bear without at least one more post about this.

Sources/Influential Posts:

“Is Armed Humanitarian Intervention The Answer In Burma?” @ New Yorker In DC
“Yes We Can” @ Coming Anarchy
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: “Murder In The Name Of Sovereignty”

PACOM Admiral Keating said on NPR’s Morning Edition today there was no chance of an invasion to aid Burma’s starving, emaciated survivors of last week’s cyclone.  President Bush and other leaders are currently begging Burma’s military junta

The chattering classes beg to differ:

Anne Applebaum:

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating the tsunami relief effort in late 2004 has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

 
Robert Kaplan:

The magic of this is that an enormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force without the need to militarily occupy any Burmese airports.

In other words, this is militarily doable. The challenge is the politics, both internationally and inside Myanmar. Because one can never assume an operation will go smoothly, it is vital that the United States carry out such a mission only as part of a coalition including France, Australia and other Western powers. Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.

And yet China — along with India, Thailand and, to a lesser extent, Singapore — has been put in a very uncomfortable diplomatic situation. China and India are invested in port enlargement and energy deals with Myanmar. Thailand’s democratic government has moved closer to the junta for the sake of logging and other business ventures. Singapore, a city-state that must get along with everybody in the region, is suspected of acting as a banker for the Burmese generals. All these countries quietly resent the ineffectual moral absolutes with which the United States, a half a world away, approaches Myanmar. Nonetheless, the disaster represents an opportunity for Washington. By just threatening intervention, the United States puts pressure on Beijing, New Delhi and Bangkok to, in turn, pressure the Burmese generals to open their country to a full-fledged foreign relief effort. We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.

The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath. And just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall was not supposed to lead to ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not supposed to lead to civil war, the fall of the junta would not be meant to lead to the collapse of the Burmese state. But it might.

The credibility of the international human rights regime and the concept of “responsibility to protect” is at an all-time low already. The public manslaughter of hundreds of thousands by xenophobic, paranoid generals clutching to illegitimate power by any means possible while the world does nothing should not surprise.

Yet both are clearly onto something important.  Not only is forceful action possible,  at least the threat of it may be effective as Kaplan shows. 

Public embarassment of China, India and Thailand (the nations with the most investment and influence in Burma) by asking them to do more to pressure the junta may also be useful. 

Above all else, a time frame must be adopted by those nations (America, France, Japan) who seem most interested in forcing the issue with the junta. 

Perhaps a deadline of 7-10 days is merited for wider, more effective permision for NGO’s to operate?

Applebaum and Kaplan both are refreshingly realistic about the problems and challenges such an effort could face.  

Yet in spite of those, its true that a coalition of the willing, backed up by a no-comment from ASEAN and preferably, cooperation from the aforementioned China, India & Thailand, would be preferable to the disgusting spectacle of misery and death sure to define Burma’s summer if matters continue at the junta’s pace.

It may even manage to rehabilitate the concept of “coalition of the willing” for years to come. 

China’s role would be a wild card. Wouldn’t a relatively unfree Burma run and operated by a Chinese-owned junta that was moderately competent and supportive of its people be preferable to the nightmare in power now?

* An alternative concept would be to head to the International Criminal Court and bring crimes against humanity charges against the junta members.  This does not save the endangered lives, but it does get the point across to the junta that their actions will entail consequences.  Pressure Singapore to give up the role of Burma’s banker and go after the personal finances of the junta members by any means necessary.  

The concept of waging personal war against dictators and tyrants is one that should be further explored by governments and interested groups.

 

Even by the junta’s perverse standards, the arrival of just a few UN relief planes after nearly a week of catastrophic death and lingering suffering in the face of mounting disease and starvation seems almost extreme in its depravity.

The lack of outrage evinced by the world in the face of the regime sentencing hundreds of thousands of its own people to death by famine and pestilence should act as a bitter pill for those who foolishly believe a “responsibility to protect” is a viable doctrine now or in the near future.

