Friday, February 11, 2005

How we go to war and what's next   Perhaps the most important unfinished conversation of our time is the question of why we went to war in Iraq.  It is too soon for the question to have been grappled with by historians.  It may never actually be revealed.  We were given and continue to be given reasons, the now famous 'weapons of mass destruction';  to spread democracy,  etc..  We transitioned to the 'democracy' justification after we found no WMD.  One reason, discussed by Senator McCain at the Republican convention and espoused early on by this writer was that the containment of Saddam Hussein, a known tyrannical adventurer, was failing.  Within a short period of time he would be free once more to attack his neighbors.  If we could not successfully continue the containment process, we had no choice but to strike.   At the time  I believed and now hear speculation  that America simply wanted a large military presence in the Middle  East.  This was a suspicion of many critics of the war, that Saddam was a convenient tyrant who could be manipulated into giving us reason for a large continuing military footprint in the region.   Why would we want this and why didn't our  government say so.   After 9/11,  we were clearly able to justify our invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and the Al Qaeda infrastructure.  We were so justified that we were probably expected.   But having the military encamped in Afghanistan would not be enough.  We wanted to intimidate certain regimes into pulling back all support of terror activity.  What better way than destroying one of them?  Does this all sound Machiavellian?  No doubt and it gives some credence to those who criticize us as an expansive imperial power, but the hard reality is that the terrorist activity comes from this region and is sparked by the cultural environment of hatred for America that is tolerated, encouraged and ardently supported by the existing regimes.   The only way to change that culture of hatred would be for those regimes to either change that culture or be changed themselves.  The Bush administration could not lay out  this strategy.  The policy would be considered unamerican at home and possibly galvanize the Arab world against us.  Europe would have been outright hostile.   So we are in Iraq.  Even with the case I've laid out, I'm not sure I've really got to the bottom of it.  I can only speculate, but I think the fundamental genesis for any war is that the leadership of one nation simply decides,  possibly for personal reasons,  it wants to and that it can.  The reasons given by the Bush administration and others including my own speculation may contain some truth as issues, but the actual source of the war was in the minds and personalities of those who ordered it long before any of the issues raised by the administration were in the public  consciousness.  Indeed some of these people were writing about it and espousing it before the Bush was elected.   The clearest thing we can deduce from all the reports and all the books on the subject is that those with the power in the Bush administration decided early on to go to war with Saddam and that 9/11 provided the opportunity.   In hindsight we have learned enough that there was no way for Iraq to avoid war with the United States.  There was no price the Bush administration was unwilling to pay for that war.  The price included world-wide condemnation and the absence of most of our traditional allies.  It included bitter division in the country.   Hindsight, while not a perfect guide, does provide us with a model by which to judge continued behavior.  Watch now what is happening with Iran.  In the next article I will discuss why I think the administration has decided to use military options in Iran.   Melvyn Polatchek     2:11:28 PM    comment []

Thursday, February 03, 2005

I find it interesting that there are advocates of creationism and evolution and they almost entirely exclude each other's concept. I happen to think the two concepts compliment one another. I don't believe God actually put down the words of the bible. I think it was written by people of their times, perhaps inspired but nevetheless, people. My first and only proof is because repeatedly, slavery is accepted without comment. I believe deeply that God is Just and would never countenance slavery. Slavery was accepted in the times so it was written about and even modalities were discussed. But, I could be wrong. Perhaps God meant there to be slaves. Or perhaps He meant to address that issue later on or leave it to man to work out, as we largely have. Or perhaps I am not to understand. I accept all possibilities. I do not know. Certainly neither the Bible nor the Queran specify that minutes, days and years are to be understood exactly as they would be in the 21st century. That allows me to speculate. What am I to believe? For me it has always been simple. I believe in the story of creation as told in Genesis. I believe that evolution was the mechanism. If the details of the creation of the seas and the land and the light and the dark had been written there would be no room for the moral lessons of the bible. So with the details of the story of man and the other creatures. I believe it is useful to study the mechanism for it points to much scientific achievment. But we learn nothing about how we are to behave spriitually, ethically or morally from evolution. In the Bible starting with Genesis we learn of all the foibles and pitfalls of mankind. Watch television for a lifetime and you won't see a story that is not a reflection of one in the Bible. We also learn there was a Force from the very beginning telling us how we could live a peaceful and harmonius life. As we do today, we disregarded that Force then. See where our wisdom got us. As for the competition between Muslims and Christians and Jews and Hindus and Budhists and Shintoist and all the others. who really knows God. Does anyone remember the Tower of Babel. God decided man shall speak many languages. Is it not logical that we would have many names and concepts of the Almighty? That story is how I can understand this life of deadly competition. It is how I can speak to others of different faith and concepts. I do not get that from evolution. From evolution I only get the rule of survival of the fittest. Yet, I value the scientific theory of evolution. So I don't know. I only speculate. What a relief! Here I am a religious person who prays daily who doesn't know for sure. I have faith, but I don't know. I have no obligation to make the rest of you believe. I have no obligation to enforce curriculum in the schools. I have only an obligation to God as He gave me to I understand Him. Melvyn Polatchek 6:58:40 PM    comment []

Back at you, Oron Thanks for reading my piece. My accusation that there are expansionist tendencies did not mean that there is a national policy of expansion by the state of Israel.  It does mean that the justification given by the settlers is that they were promised the land in the Covenant. I consider this expansionism because its reasoning transcends the legality by which the State of Israel was created.  Redardless of the justification and motivation, Jews are living in settlements in the Palestinian part of the partition and no matter how it is justified that is an expansion of the original plan.  In the wars you described additional territory was taken.  It really does not mtter whether they were started by the Arabs or the Israelis, the result was increased territory dominated by Israel.  At one point Ishak Shamir tried to actually formally annex the west Bank.  It was rejected by the U.N., but it was clearly an attempt to gain more territory. Whatever the process, whatever legalities are proclaimed, whatever right of self-defense is invoked, Israeli Jews living in Palestinian territory protected by the Israeli Defense force is expansion. Melvyn   11:44:06 AM    comment []

