March 9, 2012: Questions of Dysfunctionality
Happy Ides of March! Got two questions for you since it’s not November yet.
How do you feel about increasing the size of the United States congress? What about going from the current size of 435 members representing 700,000 or so citizens to 932 members representing roughly 327,000 citizens each; or even better, 1,761 congressional members representing 173,000 citizens?
I know, I know. Your first response is that the U.S. Congress is currently so dysfunctional that adding more members would only make it more dysfunctional. Well, what exactly to you mean by “dysfunctional”? If you can pull down $174,000 a year just by not antagonizing the nest you’re sitting in at the moment, I would not call that dysfunctional.
A couple of Novembers ago, I was intrigued by the fact that the American electorate seems to be essentially divided between blue states and red states, despite avowals by some that this is not the case. My quest for a reason behind this revolting state of affairs started with the George Bush-Al Gore 2000 presidential election. To make a long story short, I at first thought there were some Americans who were inherently stupid and some who were inherently smart—like me. But the little scientist in me eventually won out and I started looking around for a more objective reason.
What the experts say: cable TV and a planet of talking heads indoctrinate Americans into believing their like-minded opinions are the truth, the whole truth and the only truth. Then there is the advent of communication nests where people of like mind communicate with each other in what is analogous to a basket of cannibals just a heartbeat away from dinnertime.
After due research I have concluded, along with a few others, that the real cause of America’s body politic schism is the under-representation of voters in the halls of our national government.
No stranger to my own Congressman, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, I am convinced that he is like other congresspersons throughout the nation. He is over-whelmed, under-employed and sincerely believes he is responding to my concerns when he sends me boiler-plate letters and a nifty little newsletter that recounts his exploits as a U. S.Congressman. I’ve also had contact with my local municipal representative, or city councilman. For purposes of comparison, let’s just say he is over-employed (i.e., productively busy) and underwhelmed (the guy actually responds to questions).
In 1910, the U. S. Congress reached its current size of 435 members. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 limited the size of the U. S. House of Representatives to 435 members. Many people think the size of the congress is set in the U. S.constitution. It is not.
In 2009, five citizens from different states got together and sued the U. S. Department of Commerce over the apportionment of representative districts for the U. S. House of Representatives [Reuters news story, ABA Journal] . The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit because the courts do not have jurisdiction over how the people’s house, the House of Representatives, runs itself. At this point, you might be thinking to yourself, who does have jurisdiction over how the U. S. House of Representatives operate. Hold that thought. My second question for you: what are the chances that the U. S. House of Representatives would pass a statue increasing its size to achieve greater citizen participation in its decision-making?
Right.
January 31, 2012: Political Junkie Diversion
A time out from satisfying our political junkie fix to discuss science.
One of my favorite web sites is Academic Earth (www.academicearth.org) which offers free video lectures by professors from some of our most esteemed universities. Though my interest is primarily science, there are lectures on philosophy, religious studies and the like at Academic Earth. Then there is the OPEN CULTURE site (www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses — “The best free cultural & educational media on the web”) which also offers free video lectures (via YouTude primarily) and free online courses. Subject matter from OPEN CULTURE runs the gambit from archaeology to religion. Finally, there is the search repository of free university lectures at Lecturefox (www.lecturefox.com) which is heavily focused on science.
I bring up the subject of available online educational resources because of a book I recently read.
It is my understanding–though I do not know this as a fact, mind you–that students from kindergarten to college are warned to BEWARE of any information derived from the internet. A bit of common sense, one would think. But it is audaciously tempting, especially if you are on a deadline, to google and regurgitate. This is especially true if the information you seek is rather obscure and not “out there” as common knowledge. One source, two, three—some arbitrary number of sources on the internet can be considered confirmation. A very hazardous standard. (Rachel Ehrendfeld mentioned in her excellent book titled EVIL MONEY a minor disinformation campaign launched by one banking group another that was a typical example of how bogus information can be both minor and teased into a mushroom cloud).
So, not to digress. The aforementioned book which prompts this exploration off-topic is a book about Unidentified Flying Objects—UFOs. Having read extensively on the subject, I never miss an opportunity to pick up something new. Unfortunately, what I picked up—the book—was not something new but something obviously culled from the internet. In 1964, Richard Hall published his book, THE UFO EVIDENCE. After reading THE UFO EVIDENCE in 1995, it became my standard for discriminating between mysteries and noise. Little did I suspect upon picking up this most recent contribution to UFO investigations—the book–that the book in question was mostly noise. No, not mostly noise. All noise—unsubstantiated, vague reports of “lights in the sky”. That’s bad. What’s worst, as I turned pages, it dawned on me that if I wanted to write a book based on internet content, the new find would be it. It was so light-weight, it could have been a UFO itself.