The junta’s bankroller, China, sees no need as of now to get involved.  There is no coming out for Chinese power in the region, not even a half-hearted attempt at choreographing Chinese soldiers rushing into action to assist their beleaguered ally in its time of trouble with relief aid.  

Those wishing to do something about this nightmare would be advised of one viable option to yet save the lives of nearly a million Burmese.  

A worldwide fundraising effort to handsomely monetarily reward the mid-grade and junior Burmese officers who rise up and slaughter their senior leaders (in as slow and painful as possible a manner) to assume control of the country and admit international relief agencies (or at least the Chinese & Thai equivalents).

Barring this dream scenario, is it possible for the United States, Japan, India and others to get together, speak with China, and organize a coup d’ teat this week?  

Even more seriously, in all honesty, can the US at least make a fuss at the Security Council over this?  How is this behavior not richly belonging in the highest coda of “crimes against humanity”?  

This regime just marched past North Korea’s in the odious line, blew a kiss to the rotting stack of thousands of tortured, murdered Buddhist monks from last year and dived straight into the greatest pool of blood from mass murder since Rwanda.  The screams for help won’t be heard this time though, the victims will be too weak from dysentery, cholera and malnutrition to offer up too much of a struggle. 

Psychology, Communications, Expository Writing and American Government constituted a good mix of classes to get me back into the rhythm of school work after being UA for 6 years. 
I am pleased to announce at the completion of this semester no major slip-ups, just top marks.  Just one small step forward but nevertheless an important one!
4 more classes begin in 2 weeks and the grand plan to do 4 years of school in 3 is still on track.
To my blogfriends, thank you again for the support and encouragement you have offered over the past few years that have helped bring me to this point.

*By the way, an excellent Navy blog I just discovered is The Destroyermen, currently out on deployment just like my bretheren on the Abe Lincoln and Kitty Hawk. Sailors do belong out to sea right?

We have deeply flawed candidates running this year. If only..

(image obviously from IGN.com)

Well he was Secretary Of Defense just recently…..

“Iron Man” is a fantastic summer blockbuster that honors the comic character while introducing him successfully to a broader audience without sacrificing story or detail to a negative extent. The genius of the director to place the heart of the “Armor Wars” storyline as the defining story of the film makes this less of a comic book film with a fantasy storyline and more of a nearly believable
tale about a great but flawed man.

He’s horrified by what’s been done in his name and with his technology, deciding to make things right as best he can to restore his honor and defend his country from threats foreign and domestic.

In April, Zenpundit dropped some serious knowledge on this blog regarding Chinese nationalists that you can read here.

I found his comment illuminating for understanding what those in the government and the elite class think.

Yet what do the people think though? And by that, not just in China but around the world?

The thuggish behavior of Chinese bodyguards (ostensibly in response to thuggish behavior by certain protesters) as mentioned in more detail by TDAXP in a variety of posts is one thing, but the pathetic (for lack of a better word to describe the mix of rage, indignity and delusion shown by far too many of them) behavior of some Chinese abroad during the past few weeks is another.

The New York Times relates the story of some vocal Chinese students engaging in misguided propaganda operations on American soil that would be comical if not for the seriousness of certain members of those involved, as well as the developing pattern of academic censorship (trying to force certain subjects off the table of discussion) and even criminal behavior (taking photos and ID’ing of a Chinese student at Duke University who tried to make peace between feuding protesters (amongst other high crimes she committed in the students’ eyes) that has led to her family going in hiding and her fearing for her safety @ Duke).

As an insightful friend with Peruvian immigrant parents who attends grad school at Duke noted, “We love Chinese goods (low prices!) and respect the Chinese people, but we like our political and social system thank you very much, its preferable to what goes on there much as that may be hard to appreciate sometimes and certainly do not like to be told by the largely elite children of a dictatorship how to conduct it.”