Rebuttal From Oron rosenkrantz Check your history Melvyn, take everything into account. Jews were supposed to get 55% of the land while the Arabs were to get 45%. HOWEVER.. you don't mention that most of the 55% the Jews were to receive was the Negev (which was neither any good for agriculture.. or inhabiting). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png In addition you quote Philip Mattar as saying that "The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only 7 percent of the country." You should add in that the majority of the 55% that they received from the partition was not owned by Jews or Arabs... meaning that they were not taking it away from anyone. Finally, you claim that "there has been an expansionist tendency in Israel which seeks to inhabit areas outside the partitioned borders." I submit to you the state of Israel does not seek to inhabit areas outside the partitioned borders.. if that were true than they would have instigated the wars. However, they did not instigate any of the wars with their Arab neighbors; on the contrary, Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, Libyans, Tunisians, Sudanis, Moroccans have had "expansionist tendancies," as you call it. The dictionary definition of expansionism: A nation's practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion. (www.dictionary.com). Your perception is backwards, how does a nation have "expansionist tendancies" when it is the one that is being attacked, your comment is ludacris! In conclusion, I do not believe that the state of Israel is 100% correct 100% of the time. Recently the Israeli Attorney General lodged a complaint against the Israeli Government for seizing Palestinian land in East Jerusalem. This, in my opinion, is a perfect example of democracy at work. These seizures will be stopped immediately and justice will be done. (Please post on your blog as a rebuttal to your post) Oron Rosenkrantz • 2/2/05; 7:24:55 PM # 11:29:19 AM    comment []

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

An American Jew thinks about Israel/Palestine I have a dilemma as an American Jew. In our prayers, we honor God for rescuing us from enslavement in Egypt. We consider Egypt both as the nation which once enslaved us and as a metaphor for any kind of enslavement or oppression. Yet, we hold ourselves guiltless for the tragedy of the Palestinians. As I understand the Old Testament covenant between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if Abraham and his offspring accepted Him, Jehovah, as the one God and if the Hebrews were righteous then their children would be rewarded with the land which became known as Israel. I find that God speaks to Abram of this covenant at least twice before commanding Abram to change his name to Abraham and to be circumcised. In these portents, in the Old Testament it was known that there were inhabitants in that land, much as the United Nations knew there were Arabs living on the land that was to become the modern State of Israel. 18: On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra'tes, 19: the land of the Ken'ites, the Ken'izzites, the Kad'monites, 20: the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Reph'aim, 21: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gir'gashites and the Jeb'usites." (Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 15, Revised Standard version Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library) "And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 17, Revised Standard version Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library) When the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, God, according to the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, interceded in their behalf. When they came to the promised land God interceded and helped us win in battle. In the Old testament, a number of times, the Jews lost their righteous ways even going so far as to begin to worship other Gods. In these cases, God allowed our enemies to prevail. We were driven from the land or we became ruled by foreign powers. Sometimes a prophet would emerge and intercede with God once more to reestablish the covenant. In modern times, Jews have not attempted to worship other Gods. I question, however, our righteousness, particularly over the issue of the State of Israel and the Palestinians. There has been no prophet and no further renewal of the covenant. Every nation no matter how it was created, rests its continued sovereignty upon two elements. The first is the consent of its people. In many cases, as in democracies, that consent is expressed in elections. Tragically, there are other nations where consent is enforced by the military, police and an assortment of coercive organs. Nevertheless since populations have risen up against the most repressive regimes it would seem there is a tacit consent. The other basis, nearly critical as consent, is recognition by other governments and by regional and world bodies of nations. The modern State of Israel was established by the partition plan of the United Nations and by recognition of the majority of the nations of the world. It’s continued sovereignty depends upon both the consent of its population, as expressed in repeated elections, and the recognition of the world community of nations. The State of Israel does not exist because of the covenant between God and the Jews. The Covenant serves as spiritual motivation for the Jews of Israel. It does not affect the attitude of other nations or peoples. I point that out because there has been an expansionist tendency in Israel which seeks to inhabit areas outside the partitioned borders on the basis of biblical history. The result is the Jewish settlements on land beyond the partition, land the Palestinians consider their own. Land, in some cases privately owned and documented by Palestinians. There is no legal justification for this. It can only be viewed as an attempt at conquest. After WWII the Jews were a battered, nearly extinguished people, particularly the Jews of Europe. Zionism, the idea of returning to the biblical homeland and the land of the Covenant had been a dream since the late 19th century. The history, in the first half of the 20th century of how the Jews came to be reinstated in this land, the various promises and declarations and what entities made those promises and by what right they could make those promises may all be interpreted by the parties involved. In fact, the single act that created the modern State of Israel was the United Nations partition plan which was passed by the General assembly in November 1947. This was preceded by the attacks upon the British Army of occupation by underground Jewish groups in Palestine. The British turned the problem over to the United Nations. The following is from an NPR presentation: U.S. President Harry Truman endorsed the U.N. partition plan for political reasons, but also because of the terrible toll of the Holocaust, according to William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. "We did understand there was a tremendous human need after World War II for some kind of a political solution for the survivors of the Holocaust, who could not rebuild their lives in Germany and who were in need of some sort of restitution," Quandt says. The Arab majority in Palestine rejected the U.N. proposal. "The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country," says Philip Mattar, editor of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. "Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice." On May 14, 1948, Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the independent state of Israel. Almost immediately, four Arab states -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq -- invaded the new state. U.N. Partition and the recognition of the government of the State of Israel by the majority of the nations of the U.N. is the legality upon which rests the existence of the State of Israel. From the very beginning that existence had to be defended with force. The head of the Arab League walked out of the U.N. promising "A sea of blood and fire". There was never the thought of tolerating Jewish sovereignty in the land they considered Palestine. In 1948-1949, the Jews in Israel fought off the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In the process hundreds of thousands of Arabs left their homes never to return. (I have found figures ranging from 450,000 to 750,000) Depending on the agenda of the writer various histories give different accounts of how they came to leave. It now seems established that there were some atrocities by Jewish soldiers in some Arab towns. It is also true that many Arabs fled because the tales of atrocities were deliberately exaggerated. Certain Palestinian leaders convinced their people to run so they could convince the Arab countries to attack. However the Palestinian exodus came about, the Israeli high command decided they would not be allowed to return. This decision was said to be based upon the fear of a mass of enemies within. There is a serious moral question here. By what ethical process did the United Nations come to the conclusion that the Jews had a greater right to the territory than those who were living there? It is true that the Palestinians did not have a sovereign state, but they did reside in that territory and many of their most sacred religious places are there. It is true that the Jews had suffered enormously during the holocaust and nations felt an obligation to do something for the Jews. It was felt that there was a moral imperative. but how could that moral imperative be expressed by the displacement of one people for another? The United Nations was formed at the end of WWII to prevent the aggression of one nation against the other. By proposing and approving partition they set up a situation whereby one people would have no choice but to attempt to conquer another people. Was the peace sought by the founders just to be peace for the United States and Europe? It was a serious moral lapse that the entire world has been paying for ever since. I understand that Secretary of State Marshall was against President Truman’s determination to recognize the State of Israel. I used to think it was due to some kind if old line anti-semitism. Perhaps it was because the Secretary did not want to solve one moral dilemma by creating another. I have never heard it said, but I suspect that, silently, the politicians of the U.N. did not believe they could trust their nations to treat the Jews with decency. Rather than resettling these scattered beaten people into safe environments, it was easier to send them to a place where someone else lived. There was never an attempt to turn to each nation and try to build tolerance for the acceptance of resettled Jews. It was easier to say "The Jews want their own country, give it to them." It was ghettoization all over again on a grander scale. Surely the Jews wanted to complete their Zionist dream. The history of Jews and Arabs who already lived in Palestine indicated that as a continuing U.N. protectorate they could not live in peace together. Partition may have looked sensible. Two sovereign nations would keep the peace in their own territories. There were serious problems. The larger population was Arab and they were to be given the smaller amount of land. In the land that would be Israel lived hundreds of thousands of Arabs who did not wish to move and certainly wanted no part of a Jewish State. The inevitable consequence was war. How can one group of people can be dislodged from their homes by another group with the acquiescence of the world community? It can only be because the second group is somehow considered more worthy. The Jews, in what became Israel, were worthy of the land by reason of need and by reason of history. The Arabs were worthy because, in large numbers they lived there and have the same human rights as anyone else. There should never have been proposed a solution which caused one people to displace another. In my first paragraph, I complained that we Jews hold ourselves guiltless for the plight of the Palestinians. We have paid dearly. Yet, other parties are just as guilty perhaps more. The United Nations itself was the architect of the morally flawed partition plan. Except for Egypt and Jordan, the Arab nations have refused to accept the existence of the Jewish State after four major wars. After 1973, when it became clear that Israel would never be defeated militarily, instead of any kind of acceptance, each one of these nations began using the Palestinian refugees as the excuse for not coming to terms. They have sent money for guns and supported the tactics of terrorism which have now expanded to include the United States in the target list. They have never attempted to help those refugees to a better life. They have allowed no resettlement in their vast territory. They say that all Arabs are brothers but they fight with each other and treat their Palestinian brethren like dirt. All of these nations are brutal dictatorships with regimes staying in power on the basis of hatred of Israel in particular and the West in general. No the Jews are not blameless, but there is plenty to go around. Do the Israelis need to prostrate themselves before the Palestinians and tell them to take back the land. No, to do so would be another breach of morality for it is likely that the displaced Jews of Israel would have no place to go. All peoples will fight for survival. Any solution that must result in war is not a solution. The Israelis do have an obligation to take every possible step for peace. They must address the final status of any settlement directly. There must be at least a symbolic right of return. There must be reparations. There must be some kind of joint sovereignty in Jerusalem. Finally, they must remove all the settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. When the exact borders are negotiated and a Palestinian state becomes a reality, if the security fence is to remain it must be pulled back to those borders.     Melvyn Polatchek 5:34:54 PM    comment []