Let us praise the open, abundant flow of information on the internet. Let us not drink of it as an elixir to the banality of general and specific ignorance—or something to that effect.
Okay. That’s the diatribe. March is coming up and the Republican party super primary. Hold on to your wallets or union cards (whichever applies), we are about to get on a wild ride to July.
October 2, 2011: A Change is Coming
A change you can count on in 2012.
The seven Republican presidential candidates for 2012 are distilled as follows:
Herman “Hurrican” Caine: His fear of Muslim Armericans and his resultant prejudice against them makes him clearly un-American. America has never elected an un-American president. Caine, like a couple of other Republican candidates, is able to articulate a blended emotion of fear and blind faith that whatever there is “out there” will dissolve with the right mixture of righteous indignation and murky, free floating anger. Sorry. As we all know instinctively, time is neither abashed nor defeated by the whims of Man—especially Man in a state of fear.
James Rick Perry is adept at diplomatically giving voice to the anger and self-loathing of men and women who spend their leisure hours on a bar stool pontificating on the horrible state of the world. He could be an Andrew Jackson if there was a core to his being. But there is no core in this would-be president other than self. The electorate recognizes bombast when it hears it. Though bombast is appropriate for a round or two of beers and good for a Sunday afternoon revival meeting, it is never a good foundation for governing a nation.
Michele Bachmann, the Princess of Factless America. Not now, not ever the Queen. America, despite the disdain for anything resembling intellect by a minority, and grudging antipathy to intellect by the majority, has never elected a Factless Prince or Princess to the presidency. True, a prince has slipped quietly into the second spot of vice president. But grace has prevailed and spared the nation leadership culled from the ether of rabid emotion occluding fact and even faith.
Newt Gingrich, the Earl of Happenstance. If any body of the politic really did have an elective office for dog-catcher and such position could lead to millions in speaking fees and royalties, such a community would be filled with people the likes of former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Professorial, senatorial, authoritative. Unfortunately, the only office which guarantees potential residual benefits worthy of royalty is the Office of President of the United States. Hence, the telemedia attracts this new class of photogenic royalty of Factless Queens, Factless Princesses, Earls of Happenstance and now forgotten, Captains of the Fat Wallet. America has NOT arrived at the bend in history in which these denizens can be handed the wreath of government. Not yet. However, as a stepping stone to mega-bucks, running for President has become the new portal for a comfy life.
Willard “The Last Man Standing” Mitt Romney. Regardless of what one may think of former Governor Mitt Romney as a governor or as a politician, the mere existence of his presidential candidacy exemplifies the absolute wasteland that is American politics today. Devoid of an ideological tie to American history; devoid of an idea embracing the future, Governor Romney typifies the consummate politician—very much like the current President. A democracy needs people of this inner vacuum, regardless of their exterior shell of conservative or liberal. History can push these people, compel them to move beyond themselves and beyond where even their adherents want to go. The 2008 presidential election gave Barack Obama a direction, a breeze behind his back. The 2012 election will not be direction, but rather reaction. A powerful contravening force against the future—any future. People want to stand still, to digest, to meld the present into some variation of the past, to luxuriate in the glories of yesterday, of past triumphs of American spirit. But time does not stand still. Time does not tolerate a vortex. Time is measured by change. Forward or perish. Governor Romney probably really does believe that the American nation can be ran like a corporation facing a mere hiccup on its balance sheet. If America ever was a corporation, the board went out to lunch in 1775 and haven’t been heard from since. It has been blood and guts, will and perseverance every since. Yet, the best the Republican Party can cough up in this time of crisis is a politician who spreads his soul upon the winds.
Rick Santorum. Among an enlightened electorate, former Senator Rick Santorum would be a serious candidate for president of the United States. Serious but not electable. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has compared Santorum to former president Ronald Reagan. It is a good comparison in that Santorum is in the traditional sense “non-presidential” material just like Reagan before he was elected. From all appearances, Santorum really does have a moral streak, a conservative values streak. That’s something you can’t really say about any of the other seven candidates with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul. Of course the electorate is not enlightened, just enlivened, near livid. These are not the times for weighing the merits of a life philosophy to be transformed into a system for governing a democracy.
