On media and politics. . .

Saturday, July 31, 2004

The Arab League - useless even for Arabs From the Arab League Website. http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/index_en.jsp Their position on the genocide taking place in Darfur, the Sudan Secretary general Amre Moussa of the Arab League received Sudanese Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr. Essam Al Basheer. Following the meeting, Secretary General Moussa told the reporters that the meeting basically tackled the latest developments in Sudan and the situation in the Arab world in general with a focus on establishing a serious global dialogue in order to reach an international situation that is much stable, cooperative and understanding. In his statements, Secretary General Moussa also stressed the importance of giving the Sudanese government a sufficient timeframe to implement the agreement held with the UN Secretary General with the aim to achieve stability in the region of Darfoor and reach the desired outcome. Secretary General Moussa further said the Darfoor issue can not be solved through the imposition of sanctions on the Sudanese government, pointing out the importance of implementing the agreements held in N?djamena and with the UN. The Arab League is an organization of Arab States the purpose of which has always escaped me. Their prime issue has always seemed to be Israel and yet they have never, actually contributed anything to the peace process and are at most a cheerleader for anti-Israel states and organizations. The gobbledygook quoted above, tranlated into normal english, seems to say they will do nothing real to help in darfu, The Sudan. In response to the Iraqi  Prime Minister Alawi's call for Muslin troops to help fight the iraqi insurgency, I see nothing on the website, but I heard a BBC interview of the Arab League representative to London. (Can't remember his name, impossible to take notes in the car) He produced more gobbledygook which, again translated into normal English, sounded like a no. It is clear the Arab States as a whole will do nothing about any issues of human interest and are content to watch on the sidelines as a genocide take place and an insurgency grow increasingly more violent. Some of the individual states such as Oman and Saudi Arabia have sent relatively small amounts of money to the Sudanese government for humanitarian aid. At the same time the U.N. is trying to get the Sudanese government to reign in the militia which is murdering people in the Darfur region. We don't know if the government is in league with the militia and so far efforts to get them to disarm that militia have been ignored. Sanctions are being discussed. One wonders whether that token amount of money, 10 million from Oman,a token really,  (the only published amount I could find) will result in any actual help for the enormous number of displaced persons. Mel       1:02:12 PM    comment []

Friday, July 30, 2004

On the Democratic convention All the high minded discussion over issues aside, it was sobering to watch the democratic convention and be reminded that even in time of war and economic travail politicians are still politicians with all the silliness and insincerity they always have. Speaker after speaker got up and shouted John Kerry's name every other sentence. I began to think I was in Mao's China or Orwell's 1984. And why to they have to scream? They have modern microphones. OK, Al Sharpton is allowed. That is his personal style. He actually made quite a good rousing speech. But every speaker tries to do the same thing. They try to get the crowd rocking by creating a rhythm at the end of their speech, (sometimes in the middle so they can do it twice) in which every shouted sentence is greeted with greater applause until at the end as they sign off with the same "Good Night, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America". Almost every one of them goes, at some point into some form of call and response as if they were preaching in a black baptist church. Any black baptist minister can do it better. Sharpton really makes it happen as did Jesse Jackson in years past. How can the audience believe in these people when all they do is imitate each other. When John Edwards went into his "Hope is on the way" rant, he at least did it well, still it was transparently a planned technique. For me John Kerry's speech went down the tube when he started to do the same thing using the same phrase, "Hope is on the way".  I guess they wouldn't dare say "Help is on the way". because then they would be committed to actually doing something.  Almost every speaker gave the same speech. Each going over the same set of issues, reminding us that John Kerry won the silver star and is a hero. Most glossed over the fact that Kerry came home and then spoke out against the war. Wesley Clarke was an exception and he spoke of that period of protest with respect. No one said that for every ex-soldier that supports Kerry , there is an ex-soldier that has not forgiven him. Kerry could have reached out across the divide that still exists and said, "I did what I thought was right". There's a slogan that might have taken hold. But again, genuiness was in short supply. To their credit, both Edwards and Kerry did get fairly specific with plans for health care, education, homeland security, tax cuts for the middle class and paying down the debt.. They are going to pay for it by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. They are going to close corporate tax loopholes. How many times have we heard that before? Every candidate democrat or republican is going to close down the loopholes. The republicans are bound to do the math and find that there is not enough money in rolling back the taxes on those who earn over 200,000 per year to pay for all those things. In reality, I finally understand that both the republicans and democrats are bribing the voters with money. The republicans promise direct cash and say the voters can figure out what to do with their own money and they call it tax relief as if a couple of hundred dollars for a middle class family is going to make such a difference. Of course they don't say that local taxes are likely to rise to compensate for lost funding for services.  The democrats do it with targeted tax cuts that might benefit people and might not. The people don't get to make their own choice as to what to do with the money. They are forced to do what might be called "good works". And the middle class is supposed to get a small direct cut so that the dems can prove that they too are tax cutters and not 'omigod liberals'. It is still bribery. The last candidate, Mondale, who said he would meet the financial obligations of the government even if that meant tax increases, lost resoundingly, so the people are complicit in this scam.  So how we are to make up our minds. Do we want a diect cash payment and let all social obligations fall by the wayside or do we allow the dems to run social programs that may or may not make a difference.  Many will accept cash payments as simpler and more personally beneficial. Then they can call themselves proud conservatives. Oh, of course, we are at war and that costs money, but don't worry,  "the government will pay for it. I've got mine. This is America!" So what will the two candidates do differently as Commander-in-Chief.  Evidently George bush will keep the troops in Iraq until the transition government becomes permanent and can take care of itself, a situation whch many think will never happen.  Kerry doesn't talk much about what he would do. He complains, justifiably, about getting mislead into the war. He has said his vote was an authorization of the use of force, but as a last resort. Could he possibly explain his perid of indecision over how he felt about the war. And what would he do now? Again, we can only speculate. He is going to dissappoint those who are for immediate peace. Many of those will vote for Kerry, because they are enraged at Bush, but they haven't thought the situation through. No U.S. president can now simply withdraw. I can only speculate on what would happen. We do have real enemies. If we withdraw it will be seen as weakness and theefore an invitation to attack. We would leave a failed state behind. Shortly there would be a civil war and all that blood would be on our hands. Al Qaeda mught launch increased attacks on the oil fields in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Kerry will attempt to get our traditional European allies to help. Maybe he can succeed, but he will have to turn around countries that were active supporters of Saddam Hussein, countries that were doing business with Saddam, countries whose financial dealings with Saddam may have risen to the point of affecting their foreign policy. These countries like France, Germany and Russia were dead set against war in Iraq. Kerry must convince them that it is in their interest to help. Will they believe that? The only thing Kerry has really got going for him is that he is not George Bush, the insulter. Maybe that will be enough. But it is also possible that we will still be alone and that our committment will last many years. Kerry has already promised to expand the army. I have seen reports that the services are still filling their volunteer quotes. Perhaps we will get enough volunteers to fill an expanded military. But that certainly means he will use them. Our only hope is that he is true to his word, that he will only go to war if he has to, not because he wants to. Mel                     1:31:04 PM    comment []

