On media and politics. . .

Saturday, August 28, 2004

Why I am voting for john Kerry. I have decided to cast my vote for John Kerry for President and I am a volunteer in his campaign. I believe he has within him the possibilities of greatness. He is a hero. This is a man who unlike many of his peers, went to Vietnam and served with distinction under fire. He was inspirational to me and others who were against the war when he came back from Vietnam and spoke out vigorously against that war and harshly criticized American leadership. That side of it has been understressed. It cost him the undying enmity of many of his fellow veterans as evidenced by the Swift Boat Veterans controversy and their largely discredited accusations. From the beginning of the campaign, before he even had the nomination I thought this was a man uniquely suited to help the nation heal the divisions still left over from Vietnam. There is more. It is, sadly, negative. George Bush has failed as President. He has launched a war that resulted in an ongoing insurgency costing the lives of hundreds of American soldiers and civilians and thousands of wounded. Now this is a war that I originally supported and war always brings casualties. But the unexpected and unprepared for insurgency has brought hundreds more deaths with no end in sight. Further, it looks as though American policy is failing. The debacle in Najaf where the revolt was quelled not by American firepower or diplomacy but by the foremost Shiite cleric is a policy disaster. Yes, we did not have to make a final assault on the holiest shrine, but it is a pyrrhic victory leaving Al Sadr, the cleric in revolt, in place and even possibly allowing him to particpate in politics. We spent American lives but did not achieve American goals. George Bush has in the past couple of days admitted he miscalculated the strength of the insurgency. Everyone else has known about the mistakes from nearly the very beginning. This president who strutted about the deck of an aircraft carrier nearly two years ago saying "mission accomplished" has failed and needs to be fired. The economy which, after three years of losing jobs, seemed to be growing and creating jobs has sputtered in the last two months. Even the jobs that were created were barely enough to employ the new workers coming into the workforce. The number of new jobs did little to help those who have lost out over the past 3-4 years, many of whom have given up trying. While I don't know that John Kerry has all the answers, I know that George Bush does not. Just yesterday he admitted that he had miscalculated the extent of the insurgency in Iraq. This is a year after every one else. A year later we still don't have a plan for dealing with the insurgency successfully. John Kerry will have quite a challenge on his hands with the economy and the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. Unlike George Bush who appears to have no plan at all, John Kerry has a plan for National security. It includes once more creating alliances with the major powers. It includes modernization of the military with a doubling of special forces so critical in this age of assymeric warfare. It also includes the most patriotic thing any American president could do, reducing and ending our dependence upon mideast oil. You can find Kerry-Edwards plans on the various issues on www.johnkerry.com. George Bush has failed in foreign policy and on the economy. He deserves to be replaced. I have been critical of many aspects of the campaign, but I have no doubt about John Kerry himself. He is a proven courageous leader who has not been afraid to take controversial positions. I believe he is a leader capable of rising to the challenges of the 21st century. Mel 8:55:56 PM    comment []

Friday, August 20, 2004

Kerry Political price of Kerry's Militarism The defining issue in this election is Iraq and the general war against Muslim extremism. John Kerry has said he voted to give the president authority to go to war. He voted against the 87 billion dollar special appropration. He has said he would have gone to war even knowing there were no WMD but he would have done it effectively. We are left to speculate on what that means. By stressing his military service and neglecting to speak about his anti-war protest  John Kerry has attempted to distract voters from the fact that he has not outlined a clear cogent response on the issues of the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general. John Kerry is a very smart politician. But I don't believe his trip through this political minefield of the war in Iraq and the broader war against Muslim extremism has served him well. He unlikely to convince the hardcore supporters of the war and they are going to distrust his stories of battlefield valor. Those who don't think we should be in Iraq are going to figure out that he is going to see the situation through and there will be no withdrawal. Sadly, this election is still about George Bush and the hope that John Kerry somehow looks like he can be a better and more trustworthy president. Regardless of the polls which show him marginally ahead, there are many who remain unconvinced. There are a few flag wavers who may be excited by John Kerry's military rhetoric. Most of the rest of us are slightly embarrassed. Mel     3:28:16 PM    comment []

