I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Star Spangled Banner should be in English, mostly

Norm is being dense, uncharacteristically dense.  He says he doesn’t get this (on the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish): "And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English," Bush said. "And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Bush is welcoming of immigrants, but primarily those immigrants who want to become Americans. Who want to live in America, contribute to America; to love America. (See Peggy Noonan a couple of weeks earlier).

At the end of the article Norm starts out quoting: Bush was not being politically calculating and has always believed that new immigrants should embrace the national language and culture.

I don’t quite believe that Norm doesn’t understand this, even though most of his post is about the Star Spangled Banner in other languages. (Maybe I should try putting it into Slovak?)

(My own Tax Loan way to solve the illegal problem, besides hugely increasing the number of legals, includes a requirement for all to pay for English lessons, whether they attend, or not.)

Norm says: “And having a Spanish version is a way for Spanish-speaking US citizens to embrace the anthem to their bosoms”

No, in the context of 12 million criminal illegals now in America, it is a call to impose a Spanish speaking culture thru an amnesty, and to give the bold and/or desperate illegal immigrants preference over those who have been legally waiting in line. For years; some for decades. Rewarding illegal behavior is a gross injustice, and in today’s political climate of searching for a solution to illegal immigration, the Spanish Star Spangled Banner reminds any justice oriented American of the injustice of amnesty.

I truly don’t understand why Norm doesn’t understand this. I even suspect he does, but is avoiding actually saying he supports the imposition, thru demographics, of Mexican culture on top of America. I wonder how he’d feel about a huge Arabic rally in France with an Arabic version of their anthem -- or in the UK of God Save the Queen.

It’s not the music, it’s the cultural imposition.

Which reminds me that one reason America is hated is the peaceful, voluntary success of Hollywood movies and the materialism and anti-spiritualism so many movies implicitly advocate. Thus my critique of Norm nicely segues into his fine Euston Manifesto and great statement opposing Anti-Americanism. The cultural imposition of America is one of the main emotional reasons for that Anti-Americanism; and any Socialist should know the emptiness of consumeristic materialism.

Here is the English translation of the Spanish version; kinda good but sacred at the end instead of brave?  I don't think so.

The day is breaking, do you
see it? In the light of the dawn?
What we so acclaimed at
nightfall?
Its stars, its stripes,
flew yesterday
In the fierce battle
in a sign of victory,
The glow of battle, in step
with liberty
At night they said: “It’s being
defended!”

CHORUS Oh say!
The voice of your starry
beauty
is still unfolding
Over the land of the free
The sacred flag?

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/30/06 17:05 | link | comments (1)
immigration, tax loans, euston

Baby Daddy a big mistake for blacks and whites

LaShawn on Baby Daddy keeps blogging about the need for blacks to change their behavior, especially having so many kids raised without fathers. There are race issues and sex issues. One comment makes a fine point on how important it is to focus, as Christian, on the Universal truths and the reality that "Every race is lying, engaging in sexual immorality...".

However, if there are two groups of people, White and Black, and one group has 60%* of their children living with married bio-father and mother, and the other group has 20%* of their children living with married bio-father and mother -- then it IS appropriate to look at group differences; when the group average difference is significant (10% or more difference, certainly.)

[* estimated numbers; La Shawn, a great reporter would have these different numbers and include them -- they are part of the "facts" that Leftists in the MSM don't like to publicize.]

Every sin can be looked at as half a glass of water, with respect to responsibility. Half of the responsibility is the individual; half the environment around them -- they are half-victims.

It's arguable whether it's half; 3/4; 1/10... What is NOT very arguable is this: the half that is the individual's responsibility is the half that the individual can change. By himself. By different behavior.

And it must be clearly said -- changing behavior is difficult.

But as long as the Dem Party uses the terrible results of irresponsible black behavior to claim that blacks are "victims" of others, their victimhood is used as a shield to avoid the shame of not changing.

Why are people in America poor?
1) Having kids out of wedlock; getting pregnant; having sex.
2) Not graduating from high school (it's terrible that many black boys say studying is "too white" -- more white boys are starting to say "studying is for girls")
3) Not keeping a job for a year.

There are virtually no poor Americans who have no kids, have graduated, have been working for over a year. The black-white problem is that far more blacks have these 3 poverty-causing behaviors.