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Israelis-Palestinians Every group of People, Jews and Palestinians included, has factions that are looking for peace and factions that are aggresive. The aggressive factions will often use lofty rhetoric to justify an agenda of aquisition or complete victory. On the Palestinian side, there are many who even, though they think their people got a raw deal, would like to come to some accomodation with Israel so they could get on with positive constructive lives. Sadly, there are many who will never accomodate themselves to the existance of the State of Israel. That belief is expressed by the Palestinian leadership which continues to preach complete victory over Israel in Arabic to Palestinian audiences while speaking moderation to any American or European interlocutors. The terrorists don't bother talking. They just attack. The leadership seems to have gotten stuck in their role as fighters for their cause and cannot bring themselves to come to an accomodation. Further they cannot being themselves to police the combative extremists. When the U.N. declared partition in 1948, the head of the Arab contingent walked out saying something like "our response will be a sea of fire and blood." There was never going to be an acceptance of the U.N. decision to allow Jews sovereignty in the land they called Palestine and the Jews called Israel. By defeating the combined Arab armies the Jews gained the respect of the non-arab world. The Palestinians were treated terribly by the whole world which ignored their plight as a displaced people. The Arab nations bear that guilt as well. They turned a blind eye until they realized the Palestinians could be turned into a force against Israel. If the Palestinians ever get their own state and calm down, they have a major issue against their Arab brothers. Terrorist acts started almost immediately after the 1948 war. The Israeli command made the decision that their response to provocations would be overwhelming. They wanted to send the message that the price of terrorism would be far greater than the price extracted by the original act. (And the world doesn't trust Jews because we are supposed to be smart.) Yes, there has always been a faction of the Jews in Israel who want more territory than came with the original partition. IMO in the beginning there was no possibility of that happening. American supporters, more critical to the existance of Israel in the early days than even now, would not have stood for it. However, the ceaseless attacks, culminating with the '67 war gave the expansionists political cover for their ambitions. The original settlements were supposedly a provocation to a political settlement. "If you don't accomodate our existance as a state you are going to see us expand." "This is our justified under the priciple of self-defense".(The kind of thing that was said, not a direct quote) This was of course rhetoric and nothing more. It was a land grab. It was made possible by Arab and Palestinian aggression. But Israeli expansion and the policy of overwhelming retaliation makes politically possible Palestinian terror attacks. The Palestinians have a real issue in that many were displaced. The expansion of Israel into the West Bank and Gaza stimulated a violent response which in turn provoked overwhelmingly violent military responses from Israel under the cover of self-defense. Clearly there is a dream among the Palestiians of eliminating Israel completely. There is a real fear among Israelis that the Arab nations will combine to wipe them out and that the Palestinians will never be satisfied with any accomodation. Both sides have a genuine claim to the territory. The U.N. decision for partition without accomodation from the Palestinians was utterly irresponsible. The result is that both sides have tried violence for decades and have made no progress towards a victory over the other. Both sides still believe they must continue the violence. Now they are so locked in rage neither side is any longer rational, regardless of how reasonable their spokesmen may sound on television. Certainly Israel has greater firepower, but I don't really see much difference if a suicide bomber manages to kill 5 children and the Israeli missile response manages to destroy five houses and 25 adults and children. They are both moral atrocities and crimes against humanity, worse because they have no impact on the political situation and are utterly useless and unjustified except by the emotions of the combatants. I am a Jew and I am begging everyone to drop their agenda and to stop supporting one side or the other. These two peoples, so much alike and so creative in many ways are in a tragic death embrace. They have literally become one people locked in a suicide pact. They are helpless to change anything and can only be separated by outside forces. Anyone who says that it is up to the parties to settle their differences is just denying any moral responsibility to help. Anyone who spends time counting who killed more or whose attack was more heinous is wasting his or her energy. Somehow the world will have to find a way to embrace these two people and eliminate their fears. Their fears are what allows their radicals to keep fighting and to have such radicals in positions of power. Mel 12:18:18 PM    comment []