Ron Paul is both a Republican and a libertarian. Taken together, this makes him a believer in an isolated island in the Atlantic in which only corporations live (corporations being “people too”) and all are doing whatever the hell they want without paying taxes, without obeying rules and regulations, and marveling at their own existence. The real Ron Paul does concede a few tacky-notes culled from the social contract to somehow allow for such socialist ideas such as Social Security and Medicare. As presidential material, Dr. Paul is a conflicted candidate. While the other six Republican candidates can at least give lip-service to representative democracy, Ron Paul would, in effect and fact, silence the voice of any who believed that we the people are greater than any one person. It is a perspective of human society that is a direct reaction to the viewpoint of Karl Marx and his Man-centered theology.
Jon Mead Hunstman, Jr. Indeed, if the electorate were in an enlightened state of mind. . . It is ironic that Hunstman is, without any equivocation, the best of the seven Republican candidates to challenge Obama in 2012. He has the track record, the requisite temperament to face the social and economic storm that is about to blow over America. But it is this same track record and temperament that makes him anathema to the Republican primary voter. Hunstman is not angry, not enraged. Why should he be? He is a billionaire. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy emoted, above all else, effectively on the idea of America. Jon Hunstmans does not seem to be able to do this. Trapped in the discourse of the moment, pandering to the little minds tittering on bar-stools, sincere souls hiding-out in revival tents, Hunstmans has no vision for America beyond the storm. Americans like vision, even if it is merely to whirl in the whirlwind of the moment. Hunstman does not offer even that.
The Real Last Man Standing
History will record that Barack Obama lost the American electorate in December 2010 when he let the George W. Bush 2002 tax cuts stay in place. Partisans will argue that he had no choice: that the Republicans in the House and Senate were holding the unemployed hostage. Obama, they will say, made a tactical decision to achieve a long range strategic goal. If partisans have the opportunity to write the history, tactic and strategy it will be. But regardless what rationale one gives it, in December 2010, when he should have stayed the course, Obama made a sharp-right turn away from the gale of history. He turned away from the battle, turned away from the breeze at his back. On May 31, 1944, U. S. General George Patton, in a speech to the 3rd Army, 6th Armored Division summed it up nicely: “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed.”
________________________________________________________________
September 23, 2011: “Homeland” as a derogatory term
With this reprint of an opinion expressed on June 25, 2008 in the Trices Group Book Review Journal, we are asking for signatures on a White House petition to get rid of–as in erase, as in delete, as it obliterate–the use of the term “homeland” by any department or agency of the federal government. The petition may be signed by going to the White House We The People website, registering and “signing” the petition. It is active until October 22, 2011.
June 28, 2008 The Return Of America
The tip off that things were taking a turn for the worst came long before “homeland” slithered into the lexicon customarily used to refer to America.
President Bush’s top domestic agenda item after being sworn in as the nation’s 43rd President in 2001 was a $1.6 trillion tax cut which benefited the top 1% of the nation’s tax payers. The Senate eventually passed the cut though it was for only $1.35 trillion over 10 years. By August 2001, there were $300 and $600 tax rebate checks in the mail for the chronically over-taxed—which, incidentally, were gradually re-imposed by State and local governments. Only twice before had such a government tax give-away happened. By the summer of 2001, with the new agenda firmly on track, the Bush administration had decided to ditch a number of international treaties, such as Kyoto, and essentially told the world that America was running on a bolder, more American centric, new track into the 22nd century.
“You’re thinking of Europeas Germanyand France. I don’t, I think that’s old Europe.”
Then came September 11, 2001.
Out of its ashes rose something called “the American Homeland”, followed, naturally enough, by the Department of Homeland Security. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin must have flipped over in one of his two graves. Process history–the capitalist state transforming into the capitalist-socialist state–had finally gushed up from the sewer of idiotic dogma to become manifest in America. Freedom, liberty, the rule of law had allowed 3,000 people on American soil to perish in the inferno torched by petty, though pretentious, criminals. Kill freedom. Kill liberty. Adjust the rules of law. America, the homeland. America The Homeland—finally. After over two hundred years as America the beautiful, America the brave, America the industrial juggernaut, America the nation of destiny, America finally became someone’s homeland. America the beacon of hope and freedom became the States. And then the war. The War on Terror. The Iraq War. Wars financed on a credit card because, well, people in the Homeland just don’t like taxes.