But Dem Party supporting teachers refuse to teach these behavior lessons. "I’m not convinced that marriage is natural or is a generally “great thing.” I don’t agree with the “immoral” argument since I believe morals are subjective." ~D. #40

I'm wondering what real world evidence there is for this "belief" that morals are subjective?

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/30/06 16:07 | link | comments
hearts and minds, morality

Neo on Questioning Authority

Oh my, Neo is doing great work on Question Authority, part II on My Lai, & now part III on the Pentagon Papers are as great as part I.

From comments "They HAVE TO BE RIGHT." -- but there is no objective "right"; the issue involves what are military secrets that should be kept from the public, when it is THAT public which selects the civilian leaders who control the military.

If the military lies to the public, the public may well be manipulated into choosing a civilian boss of the military who doesn't represent the "true" will of the people, because the people didn't know the "truth".

Of course, an estimate that the war will end in 6 months, if believed, is not a "lie" when it drags on for years, it's just wrong. Incompetent even, but not lies.

It's no more a lie than Kerry's 1971 claim that the US leaving would result in only 2 - 3,000 deaths. Stupidly incompetent; possibly self-deluding wishful thinking. Wrong, but not quite a lie (not like Christmas in Cambodia -- a clear lie.)

Ellsberg was ready to go to prison in civil disobedience -- and the "court of public opinion" said him going to prison was wrong. Therefore, his leak was "RIGHT".

The need for speedy resolution, in days and weeks, not years, is really bothersome. I'm afraid America's impatience lost the war in Vietnam (for the S. Vietnamese -- America didn't lose, didn't get a foreign gov't, didn't have thousands rounded up and murdered by the victors.)

I'm afraid America's impatience can lose in Iraq. It should be a 10 year target -- clealy more than any one President's term.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/30/06 15:58 | link | comments
democracy, media

Know Hope in Israel

There is always a huge problem in balancing Mercy with Justice. I remember a personality quiz question: Which is worse: to be unjust to be merciless

My own resolution is that society, thru laws and (occasionally violent) police & military, must strive towards Justice. As that society defines it.

Yet individuals should, in their own personal lives, strive towards Mercy. Since without forgiveness one often becomes bitter and no amount of vengeance really balances out some prior murderous injustice.

"Know Hope" isn't so far from Pope John Paul II's "Be Not Afraid". Both great phrases, both requiring individual mercy.

I'd like to challenge any who support the Palestinians a bit on a Free Speech issue -- are there any Palestinian Newspapers which publicly call for recognition of Israel and a negotiated two-state solution? I was under the impression that hate-filled Palestinians kill any moderates that go public with their moderate beliefs.

The lack of Palestinian Free Speech seems to me the biggest issue which can easily be changed, by Hamas/ PA, if the Palestinian people demand it. The lack of such a demand justifies, to me, my own lack of respect for their claims of injustice.

Similarly, while the 1948 creation of Israel may not have been a fully "just" act, the 1948-1967 denial of Palestinian statehood, by Egypt and Jordan who controlled Gaza and the West Bank at that time, was a greater injustice. And the deliberate keeping of "refugees" in camps (=grizzly cages?), by the Arabs and the UN, seems to have been Arab and UN dehumanization of the Palestinian people into a victimized object, used to complain about Israel.

(Michael reports from Israel and his comments are interesting).

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/28/06 17:38 | link | comments
hearts and minds, israel palestine

War or genocide is a hard choice

Amnesty International has the problem of most Leftists when confronted by stark, hard choices:

war or genocide.

This was the Vietnam rot in 1974; more war or genocide, and the Peace Now folk got the Dem Party to vote against more war.

Thus, to allow genocide; 600 000 murders in Vietnam; 1.5 mil. murders in Cambodia.

Because the US left, and stop fighting "the Evil Empire" there.

The Dems didn't want to fight in Rwanda in 1994.
 

Neither the Dems nor Bush seems to want to fight in Sudan, now -- so the slo-mo genocide in Darfur continues.  I really wish Bush would blame the Dems and their "Global Test" giving the responsibility to the UN; and blame the UN for not calling it genocide.  As Amnesty doesn't call it genocide -- to do so would require UN action = war.  Amnesty doesn't want that.  So it would rather have genocide.  Or, maybe sanctions ... so that the continuing genocide could then be blamed on the US for imposing sanctions.

The world needs regime change in Sudan, even more urgently than in Iran, though Iran is a bigger near term threat to freedom.