Sunday, July 25, 2004

For those who are not sure of John Kerry On several issues John Kerry has positions far more reasonable than George Bush. For instance, on mideast oil, Kerry is going to accelerate development of alternative energy sources and really begin the process of weaning us from dependence on the mideast. This is an act of patriotism that can't be equaled by George Bush who for all his lip service to hydrogen based energy really only wants to drill for more oil. George Bush doesn't even want to try to provide health care for those millions who cannot get insurance. He doesn't believe in it. Kerry has stated repeatedly that health care is a right, not a privilege. The entrenched interests are powerful, but Kerry will try and some progress will be made, maybe the timing is ripe for a real breakthrough.. On jobs, Kerry has stated that he will tax companies who send jobs overseas and reward those who keep jobs here. Why shouldn't a company that achieves vast savings and increased profits by sending jobs overseas be moderately taxed on those savings both to give the government the funds to help the displaced workers and to make it slightly less attractive to send jobs overseas in the first place. George Bush will do nothing. He will support the most rapacious business practices and take their campaign contributions, until they are caught actually stealing as happened with his good friends at Enron.  Have you noticed he hasn't returned any of their campaign contributions? There is much much more. I'll save it for future articles. 7:19:16 AM    comment []

Friday, July 23, 2004

Strong for Kerry-The new American revolution Many of us have long ago decided we could not vote for George Bush, but have felt a certain remoteness from John Kerry. Many people claim they don't know what he stands for, even though he has published his views on all the issues in which voters have shown an interest. The sense of a lack of momentum is because the real campaign has not yet started. Thursday night will be the real kickoff. For those who have been waiting to have their hearts ignited, turn on your television thursday night. I am not waiting. This is the most important election of my adult life of 63 years. We are in a global war that we did not choose. We are under attack by gathering forces who wish to recreate a culture of the 7th century. And we have a president who has bungled our defense. Perhaps, it is just wishful thinking, but I notice that one day after Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser under Bill Clinton, got into trouble, he was out of the Kerry campaign. It is only a glimmer of the administrative toughness a president would have to have to lead the country in this time of peril. What failure is great enough to get fired in the Bush administration? We haven't seen it yet. I am haunted by the repeated showing on television of a wounded Marine still at his post firing his weapon in an early battle in Iraq. I don't know his name, but if he can do that, then I can do all I can to make sure his service has meaning. I can help get rid of the bungler in the whitehouse and replace him with a man who will do the job, John Kerry. I will continue to write. I will get out there with the grass roots troops and go door to door to get out the vote. Like that Marine, I will not leave my post. I feel the rumblings of a new American revolution. Let's roll! Melvyn Polatchek 10:07:01 AM    comment []

Against Bush Because I have become conservative on many issues, even though a lifelong Democrat, like many, I am very dissappointed in George Bush. I was hoping compassionate conservativism had some practical meaning beyond the rhetorical. It does not. On several issues Bush has failed miserably. This article will focus on the failures of George Bush and the reasons to vote against him. Future articles will discuss the reasons to vcte for John Kerry. Afghanistan - After ousting the Taliban, we failed to capture the leadership of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. We have stabilzed only Kabul, the Capital. Most of the rest of the country is under the direct control of the warlords, the same condition that led to the original rise of the Taliban. Although we still have special forces in the region searching for Bin Laden, Taliban and Al qaeda fighters still operate on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Iraq - The precipitous invasion of Iraq is one of the reasons for the unstable situation in Afghanistan. Having read Bob Woodward's book - "Plan of Attack", I know that it was Donald Rumsfeld who insisted on going into Iraq with so few troops. Worse than not having enough troops, we had no planning for the occupation. Having disbanded the old Iraqi Army and police forces we thought that we could just have military patrols walk the streets and did not even try to police the country. Historically, occupations do not merely chase out the old army, but a pacification and disarmament of the population takes place. We did not have enough troops even to try. Even with the relatively small number of troops used in the invasion, our Army is stretched so thin that we would have trouble responding to other obligations, such as another uprising in the Balkans, a move by North Korea, or mischief by China against Taiwan, to say nothing of opposing any Russian expansionism. Because we have lost so much credibility, we can do nothing to counter the real infiltration of terrorists into Iraq from Iran and the probable infiltration from Syria, What could we do if one of the Iranian backed terrorist groups attacked us ? Homeland Security - Although the president insists he is fulfilling his role of Commander-in-chief in order to assure the national security, though we have significantly better defenses we are far less safe than we were before Iraq because of the overstretching of our military. Because of the tax cuts we have a deficit that makes it impossible to fully fund first responders and various homeland security efforts, such as port security, border security, train and trucking security. The deficit. - The tax cuts and the increased spending on the Iraq war have created a huge deficit which makes it impossible to fund the necessary expansion of the military or to fully fund homeland security. Deficits are also harm economic recovery, since money becomes scarcer and interest rates rise. Health care - George Bush can take credit for a modest drug benefit plan for seniors. It would have been a much better plan under the democrats. Bush will do nothing to expand medical coverage to those who cannot now get it. Education - With much fanfare, Bush signed the "No Child Left Behind" act. But due to his deficits, it is far from fully funded and the net results are greater mandated unfunded expenses for local schools who now have to pay for testing and increased professional training for teachers. This is going to eventually mean greater local taxes. Faith - based initiatives. Maybe a good idea. Where is the money? Finally, one of my pet peeves, George Bush has culturally given encouragement to those who would roll back our traditions and obligations under the constitution to keep separate church and state. I will address the same list of issues from the Kerry point of view in my next article. Melvyn Polatchek 7:58:11 AM    comment []

