My old friend Wes is walking the last mile of his life. Age, lung cancer, a broken back and now pneumonia have left him pretty near death. I get by a couple of days a week to visit but there's not much to talk about. That's an odd feeling because we always had healthy and spirited discussions about everything from religion to politics and everything in between. We never really agreed about anything...well there is one thing and that one thing is this Bush war in Iraq.
Wes was a Marine, to be exact, a member of the United States Marine Corps. He got wet on the beaches of Iwo Jima, Saipan and several other unfriendly islands during WWII, and came home, much to his surprise, without a wound, well not a wound you could see, but one he would carry up to the present.
The other day, prior to the media frenzy over the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I dropped by to visit and as I entered the room I saw that he was crying...big tears rolling down his face. I asked him what was wrong, a question that I immediately was kinda dumb, I mean the guy is dying. He pointed to the TV which was looping video of young Marines in some city in Iraq kicking in doors and searching civilian homes. Women and children, frightened into silence stood by as these young Marines tore their homes apart and arrested their men. In a barely audible voice he said, "What have they done to my Corps? What have they done?"
I had no idea what to say, I just picked up the remote and surfed until I came upon a rerun of Sanford & Son. We sat in silence for an hour and I left. Later that day they took him by ambulance to the hospital. What have they done to his Corps?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Freedom Of The Press?
A recent survey of 112,003 high school students conducted by the Knight Foundation found that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing. 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% had no opinion. When asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount, with 10% saying it has too little.
This finding, during a time when the government is jailing reporters more frequently and for longer periods, and giant corporations are consolidating their strangle hold on the printed news media leaves Dog scratching his head. Our time is coming.
“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
Robert Louis Stevenson
Dog Out
This finding, during a time when the government is jailing reporters more frequently and for longer periods, and giant corporations are consolidating their strangle hold on the printed news media leaves Dog scratching his head. Our time is coming.
“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
Robert Louis Stevenson
Dog Out
So Much For the Moral High Ground on Terrorism
The Bush Administration has imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela because of its relationship with other OPEC countries which the administration claims have links to terrorists. No wonder the world thinks we have lost our way. What hypocrites we have become. In 2003 terrorists bombed the Spanish and Columbian embassies in Caracus. The admitted terrorists, former military officers Jose Antonio Colina and German Varella, fled to the United States and sought political asylum which was denied.
In spite of the denial of political asylum the Bush Administration refuses to return these admitted terrorist to authorities in Venezuela. Why would the Bush Administration care what happens to these admitted terrorists? The answer is simple. Since Bush took power in 2000 his administration has, on no less than three occasions, using the International Republican Institute, attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez. The financial and political relationship between Colina and Varella and the IRI is well documented. I’m reminded of something I learned as a young man: “If you see it, you be it.”
Dog Out
In spite of the denial of political asylum the Bush Administration refuses to return these admitted terrorist to authorities in Venezuela. Why would the Bush Administration care what happens to these admitted terrorists? The answer is simple. Since Bush took power in 2000 his administration has, on no less than three occasions, using the International Republican Institute, attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez. The financial and political relationship between Colina and Varella and the IRI is well documented. I’m reminded of something I learned as a young man: “If you see it, you be it.”
Dog Out
Our country has spent over 500US Billion so far in our excursion in Iraq. As health, education, environmental and infrastructure needs in the US are crumbling because of this drain of resources our leaders tell us we are faced with only two choices. Support the Bush administration and stay the course, whatever that is, or pull the troops out immediately and force Iraqis to take care of their own business. I for one am not willing to accept the fact that we can solve this complex problem with either of these simple solutions. As HL Mencken said, “Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.” To make myself clear I want to point out that there are no simple solutions to this complex problem. No matter what solution we decide upon, we must, working hand in hand with our international allies and adversaries, avoid a regional conflict. The model used in the former Yugoslavia gives us a workable guide to achieving a workable solution in Iraq.