(Roger wrote about Amnesty)

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/28/06 16:37 | link | comments (1)
genocide, world cop, darfur

Three Loves plus a New Heart

I'm struggling with my response in favor of civil unions but strongly against gay marriage (eg to Sullivan).  I'll be thinking about the "new heart" idea.

Other notes: in biological terms, every child is a "one flesh" union of the mother and father; half of each parent's DNA.

I'm thinking of 3 loves: Lust-Love (sexual pleasure); and Soul-Love (companionship pleasure), both of which also might apply to gays; and Creation-Love (parental pleasure), where, as God has created people, people act a tiny bit like God in creating the new lives of their children.  This Creation-Love is also related to their love of continuing their own society, civilization, into the future.  Creation-Love is costly, but it provides benefits to my children; creations of my marriage (with my wife!).  I want marriage to celebrate this Creation-Love; and it's just not available for gays.

Via The Anchoress on Pope Benedict's speech: "the Lord “implants” this new heart in us at baptism, through faith. It is not a physical transplant, but perhaps we can make this comparison. After a transplant, the organism needs treatment, requires the necessary medicines to be able to live with the new heart, so that it becomes “one’s own heart” and not the “heart of another.”

This is especially so in this “spiritual transplant” when the Lord implants within us a new heart, a heart open to the Creator, to God’s call. To be able to live with this new heart, adequate treatment is necessary; one must have recourse to the appropriate medicines so that it can really become “our heart.”

Thus, by living in communion with Christ, with his Church, the new heart truly becomes “our own heart” and makes marriage possible. The exclusive love between a man and a woman, their life as a couple planned by the Creator, becomes possible, even if the atmosphere of our world makes it difficult to the point that it appears impossible."

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/27/06 19:05 | link | comments (5)
hearts and minds, gays

Good for CBS News -- choose your video news

On CBS, you can see many blurbs describing possible news stories, and you can choose the ones you're interested in.

This is great!  In the future, I'd like to be able to get more indepth for each story (and out-takes); plus I'l like written transcripts of what was said; plus have it searchable thru google, etc.  I see it all coming.  Public Eye is also good; Vaughn is in Vegas.  Wonder what the state of the art on (multiple) Voice to Text transcriptiont.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/27/06 17:25 | link | comments
media

Marc on Tony Snow as new WH press guy

Marc is happy, a bit, about Tony Snow.

But laughs at the idea Fox could be fair.

How would you know what "fair and balanced" looks like?  What are the metrics?

If a bank makes 10 errors, all in the bank's favor, would one think they're all just honest mistakes? 
How many same-slant mistakes/ errors must there be before the MSM is unfair, and unbalanced?
Really, Lefties bad-mouthing Fox (which I don't get in ), without putting up criteria, is pretty silly. 
An excellent point is made-- do you want a lousy liar or a better liar?
It's also terribly biased -- what statements did Scottie make that were factually false, which he knew were false?

Unlike the examples: "I never had sex with that woman."  "I was illegally in at Christmas". 
I'm certainly not claiming there are no lies, but I'm wondering what the Left thinks of as McClellan's.  Plus, I wonder if this means Bush will get serious about reducing spending -- something Dems here don't seem to be willing to say is too high (with specific calls for reduction), but Bush's base thinks is.  If so, then Snow's reply to his criticisms might be great:

"Bush has learned from his overspending mistakes in the past, and has promised I can tell the good news about lower spending."

I doubt Marc will be so happy, then.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/27/06 11:51 | link | comments
media, hearts and minds

Michael in Israel

Michael J Totten continues to do Great Work. In fact, it’s so fantastic that now Glenn at instapundit regularly links there; so my own linking has gone down. His latest is a long post about a liberal in Israel, with friends who are Palestinians.

I thought this quote about Lisa Goldman was wonderful (with picture): "Not the Bush-hating idiot variety, but the kind of brave person who continues to believe in the world no matter what kind of hell it throws at her"

 Mike N. in comments writes about how it really is, to a huge extent, a Mental War.

 I suspect "idiot", who finds Bush contemptible, is just the kind of person who, as a Palestinian or 30s German, would find Jews contemptible -- with no hesitation to support extreme dehumanization. I'm glad he hit your tip-jar; I can only agree your writing is worth it.

Why does Bush's fight against the evil Saddam create strong negative feelings? It's far more strange than the obvious issue about who has the stronger "right" to Israel's land.

Yet, while the Two-state solution is "obvious" to us non-idiot outsiders, I wonder if most Israelis support it. I think so. I wonder if most Palestinians support it. I think not. 