Is Israel a rogue nation? As an American Jew and a supporter of Israel it grieves me to write this piece, but it is no longer possible to accept every action of Israel uncritically. The International court of Justice in the Hague has condemned the Israeli security fence. Now the U.N. General Assembly has passed a similar resolution. Israel has declared that it will ignore these actions and continue with its plans. I wonder if Israel has not gone too far. The right of self defense is not a blank check. The fence goes through territory that does not belong to Israel. When the U.N. declared partition in 1948, the world (except for the Arab nations) recognized a small piece of land as the State of Israel. In the ensuing war of independence, brought on by the attack of the surrounding Arab nations, some additional territory was gained. Again , most of the world’s nations accepted the new de facto lines. In the 67 war the Israelis occupied much territory in the West bank and other areas. It was always expected that this land would be returned for stable peace agreements. Israel turned out to have expansionist tendencies and started settling in much of this territory. The Palestinians reacted with violence which undercut their case. The settlements, supposedly temporary, encroached on territory where Palestinians lived. Now much of the fence is cutting through Palestinian areas in an attempt to protect these settlements. The fence is absolutely necessary to protect Israel, but its placement is an act of aggression which can only be seen as an attempt to make permanent territorial gains made in war. Keeping the settlements in the West Bank and putting the security fence deep into the west Bank are actions which are not needed to secure Israel. Israel can exist safely behind slightly modified borders of the pre-67 war. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->These actions are simply expansionist. By defying U.N. resolutions and continuing to occupy territory that has never been recognized as its own by any nation has Israel not made itself an aggressor rogue nation? Melvyn Polatchek 12:45:06 AM    comment []

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Causing recession to fight inflation - again The last time Alan Greenspan smelled inflation he threw us into a recession from which we have not yet fully recovered. The way the government fights inflation is to throw people out of work. Inflation occurs when spending or demand starts to outpace supply. For instance, with SUVs so popular, the auto companies make their highest markup on these type of vehicles. I remember the time when the Honda Accord and Preludes were first brought into this country. They were so hard to get, people were bidding for them over the sticker price. Beef has more than doubled in price in the couple of years since the low carb revolution increased demand. Beef producers have been known to manipulate the price by holding beef off the market as well. There is a tipping point when enough of the items we all need start to rise in price and labor is nearly fully employed we get inflation. Throwing people out of work is the easiest way to slow demand. Creating a recession is how we throw people out of work. Inflation is a bad thing because earnings buy less. If you are fortunate enough to have some saved or inherited waelth, then its value and future purchasing power goes down. There are horror stories of inflation run riot in other countries at other times. But how do we fight it. The Federal Reserve, still led by Alan Greenspan raises interest rates on the short term borrowings of banks, This ripples through the economy. It becomes more expensive to borrow money. Businesses put off expansion even in the face of rising demand. Inevitably some people lose their jobs. It is a conscious act of our government to put people out of work. People with no jobs don't buy new cars, refrigerators or washing machines and they certainly are not bidding up the price of new houses. They eat less steak. The democrats will extend unemployment benefits, but with the country having moved to the right politically, the republicans only begrudingly fund the "safety net". The long term unemployed lose everything. In the late 90's with nearly full employment (for various reasons 4% unemployment is for all purposes full employment.) the federal budget was in surplus and no actual inflation was in sight. Alan Greenspan,  the Fed chairman looked into his crystal ball and saw inflation on the horizon. To slow down the economy he raised interest rates. Commentators talked about a "soft landing" in which inflation would be checked and employment would remain high. It was not to be. Greenspan wasn't happy with mild raises. He kept raising rates until the economy started to slide. Why would he do this? He did it because to an economist employed by the government, fighting inflation or protecting already accumulated wealth is more important than protecting jobs. We had the shocks of 9/11 and the dot com bust. Those were the normal dangers of life. But government action was not taken to protect jobs, it was taken to protect wealth. Of course saying this opens one to charges of class warfare with the scent of left wingism. But, I do not come from the left. I am absolutely commited to the idea that capitalism is the best way assure the economic well being of a society. I just see this unfairness, that a very small segment of the population, just 3 or 4 % of the workforce, was thrown out of jobs to protect the value of the wages of the rest of us and the value of already accumulated wealth. Of course the emotional stress on the rest of the workforce increased immeasurably and many of us have seen our real wages shrink because we are competing against each other for fewer remaining jobs.. Most Americans seem to blithely accept this Darwinian manner of running the economy as part of life and are willing to take their chances. But now we face real inflationary pressures. Alan Greenspan needs no crystall ball. We all see it coming (Except of course for the Bush administration running for reelection) Greenspan is once more starting to raise interest rates. Many of us have not gotten back to work from the last layoffs. Some of us have just barely gotten started again. Many of us have given 10, 20 40 percent extra time for free to impress our employers to make sure we were not laid off. How many homes have broken? How many of us had heart attacks along the way? All the while we have watched our employers look elsewhere for cheaper labor. All the while we have watched our government do nothing but lower taxes on the wealthy. All the while we have waited years for the economy to turn. And now when we just have a foothold back it is starting all over again. But it is all right, only a small percent will actually lose their jobs and the rest can go along believing they are exempt. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this time it will be the Big One, another great depression. Melvyn Polatchek 4:27:52 AM    comment []

Monday, July 19, 2004

Blindness in the advocacy of nuclear power This is a letter to the NYTimes of Sunday, July 18: We can set admirable goals for renewable energy resources, but if the costs are not competitive, nothing will be built. Nuclear power is available, and several groups are discussing construction of new nuclear power plants with plant vendors. The quickest method for reducing greenhouse gases now is with nuclear power. Wind and solar power are great future resources, but without huge subsidies, they will not make a dent in greenhouse gases during the next 10 years. If we are serious about reducing the risk of climate change, we need to consider nuclear power, as the Asians and the Europeans are doing. GEOFFREY ROTHWELL Stanford, Calif., July 14, 2004 The writer is a senior lecturer in economics at Stanford University and a consultant to the Energy Department. I don't get how a major scholar from a prestigious institution like Stanford can propose nuclear power when we haven't figured out how to deal with nuclear waste. Put aside safety concerns. We haven't even yet agreed on a temporary waste site in South Dakota, let alone a long term solution. Did this guy fail logic 101 in the first year along the way to his advanced degree. Maybe he assumes the waste just won't be stored in his own hometown. Or maybe he is blinded by the glare of light reflected off the diploma on his wall. Melvyn Polatchek 1:29:54 AM    comment []