He and others report the tactics of these Chinese students has backfired even in liberal PC land (aka Duke). More students than ever before are expressing interest in what are conceived by these Chinese students as “China-bashing”; supporting peace in Dar Fur, protesting the marginalization of the Tibetans to Chinese immigrants and power in Tibet, freedom in Zimbabwe & Burma. Attitudes are hardening and China’s image is suffering greatly more from the actions of students defending it than actual Chinese policies at this point. Even more, not just at Duke but elsewhere where these types of shenanigans are ongoing, there is a growing resentment among American students toward these rude guests.

Around the world, John Pomfret theorizes that Chinese soft power is ebbing, perhaps even collapsing of its own contradictions and excesses, a questionable but nevertheless fascinating possibility in the wake of other such behaviors by Chinese citizens and of course the Chinese government. He elaborates:

Move over ugly American, make room for the ugly Chinese.

“In Seoul on Sunday, groups of Chinese students accosted protesters demonstrating against China’s treatment of North Korean refugees and Beijing’s policies in Tibet. The attacks by the Chinese occurred as the Olympic torch wended its way on its seemingly never-ending journey around the world. The South Korean government was justifiably angry. China, after initially denying the events occurred, has now taken steps to still the waters. But the damage has been done. China’s angry youth - called “fen qing” in Chinese - are ruining their country’s reputation around the world and spelling the end of a decade-long honeymoon that the world has had with China.

The flare-up was the latest deeply troubling and profoundly weird event to mar the globe-trotting journey of the torch, which the Beijing government has dubbed “the sacred flame.” (Remember, these dudes are officially atheists.) Before Seoul, we had Chinese cops in blue and white tracksuits manhandling demonstrators in Paris and London; we had a Chinese woman in the United States who participated in a pro-Tibet protest being identified on a listserv run by Chinese students; now her parents are on the run in China and her high school in Qingdao has revoked her diploma; and we’ve witnessed the incessant hounding of Tibetan and other speakers on US campuses by Chinese students. In cities around the world, the Chinese embassy has fanned the passions of the “angry youth” by encouraging them to demonstrate, handing out T-shirts and flags.

While I have no problem with displays of patriotic feeling, the only thing these “angry youth” are accomplishing is turning the world away from China. And they are not alone in this ill-fated effort to get China’s point across. China’s propaganda machine is also seriously in need of repairs.”

I called this “ruthless incompetence” and I’ll repeat that description again. However profitable the Chinese patronage system may have become in the past few years (gathering needed resources from Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.), it is backfiring and likely to further worsen for China (as one can only imagine the attitude of the Chinese government and tens of millions of Chinese towards the rest of the world’s opinion once the Olympics have finished).

The Chinese gov’t likes to say “its all business” but they are wrecking much of their vaunted product line; from faith in effective Chinese global leadership to the image presented by China’s public diplomats (not to mention literal Chinese designed and/or manufactured products themselves!).

These are certainly growing pains as described by Dan @ TDAXP and Thomas PM Barnett on numerous occasions.  Yet what if they’re something more? What if the Chinese can’t figure this out on their own any time soon and only make things worse for themselves? What if they miss their chance to grab the mantle (or at least part of it) of global leadership for the next 5-7 years or even longer? What if rather than recalibrating their “soft power” at a time when its failing they instead hunker down?

(One could only imagine the possibilities if America actually had effective leadership instead of people talking about obliterating Iran and alienating Russia, China and other non-democracies.

*A final note, I find it amusing almost that the students also epitomize the angst of a rising superpower who does not yet understand what its like to be at or near the apex of global power (i.e. respect and appreciation is nil from others).

No matter what China does, these students say, it cannot win in the arena of world opinion. “When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet./ When we tried limiting our numbers, you said it is human rights abuse,” reads a poem posted on the Internet by “a silent, silent Chinese” and cited by some students as an accurate expression of their feelings. “When we were poor, you thought we were dogs./ When we loan you cash, you blame us for your debts./ When we build our industries, you called us polluters./ When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.”