Meaning what, they haven't been beaten enough? The world hasn't been clear enough?

The actual borders are not as important as the principle. The Palestinians also don't have free speech, nor free religion. Until they accept such basic human rights, I will continue to find their leaders, and the supporters of such leaders, fairly contemptible.

The Palestinians need to respect human rights, or I won’t be respecting them much.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/27/06 11:48 | link | comments
israel palestine

I'm signer #807 - Euston Manifesto

Dave Osler won’t sign the Euston Manifesto, supported by Norm Geras, among many others..

Neo-neocon talks about it; but doesn’t say whether she’s signed, or not. I signed, #807 -- should have done so earlier. But busy.

Spanky, a neo-troll in Neo’s comments, discusses at length how Al Qaeda wants to provoke the US.

It's not clear to me why we should devote much time to understand our Al Qaeda enemy, because I know they can't beat America; just like the N. Vietnamese couldn't win any big battles.

It is the anti-US imperialism / anti- US capitalism / anti-US Christianity folk, in America and the world, which can politically make the US stop fighting. Like the Dem Party voted for in 1974 (shouldn't that be an important post, Neo?).

It's interesting to speculate, did AQ think Bush would invade Iraq? -- Saddam clearly thought not, until the last months. Did AQ think an invasion would be massive, 500 000 numbers of troops (& targets), like Vietnam, or minimal 150 000?

It seems that part of their survival mechanism is to accept inconsistency -- some think one thing will happen, some another, but what they think doesn't change how they act. So why should I worry about them so much as the moonbat Left in America, who vote to run away?

I think Bush had TOO MANY troops after Saddam fell, and didn't give local Iraqi mayors enough authority & responsibility for security. Also, I think TOO MUCH aid was spent on Iraq, and far too much was corruptly wasted. I have other complaints, too.

But as a new Iraq gov't starts taking over, I think Bush will be able to talk about: "Iraq The Model" (also a great blog).

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/27/06 08:30 | link | comments (1)
democracy, leftist, responsibility, euston

The Truth the Left denies

The biggest truth that the Left can't bear is the results of their "success" at booting Nixon, and cutting out in Vietnam.

The anti-war folk were successful in 1974; and thus America left Vietnam & Cambodia -- so the (USSR & China) supported commies moved in; and proceeded to murder people.  By the thousands.  Hundreds of thousands.  About 2 million murdered SE Asians in the 4-5 years after the Dem Party voted to stop funding S. Vietnam.

The choice was war or genocide; the anti-war folk chose ... genocide.
In 1994 the choice in Rwanda was war or genocide; the anti-war folk chose ... genocide.
In 2003 the choice in Iraq was war or Saddam; the anti-war folk supported Saddam (while claiming not to!).
In 2004 the choice in Darfur was, and still continues to be, war or genocide (in slo-mo); the anti-war folk are choosing ... genocide.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/24/06 22:30 | link | comments (6)
iraq, darfur, morality

Guest Worker Return Fund

I do not trust most “guest worker” programs, because there is so little reason for them to leave. Once they’ve made it into America, why go back, especially to the mess of Mexico?

Guest Workers are an issue independent of, though closely related to, legal immigration. So my Tax Loan solution to the illegal immigration problem of having legal immigrants pay $20 000 for the right to come to America remains a reasonable model for GW, too. My own immigration solution includes building the fence, gradually increasing employer sanctions for those who continue to employ illegals, having bounties payable to anybody (including the illegal) for turning in employers, and requiring all immigrants to pay for English courses. Illegals would pay double, $40 000.

Guest Workers should also pay towards an individual $20 000 “return fund.” Like a Christmas savings plan, the GWs would get an IRS refund from their payments into the return fund, when they arrive back “home,” usually Mexico. These payments should be: 5% of all income, plus 10% of all income over 80% of mean American income (prior year), plus 20% of all income over 100% of mean American income, plus 30% of all income over 200%. For the very successful guest worker, such amounts of before tax forced savings will accumulate rapidly. Probably somewhat painfully. But the GW can get it back in a nice, big, house buying and/or business starting lump sum -- when they go “back home.”