Friday, January 14, 2005

The strategy of Ariel Sharon The cancelation of all relations with the Palestinian Authority in wake of a deadly attack in Gaza makes absolutely no sense.  Demanding that the Palestinian Authority suppress all acts of violence before proceeding with any negotiations has, over the years, proved fruitless and self-defeating.  This posture has given veto power over the fate of both Israel and the Palestinians to the most radical groups among the Palestinians.  The demand that Mahmoud Abbas, who was only elected a few days ago without the participation of the radical groups,  is not possible.  He cannot move immediately against these groups. He has to soldify his position politically and he needs outside help before he can try to be forceful.  Given his contituency he is likely to attempt to negotiate with them first.  But he needs to be speaking to Israel as well. To cut him off only disarms him more completely before the radical groups and fits in with their desire for a stalemate. We have listened to Sharon make this same demand before, repeatedly.  By this time he must know there can be no expectation of a positive result.  The only conclusion one can draw is that he feels Israel is better off with the status quo of intifada forever rather than with the prospect of the compromises that will be necessary for peace. In the end, it may be that the Palestinians can never make peace with the Israelis. It may be that they can never truly accept the Jews in what  they consider their land.  They may never throw off their self-defeating dream, but this is not something that is known.  Sharon cannot behave as if there was no possibility of peace by making impossible demands. I know it is a lot to ask, to accept that some attacks will still happen for some time, but they happen anyway.  Why not attempt to make peace?Sharon should have condemned the violent incident, but vowed to keep up the search for peace and start the dialog with Mahmoud Abbas.  Then Israel and the Palestinian Authority would have been in a stronger position to begin the process of compromise. Because of today's action,  Hamas and Islamic Jihad are once more in control.  Whose interest does that serve? Melvyn Polatchek     11:55:32 PM    comment []

Thursday, January 06, 2005

The Universe   I would like to recommend an article from George F. Will in today's Washington Post entitled "The Mind That Changed the World". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51884-2005Jan5.html   The Washington Post Online is a free service.  You probably need to register and create a username and password.  There are also message boards on which you can participate which allow and monitor discussions on the articles and editorials of the newspaper.   The Will article praises Albert Einstein and his work on relativity.  George F. Will,  a writer with whom I often disagree politically,  has taken an enormous concept and elegantly explained its essence in few enough words that people who are not scholars can grasp their meaning and not feel patronized.  In this case he provides not only the rudiments of Einstein's discoveries but their implications,  consequences and something of their breathtaking beauty.  Reading this article has changed my personal conception of the Universe from the one I had retained from childhood. A visualization in which the Universe was a vast nearly empty room dotted with structures--planets, stars, etc--.    I had three questions, none of which were ever answered.  First,  every room I had ever seen had walls which were the boundaries.  Where were those boundaries?  Second,  every boundary had something beyond it.  What was beyond the unfound boundaries?. I could not imagine anything that was uncontained by something else.  Like most, I could only reason what I could visualize and I could only visualize shapes and spaces I had experienced in my own life, earthly geometry. Third, everything in my experience had a beginning and an end and a serial history in between, more boundaries.  Where was the beginning and where was the end?   There has been input from other readings in the last several years, but after this article, I now see the universe not as a room but an amorphous entity consisting  of empty space,  incredible densities,  bodies moving in infinite patterns acting upon one another with forces only barely observed and understood.  The Universe not only includes space and objects and groups of objects,  but time itself.   It is all in motion. It is all changing all the time.  Space has been shown to bend. Time has been shown to be relative to speed. Perhaps time bends as well.  If time and space can bend can they double up on themselves?  Are time and space separate entities or are they actually the same thing.  The motion and change are not just descriptive facts but part of the substance and texture of the universe.  Instinctively, I still want to know if something else contains the amorphous blob,  but asking that question may be like refusing to grow up.  It may prevent me from conceiving far more exciting questions and reaching for answers.  The questions I have posed today will more likely be replaced by more complex ones rather than answered and I suspect that it is in the reaching for answers that gratification will be achieved.   We have heard it said that we humans use only a small fraction of our potential brainpower.  One wonders what the fraction was for Einstein.  It would seem that to observe, understand and integrate our selves into the real  universe we will have to use much more of our intelligence.  It may be that the human brain is the only place boundaries actually exist.   Melvyn Polatchek 3:29:32 PM    comment []