Rather than blend in to the prevailing campus ethos of free debate, the more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants and sometimes drowning out dissent.
Would they like wine with that cheese? Welcome to the lonely world of a modern superpower.

“Carrier”

(apparently if you’re like me and don’t watch TV, let alone have cable, you can watch the episodes online starting tomorrow).

Kudos to the Navy for greenlighting this PBS project which is airing this week April 27-May 1.

The creators had near-total editorial freedom and present crew members on the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-6 for an entire six month deployment to the Persian Gulf. They interviewed hundreds of the 5,000 sailors and Marines onboard while focusing largely on more than a dozen individuals, ranging from a fighter pilot to a ship’s cook. 

Everything from sex on the boat to disillusionment with the mission is captured, as well as daily living conditions, challenges and the mission each crew member plays a part in achieving.  

Above all else, the series profiles a unique band of individuals who the American people have perhaps never seen before, except for split second viewings in a movie like “Top Gun” or a TV show like “JAG”. The human growth (and failure) that occurs when pushed to your physical and emotional limits is eloquently profiled. Truly a must see if you have any interest in the Navy or the youth that join the Navy and serve their country.

Carter disgraced himself even more than usual this past week. He not only managed to harm himself, he discredited a few valid critiques of Israel and America for years to come.

- He laid a wreath at Arafat’s tomb. Why reward a criminal whom even the Palestinian people share little affection for these days?

- He called Hamas a “national liberation movement”. Thank you for swallowing and regurgitating Hamas propaganda like a champion apologist Peanut Man.  

- He didn’t even pretend to condemn the latest Hamas terrorist act against Israeli civilians.

The valid points he utterly condemned with his vapid actions are thus:

- Israel has serious “apartheid” fears that were at the forefront of policies Ariel Sharon instituted before his death, mainly the abandoning of various settlements in Gaza.  He foresaw an Israel engulfed in non-Israelis and understood the danger of continuing this untenable position.  Carter could have used his formerly relatively honorable position and image as a peacemaker to help support those who continued Sharon’s policies to avoid such a future. Instead he discredits them by using bunk arguments about “peace, not apartheid” as if the two were the only choices available and then demolishing his public image in America and Israel.

- He could have simply wondered aloud publicly why America wants democracy through elections in the Middle East yet will not recognize the democratically elected Hamas leadership?  This is a state of affairs that is absurd.  It is constantly referenced by people in the Middle East as proof of America’s fundamental hypocrisy and undercuts our credibility in the region and much of the world. That doesn’t mean we have to honor Hamas as Carter did, but it does mean we should talk to them, if anything to tell them publicly we’re aware of their crimes and preparing indictments at the International Criminal Court for war crimes and authorizing terrorism or more mundanely, to discuss ways the US with the international community can help alleviate the health crisis in Gaza and elsewhere and force Hamas in a public showdown to back down on its insistence that any and all aid be routed through the Hamas social network.

- Israel kills countless Palestinian civilians a year in operations against Hamas and other groups.  Carter could have roundly condemned this as well as terrorist bombings by Hamas and others as not useful to the peace process.  He could have gone further and made the point that Israel has arguably not gained much from such operations in the past (a debatable point but one worth forcing the Israelis to back up with facts, not rhetoric), yet did not. Instead he stood silent in the face of terrorism.

Jimmy Carter is the best friend of Hamas and the far right in both this country and Israel who have no interest in peace in the Middle East except through conquest and ideology.  How?  He is a one-man discrediting machine, adopting previously valid points and rendering them moot by using them in service of his vanity and self-serving alternative worldview. With Carter involved, there can be no debate about such topics because the man hijacking valid critiques in service of himself is utterly discredited and rightly increasingly reviled. 

* The “Peanut Man” has never been a favorite in my family.  My parents endured the military he continued to strip to the barebones, for one thing.

