News item: Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez resigns on August 27, 2007
In the article Connecting the Dots, we pointed out why only a grossly distorted view of facts and history could discern the trees of scandal within this political forest. Yet it was enough to stop the wheels of progress and derail a much needed makeover for the Justice Department. And you thought Bush was too stubborn to surrender.
Public service has taken its toll on a remarkably high number of executives in this administration. Every time I see a John Ashcroft or a Karl Rove bail out, it's evident that at least in part, it's because they don't need the kind of aggravation that comes with trying to do the right thing--or in many cases, undo the wrong thing. The staff at the Justice department as well as those at the UN and the State department had come to enjoy their positions with no regard for accountability. The one attribute that characterizes most leaders as they charge up a hill, is the fact that they have as many arrows in their backs as in their fronts. That comes with the territory. Yes, the arrows come from the sides, too when you are a republican. The press will seldom stay out of an otherwise fair fight, when it involves a republican leader.
Take a look at this list of scandal-tainted victims: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. All of these individuals fought their respective systems, and have only dissilusionment to show for their troubles. Some who fought the good fight continue that fight, and I give them credit for that (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Roberts, and many more). All of these individuals are just that, individuals, standing up for what they believe is right.
Contrast that with the conspiracy-centric nature of scandals from the previous administration:
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, The Vince Foster Murder, the Paula Jones affair, Cattlegate, Nannygate; we could go on. These are surely far better scandals than any we are getting today. And note few of these have a primary "conspirator" -- Thos Clintons sure knew how to put a team together. Along with the more recent Sandy Berger and William Jefferson indiscretions; they all make much better crises of leadership stories than any that can be ascribed to the current administration.
It was still bloody unnecessary for the president's lieutenants to take all the heat, but that's what happens when you leave staff in important places that can become problems later, as Bush did by not firing all 93 of the US attorneys. But also, it should be clear by now that in the preparation for future leaders, all candidates should be issued iron underwear prior to being allowed to take the job.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The 2020 Vision
..it is not just that there will be additional forces in Baghdad; it is what they will do and how they will do it that is important. -- General David Petraeus, 12/2006
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)