Friday, December 31, 2004

Iraqi elections Iraqi elections are due to be held in January.  This is not yet for a permanent government.  There will be an administration which will look much like the present interim government.  The difference is that this one will have been installed as a result of a popular election and will be far less a creature of the U.S.  Additionally there will be a representative concil to create a permanent constitution.  IT is hoped that constitution will be created successfully and lead the way to general elections for the whole government. Many feel these elections are doomed to failure.  I don't agree.  Certainly there will continue to be violence and a strong attempt to intimidate ordinary Iraqis to keep them from voting. But, unless there is a backdown, elections will be held. People will vote. Many will be intimidated, but a total will be accumulated, particularly in Shiite areas. If the Sunnis do not vote, they will have missed out on a process that could have led to inclusion. I am assuming the Kurds will hold their noses and vote. So there will be at least two out of three of the main factions voting. With Sunni frustration, Civil war is possible, but how will the Sunnis do more than they are already doing. There would likely be an escalation of the guerilla activity, but I don't see how they could mount the larger organized civil war everyone seems to be worried about. The Kurds could do it, but I don't see them motivated at this time. They are likely to wait to see what kind of deal they get after a new constitutiion. The real question is, will the resulting government have any legitimacy among Iraqis. We can only speculate. My speculation is there will be a somewhat better response from Iraqis, particularly Shiites. I believe that translates into a somwehat greater degree of ability for Iraqis to defend against the insurgency. This does not easily translate into a win for the U.S. or a lessening of the need for U.S. military participation. It does mean we would be a small fragile step closer to a day that Iraqis successfully defend ther own country. Meanwhile all the vulnerabilities, civil war, general chaos and violence will still exist.   Melvyn Polatchek 9:55:24 AM    comment []

Sunday, December 26, 2004

What will happen to the U.S. if we pull out of Iraq After we admit --those of us to do-- that the war in Iraq has been a botch job from conception to the present, I think it is worth considering what would happen if we pull out. There are many scenarios as to what will happen in Iraq, from civil war to domination by Iran. As an American, I am concerned about what will happen to America. I believe our enemies will be completely convinced that America can be defeated, that we will retreat under duress and can be attacked with impunity. They will understand that while we can win any stand up battle, we don't know how to respond to an attack and run style of warfare. It will be understood that when a certain number of Americans are killed we will give up. Our enemies have been taught this lesson through the examples of the pullouts in Lebanon and Somalia. A pullout in Iraq will convince them even more firmly. Have no doubt. We have real enemies. People and groups who hate us and wish us destroyed. There are many who think we deserve these enemies and the hatred that rains down upon us. Surely we bear responsibility for destuctive policies which have contributed to these attitudes. Still, many of our enemies have an agenda that transcends our foreign policy mistakes. Even though we are a wealthy nation often behaving like a bull in an international china shop, we still have the right to self-defense. We have the right to wish to remain free and alive. If we pull out of Iraq, I believe we will be atacked on a variety of fronts as we have never been before. The outcome is one I am not ready to contemplate. Melvyn Polatchek 4:34:45 PM    comment []

Thursday, December 23, 2004

We still don't know how to win in Iraq   Our military allowed approximately 900 Iraqis into Fallujah today to examine the remains of their homes.  At the same time there was a battle in the southern part of the city.  It is reported that tanks and fighter jets were needed to quell a firefight.  Over 100 insurgents are said to have been killed.  This was not a mere skirmish of holdouts.  This was a full fledged battle.   One wonders about Marine General John Sattler who said "We have broken the back of the insurgency" .  Does he have an explanation for the continuing existance of organized resistance.     In Mosul, a suicide bomber infiltrated a dining tent and killed more than 20 people, wounding more than 60.  It has now been announced that security of dining facilities will be reviewed.   The tragedy is that we have civilian leadership and military commanders who do not know how to successfully fight this war.  I can say that with no fear of insulting the regular and reserve soldiers who have born the brunt of this war and who fight brilliantly.    Rumsfeld said we went to war with the army we have.  Sadly for that army we went to war with the Pentagon we have and they have let down the soldiers and our nation.   Melvyn Polatchek 8:02:05 PM    comment []

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Social Security Reform   I have been delving into the labyrinth of articles, opinions and statistics on social security, the predicted shortfall and the movement toward privatization.  There is an opinion and a statistic to bolster every ideological view.  I don't wish to rehash it all here, but just to give my own radical idea.   When I was in high school a representative of the Social Scurity administration came to speak to our class. He explained that social security was intended as a baseline of financial comfort for retirees, that it was a very bare minimum and that everyone should plan to supplement social security with additional savings and investment. I thought it was all very agreeable.  Then he told us that current workers were paying in, not for their own benefits, but for those of current retirees.  I thought that was wrong then and I think it is even more wrong now.    My children are paying a substantial portion of their earnings to social security in the form of payroll taxes.  None of this money is for them.  At the same time, they are told,  Social Security benefits are likely to be severely compromised when it comes time for them to collect their own benefits. I can't think of another way to put it.  This particular generation of workers is being victimized.  Their earnings are literally being stolen.  They seem a politically passive generation, but when they awaken their anger will be palpable.  Resentment of their elders can't be far behind.   In the early 1980's Social Security looked like to was in jeopardy of failing eventually to meet its obligations, especially with the baby boom generation looking forward to retirement.  The solution was to raise the payroll tax enough to create a surplus to be placed in a trust fund which would be available to pay out benefits when the time came.   Unfortunately, instead of simply holding the money, it is invested in treasury bonds.  The treasury bonds can be and have been spent by the government.  Social security holds paper that is worthless unless congress decides to redeem it.  Since the money is already spent the only way they can redeem it is to raise general taxes.   With a conservative government that fights taxes tooth and nail-- not necessarily a bad thing--it is unlikely that social security benefits will be paid from taxes.  The resulting conundrum is that either payroll taxes will have to be increased or benefits cut.  Either way the burden will fall upon the current generation of workers.   The President says that a partial privatization will be a solution.  This is because with a better return on each account and the account actually owned by the individual, benefits will rise regardless of payroll taxes.  Given long term market performance, it is likely, though not surely, true that the portion of savings devoted to private accounts will appreciate better than standard social security.  However, since that portion of payroll taxes will not be available for current benefits their will be a shortfall unless further borrowing takes place.  Who will service that debt?  The current workers, of course.   In the long term, I do believe it would be far more equitable for each worker to be saving money for his/her own retirement.  First because, it means the future is in his or her own hands and not at the whim of the ideology of the moment.  Second, because population shifts will no longer affect the well being of the system.  I believe it should be financed over three generations.  Current retirees-myself included- should take a small cut.  Current workers should have a small tax increase earmarked specifically and inviolably for the transition and finally the generation of their children should finish paying the debt.   Senator Patrick Moynihan had been co-chairman of the President Bush's (the first) social security commission which recommended the so called trust fund for Social Security.  Before he died,  he spoke in the most critical language of the use by congress of the social security trust fund to mask the annual budgetary deficits. (I could not find the quote, but I remember it).  He even proposed raising general taxes to repay it, but was literally shouted down in the press and congress.  I know my solution is not currently on the table, but only a complete transition can stop congress from continuing to use the payroll tax for purposes other than social security benefits.   Melvyn Polatchek                 1:23:07 PM    comment []