A humane yet firm return fund policy has, so far, been missing from the Guest Worker debate. With respect to Mexico, in particular, sending GWs home with enough money to start their own businesses is the best long term and mid term policy the US can do, to help create a Mexican middle-class. Mexico desperately needs honest workers to help put an end to the near mindless anti-American pro-socialist rhetoric, which has resulted in oceans of corruption from the top to the bottom throughout the Mexican government.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/24/06 22:04 | link | comments
immigration

For Euston Manifesto haters

The Euston Manifesto haters here are a sorry lot.  The EM says it's against tyranny.  That implies that those against the Manifesto support tyranny, or else suggests such.  If you don't like the EM and you don't like tyranny, I'd think you need to mention how you oppose tyranny.

I was hoping Mavis would read it; she seems one of the few anti-war liberals who at least struggles with the obvious -- no war means Saddam stays in power. 

No war to stop genocide in Darfur means continues slo-mo genocide. 

No war to stop from getting nukes means will get nukes (my belief about the future).

I also don't trust the EM -- the and allied with Joe Stalin in 1942.  Stalin became "our bastard" to fight, kill, and die against Hitler, the even worse bastard.  I don't see how you can say the good guys must not ally with an evil guy, ever, without being against alliance with Stalin.  If you accept Stalin, why not accept a general in S. Korea? in S. Vietnam? in ? in ? in ? in ? 

I think the only way to reject accepting less evil dictators is to clearly promote democracy -- and I think is slowly turning into a huge success.  The UIA largest plurality has NOT pushed Jaafari, who was vetoed by the minority Kurds & Sunnis.  Just the kind of minority protection has been fighting for.

Yeah, 3 years: limited stabilization, new elected Constitution Assembly, new Constitution, Iraq-wide general elections under  the Iraq written and Iraq voter-approved Constitution, and prolly soon a new, fully democratically elected Iraqi government.  Less than 2500 casualties.

Huge success; but not perfect, not costless. 
 

My guess is to look for more Iraqi gov't security forces becoming more effective at stopping terrorism, and all the Bush-bashers complaining about death squads; with some of the complaints having some validity (not perfect).

But those against the war who say how bad it is for Iraqis, seem all too similar to those who said the in was bad for the Vietnamese.  They seldom say some 600 000 unarmed, non-fighting S. Vietnamese were rounded up and murdered by the victorious N. Vietnamese who took over after the left. 

So I don't believe the anti-war folk really have the non-US people's interests at heart.

(Via a Marc Cooper time out)

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/24/06 19:26 | link | comments (3)
iraq, democracy

More on Euston Manifesto

Neo writes on the Euston Manifesto:

 
The Manifesto is great, the serious discussion on the Left about it is good, and overdue ... and there may be results in the US elections in 2006, but more likely in 2008.  Where both parties with have somebody OTHER than Bush.

The time to get out of Iraq is a compromise between the US gov't desires, and the Iraqi gov't desires.  (Sort of like the time a young man leaves his parent's home?)

The US should certainly not act unilaterally, because we have been supporting the creation of democratic gov't, and one is being created there that DOES require the majority Shia to compromise with the Sunnis and the Kurds.

But the "sickness" of the Left needs to be cured, and the name of that sickness is anti-Americanism.

The causes include: envy - at America's success and objective "goodness"; anger -- at America's imperfections like Abu Ghraib (similar to ex-Christian's anger at a God who nevertheless allows evil to exist?); disillusionment -- with an equality-oriented socialism that has repeatedly failed to help poor people as much as the non-altruistic capitalism which is so vibrant in America;
and RAGE at the "unjust inequality" of America being the sole superpower..


Oil remains the cheapest source for transport.  Any Dem who wants to change the economics can do so easily, Gas Taxes.  Maybe not at $1, or $2, but at $3 / gal (of tax, meaning $5+ at the pump), and the "market" would rapidly switch to other stuff.  And such a Dem would almost certainly be voted out. 
Any environmental or security concern that doesn't advocate higher gas taxes is not truly serious.

I advocate higher gas taxes, 1 penny increase per month, until the budget is balanced. (Other times I might advocate other schemes, like price stabilization taxes, which go up and down opposite to market prices of gas)  Gas taxes ain't popluar.

I also advocate really open software (EM #14) -- like an end to using gov't force to punish people who share digital information; and end to 'intellectual property rights'.  Society should support innovation through prizes and fame and other means, even tax credit donations, not IPR.  All gov'ts of the world should be using Free software, now, wherever it's feasible -- and funding their University students in working on more open source free software for use throughout the world

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/23/06 00:39 | link | comments
democracy, leftist

Iraq's no-lose/no-lose compromise

Tigerhawk's brief note on the Iraqi Deal to make Jawad al-Maliki the new PM indicates an idea that Iraq was being influenced by the US.