Monday, August 16, 2004

Response to article - This is a response to a previous article. "Puppet government in Araq" . I will republish occasional comments with the permission of the author http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/08/13.html You have precisely summarize at once both the Iraqi situation and the definition of quagmire. The U.S. has been led into a no win situation. Leave, and blood of civil war and regional instability is forever attributed to the arroagant and powerful Americans. Stay, and American GI's continue to die and be maimed and crippled and we throw even more 100's of billions of taxpayer's hard earned dollars after bad. The only possible solution is a new President and a prayer that that new President can convince regional nations around Iraq that 1) we are going to be reducing our presence, and 2) it is in their own self-interest to fill the gradual void we leave in order to insure stability and avoid civil war and fundamentalist jihad from spilling over into their own nations. In return, the new President accedes progressively to regional nations assuming the rebuilding contracts now held by American corporations giving regional nations a vested monetary interest and reward for filling in the void left by our gradual troop withdrawals. It may not work. But, it is the only strategy now available to the U.S. for exiting this qaugmire with some measure of success attached to the historical record. David Remer • 8/16/04; 4:04:16 AM #   11:32:41 PM    comment []

Is it always about oil? My response in another forum: The subject "It's always about the oil". Look it up if you want. I wrote my response to be valid by itself. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s=db403eed048a7c2dd7a74d22981e079e&;showtopic=2754 Oil, among other things, like grain and water is an item necessary to the survival of Westen industrial civilization. Unlike food and water (and I suppose a host of other things I haven't thought about) oil would seem to be something we could do without. The icon of the SUV-driving all-consuming American comes to mind. Certainly there are excesses. Americans drive their SUV's (and their hybrids) through towns that are going bankrupt trying to pay their heating bills. This is true with the distribution of food, water and medicine as well. Some have more than they need and some have not enough. This is true in capitalist countries as well as socialist democracies and the old hard core communist countries. What is different about oil. Nothing. We just haven't had wars for food in recent memory. It might happen between the Koreas. One of the slogans in one of the prior posts was "He who controls oil rules". This would be true if anyone could control oil. As it stands oil production, refinement and distribution are as usual in a chaotic state. It has always been this way. We had a minor oil shock in 1973. The rest of the decade saw world-wide stagnancy as well as inflation. There were other factors, but a 10 or so day cut in production and a 30% price increase(not sure of the increase amount) was a significant factor. Can anyone imagine what would happen if Saudi Arabia had to cease production?(evidedently a goal of Al Qaeda) Forget SUVs. National economies would collapse all over the world. Certainly, the economies of U.S. Japan and all the emerging eastern economies, China and Europe would all be shattered. Can you imagine millions of unemployed marching on Washington and the President calling upon the next General MacArthur to quell the uprising? But you know for sure, enough oil would still exist for many of these countries to lubricate their militaries. Would it go so far as nuclear war? So yes, it is always about oil. But this attitude that somehow if Americans were not so greedy everything would be better and we would not have to fight wars for oil is demagoguery.   7:24:18 PM    comment []

Friday, August 13, 2004

Puppet government in Iraq I got a comment on my article about the Arab league to which I wish to respond. It  said: I am not surprised that the Arab League would not send troops to support what many view as the US puppet government in Iraq. Many do consider the Iraqi transitional government to be illegitimate and I understand the reasons for that, but I am wondering what the alternative might be. If we withdraw all support from the transitional government and it falls, what will take its place?  Surely there will be civil war with tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. Maybe that is not the worst. Maybe the Shiites become genocidal and try to wipe out the Sunnis for all time.  Maybe the Kurds get firghtened and join the fray. Does anybody think that there is some benificent tolerant Iraqi movement ready and able to take charge if only the Americans would leave?   There is much legitimate argument on the position that we Americans should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Since we did, instead of a real occupation following past models in which the population is disarmed, by force where necessary and order is restored by armed force and martial law,  there has been an attempt to transition to Iraqi rule. It has been clumsy and without doubt all done in a way to assure a pro-American diplomatic posture. If that motivation is so abhorrent that Iraqis and critics of American policy would rather have violent chaos than let the transition proceed, then we ultimately cannot stop them and the fire and blood belongs to them.   Mel   3:49:50 PM    comment []