Sunday, July 18, 2004

Addendum - How war broke out in Iraq This is the last in a six- part series of articles on how we decide to go to war. To read in order 1. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/06/24.html 2. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/01.html 3. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/08.html 4. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/10.html 5. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/14.html I believe War breaks out in an emotional moment of those who make the decision. In most cases those individuals have made the decision in their minds long ago. I can’t prove it. I think George W. Bush wanted to go to war long before 9/11. Events came together, including many he manipulated, to allow him his dream, what has become our national nightmare. Well before Mar 19, 2004, the day of the American-British invasion of Iraq, the two beligerant sides were threatening to boil over into war. Hostilities were happening. American Special forces did what they could to clandestinely prepare the battlefield. Saddam was shooting at British and American warplanes as they patrolled the no fly zones. The warplanes were shooting back. Saddam was maintaining what turned out to be his colossal bluff, that he had weapons of mass destruction and he might use them in his defense. It never occurred to us that it was a bluff. We were moving an invasion force into position. President bush went to the U.N. to ask for a resolution that would authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein. Because Germany, France and Russia were against it the security council turned him down leaving him only with old resolutions that did authorize the use of force in the event of non-compliance with the inspection regime. He had not complied for five years, but enough time had passed that it was felt everywhere that another resolution was necessary. The U.N. wanted more weapons inspections. The President waited. Hans Blix came back with inconclusive results and asked for more time. Our soldiers were up to the line. Our President was talking tough and sounded like he was itching for a fight. Saddam must have been counting on the hope that we would not invade without our allies. What were they thinking in the U.N? America had created a situation from which it could not retreat. The security council either had to come with us and be participating allies or they had to try and stop us. They did neither. They could not seem to fathom that the situation would turn into war if they did not act. They decided to play no role at all. It is my belief, unproven, that these supposed allies of ours were supporting Saddam out of avarice. He owed them all vast amounts of money. It now comes out that the oil for food program was hugely corrupted. I have charged that the bribery extended high enough to effect their policy making. I stick to my charge. If they were not corrupt and they really believed that the weapons inspectors should have more time they might have drafted a resolution condemning the U.S. for war mongering. They might have stopped the invasion or they might have put their soldiers on the line with us and called Saddam's bluff, They did nothing useful. Their behavior was shameful and a black mark on the U.N. With the American and British troops on the line, had the allies joined us in the threat to Saddam, there is the possibility that he might have stepped down. But he believed we did not have solidarity with Russia, France and Germany. He was right. He believed we would be stopped. He was wrong. The allies, except for Britain did not join us. We all hate that idea that we can go to war on the emotions of one man or a small group of men and women, but that is the case. And they had their rationales, the WMD, supposed Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, etc. It shouldn’t have been that moment and it shouldn’t have been the result of war fever, but although President Bush might have been satisfied if the show of force drove Saddam out, when Saddam refused to go the fever took hold. While the security council was still discussing plans for more weapons inspections we went to war. I am reminded of those old movie Westerns where a mob in the town wants to lynch someone, probably the bad guy. But he is protected by the town Sherrif who looks for help but is refused at every turn. The mob overwhelms him and the “bad guy” is hanged. Then the town goes back about its business. They all feel safer, but they know they committed murder and did not create justice. Melvyn Polatchek 8:14:19 AM    comment []

Saturday, July 17, 2004

A friend ships out A young friend of mine is shipping out in the next couple of days for her second tour of duty in Iraq. During the Vietnam War it was all theory for me. I didn't personally know anybody involved. With Laurie and her husband going it is as real as it can get for someone who is waiting at home. Nothing could be more unfair than war in which some of us get to stay safe at home while others must risk their lives. I know she will to her best to do her job and I am very proud to know her. Melvyn polatchek 10:48:17 AM    comment []