Saturday, December 18, 2004

The World At War As a child of WWII I grew up with the idea, that America with its allies had saved the world for democracy and that we had a real chance for world peace.  It was a great disappointment that the cold war with the communist world reversed all that.  It was only a few years after the end of WWII that Winston Churchill made his famous "Iron curtain" speech to the U.S. Congress.  We then lived through more than four decades of conflict which included Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and numerous smaller interventions all in the context of the cold war.    When finally the cold war ended, symbolized by the removal of the Berlin wall in 1989, I again thought we had a chance for world peace and world democracy.  As with the end of WWII, it was only a few years before we learned that the world was not going to remain at peace.  Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.  many Americans did not understand why it was our business to intervene.  It was an aggression of one country against another for territory.  The United Nations charter specifically requires the security council to oppose this blatant kind of aggression.  Further, the oil supplies of the west were threatened.  Many thought the idea of fighting for oil reprehensible.  Oil does not merely represent wealth and the ability of Americans to drive SUVs.  It is one of the fundamentals of the economies of the industrialized world.  With a severely diminished oil supply, the collapse of those economies would surely follow. With economic collapse would come governmental collapse and violence that cannot be imagined.   Because of the loss of international discipline enforced in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union the Balkans went insane, with local dictators and warlords attempting to expand there power though ethnic cleansing and genocide.  There was a genocide in Rwanda, Africa and now another one in Darfur, the Sudan.    India and Pakistan two bitter enemies have nuclear weapons and frequently threaten each other. No one thinks a nuclear exchange between these two would leave others in peace.  Pakistan has aggressively sold nuclear technology on international markets. North Korea and Iran are or about to be nuclear powers and they do not wish us well.  We cannot expect them to be peaceful partners in the nuclear club. North Korea, in particular is an unstable criminal enterprise.   I have deliberately not yet mentioned the world of Islam.  We cannot prove that it is inevitable that we are at war with all of Islam.  We certainly hope not.  We certainly know that we have many sworn fanatical enemies among and within the Arab nations.   I have gone through this litany not to frighten or upset people.  I want to dispel wishful thinking.  We all wish it was a better world.  We all wish human beings as individuals, groups and nations were capable of settling differences with reason.  We wish we were all capable of far more tolerance. We are not.   I can't think of a single time in history when sworn enemies decided that a gentler way was the key to their salvation.  In history we have war or we have containment through the threat of overwhelming force.    We must not conduct ourselves on the basis of the world we wish we had, but on the world that exists.  It is our only glimmer of hope for a slightly better world in the future.  Conduct based on wishful thinking is a recipe for disaster and a new dark age.   Melvyn Polatchek 10:47:28 AM    comment []

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Presidential Medal of Failure I remember an interview with George Will. When asked how often he writes his column he replied, " the government irritates me twice a week". The government and the media irritate me on a regular basis, but recently I have not been able to translate that into words I cared to publish. I was probably more disappointed by the election than I realized and the thought of writing seemed futile. I have never had any illusions about my powers to effect change through my writing, but I do want to be a voice in the discussion. This week the government managed to irritate me enough to burst through the doldrums. The President, who clearly lives in a world about which I have no understanding, this week presented Tommy Franks, George Tenet and Paul Bremer with the Presidential Medal of freedom. These are three of the most colossal failures of public office in this new century. After 9/11, I waited for something to happen with the CIA. This agency was charged with gathering intelligence about the behavior of our enemies. The CIA, the lead agency charged with the task of gathering information about the plans of our enemies was completely defeated. Nearly 3000 lives were lost. I waited for the president to fire the head of the agency. Instead of firing George Tenet the President allowed him to be the architect of the Afghanistan strategy. The Taliban were driven out and the country has made some stride toward democracy.  On the negative we are left with a country ruled in the center by the U.S. supported Karzai and on the country by the old warlords who are growing rich producing heroin. What does one have to do to get fired by George Bush? Tommy Franks originally proposed a quarter of a million troops for the invasion of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld demanded that he reduce the number. Franks’s failure came in not standing up to the civilian leadership. He collaborated with Rumsfeld in creating an environment, the lack of troops, that allowed the insurgency to flourish.  He managed to get out in time to avoid having his boots soiled by the mud from Abu Grahaib. Paul Bremer also failed to stand up to the administration. He has stated that he always felt they did not have enough troops on the ground to manage the occupation. If the WMD were ever there, they disappeared because none was around to protect potential sites. G. Paul Bremer disbanded the entire Iraqi military and got rid of anyone who had ever been in the Baathist party. We did not even do this with Nazi Germany! Presumably he had something to do with the lackluster early performance of newly trained Iraqi security forces. Richard Cohen today in the NYTimes wrote a tongue in cheek article suggesting that we should give the medal of freedom to Bernard Kerik. This would spare us the actual devastation of failure and still allow the President to take care of his buddies. I grieve for all the earlier winners of the medal.  The recognition of their great contributions to America has  been diminished by the issuance of the medal to these three colossal failures. Melvyn Polatchek     4:20:34 PM    comment []