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Terror Alerts  The New York Times, today, had an op-ed piece about the terror alerts. "Being Clear About Present Dangers" By PHILIP BOBBITT Published: August 11, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/opinion/11bobbitt.html It is an interesting discussion which speaks to the problem of officials who must decide whether to release information about potential terrorist attacks. On the one hand they don't want to create a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. On the other, they are concerned that if an attack occurs without a government alert they will be guilty of having put people at avoidable risk. Yet, when a general alert is raised, the reaction of individuals and the media is, "OK, but what are we supposed to do". In my previous article, I pointed out that with information specific enough to defend particular buildings, the public alert was warranted, if only to warn the potential attackers that these five targets are now hardened, thereby frustrating attack plans which have always been based upon relatively undefended targets. That particular alert aside, The government has made it more complicated than it needs to be. The real alert came on 9/11. We are at war and it has been made clear that civilians are not exempt from attack. There should be a national safety checklist for all citizens. I am not going to speculate on what shoud be on that checklist. We already know about reporting unattended packages in public places. We generally know to report suspicious behavior. Perhaps there should be pamphlets discussing what constitutes suspicious behavior. We don't want to panic into large scale abuse. We also know that our families should have an emergency communication plan. The checklist should be regularly updated as we learn more about what to look for. Even as the alerts have moved between yellow and orange, there are no studies indicating how many of us actually do have a communication plan, or know who to call if they see an unattended package. Children in Muslim countries are regularly given anti-western orientation and taught that we are the enemy. I don't think it would be wrong to have the children in our schools learn the contents of the checklist and how to take acion in an emergency. Beyond the first responders and the boy scouts, people should learn first aid. If people want to show their patriotism, beyond lip service and flying the flag, perhaps they could put charts with the checklist on their doors. As I said earlier, we are at war. War is not comfortable, even though President bush and Tom ridge have told us to live normal lives. We should not be living the same lives as in peace time. We should find ways to show our solidarity as Americans.  We should do those things which make us safer and sends the message to the terrorists, not that we are afraid, but we are taking steps to thwart them. There is much debate about our policy in Iraq. There is not much debate that we are under continuing threat of attack. Our government has not trusted us to be part of this war. The terror alert system mainly serves the comfort of government officlas and not the safety of the people. It is time for change. Melvyn Polatchek 6:29:40 PM    comment []

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

The New Terrorist Alert - Misdirection by somebody The new terrorist threat indicating five specific buildings comes from information recently learned but created in 2000-2001. Al Qaeda has a reputation for going after what would be called soft-targets. Targets which, while they have value in the minds of the terorrists, are relatively undefended. These five buildings are now well defended. Presumably, under the soft target doctrine, they are off the Al Qaeda truck bomb target list which is the kind of attack most expected.(At least publicly) I think we are watching misdirection by somebody, either the attackers or defenders. The attackers: They have enough trained volunteers willing to mount operations that they can leak plans and even launch decoy operations which focus on these buildings all the while launching real operations against other targets. The defenders: They may actually have indications of other targets, but are hardening the five mentioned in the alert publicly and others more covertly. Both: In a deadly chess game, both sides may be manuevering, the attackers against what they hope is a relatively undefended target and the defenders trying to lure an attack into a heavily if covertly defended target. What I'm sure we are not going to see is a truck bomb driven into one of the five buildings mentioned in the new orange alert. If anything happens to one of those buildings it will be from another kind of attack, one against which we had not defended, such as a chemical or biological attack from an insider. Mel   4:38:45 AM    comment []