While driving my friend to his appointment at the excellent VA facility in Salisbury, NC, we took a stop at the North Carolina Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Lexington.  My friend lost the lower half of his left leg on his second deployment to Iraq but manages fairly well for himself.  An older gentleman noticed this and inquired about his service.  After introductions were made, he spoke of his three tours in Vietnam.  He also added he was proud to join the Army because of the “Battle Of Maxton Field” he had been a part of when he was 15.  We had no idea what this was and learned it was a confrontation between the Ku Klux Klan and the Lumbee Indians in 1958. 

Researching this now I further learn the Battle Of Maxton Field was a testament to the arrogance and overkill terrorist groups often fall prey to.  Utterly misreading the attitudes of the local populace, they burned crosses on the front lawns of two Lumbee Indian families as part of an angry condemnation of interracial dating and “coloreds and braves” not knowing their place.

Assembling for a rally, about 50-60 KKK members (mostly from outside Robeson County) got the fright of their life when they realized they were surrounded by nearly a thousand Lumbee Indians armed and pissed.

Nicholas Graham offers the aftermath:

 In the sudden darkness, the Lumbees descended upon the field, yelling and firing guns into the air, scattering the overmatched Klansmen. Some left under police protection while others, including Catfish Cole, simply took to the woods.

News photographers already on the scene captured the celebration. Images of triumphant Lumbees holding up the abandoned KKK banner were published in newspapers and magazines throughout the world. Simeon Oxendine, a popular World War II veteran, appeared on the cover of Life Magazine , smiling and wrapped in the banner. The rout of the Klan galvanized the Lumbee community. The Ku Klux Klan was active in North Carolina into the 1960s, but they never held another public meeting in Robeson County.

A parting note about this glorious moment in NC history is that men like Simeon Oxendine (and Garrison, the gentlemen we met at the memorial) took from their military service a lifelong ethos of honor, courage and leadership.  Combat veterans (In particular) to this day return to and inject these values into their communities through their example and their actions.

Lately I have read a number of books that have utterly challenged and changed some of my core assumptions and beliefs about terrorism and the future of the struggle to defeat those who would use it to harm us (The Suicide Of Reason, Terror And Consent, Leaderless Jihad and several others).  A particular passage from Lee Harris in “The Suicide Of Reason” stunned me:

“What makes the Spanish uprising of 1808 so instructive for our purposes is that it is virtually impossible for anyone in the West to take sides in that conflict. If we choose to support the aspiration of the Spanish people to free themselves from the yoke of Napoleon, we must also be prepared to accept that they sought this liberation in order to bring back one of the most loathsome and vile tyrants…, Ferdinand VII…. as well as that epitome of fanatical intolerance, the Spanish Inquisition. And who today among liberals or conservatives is prepared to take the side of these sinister forces?

But the same question can be asked about the other side. On both ends of the political spectrum in the West today, elimination of absolute tyrants and fanatical grand inquisitors can only appear to us to be a positive step forward. Yet who among us would be comfortable forcing a people to accept such progress at the point of a gun?….. then who are we to compel them, by brute force, to abandon their illiberal reactionary ethos in order to adopt our liberal progressive values?”

The book is a challenging meditation on reason vs. fanaticism, the danger of radical Islam, the wisdom of our assumptions about human nature and society and the nature of Western community, sacrifice and faith in this war.  

Passages like the above inspire deep thought in this reader.. specifically of present or future similarities.  

Would a Saudi Arabia engaged in civil war share some of the same characteristics? Wouldn’t the civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990’s count as such?  Rashid’s “Taliban” makes clear that The Northern Alliance was a slight step above the Taliban in its commitment to human rights, good governance and justice.   

I remember the day I learned my best friend from MIami, Tony died.  His brother e-mailed me while I was out to sea to let me know that some Army men had knocked on their door late the afternoon before and in less than a minute his mother had screamed hysterically, fallen to the floor and suffered a nervous breakdown.  Her son, a young soldier on his second tour, had died in an IED explosion in a hellish Iraqi neighborhood.  

The letters Tony’s family received, the phone calls from state politicians, etc. all spoke of the honor of serving the country in a time of war, valiantly giving his life for the victory against the terrorists that was so badly needed for this nation’s peace and security.