As subsequent events suggest, there may have been more to the intended warm and fuzzy of referring to America as the Homeland. Professor of economics, Thomas J. DiLorenzo of Loyola College in Maryland, reviews a book on his web site by another professor, James Bennett of George Mason University. The book is called Homeland Security Scams (Transaction Publishers, 2006). To quote DiLorenzo quoting Bennet: “ Indeed, the very name “Homeland Security” has an obvious echo of ‘fatherland’, as Professor Bennett ominously points out. ‘Americans have never used the world ‘homeland’ to describe their country’ anywhere and at any time. The very word is un-American and reeks of fascism.” Though bloated with Libertarian dogma which, under the right circumstances can pass as politics, Bennet goes on to discuss the cooperate welfare state under “neo-conservatism” wrought by the desire to defend the Homeland. (Need it be said that “Fatherland” and “Motherland”, aside from being pedestrian and “old world”, were sexist?)
Politics as Usual, Democracy as Usual
There is a small percentage of the American electorate who truly believe that the November 2008 elections are just another bunch of politicians angling for their little slice of the American pie. Politics as usual, they say.
The majority of Americans realize that this upcoming election is in fact another American revolution, or what former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, called “a new historical cycle”. Yet, on the surface, the choice does not seem that stark.
The liberal and young Senator Barack H. Obama against the conservative and senior Senator John McCain. The fear pitching that propelled the previous two elections is subdued. Gone is the shrill indignation at the lack of “morality” in the White House; gone is the chest-thumping rhetoric of the commander-in-chief just itching to do his job if only the cowering un-informed would let him. Yes, even the politicians–members of the American electorate after all–realize that an American revolution is underway.
As Obama crawled over the top of his democratic primary rivals, John Edwards and his class-warfare champaign, and Hilary Rodham Clinton and her return to yesteryear champaign, John McCain sprinted over his rivals with the simple message that he was a new brand of a generic product. As of July 2008, Obama and McCain each has an equal footing in the race to the White House. In the broad perspective of history however, Obama and McCain are interchangeable. The revolution is occurring despite them. The “morality” issues pitting Americans against Americans–abortion, gay rights, marital infidelity–have vaporized under the heat of economic upheaval, criminals masquerading under the banner of religion and an American political establishment that is so centered on its own survival that principles, conservative or liberal, are mere window dressing. Change by necessity is in the air.
While Obama articulates “revolution”, McCain has the reputation of being a revolution–of sorts. It is natural to assume that because of his youth, Obama would be more amendable to change than McCain; because of McCain’s prior display of contrary politics, he is judged more adept at bringing about change. Yet, neither has said or did anything that separates them from the past endeavors of the politically expedient. Obama has adroitly and unabashedly moved from rhetoric about change to the usual lip service about “responsible government”; McCain long ago moved from his maverick stance to kowtow in the line of the conventional power elite. Though the presidential campaign has slipped back into the mediocrity of finding the lesser challenge, the lowest common reference, the most amorphous “feel good” sentiment, the undercurrents of the revolution are still there. Both Obama and McCain are dancing in a field of fissures separating old from new. Though both are keeping their sights on the final destination–the White House–and giving proper homage to changing the trajectory of the last eight years, only Obama appears to see the ground shifting. Therein lies portents of what is to come.
Nationalism and Americanism
Unlike revolutions elsewhere ushering in fundamental changes, American revolutions are more experiment than exposition. This is why at the most common of common levels, Obama and McCain are essentially interchangeable. As necessitated by the American political system, each must be rooted in what can only be called the American character. The American character harbors a strong nationalistic perspective. But there is also the overriding perspective to that character that embraces the supremacy of the individual over the State. Balancing the two outlooks is required for a presidential aspirant to navigate through the political system. America’s current economic and political place in the world is making such navigation more difficult. Policies and programs must reflect “American patriotism” and “American values”. “American patriotism” can quickly become chained to fear, as can any nationalistic “patriotism”. On the other hand, adherence to a dogma of “individual freedom”–the Libertarians come to mind–can just as easily become a mask for all the fears that bedevil an individual psyche or that of a nation. It is this paradigm that neither Obama nor McCain seem to fully grasp–yet. The American people however, having tip-toed through the slurry sewage of nationalism for the past six years, are ready to flush the Homeland business back into the “old world” drainage ditch from where it was pumped and get back to the experiment that is America–an idea, not a place, a goal, not an accomplishment.