I truly doubt that US political issues had anything measurable to do with Iraq's political calculations.

I think that Jaafari, and the UIA, were becoming the political scapegoat for the continuing civil war.

Maliki worked for Jaafari, and is from Dawa too -- so "policy" will be similar.  But most political coalitions become very personal.  This is a no-lose/no-lose compromise--the Sunnis & Kurds don't lose on Jaafari, the UIA/ Dawa faction doesn't lose on PM.

Publius Pundit had some ideas yesterday.

Powerline (via Tigerhawk) sends me to UPI, which reports:

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/22/06 23:36 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Zinni--Saddam was a threat before he wasn't

Austin Bay writes about a Marine noting this about Zinni: Take General Zinni, who astonishingly now asserts he was “never convinced” about Iraq’s WMD programs. Yet General Zinni while still serving as the Commanding General of CENTCOM testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2000 that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf…primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR)…”

Zinni is getting ready for his own "Dem Party talking against Bush" post-General career.  He'll get 3 years out of it, anyway; perhaps more.


While the key issue is number of US soldiers killed, the second issue is the number of months of active resistance.  The problem is that neither the generals nor Rummy was talking enough about the hard, LONG, slog of "nation building" in Iraq -- especially since there are clearly 3 nations.  Yet less than 2500 US deaths means Rummy has, on the single most important strategic measure, done an excellent job in booting Saddam and supporting Iraqi democracy.

An underlying critique, now 4 months after the Iraq election w/o an Iraq gov't, is that the Iraqis are failing in democracy.  If Jaafari can't accept stepping down, because his Shia coalition isn't big enough to rule alone, Jaafari is failing democratic Iraq.  On the other hand, the USA doesn't understand Proportional Representation and "coalition-building", required in multi-party governments where so much of the future has to be agreed to before accepting the first steps.  Slovakia's coalition gov't just collapsed when the PM's party refused to accept a treaty with the Vatican because of "conscientious objector rights" of Christian doctors not wanting to perform abortions, part of the 2002 coalition agreement.  A critique I wish the generals would make is that of using Prop. Rep. & party lists, rather than geo-districts.  Young democracies do better locally based representatives.


The "more troops" would have "helped" needs to be looked at more closely; I am certain there would be more accidents, more targets, more US abuse of Iraqis.  I'm not certain there would be more terrorists stopped, but that's certainly possible.

Another obvious huge failing, since Desert Storm, is the lack of Arabic speaking military personnel.  More these generals' faults than Rumsfeld's.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/20/06 01:09 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Generals for Rumsfeld, too -- 4 months after election

Belmont Club has more on the Generals against Rumsfeld, which is really more against Bush.  And, to some significant extent, an attempt to answer the question "who lost Iraq".

But Iraq is not lost.  The Iraqis are, so very slowly, learning about democracy.  The leaders are learning how to be corrupt; the voters are learning about how the leaders will be more self-interested than putting the Iraqi nation's interests first.

Jaafari is not going to be the one who "lost" Iraq, nor will it be Zarqawi -- but both of these two Mid East men are far more influential.  The US-centered critics act as if only the US moves in Iraq are at issue, but it how the US moves relative to the other movers which is critical.  Iraq needs a government, and doesn't have one yet -- and 4 months after the election is a long time to wait.

General Myers and General Franks are in support of Rumsfeld.  He's prolly not going to go. 

One of the big mistakes was in a lack of Arabic speaking troops.  More mistakes will be listed later.  "Too few troops" is not likely to be one of them, since more troops means more US casualties.

WaPo has a better list of mistakes: "the defense secretary was directly responsible for the policy of abuse toward detainees that resulted in the shocking Abu Ghraib photographs, as well as far worse offenses against detainees. By then, too, Mr. Rumsfeld's contributions to growing trouble in Iraq were evident: his self-defeating insistence on minimizing the number of troops; his resistance to recognizing and responding to emerging threats, such as the postwar looting and the Sunni insurgency; his rejection of nation-building, which fatally slowed the creation of a new political order."

Abu Ghraib and interrogation was certainly handled poorly, by Rumsfeld and Bush and the DoD.  Minimum troops seems right to me, not wrong; response to looting was weak.  I think troops could have been near more buildings, saying "no", with guns.  The Sunni insurgency needs MORE Arabic speakers -- more troops who can't talk are not such a big help.  However, more 5-20 troop contingents in police houses might have made the police better, sooner.