This week, President Bush admitted to a journalist that Tony, and those like him who died in this war, died for his stubborn incompetence and patent dishonesty. This may not be news to most, but the way this bastard casually admitted he’d been deliberately lying to the military, the military families and the American people for so long should gall at least some of us.

For the first time in this war, I honestly believe it bears stunning shades of Vietnam.  Our government betrayed this nation, especially its military. 

Phillip Carter at Intel-Dump has the details and offers this reaction:

“All through this period, I remember the president, his senior aides and senior military commanders toeing the party line that things were going swimmingly. The dissonance between the rhetoric from Washington and our experience in Iraq was stark. WWe knew the ground truth. Being deceived by our senior political leaders certainly didn’t change that, nor did it help morale at all. If anything, it hurt morale by undermining confidence in the chain of command. Put bluntly, if you can’t trust your generals and political leaders to tell you and your families the truth, how can you trust them at all?

It’s disappointing to hear now, two years after the fact, that the president was knowingly bull—-ing us the whole time. And that he justified such dishonesty in the name of supporting the troops and protecting their morale. That’s an insult to America’s men and women in uniform (and their families), who deserve to be told the truth by their political leaders about what’s going on. It’s also an insult to us, as voters, who deserve the truth so we can make the right decisions in the voting booth.”

This being my first semester in some form of college in nearly seven years, I have been grateful to learn a great deal about various subjects (Psychology, Communications, American Government and Writing) that better informs my understanding.  A most recent example is the concept of “commercial bias” in the media, wherein boosting profitability can take a far greater role in reporting the news than ideological bias. 

The debacle that was the first 45 minutes of the ABC political debate Wed. night is perhaps a good example of this concept in action.  ABC hyped this debate like a prizefight and decided to stage a substance-free, controversial question session that naturally focused on the front-runner in hopes of provoking fireworks, more controversy and receiving widespread attention.

The policy gaffe-rich second half was more instructive, as both candidates were asked relatively informative (to the public) questions with some oddballs thrown here and there.  Obama, a liberal Democrat, pulled the rug out from under his party base by defining affirmative action as something quite different than it is now, far less race and sex-based and more based on fair opportunity (and the lack thereof).  Useful to the public indeed! 

Yet this debate, which has garnered widespread, well-deserved criticism for its “moderators”, was just another example of how commerical bias does far worse damage to America than ideological bias in the media. The devolution of the news media from an educational and informative pillar into just another cornerstone of the mass media entertainment industry is terrible for the country. 

With all due respect to the missing females Fox News breathlessly reports on up to the minute, or the latest Bush, Clinton, McCain or Obama gaffe CNN & MSNBC rush to cover, such coverage (which is defended by ratings gurus who often claim audiences (and thus advertisers) prefer about these types of stories more than actual, well, news stories) demeans and dumbs down the American public. 

In the end, many of the liberals and conservatives in the media must hate America. They are the true elitists, peddling bunk to the masses which doesn’t inform them of the country, let alone the world, around them.  They care more about boosting their profit than their duties as journalists to inform the citizenry, more about service to their self-serving needs than service to country. At a time of unparalleled challenges and opportunities, they are, quite frankly, AWOL. 

In the end; real discussion, real debate? Save it for blogs and the occasional journal or magazine.

When (God willing) my wife arrives in America later this year, I plan on taking advantage of my geographic location (central North Carolina) and embark on a short journey with her for an important purpose; to introduce her to the American revolutions that have made this country what it is today.

We will venture to Yorktown, to see the battlesite where the First Revolution was triumphant and foreign tyranny was banished, the ideals of America finally secured for generations to come.

On to Appomattox Court House, where the Second Revolution reached its apex and domestic oppression left for a time discredited and defeated.

To Washington D.C. and the war memorials which honor those who risked and sometimes gave their lives to defend the freedoms at the heart of the American Revolutions and save the world from violent enslavement at the hands of fascists and communists.