Within the next six years, one of the two presidential candidates, as President, will be forced–as in coerced–to set the course of world history for the next forty to sixty years. The American people already know this. “New historical cycles” have been set before. The last time such a major readjustment occurred was in the 1932 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in which he was elected over Herbert Hoover by a 57.4% to 39.7% margin of the popular vote. The 2008 election will be closer and Barack Obama will most likely prevail. But the effects of the election, with or without Obama as winner, in the long run, will be even more momentous and have greater consequences than the 1932 election.
Choice and An Echo
If a nuclear device is detonated anyplace in the middle-east, America will be forced to choose one of three possible courses of action. This is the catastrophe driven scenario that would force a fundamental change in the way America positions itself in the world community. Leader, facilitator or fortress.
The United States truly became a world power in 1947 when Greece turned to America to rebuild itself and ward-off the encroaching Soviet Union. Today, looking at the billions of dollars poured into Afghanistan and Iraq and the inability of American aid to establish something as simple as reliable electrical power in the country, the “Leadership” position might be difficult for America to establish in a catastrophe scenario. But it is one of the possible responses the next President can make to a global crisis.
A nuclear terrorist act is not the only catastrophe scenario that would force a change in America’s position in the world. A really world-wide natural disaster would propel the same impetus. While a natural disaster would eliminate one of the three possible courses of action in a man-made catastrophe, America would still have to position itself.
Eliminate the catastrophe driven scenario entirely and only the drip, drip, drip of world economic change, terrorist-criminal political activity and autocratic state-citizen-enslavement is left. Here, the next President can pick his fight. Of the three propelling forces behind a “new historical cycle”, only one of the two presidential candidates would purposely engage a battle in the arena of the mundane. Historically, it is precisely in this arena that epic defeats and victory have been waged. It is also in this arena that “young upstarts” have entered and been forced to “change things”, for better or worst. If there is a pause in the collective soul of America as the November elections come, it is based on the legitimate fear–a futile fear in and of itself–that America and the world is about to take a decisive step in a new direction and that America must take a position.
________________________________________________________________
June 2011: Drugs, Politics, Economics, War and The Real World
Common sense. As succinctly and concise as possible.
In any conflict, strategic advantage is always with the party who knows the strength and location of the opposing party. Tactical and numerical advantages are always subservient to knowledge of adversarial strength and location.
Sun Tzu, Chinese General, military strategist who wrote The Art Of war:
If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. [Chapter 3, last sentence].
The real world.
On the day after the White House responded (June 2, 2011) to a United Nations report (June 2, 2011) on the failed drug war, CNN carried a story by Patrick Oppmann on the ongoing assaults on pharmacies by violent and addicted drug addicts. Oppmann relates the story of pharmacist Mike Donohue whose pharmacy has been singled out by robbers five times. Donohue uses a Glock 19 to level “the playing field” against such assaults on his business. In the art of war, two opposing parties. The robber and the robbee. The robber is most likely strung-out on heroin or OxyContin and seeking a refill. The robbee is simply trying to run a business–not become sheriff of Pharmacidom. Who has the strategic advantage?
The real world.
The State of Palestine, occupying Gaza in Egypt and the West Bank in Jordan, is currently recognized by a hundred or so countries. Israel, the immediate neighbor of Palestine, refuses to grant sovereignty, and hence, recognize Palestine as a nation-state. Fractions within the State of Palestine do not recognize the right of Israel to exist. In fact, these factions, particularly Hamas, wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel. In the art of war, two opposing parties. Israel and Hamas. Who has the strategic advantage?
The real world.
For any who follow American politics, from the Federalists and Jeffersonians (or Democratic-Republicans as they were eventually known) at the nation’s founding, to the current crop of Democrats and Republicans, it is with no small measure of angst that realization is dawning that a decided shift is occurring in the historical two party system. The American two-party system has never been a two party system. In fact, since the end of the American Civil War (not conflict), there have been over fifty one-issue political parties exercising national influence at one time or another. But with the election of 2008, the two-party system is really becoming a two party system with one party becoming a one-issue advocate. Potentially dire consequences are looming. In the real world in which we choose knowledge over ignorance, there is a third choice. Cowering in a corner of yesterday’s glory and hoping that the opposing party simply melts away. The Republican Party of 2010 has been infiltrated by and is being co-opted by the Tea Party. The Tea Party, which should rightfully be a party unto itself as others before it, is intractable in not seeing beyond today. The Republican Party is seeing the vision. Tomorrow is doomed because yesterday was great and today is a crisis. In the art of war, two opposing parties. An America that reforms itself to conquer the future versus a vision of America in which nothing is possible because America is “broke”? Which has the strategic advantage?