Was it Runsfeld or Bremer who was slow to create a new political order?  I think more Bremer than Rumsfeld, and had the idea Bremer was for State, where the quickly replaced Gardner had been for Defense.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/18/06 11:12 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Euston M - Tryanny and Stalin

The Progressive Left, favoring the Euston Manifesto, is not really serious about opposing tyranny. Because to do so means to reject the WW II alliance with Stalin.

”We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently 'understand', reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy “ -- this reasonable ideal should exclude alliance. In 1942, the worst mass murdering tyrant in history was Joe Stalin -- the new ally of FDR and Churchill, the USA & UK. The Left has never condemned FDR for hugely supporting that dictator, so it's intellectually hypocritical on this point. "Our bastard" Pinochet in Chile, hated by the Left, is also the reason Chile is the most free, and most economically advanced S. American country. Pakistan, today, is one of the key non-democratic ally states.

On Jeff's site Buzzmachine there's a key comment (I can’t quite find right now) complaining about the injustice of America being the sole super-power. For those who believe American capitalism is worse than other realistic systems, such a result must be based on injustice -- because of their belief. 

(See my <a href="http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069182789#173964"> Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate</a>).

But it's great that some on the Left are supporting the overthrow of Saddam. The sour grape generals who think Iraq is an "unnecessary" war are unwilling to honestly claim preference for continued rule by Saddam. Like most Leftists, they want the good result (Saddam out), but for "free" -- no American or innocent Iraqi casualties. Unreal perfection is not an option. But, like J. Lennon, they can "Imagine" it, so they ask "Why not" -- but don't listen for the answer (because others disagree).

A Leftist comment: “You don’t think we live in a globe of inequality?” This is related to the complaint that only America is a superpower, and related to the desire to have the EU be a second power. And even related to my own desire for India, a democracy, to grow into a greater power, in alliance with the USA and Japan and in defense of Human Rights.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/18/06 10:48 | link | comments
democracy, human rights

More General Sour Grapes

What are the mistakes the anti-Rumsfeld Generals talking about?

Maj. Gen. John Batiste (**): "I didn't say unnecessary bloodshed. But when decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes"

Earlier he responded to Newbold: #1 the USA has the best military, bar none.
#2 Agree or not about going INTO Iraq, we must succeed.  The goal is democracy there but "Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy. Nor do they understand their responsibilities for a free society."
#3 "there's a lack of sacrifice and commitment on the part of the American people -- the exception [is] those families with soldiers committed into this fight." and the US should have some rationing. [...]
#4 Fresh faces at the Pentagon; Rumsfeld should go.

But he had the opportunity to speak earlier, "absolutey."


Sorry General, I think Rumsfeld was right.  And you have sour grapes because "more troops" were not needed.
But you are correct that the Iraqis do not understand the compromise part and power sharing part of democracy.  How would more troops help?  Wouldn't more troops actually hurt, and allow the Iraqis to not learn, longer; and put more blame on the Americans?

If Bremer or one of the Generals had wanted the Iraqis, in 2003-2004, to have local elections using ration cards, I would respect them a lot more.  If they said they supported local democracy then, but Rummy forbid it, THEN I would agree that Rumsfeld should go.

Right now, no.

[But another big problem with Rumsfeld, which I don't see being discussed, is the failure to provide for "justice" against the many mostly Sunni officers who directly ordered or participated in various murder and torture acts, especially against Shiites.]

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/14/06 00:44 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Euston Manifesto first look

Norm discusses a reasonable, responsible Liberal / Progressive Euston Manifesto.

I'll have to review in more detail later, but it fails to discuss the proper place of force & peace, in its many reasonable aims.
1. For Democracy
2. No apology for tyranny [somehow I doubt this will condemn the allies for helping Stalin.]
3. Human rights for all [great!]
4. Equality
5. Development for freedom [no mention of supporting job creation]
6. Opposing anti-Americanism [I like this one]
7. Two-state solution [you DO know the problem]
8. Against racism
9. United against terror
10. A new internationalism
11. A critical openess
12. Historical Truth
13. Freedom of Ideas
14. Open Source [wow, yes!]
15. A precious heritage.

So much.  Updates will come below here; or perhaps a new, huge post in a few days.

Posted by: TomGrey at 04/13/06 23:59 | link | comments
democracy