The following are some ideas, not necessarily my original ideas, but ideas that I think might make the best of many bad options:
1) Establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multi-sectarian and international police protection.
2) Entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn't refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war. But they also have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.
3) Encourage the protection of the rights of women and ethno-religious minorities by using American aid to Iraq and tying it to respect for those rights.
4) The president must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by the end of 2007 (while providing for a small but effective residual force of UN/NATO troops to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown, but we also can't have a substantial long-term American military presence. That would do terrible damage to our armed forces, break American and Iraqi public support for the mission and leave Iraqis without any incentive to shape up.
5) Under an international or United Nations umbrella, we should convene a regional conference to pledge respect for Iraq's borders and its federal system. For all that Iraq's neighbors might gain by picking at its pieces, each faces the greater danger of a regional war. A "contact group" of major powers would be set up to lean on neighbors to comply with the deal.
This plan is obviously not perfect. But there are no perfect plans for Iraq. The thing I like most about this plan is that it is brash. In order to get anything done, we need to find a way to control the violence--we must stop the bleeding. Security will drive everything else in Iraq. The best way to battle the insurgency is to discourage Iraqis from joining the fight. Showing that we can ensure safety for the average Iraqi helps do that. The current (inadequate) number of troops playing Whack-a-Mole for the next three years won't do it. Forcing the three main ethnic groups into neutral corners might give them a shot at stabilizing the situation.
There are of course problems with this plan (as with any plan). Iraq does not have a clean set of lines that divide the ethnic groups. There is also no reliable data to show how the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and other factions are spread out, and where exactly they live. Splitting the large cities like Baghdad would be very complicated. This plan would also create massive displacement issues that could instigate violence.
That being said, this plan is surely better than "Stay the Course," and might buy us all some much needed time to force the political situation to take root.
Please forgive my presumptuousness at bringing this to your attention but I feel that it is extremely important that we not be herded by self-serving politicians and a less than thoughtful media into thinking within the prescribed box.
Dog Out
The following are some ideas, not necessarily my original ideas, but ideas that I think might make the best of many bad options:
1) Establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multi-sectarian and international police protection.
2) Entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn't refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war. But they also have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.
3) Encourage the protection of the rights of women and ethno-religious minorities by using American aid to Iraq and tying it to respect for those rights.
4) The president must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by the end of 2007 (while providing for a small but effective residual force of UN/NATO troops to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown, but we also can't have a substantial long-term American military presence. That would do terrible damage to our armed forces, break American and Iraqi public support for the mission and leave Iraqis without any incentive to shape up.
5) Under an international or United Nations umbrella, we should convene a regional conference to pledge respect for Iraq's borders and its federal system. For all that Iraq's neighbors might gain by picking at its pieces, each faces the greater danger of a regional war. A "contact group" of major powers would be set up to lean on neighbors to comply with the deal.
This plan is obviously not perfect. But there are no perfect plans for Iraq. The thing I like most about this plan is that it is brash. In order to get anything done, we need to find a way to control the violence--we must stop the bleeding. Security will drive everything else in Iraq. The best way to battle the insurgency is to discourage Iraqis from joining the fight. Showing that we can ensure safety for the average Iraqi helps do that. The current (inadequate) number of troops playing Whack-a-Mole for the next three years won't do it. Forcing the three main ethnic groups into neutral corners might give them a shot at stabilizing the situation.
There are of course problems with this plan (as with any plan). Iraq does not have a clean set of lines that divide the ethnic groups. There is also no reliable data to show how the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and other factions are spread out, and where exactly they live. Splitting the large cities like Baghdad would be very complicated. This plan would also create massive displacement issues that could instigate violence.
That being said, this plan is surely better than "Stay the Course," and might buy us all some much needed time to force the political situation to take root.
Please forgive my presumptuousness at bringing this to your attention but I feel that it is extremely important that we not be herded by self-serving politicians and a less than thoughtful media into thinking within the prescribed box.
Dog Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