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The Rule of Political Minorities   I believe one source of the present political division in the United States is resentment over the perceived elitism of political minorities. In the 1930’s when Roosevelt came into office ushering in the heydey of liberalism most Americans did not embrace liberal values. It was not a majority value that the larger society had responsibility through its government to take care of those in need. It was not thought that government had a role in social justice. It certainly was not thought that we should be mixing in the affairs of Europe. We were isolationist. We were not in favor of public works. How, then, did we end up with all the changes that took place throughout 30’s and 40’s? How did we end up with the new deal? In the 30’s the great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929. The country was in chaos with banks failing, paper fortunes diminishing and massive unemployment and hardship. The Republican administration of Herbert Hoover seemed to offer no answers. The American people voted for change. They weren’t asking about ideology. The democrats came into power with a mandate for that change. The democrat that became President was the former Governor of New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was this liberal eastern establishment that took over. There was money in the treasury and they spent it on public works to put people to work. They declared a bank holiday and then imposed regulations on the banks and the various trading markets. All kinds of regulatory agencies were born. It was the birth of so-called the modern welfare state. America was determined to stay out of the war in Europe.  President Roosevelt believed America needed to help Britain survive and did everything he could to help, but isolationist America would not have tolerated direct intervention. It all changed in 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor. America declared war on Japan and within days were also at war with Germany and Italy. America would not have voted for liberalism if it had not been for the twin crises of the great depression and WWII. Events conspired to give the liberalism power that it could never have achieved otherwise. That power lasted long after the crisis had passed, culminating in the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicaid and Medicare and eventually ending with Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society". All of this was done against the instincts of many Americans. Even though many prominent liberals came from other areas it seems to be a perception that liberalism is a Northeastern phenomenon. It seems that a small segment of America thinks it knows what is good for everyone else. Over the years since the Great Society a conservative movement has expanded across the land.  Much of the popularity of conservatism is fueled by the resentment of perceived liberal elitism. Today we are ruled by the most conservative government in our history. Much of its agenda is cultural. Although much has been said about a supposed rightward trend in American moral values it doesn’t appear that a majority really wish to change things. While most would not describe themselves as liberal there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans. While everybody criticizes Hollywood and the entertainment business for its preponderance of salaciousness and over the top violence. The entertainment industry continues to grow ever more successful,  meaning that the vast majority of Americans are attending these films and TV shows that are so reviled by the radical right. On abortion, probably the most divisive internal issue in America, an Associated press poll, this year, indicates that 61% of those polled believe Roe V. Wade should be upheld. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm There are all kinds of complexities to polling on this issue, but clearly there is no majority to indicate that the American people consider abortion in the same way that the radical conservative minority,  including the president, does. On Iraq, the majority of Americans believe the evidence on weapons of mass destruction was misleading and about half are unsure the government was honest about that intelligence. Still about half the population seems to believe we should continue our efforts, still not a ruling majority. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm On polls about the direction of the country a small majority think we are on the wrong track. http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm How did we get a government, executive, legislative and probably soon to be judicial branches of which are all committed to an agenda more conservative than the rest of the country? Again crisis. As the President says "9/11 changed everything".  People are genuinely fearful of terrorism. The majority of Americans think George Bush is doing a good job in that effort. I have seen so much punditry and opinion polls that did not ask the direct question, "Did you vote for George Bush because you think he will be better in the war on terrorism?"  So I can only give my opinion. People gave John Kerry a look. They found him wanting. They knew about all the mistakes in Iraq and before 9/11, but they voted for the most aggressive sounding man. That man is the most conservative President we have ever had. He is likely to create a tyranny of minority rule far more onerous to most of America than that of the liberals. He is likely to muddle the separation of Church and State as desired by the Christian right. He is likely to continue to lower taxes on the wealthy and business. He is likely to continue to use war as the instrument of his desire to reshape the world in his vision of America. The rest of us will fight some battles with this tyranny. I already hear some rumblings about a fight in the Senate against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney-General. Gonzalez is the Author of memos advising that loosening of the definition of torture and the deminishing of U.S. adherence to the Geneva Convention. We may win some battles we will certainly lose some others. Hope for rational government will wait until the majority can see past its fear to once against concern itself with what kind of country we want. Melvyn Polatchek 1:06:18 PM    comment []

Thursday, November 11, 2004

In Mosul Insurgents attacked the Iraqi city of Mosul today.  At least five police stations were overrun and looted for weapons,  ammunition and body armor.  They have attacked in numerous parts of the Sunni Triangle. "Violence surged through the so-called Sunni triangle in central Iraq, with ambushes, bombings and mortar attacks jolting Tikrit, Kirkuk, Hawija, Samarra and the provincial capital of Ramadi, 30 miles west of Falluja, which is 35 miles west of Baghdad.",  This from an article by Edward Wong of the NYTimes. The response of the Iraqi government was to impose a curfew on selected cities, presumably cities where they think they can enforce it. In terms of the American need to create order in Iraq and the conditions under which elections can be held,  it appears we are making no progress.  In a few days we will declare victory in Fallujah.  We may even pull out leaving Iraqi forces to guard the city.  It is unknown if they will be able to defend against insurgent attacks. It is probable the insurgents will not attack them directly, but continue with their pattern of ambushes, roadside bombings and suicide attacks.  It does not matter if the Iraqis hold the city. The insurgents will continue to attack places that are not adequately defended. I saw pictures of Marines blowing up weapons caches. The insurgents, given their attacks of today don't appear to be running out of weapons and ammunition.  They have enriched themselves at the expense of the Iraqi police. Our strategy in Iraq is one of repeated failure. We are losing the war.  We need new leadership with a new strategy for winning.  Time is running out.  The timetable of our own creation is dominated by the elections.  If the elections cannot be held in reasonable calm, then we will have failed, perhaps irrevocably. Contemplate the consequences of failure in Iraq, given the commitment we have made, is frightening. We may not be considered a superpower any longer. The world will realize that we only dominate in certain situations and we will have taught our enemies how to defeat us.  There the weakness and confusion we are demonstrating will invite attack. Melvyn Polatchek   9:44:10 PM    comment []