Lastly to Memphis, TN and the Civil Rights Museum, where the Third Revolution is explained in vivid detail; how America’s honor was redeemed and the energies, talents and dreams of all its citizens finally released to be harnessed for our potential national greatness.

 *Chirol reminds me of the obvious! If anyone is near these areas in the fall (after September) I would love to take the opportunity to at least have a cup of coffee or something with you.

For forcing Congress to go on the record on Colombia’s free trade agreement.  Its not wise for the US to treat one of its best allies in such an undignified fashion, held hostage to election fear-mongering.  I agree with Speaker Pelosi and others who want greater funding for job training and education programs that prepare American workers for globalization’s perils.  
Other criticisms of the deal with Colombia, especially that it will take thousands of American jobs and reward an autocrat whose allies murder extralegally trade unionists appear baseless and irrelevant. Further, holding Colombia to such an improbable standard when it experiences a great deal of its instability these days because of the conflicting nature of this nation’s insatiable desire for drugs and its desire for an anti-drug crusade is outrageous.

Events in Basra have given pause to thoughtful observers of Iraq just as events in the Anbar provinces and elsewhere earlier this year and last gave food for thought to others.  The point here is that no matter what people think about Iraq, expectations and predictions continue to be confounded no matter where they come from, the occasional exception for extraordinarily perceptive types granted.

Regardless.

Two visions of the Iraq War seem to exist predominantly on the right and left, and both contain within them the seeds of danger this republic cannot bear to deal with in times of challenge and opportunity as this.

Some think others are stabbing the country, especially the military, in the back.  This “stab in the back” narrative has been bandied about and finds occasional fuel in the rhetoric of John McCain, who prominently declares he won’t surrender to the terrorists in Iraq like others would.  The general idea in this narrative is that we are close to victory and there are those who will stab our military in the back just as it is about to succeed.

Others claim that the military has been so politicized by the Bush Administration that they cannot be trusted and are fudging statistics as well as the reality on the ground.  They further claim Iraq cannot be salvaged and the best that might occur is a considered exit that attempts to contain likely ethnic cleansing. While Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have not said such things about the current leadership for America on the ground in Iraq, many of their supporters are and their rhetoric about the Iraq War echoes this line of thinking.

Both sides are irresponsible, one arguing for certain victory and the other for guaranteed defeat.  The American people seem tired of this war, a fact brought home to me during the week Basra was in flames as ardent Republicans told me they were sick of the Iraqis and diehard liberals confidently asserting “We told you so.”.

Many from Joe Klein to Abu Muqawama have rightfully eviscerated the Kagan’s fairy tale reporting from Iraq of late, a frightening series of gaffes that are made more serious by the fact Mr. Kagan is an adviser to McCain.

Yet Senator Obama continues to claim to crowds that he will pull troops ASAP from Iraq, treating it as a foregone conclusion when it is in fact no such thing.

Lost in all this rhetoric is the danger either of these narratives becoming American gospel represents.  Citizens who oppose the war in Iraq are not traitors, even if they support withdrawing troops or cutting funding. Neither is the military full of liars willing to say whatever to the American people to save their careers.

Avoided in both of these narratives is the truth.  The truth is that to this day, we still don’t know what to do about Iraq and how to do it. We know one thing, that the Iraqis are still divided and still not finished competing or fighting each other. We know that until some degree of political reconciliation occurs, or at least political equilibrium that most, if not all, can accept, we will be stuck in Iraq to make little more progress.  We have largely gotten our act together, yet Iraq’s leaders (ranging from warlords to clerics) have not.  As the opportunity still exists for them to reach that point, we cannot yet exit.  Yet we cannot realistically expect or even hope for victory until that line is actually crossed and events play themselves out, largely out of our hands and influence range.

And that is something you won’t hear often admitted by Obama, McCain, Clinton or any of the other so-called politicians, opinion leaders, bloggers and assorted hacks spreading these twin narratives.