The real world.
Victory does not necessarily follow from having strategic advantage. On March 27, 2011, a military alliance led by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commenced OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The resolution authorized operations in Libya to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack by Libyan forces controlled by Muammar Gaddafi. Common sense. As succinctly and concise as possible. Muammar Gaddafi will eventually leave Libya—on foot or in a coffin. Not an issue. But protecting Libyan civilians? Protecting Libyan civilians by a protracted military conflict? This fails the common sense rule so the art of war does not apply. Unfortunately, what so often passes as war these days–Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya–is really political theater with buckets of raining blood.
_______________________________________________________________
Who Is The Enemy?
As formulas go, war is defined by a very simple equation. There is an enemy. There is an objective. The result of adding the two is an outcome.
A state of war is not perpetual.
Up until 1979 when Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel’s enemies could be defined as “the neighbors”—the Arab states surrounding the state of Israel. After 1979, the enemies of Israel became a bit fuzzy.
In August 1964, when the U. S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, empowering President Johnson to use the full might of the U. S. military to assist in the defense of southeast Asian states—Vietnam specifically—there was no enemy. Not formally. Thus, technically, no war. But of course, everyone knew the enemy was the South Vietnamese Communist insurgency which was being controlled by North Vietnam, which was being controlled by the Chinese who in turn were the puppets of the Soviet Union. In other words, the enemy was a bit fuzzy—an ideology as opposed to an army.
In war, enemy by fuzzy concept or enemy by proxy is not viable logic and certainly not viable mathematics.
Before the start of the Gulf War in 1990, General Colin Powell delineated a set of eight questions first proposed by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The questions became known as the Powell Doctrine. Essentially, the Powell Doctrine provides the binding for the two factors of war: enemy and objective. Powell added his own stamp to the doctrine by, in effect, stating that sufficient resources must be devoted to war to make it a true commitment of national objective in defeating an enemy. But, what happens when the bindings are frilly and lose? the commitment a tenuous thread of national commitment in which the only ones committed are those on the battle field?
After the Vietnam war, many thought we would never again be mired in a conflict in which there was no definable enemy and no clear objective.
September 11, 2001: America is attacked by a fundamentalist Islamic group with the stated aim of getting American military installations out of the middle east. The fundamentalist group was being sheltered by the government of Afghanistan. The American political establishment, represented by the President George Bush administration, took aim at an identifiable enemy and the enemy’s support base. Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban government of Afghanistan overturned and pursuit of the enemy—Al-Quada and their leader Osama Bin-Laden—was on full traction until . . . Until?
Politics and war. There is no place in the war equation for politics. This was one of the lessons of Vietnam. The politics of going to war is a necessity—real, imagined or delusional. Ignorance, wistful thinking, exaggerations, outright lies and, on rare occasions, decisions of national life or death: these are the ingredients of going to war. Winning a war is not a compromise between good and evil, nor between acceptable loses of life and mere “collateral damage”. Winning a war is the destruction of the enemy; losing is being destroyed by the enemy. The logic and mathematics of war. There are no substitutes for winning or losing. America abandoned the Vietnam conflict. Time moved on. Today, the united country of Vietnam is an American trading partner. There never was a war. Only a conflict.
Today, America has men and women being maimed and dying in Afghanistan. War or conflict? The equation of war strongly points to Afghanistan now being a conflict, the gist of which for American interest is delusional.
The Afghanistan war ended when the Taliban hastily dragged their tattered perversions of Islam across the Afghan-Pakistan border, in the wake of the man whom they sought to protect, Osama Bin-Laden. The job the American military did in winning that war was extraordinary. It ranks even higher than American military achievements in the Persian Gulf War of 1990. Today, we hear not of what the U. S. military is doing, but rather what is being done to it. Road side bombs, suicide bombers, tally-score results on winning hearts and minds. Deaths.
The Afghanistan conflict has dragged on for nine and a half years with no resolution in sight. Until one side or the other abandons the conflict, it will continue. In the meantime, the greatest military power the world has ever seen is swatting the lingering flies of the Taliban corpse.
Who is the enemy? In Afghanistan, there is no enemy. There are only ghosts.
________________________________________________________________
Barnesfolio 