In Response to In Fallujah Below is a comment from Andrew Clarke on my article of Friday 11/9/04 title In Fallujah.  All comments are appreciated and will be published with the author's permission. (Mel) In your posting from November 9, 2004, you wrote: "I have never been in combat and I can't imagine the discipline and courage it takes to do their job." Stop there. Any further discussion that you engage in regarding military tactics, methods and training for battle and the attendant strategies are outside of your experience and expertise. They also have little to do with politics. The war itself is all about politics, but the methods and strategies to carry it out are not. There are clearly political implications and repercussions that come out of military operations, but you would do well to separate these realities from a discussion on the strategies and methods employed to fight a battle or a war. This superimposed binding of the political agendas to execution of military operations is the very thing that limits our effectiveness. Is it a possibility that the advanced notice of an offensive on Fallujah was intentional? Is it a possibility that this is intended to minimize civilian risk/casualty and therefore minimize (not avoid, but minimize) the severity of the Iraqi public response? Is it possible that the main objective is to gain control of the city by any means, even if that means that many of the insurgents actually scatter and leave the city? Is it possible that the capture and elimination of the insurgents themselves is a secondary objective that we always knew would be largely unsuccessful? Is it possible that, while not the preferred result, the scattering of the insurgency is as effective as the corralling of large numbers of insurgents? Is it possible that the US Military will suffer fewer casualties and injuries from a reduced insurgent force? The answer is yes. All these things are possibilities and may, in fact, have always been part of the plan with respect to Fallujah. Fewer insurgents mean a less bloody offensive. Once the city is occupied, it will be simpler to defend and protect against the massing of forces that had clearly developed and was threatening and taking the lives of Iraqis and US Military on a slow and steady basis. The condition in Fallujah was also allowing for more cohesive planning and communications between insurgent forces. Undoubtedly, this would be a huge roadblock to holding any sort of “democratic” elections. Your final comment: “The insurgents are melting away as they always do. We do not know how to stop them”, is not accurate. They are not melting away. They are scattering and they will regroup and continue on their quest. This quest will last through our lifetime and will be carried out all around the world. Time will tell if you are correct about not knowing how to stop them. I believe that there is a plan in place that is being executed to the best of our ability. To “stop them” is a difficult undertaking. It is particularly difficult under such adverse conditions: new terrain, hostile climate, ignorance of language, ignorance of culture and an inability to “blend in” and compete on the same terms with the enemy. What we see as the modern trend in warfare is the “street fighting” scenario. Law enforcement has been struggling with this in our big cities for a century, but it has gotten more difficult in the last few decades. Our military trains for this. Nobody has the answer or the formula to “stop” an opponent on these terms. The best approach is to secure an area and then maintain a stabilizing presence. Once the insurgency is scattered, they are less effective due to major logistical and communication constraints. As hotspots become apparent, they can be dealt with more precisely and persistent security enforcement will be required to keep a critical mass from developing again. What do you think that any government does to combat such a terrorist approach? The oldest military strategy in the book- divide and conquer. Our biggest problem, in my view, is how to actually get an effective enforcement body in place and functioning that is comprised of and operated by Iraqis themselves. No one should be foolish enough to believe that any single move that is made right now in Iraq is without downside or negative repercussion. Any single move is unquestionably not an answer or a solution. The question is, as with our own political system, which course of action or choice will result in the least damage. Where is the path that leads to lesser evil? That is “lesser” evil, not “no evil”, let alone “good”. There is still an abundance of evil on both sides. There has always been. War is fundamentally evil and has been a reality of human existence for all of recorded history. You may not like it (I certainly do not), but you cannot deny the truth of it. Your recent postings about the technical and strategic merits of the Fallujah offensive sounds like more like an attempt to focus on any war-related event and find fault in it any way you can than an educated, well-founded argument about the military strategy involved with the offensive. And to answer two of your questions (I am not sure if they were hypothetical or not): First, the American leadership will learn to fight this kind of battle one at a time and with some degree of failure. This is how all creatures learn (some animals actually die before the lesson is learned). Second, we will never again have one battle where we actually “get the bad guy”. There will always be required numerous battles on many fronts. The notion of the “bad guy” is no longer valid. It is an old concept that has been replaced by the many men, women and children who are deemed to be bad at a certain point in time. In fact, we may very well be the “bad guy”, so we should hope that nobody “gets” him!! My final note is a statement of my own opinion based upon intuition and limited international and cross-cultural experience. Your statement that “…their [the insurgent’s] tactic is less military than political” is a good example of the misunderstanding our culture has of other, non-western cultures. In theory, we have separation in these matters. At least we attempt to distinguish between military and political tactics (in practice, it is difficult to find clear separation). What we, as Americans, fail to recognize is that politics, military force and religion are all just integral parts of life and survival for the so-called insurgents. They do not make a distinction. If they claim to, it is only on the highest levels and is often presented as an appeasement to Western governments in return for support or aid. This cultural misunderstanding will be most evident when a “democratic” election is held in Iraq and it either does not work or is fraught with controversy. We will seem to be puzzled at why this is so hard. Don’t these people see that democracy is the best way for them (or anyone)? Even if it were so, democratic process has never been a part of most cultures throughout the world. Families have not been operated based upon democracy. Communities have not been operated based upon democracy. Governments have not been operated based upon democracy. Why on earth would we presume that this would work in a part of the world that has NEVER embraced anything democratic? We are fooling ourselves and have established these ethno-centric conditions for failure in every possible way. What we are carrying out now is no more than modern imperialism. We are military missionaries (crusaders?) pushing “Democracy” and “Freedom” instead of Christianity. At least this is the cloak that is worn to disguise the real objective in Iraq (Oil? Establishment of power base? Scapegoat for 9/11? Simple revenge?). Seems pretty thin to me. Andrew Clarke • 11/10/04; 12:46:15 PM # 4:47:19 PM    comment []