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

The fallout – Are we safer today? Fifth in a series analyzing the reasons we go to war with some groups and not others To read the articles in order go to these links: 1. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/06/24.html 2. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/01.html 3. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/08.html 4. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/10.html The Bush administration and its defenders tell us we are safer today because we’ve gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and disrupted Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We are not. We are less safe than before the Iraq war? How can this be when Iraq has been neutralized as an enemy. How can we be less safe since there is a friendly government in Afghanistan? Indeed many say it is a good thing that we are battling terrorism in Iraq and not on our own soil. At home in the U.S. we are now protected by the department of homeland security. The original war plan called for 500,000 troops. This was the plan that, under the prodding of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was cut down to an original force of 105,000 which grew to 135,000. In order to maintain the troop level, the government has been forced to call up reserve units, many of whom are now on their second tour. Soldiers who’s time is up have been hit with “stop loss” orders requiring three months additional service in Iraq. We don’t know how long they will really be held, but is there any sign of a letup in the fighting? 5600 Americans who have completed their military obligations and who are not in the active reserve haave been called up from the ready reserve. It is a legal part of the original enlistment contract. but was a practice reserved for emergencies and little used in the past. It is an admission of inadequacy. We are told the military is having no trouble filling enlistment quotas. Yet, there is talk of reinstituting the draft. In the original plan of 500,000, where would we have gotten those troops? Rumsfeld’s insistance on a smaller force was supposed to be based on the need for speed in the buildup and new tactics and weaponry which would be more effective then a big force. I charge that it is very likely Donald Rumsfeld knew he couldn’t approach that level of commitment of American soldiers because we didn’t have them. So, with an administration itching to go to war, he forced General Franks to come up with a minimal approach to an invasion. He was fond of saying that he understood that less troops meant greater risk and he was comfortable with the tradeoff.. I'm sure he was. After all, he has a very nice office in Washington. Now we have a military that is streched far too thin. We cannot respond to another provocation in the world. If North Korea were to move into the South, how would we fight them? If China were to move against Taiwan, could we meet our obligation to protect it? There are other vulnerable places in the world, such as the Phillipines. They have had a low-intensity guerilla war for years. Recently there have been reports they are being helped by Al Qaeda. What if the guerillas get strong enough to attack the government directly. Could we meet our treaty obligations to help defend that government? Would we go to Nuclear weapons, because we have not the troops to oppose provocation by North Korea, China or Iran? Of course Iraq itself is under constant attack and our troops under grave risk. Hardly a day goes by withut an American soldier dying. Hardly a week goes by without the kidnapping and execution of some unfortunate civilian worker. Every Arab government, every poll among the Arab people says their prime problem is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They use it as an excuse to withhold support even though they fear the terrorists as much as we do. They label us an enemy for supporting Israel. I think their hatred of Israel masks other unexpressed motives. I will explore these in future articles. Certainly they still dream of eliminating Israel, but they could settle for a decent outcome on the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the administration can’t find the energy or resources to even engage the problem. We are not safer In Afghanistan, President Karzai has stated that he needs help to hold elections because the countryside is ruled by warlords. We stabilized and protected only the capitol city of Kabul. The warlords rule the rest of Afghanistan. This would be the second time in the last 30 years that we turned Afghanistan over, for our own purposes, then left that poor country to its fate. In the meantime, Osama Bin Laden is still hiding and operating in territory along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. We have not got the capacity to attack him there. We have small numbers of Special Forces chasing him. So far, no luck. We are not safer At home we have the highly touted new Department of Homeland Security (I will refer to as DHS). This department issues warnings of terrorist attacks, but we are never told what we can do. What is the true meaning of their color coded warning system? They have strengthened procedures for getting on an airplane, but trains and boats, reservoirs, lakes and forests have no protection We have porous borders between Canada and Mexico. We are not safer We don’t know whether the DHS would know what to do, but clearly the administration has not given them enough money to protect our trains and ports, our reservoirs and communications. We are completely vulnerable and the government itself expects an attack against designed to disrupt our election in the fall. We are not safer. All along the Bush administration has followed an extreme right wing agenda. this week, he used his radio address to attack gay marriage. On a day after he has left us nearly defenseless against a ferocious global enemy and his DHS is warning of attempts to disrupt the election, he is worried about gay marriage. His tax cuts, unprecedented in time of war, have made it impossible to do more. While they claim the economy is improving, the total job situation has not. A weakened economy does not help a country fight a war. We are not safer We had an enemy in Saddam Hussein. Eventually, we might have needed to remove him. Our insistance that we proceed with war quickly even without the help of our traditional allies, even without the aproval of the U.N. Security council has led to a disaster. It is possible we could have overcome even those disadvantages, but we did not because we planned only for the takeover. We gave no thought to what would happen after. The administration spent so much money on its tax cuts that we could not afford the number of troops required to keep order. We didn’t have the varieties of trained specialists needed to manage a defeated, bombed out country with a population that does not speak English. We are left with a supposedly sovereign Iraq governemt. We don’t know whether they will be able to hold elections although they are promised around the new year. There is a strong possibility of civil war with American troops caught in the middle. We solved one problem and created another. We are not safer I wanted to write this series as just an analysis of the war. I can’t do it without becoming somewhat political. For those of you who hope for an immediate withdrawal, there is no good choice, Bush or Kerry would continue in Iraq. George Bush has backed us into a corner and we will have to fight our way out. Nader, of course will leave us entirely defenseless and invite further attack, but if you believe war is wrong no matter the reason, he is your man. Please remember that a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush. John Kerry will have a new chance to get real help from our traditional allies and to get us once more under the umbrella of the U.N. We all know war is a messy unpredictable business and expect to struggle sometimes. But the Bush administration has been so incompetent, he has lost his chance. John Kerry will probably continue the American presence in Iraq, but he won’t relish it. He will be searching for peace and at the same time he will have to find ways to restore American credibility. Bush can’t do that because he has become personally uncredible snd unwelcome around the world. The philosophy of might makes right has failed miserably. They thought that the show of American power in Afghanistan and Iraq would make everyone roll over in obedience to us. It didn’t happen. In the 21st century it won’t happen. We are not the Mongols and George Bush is not Genghis Kahn though he tried to be. After 9/11 he seemed inspiring and a lot of people, including yours truly, thought we had the right president for the times. It turned out to be only words. His “Mission Accomplished” speech on the aircraft carrier took all credibility away. It is time for him and his band of would-be conquerors to go. We are not safer Mel Polatchek 4:53:54 AM    comment []