Part Two - How to win Having described in part one (http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/11/05.html) how poorly our efforts are going in the Iraq war and the War on Muslim Extremism, I have the hubris to suggest that we can still win. Are we lost in the face of this Muslim Extremist enemy which uses the tactics if terrorism? I don't think so. We can adapt. The war against Muslim Extremism has been muddied in concept by the war in Iraq which many Americans thought was a separate issue. Since the U.S. Government is treating it as all one war I have no choice but to do so as well. Otherwise, recommendations are of little value. If I am permitted, at least for this discussion, to assume one war on Muslim Extremism with a number of fronts, then the most fitting model from our past is not Vietnam, but WWII. In Vietnam, debate was about policy abstractions. We were told we must continue the fight because if we abandoned Vietnam all of Southeast Asia would fall to the communists – the domino theory - . We were fighting for American honor. We were fighting for American credibility. Yet, even though we eventually lost in Vietnam, regardless of how we beat ourselves up, we did not suffer in the world as a defeated nation. Indeed we went on to win the larger Cold War. In WWII we were fighting for our existence. We had been attacked by one Axis power, Japan and faced the possibility of a completely Nazified Europe and even Russia. We could not have survived alone in a world dominated by the Axis Powers. The nation made that decision when it declared war on the three Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. Today, we are also fighting for our existence. But, as a nation, we have not made up our minds that this is the nature of the struggle. We still think of it largely as an abstraction. We must continue so we can bring democracy to the Mideast. We must prove that we have the power to move American policy forward. We must lead the world.  IT is better to fight them there than here. We see this war as an activity we can afford as we live our lives normally. We are wrong. We face an implacable foe, one which has been waging total war since the 1980’s. They are ruthless and have no rules of engagement. Their version of war includes the wholesale murder of innocents. the kidnapping and execution of anyone in their way. They attack at will. They have actually affected the foreign policy of some governments, such as Spain. And yes, we have played into their hands in Iraq. We must come to the conclusion, and more importantly, act upon that conclusion, that we are fighting for our existence and that means total war. That means the active participation of the entire population. It means: 1. We pay for it. If we continue to go into debt to finance the war, our opponents know there is a limit to how much we will invest. If we don’t charge ourselves the bill, but pass it on to our children then only our soldiers are participating and we are not. 2. We must change our tactics. While it may be necessary to go into cities like Fallujah and Samarra, that does not create order. We must configure our military and intelligence services to pursue the insurgents into their real backyards, where they live, where they hide. I don’t want to be too specific, because I am not expert, but some things seems obvious. We should be unafraid to destroy the religious sites in which they hide. And we must create our own propaganda which puts the burden of protecting holy sites upon the locals and the onus of their destruction on the insurgents.. We must attempt to arrest the families of known insurgents. We do not behead and we must not torture, but these people cannot be allowed to attack innocents with impunity. For instance, we should demand that Jordan arrest members of the family of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader who has taken responsibility for so many killings. Even the attempt, which would meet resistance in Jordan, would begin to have a salutary effect. We have to be willing to put enough troops in to assure at least the protection of the Iraqi government and those working on reconstruction. (Relatives of the Prime Minister have recently been kidnapped) This goes back to being willing to pay for the war. 3. Above all we must launch a total effort to achieve energy independence. If humanity is to live more than another hundred years we are going to have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels anyway. For the immediate future, a small reduction in the dependence on Mideast oil would go a long way to break the political stranglehold on us. A stranglehold which has meant we have had to be allies with people, like the Saudis, who hold us in contempt. It is impossible to list all the ways in which we have been wrong, practically and morally in the Mideast. We are responsible for many mistakes in our treatment of the Arab populations, particularly the oil producers. We were childish in supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran because we were so angry at that nation. We tried to practice balance of power politics straight out of the British imperial handbook and it came back to haunt us. Yet, for all that we did wrong we still have the right to live, to aspire to prosperity and to defend ourselves. We are now attempting to impose democracy. That is because we believe democracy will result in a less belligerent Arab world. It may be a fool’s errand or it may be a real future. Only time will tell. One thing is sure. They are attempting to enforce their way of life upon the Western world. We must fight back. There is no evidence that they would be beneficent victors. Melvyn Polatchek 6:50:58 AM    comment []

The Great Divide I read column after column bemoaning the fact that the U.S. is dangerously polarized.  Some are even toying with the idea that the present division rivals that of pre-civil war days. I don't agree that it is that bad, but the polarization is there.  It is self defeating and it was predictable.   We have two parties that have been seeking to defeat each other completely for a very long time.  This level of competition may have started when Robert Bork was defeated in his appointment to the Supreme court., maybe earlier.  Maybe it started with Goldwater or with the landmark Kennedy legislation or with the Earl Warren Supreme court.  Maybe it just evolved.  However it happened, we have two parties locked in battle to defeat each other.  Since Bill Clinton, we have no politicians trying to reach compromise.  He may have been a last aberration.  Certainly his compromises on big government and welfare were the result of political realities in a time when the division was less completely formed.   Certainly his personal behavior in office helped fuel the forces of division.   In letters to the editor, in email from my contacts in the recent campaign, in the words of pundits I hear two strains. The first is Karl Rove's desire to have republican majorities for a generation and the second is "What can the democrats do to regain ascendancy?"  I don't hear anyone discussing what we can do to form a more United - United States of America.    Everyone blames the politicians and many scorn the media, I don't know exactly where the fault lies, but it seems to me there is the possibility of compromise on a number of issues that seriously divide us and I hear no one proposing such compromise.   For instance.  Separation of Church and State.   There is a serious effort on the part of religious groups to revisit many aspects of religion in public life which are held by many to be harmless, but have become forbidden.  When, "Under God",  was added to the pledge of allegiance many thought it was the beginning of a wave of intense religious pressure.  We always do and with good reason, if we know European and early American history.  But, the wave did not happen. In fact it went the other way.  School prayer was banished. There needs to be compromise and some politician needs to propose it.  No religion can be proposed or pursued by the government.  But to erase all references to the Creator from public discourse denies our history.  It denies that this nation was founded largely by Christians who created a constitution whose extraordinary attempt at fairness sprung largely from religious conviction.  Those references must be made or the very constitution which limits the power of individual religious groups loses some of its stature.   This feeds into the raging abortion issue.  Both sides refuse to acknowledge that the other is driven by religious notions.  I have not personally met a pro-choicer who acknowledges that pro-life is a principled religious conviction and not a form of bigotry.  I have not met a pro-lifer who acknowledges that pro-choice is anything but the work of the devil.  I believe it is the dissension which is the work of the devil.  There is room for compromise on these and many other issues  We  need leaders willing to look past partisanship to say it out loud, to demand that we look for those compromises and demand that we give each other the respect due all in a civil society.  The present battle simply defeats us all.   Melvyn Polatchek 5:44:02 AM    comment []

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

In Fallujah   When discussing the military situation in Iraq,  I am mindful of the feelings of the young Americans who are fighting there.  They are our children sisters and brothers, in some cases our parents.  I know someone who is in that neighborhood who may be in the thick of the battle.  Certainly she is in danger and I don't want to discourage her effort and the efforts of her fellow Marines and soldiers in any way.  I have never been in combat and I can't imagine the discipline and courage it takes to do their job.  So this is not some proforma obligatory "Of course I support the troops" statement.  Regardless of my political beliefs my young friend is in harms way and I wish I could protect her.    Nevertheless, I have to tell the truth as I see it. On October 11, I wrote that their were some hopeful signs for American policy (http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/10/11.html)  One of those signs was that in a joint operation of Iraqi and American forces the city of Sammara had been taken from the insurgents.  It was to be a model for other insurgent strongholds  such as Fallujah. The formal attack on Fallujah seems to have started two days ago.  The very same day, Samarra was attacked by insurgents and their were additional attacks throughout Iraq leading to dozens of Iraqi deaths. The operation did not make the city of Samarra secure.   I am watching the unfolding of the attack on Fallujah and I find it very depressing.  Initial resistance is lighter than expected, according to news reports.  Why doesn't the American leadership yet know how the insurgents will fight this battle.  They already know the insurgent leadership is gone and they have just enough fighters to insure American casualties.  Because their tactic is less military than political.  Our weakness is that we have, in the past, left the battle area when casualties got to high.  They know this.  They have seen it in Lebanon and  in Somalia.  They saw us retreat initially in Fallujah, which is why the insurgents have ruled that city for over a year. They can't defeat us, but they can kill some of us.  When is the American leadership going to learn how to fight that kind of battle?  When are we going to have one battle where we actually get the bad guys?   The insurgents are melting away as they always do.  We do not know how to stop them.   Melvyn Polatchek 1:15:44 PM    comment []