Saturday, July 10, 2004

We go to war preemptively on Iraq Fourth in a series analyzing the reasons we go to war with some groups and not others and the manner in which we stumbled into Iraq. To read in order: http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/06/24.html http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/01.html http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/08.html In the last piece I stated belief that Saddam was extremely dangerous to America and American interests, volatile and threatening to boil over. This danger has been discounted by critics particularly in light of the failure to find any WMD. At the time, I supported the war. My justification, however, was, because of the potential danger and though I went along, I had no sense of the imperative immediacy of the Bush administration. I thought the real problems were a year away and depended on Saddam’s support from France, Germany and Russia. I thought we would go to war soon enough and we would do it with a coalition much like that of 1991, the first gulf war. I was wrong. From the Bob Woodward book, “Plan of Attack”, we learn, the Bush administration, at the urging of Colin Powell, decided to go to the U.N. It was not the first instinct of his advisers. They, particularly Vice President Cheney, believed the U.N. was weak and incapable of effective action They thought it was possible the U.N. could succeed in reestablishing a containment regime. This was unacceptable. They wanted war and were afraid of being boxed in. This was their particular moral failure. They preferred war to a solution that might have worked. War was their choice in the face of other possibilities. Yet, the president had been convinced, by Powell, of the dangers of going it alone. They decided to put the burden upon the U.N. by insisting that if the U.N. allowed Saddam to flaunt its resolutions it would become irrelevant like the pre WWII League of Nations. On September 12, 2003 the president made his speech to the U.N. general assembly. Having put the U.N. on notice, he urged the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. The republicans supported their president. Most democrats went along, some for purposes of politics, some out of true belief. Many from both parties now profess that they didn’t mean to give the president a blank check and they expected the U.N. to be a major part of any operation. When we started building up our forces in the region, I thought we were leaders of the eventual U.N.coalition that would complete the job of ousting Saddam Hussein. As it became more and more clear that we were not going to get support from the security council, I went along with those who were questioning the validity of the U.N. in such matters. I believed that the historic European tendency toward appeasement was dominating the security council and that the U.S. by acting alone would shame them into getting on board. I was wrong. The three Amigos of Europe, France Germany and Russia hardened their positions. (We have since learned of corruption in the oil for food program on a scale that could certainly have influenced the policy of these countries, but that is speculation on my part) We were isolated and our troops were hanging out the in Kuwait, on alert. Their presence became one of the forces driving us to war. The U.N. agreed only to demand another regime of weapons inspectors and Saddam gave in. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector found, no WMD, but repeatedly accused Saddam of failing to cooperate. The U.S. went back to the U.N. Colin Powell gave his now discredited speech about WMD intelligence, still the security council failed to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. Using previous U.N. resolutions far weaker than they wished, the Bush administration, along with the British and a bevy of small nations, “the coalition of the willing”, went to war. We all know the results. The personal instincts of the president and his advisors to go to war proceeded because world events, which they largely manipulated, had given them the tiniest margin of cover, the smallest permission. That small sliver of permission consisted of the of the lack of a security council resolution condemning the U.S. for its actions. Next, the fallout 6:21:16 AM    comment []

Friday, July 09, 2004

A conservative cracks     I was shocked! David Brooks is a conservative columnist, formerly with the Weekly Standard and currently with the New York times.  He is also part of a team with Mark Shields which does analysis for the Newshour on PBS.  Tonight, reacting to intelligence failures which led the administration to go to war, he called for a high level committee chaired by Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to recommend intelligence reform.  Can you imagine, a conservative so stunned by the failures of his own side that he would ask Bill Clinton for help. The mind Boggles! 6:59:30 PM    comment []

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Going to War in Iraq     Finally, Iraq.  Why was Iraq an enemy we would go to war with while Iran and North Korea, the other two members of the so-called axis of evil were not?  The decision process must be broken down into two sections. The first, the thought processes and personal reasons of those that actually make the decision to go to war, the second, the dynamics that allow the actual order to proceed. The second is fairly well described in two Bob Woodward books,  “Bush at War” about Afghanistan and “Plan  of Attack” about Iraq.  I am not happy using only one resource to draw conclusions and to fuel my own speculations, but until the players start writing their memoirs these two books represent the closest available depictions of the decision making process.  The evidence shows that the president started preparing for war shortly after 9/11. It does not show how long he had been thinking about it. There has been much speculation. Some have said that he was trying to complete unfinished business of his father. Others have said it was to increase his own wealth and the wealth of his friends in the oil business. Perhaps it was revenge because his father was personally attacked by Saddam Hussein.  It could have something to do with his personal religious intensity or even the megalomania of seeing himself as the servant of God striking down evil.  These venal motivations have to play at least a small part, because the president is human.  We will never know. Even when he writes his memoirs, he will minimize his personal motivations and concentrate on his job, as president, to provide security for the American people.  Whatever it was, there is no doubt that long before the war planning, long before world events conspired to make the war possible, George W. Bush decided, he could go to war.  American policy and world events gave him the public permission to do so. To understand the public policy, we must go back to the 80’s and remember that we armed and supported Saddam in his war against Iran. This was balance of power politics. We were angry and afraid of Iran. It was cynical and as so many other times in the past a cynical policy came back to haunt us. We had created a major player. When he invaded Kuwait, we reacted with Desert Storm. Why? Oil plays a part, because it is the lifeblood of western industrial civilization. Big enough oil shocks would cause a destabilization that would lead to violence and chaos on an unimagined scale.  But the president of that time, George H.W. Bush, said  “This aggression shall not stand”.  I chose to believe that the most important concept was that one country could no longer aspire to take territory from another by military force. I believe this a principle worth fighting for and long overdue. It establishes the precedent that the U.S. can intervene for reasons other than its own immediate national security. It was fortunate,  that a broad coalition was put together to approve and help execute our response, because, though it is well established that an individual nation can act to defend itself,  to act for other reasons, no matter how well intentioned, can appear as naked aggression. We won the gulf war and found that Saddam was well on his way to building a nuclear weapons capability and already had, at his disposal, chemical and biological weapons.  We encouraged Iraqis to revolt. Sadly, because we didn’t help, Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south became victims of mass murder. Now we faced a rogue dictator, armed with WMD, out of control, and at war with his own people. In response we created no-fly zones in the north and south, a regime of economic sanctions and mandatory weapons inspections. This was the policy of containment and it was necessary. With some considerable interference from Saddam, the weapons inspections continued until 1998. It should be noted also that President Clinton, in response to a new buildup of Iraqi forces on the Kuwaiti border, had to send troops to the region twice in this period. In both cases, the American action prompted Saddam to stand down, but there was every indication, including the firing upon U.S. and British planes, that Saddam’s aggression could boil over at any time.  In 1998, Saddam ejected the weapons inspectors. After much saber rattling, the Clinton administration decided to do nothing. Now we had no way of knowing whether he was reconstituting his WMD.  At the time, I thought it was the height of irresponsibility to allow the situation to fester, but we did.  Our only reaction was to pass a law calling for and funding regime change in Iraq. There were some attempts by the CIA which failed. Not much else was done. France, Germany and Russia were all doing business with Iraq and wanted to do more. They started an international campaign to end economic sanctions.  Indeed, the oil for food program was started. We now had the possibility of facing a newly financed Saddam Hussein, without sanctions, with support from our allies. We could look forward to the loss of support for the entire containment process including the no-fly zones.  It was and is my belief that Saddam Hussein, no longer contained, showing no sign of having calmed his personal ambitions, with no external interference would have, reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons and proceeded with his nuclear program. It was and still is my belief that he would have used them aggressively against America. Next, we act preemptively 2:42:08 PM    comment []

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Choosing John Edwards     The selection of John Edwards  as the running mate for John Kerry was to be expected.  I have mixed feelings. There is much to be said in favor of Edwards pro-labor stand and his view of two Americas. He was the first candidate to speak forcefully about the problem of worker displacement.  We could also talk about his attractiveness as a candidate and his ability to rally a crowd, considerable assets in the attempt to overthrow a president many consider a disaster. Edwards serves to sidetrack Hillary Clinton. If Kerry loses by anything but a landslide,  Edwards would be the first choice in the next election. If Kerry wins, then Edwards, as vice-president,  inherits the nomination.  I am not ready to decide whether losing Hillary is a good or bad thing. It is a fact. I am concerned about his youth and inexperience. There are many who can take on large responsibilities at  young age, but we have had two presidents in succession who suffered and caused us to suffer their grave immaturity.  Clinton was so talented that he was by and large was an effective president, but his personal failures nearly destroyed his presidency and doomed us to George Bush.  Bush, a failure at all his personal business dealings, has been effective only in acting as a schoolyard bully in the face of extraordinary adversity. I can’t see much indication that the vice-presidential choice can win an election, although there is a lot of credit given to Lyndon Johnson in the 1960 election. Surely the wrong choice can lose an election as was probably the case with the McGovern campaign in 72. Melvyn Polatchek 6:28:31 AM    comment []

Monday, July 05, 2004

Monthly Archives After much struggle, (I am not an HTML pro!) the blog now display links to monthly archives. Look under the calandar. Mel 11:44:04 AM    comment []

Thursday, July 01, 2004

Continuing last week’s discussion of who are our enemies and how we decide The question of how we identify an enemy with whom we must go to war is often complex. In the case of Al Qaeda it was not. They declared war on us and then they attacked us. In the case of the Taliban, they gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda. What about Iran and North Korea? We have not gone to war with them and do not threaten to do so. How come? They both export terror, North Korea less than Iran, but North Korea, in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, is guilty of selling nuclear technology to a number of other countries . Both countries have identified us as their enemies, not complimentary, but not a declaration of war. Neither has attacked us directly. But the president has said that given modern technology, the dynamics of war in the age of WMD and in light of 9/11, we need not wait to be attacked but can and should act preemptively. Both of these nations have nuclear programs which were for a long time clandestine. Now North Korea openly says it must be a nuclear power to check the power of the United States. Iran, is thought to be lying about its intentions. As well, it also maintains and supports terrorist groups in Israel and Lebanon.Fear of starting a war we can’t manage plays a part. North Korea has tens of thousands of artilley pieces along the DMZ, the border area between the two Koreas. They are trained upon the city of Seoul, the South Korean capital which in addition to the south Korean military is defended by 30,000 or more American troops. No matter who started another Korean war, this artillery would immediately be used by the North to kill hundreds of thousands in South Korea probably including large numbers of American soldiers. Needless to say, an aggressive stance by the U.S. is the last thing South Korea wants. There is also the history of Chinese intervention in the previous Korean war. We cannot be sanguine about the intentions of China. A tyranny dominated by religious extremists, the Mullahs, Iran has an elected president. There is a pro-democracy movement, particularly among the young people. While it is not an Arab country it is fiercely Muslim. There has been a Muslim diaspora across the world and particularly in Europe. Much of Russia is Muslim and many of the countries previously dominated by the old Soviet Union are muslim. If we went to war with Iran it would look to them like we were attempting to take over and dominate the entire Muslim world. Europe would become an unmanageable problem for us and we would likely be friendless in our endeavor. We might find ourselves in a world war against a united Islam. Though some might consider Iran and North Korea to represent “a gathering danger”, it appears there is some room for negotiation. We have come to agreements with North Korea before. Even though they were not honored, we have hope that new agreements can be reached which are more verifiable. We have found they will at least talk, indeed they were more willing than the Bush administration to hold talks. Because of the democracy movement in Iran we have hope that there will be evolutionary movement away from confrontation. Barring verifiable imminent danger, we are not going to war with either of these nations any time soon. Melvyn Polatchek Next, Iraq. 5:17:32 PM    comment []