On media and politics. . .

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 []

Friday, November 05, 2004

Falujah- the next battle "After a long summer of cat-and-mouse games with shadowy insurgents, the Marines are hungry for a decisive battle."  This is the caption on a NYTimes article today by Robert Worth.  Of course the Marines are hungry.  They want the kind of battle for which they are trained, one in which they know where the enemy is and can use well practiced tactics to defeat him.  The only problem, however, is that this coming attack has been telegraphed for weeks.  Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has been giving last warnings for days. There can be no doubt that the insurgent leadership and many of the fighters are long gone.  We will make it look like a famous victory.  We will lose some Marines - even one is too many.  We will have a body count of dead insurgents and uncounted numbers of Iraqui citizens.  The President will be seen with the families of the dead Marines wringing his hands with grief. We will hear how well the Iraqi forces fought - whether it is true or not.  And the insurgency will go on.  It will go on because we won't find their leadership and because the common fighters will not bunch up conveniently for us.  They will scatter and we do not know how to fight a scaterred enemy.  Even in the rare situation where they gather in a single place, as in Fallujah, it takes so long for us to respond that they gain maximum advantage and emerge unbeaten. Melvyn Polatchek   3:05:13 PM    comment []

The U.S. cannot win in Iraq and in the wider war against Muslim Extremism PART 1 The United States, with its military as presently configured, has very little chance of defeating the insurgents in Iraq or in the wider war against terrorism. We are so unprepared that we don’t even call it what it is. Under the principle that to know the enemy is the first step to defeating him, calling it a war against terrorism, while perhaps an effective propaganda stroke, is innacurrate and misleading. Terrorism is not a group or a nation. It is a tactic used by an enemy with a specific strategy for fighting an apparently superior force. In this case the tactics of terrorism are used by Muslim extremists who hate America, Israel and Western Civilization. These extremists come from a number of Arab countries, in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, still many from Afghanistan. Although they are the active extreme they have the tacit support of much of the rest of the Arab populations with moderate muslims so weak that they constitute little likelihood of change. While Libya seems to have been intimidated into cooperation, Iran stands alone as an Arab enemy. No oher Arab government is as openly anti-american but most of them tolerate a corrosive anti-American and-anti-Semitic culture that all but makes them undeclared enemies. For the purpose of this discussion I will call it the war against Muslim Extremism. Why do I say that our military as presently consituted cannot defeat the Muslim extremists? The tactics of terrorism are hit, run and scatter. Unlike a regular military organization they don't control territory - at least in the early stages of guerilla conflict. They never collect themselves into a group which can be located and attacked. The entire history of the American military is one of locating an objective, a concentration of the enemy and bringing massive firepower down upon that objective. During the American revolutionary war George Washington located a large contingent of Hessian soldiers in Trenton, crossed the Delaware River and in a daring surprise attack demolished them. In the original Gulf war Saddam's divisions were surrounded by American troops and were nearly annihilated except the the intervention of George H.W. Bush. Early in the second Iraq war, we knew where the enemy was - although they immediately started to dissapear - and in every engagement were able to overpower them. So it was in WWI, WWII and Korea. In Korea, we won every battle in which we controlled the context, in which we understood the size and composition of the enemy. When the Chinese came in it was the Americans who were overwhelmed at first, but even so through standard military doctrine of identifying and attacking objectives we fought to a draw and in the and the ceasefire boundaries were those of the beginning of the war, the 38th parallel. But in Vietnam we didn't know where the enemy was. In many cases we didn't know who the enemy was. Our soldiers like to say they won every actual battle that took place, but most of the American casualties were the result of hit and run tactics, ambushes, mortar attacks and bombings in which the enemy did its damage and dissappeared before we could respond. It was our failure to conquer these tactics in which we were the objective and the enemy the attacker that lost the war. No matter how many ground troops we put in, no matter how much we bombed the North, we could not stop them from attacking. We have a similar situation in Iraq. After the original victories over the regular Iraqui military came an insurgency made up of disparate elements, Saddam cronies, an ambitious Shiite cleric and his militia, foreign fighters infiltrating across unguarded borders. Until recently we have not known how many with various estimates in the thousands. Recently I have seen reports of 12000 to 14000 with perhaps another 20000 less active supports and facilitators. They are heavily armed and apparently well funded which signals widespread putside coordination. We know where there are some concentrations of the enemy. We have won only one of the battles, in Samarra. Whatever the political reasons, we have not attacked the other strongholds in force sufficient to eliminate them. If we throw political caution to the wind we could defeat the insurgents in these several cities such as Fallujah. But the insurgency as a whole would go on. One of the dynamics of terrorist or guerilla tactics is that the insurgents have different short term goals than the occupying force. The occupiers have an interest in total traquility and even an occasional attack means that the territory is not pacified. The insurgents have as their long term goal the overthrow of the occupiers, but in the short term they profit from creating chaos. When they succeed in launching an attack, even if all participants die, they have won the day, as long as they have the ability to launch another attack in short order. For it is the chaos of constant attacks which they believe weakens their enemy's political and military will to fight and in the end withdraw. That is what happened in Vietnam and it is what is happening in Iraq. There are terrorists attacks occuring all over the country. They are killing our soldiers and they are killing other Iraquis in police stations, recruiting offices and in he streets. We are not stopping them. To be blunt, the United States military has know idea how to fight a well equipped and funded enemy that hits, runs and scatters. Coming soon PART 2 – How to win. Does this mean that we are lost in the face of this Muslim Extremist enemy which uses the tactics if terrorism? I don't think so. We have to adapt. 4:14:21 AM    comment []

Thursday, November 04, 2004

A note of apology In mid July I responded to a New York Times letter by Geoffrey Rothwell.  In the letter, he advocates nuclear power as a way to solve our political, global and environmental problems with fossil fuels.  I was so incensed, I answered with an article in this space which was extraordinarily sarcastic.  Mr. Rothwell took exception to my arguments and my sarcasm. I have apologized to him in private and now in public for the meanness of my personal response, but I still don;t agree with his contention that "There are political problems with spent nuclear fuel, but the technical problems have been solved".  To that end I have sent him the following letter. Geoffrey,   I have spent some time studying information on nuclear waste.  In terms of the safety issue I think we are on different tracks.   When you say the technical difficulties have been solved, I think you must mean the problems of containment have been overcome. My concern is with the material itself.  I believe we cannot consider ourselves safe, whether from Nuclear Power waste or nuclear weapons waste until we can neutralize the material itself,  without waiting for the natural half life to expire.   I have read descriptions of containment facilities and find none of them can project faultless containment as far out as the actual half life.  Indeed, that is no doubt why the Yucca Flats proposal has been made.  An entire mountain, not man made,  will be used for containment. Even Yucca Flats is only considered a temporary storage facility and it has not been given final approval.  But even if it is approved a recontainment process will inevitably be needed.   In the meantime, I assume that advocates are hoping for breakthroughs in containment materials.  But are these not more dream than reality.  The difficulties in storage pale beside the difficulties of security both in the storage places and transportation.    How do we continue to create and store an inherently dangerous product that cannot be neatralized on the hope that eventually, we'll figure out a way?   I fervently believe we should launch an all-out political and financial effort to develop alternate sources of energy, both for transportation and the creation of electric power.  I believe a healthy future is one free from the pollution of fossil fuels as well as the dangers inherent in nuclear energy.   Melvyn Polatchek   I am publishing this letter in my blog today.  Feel free to disagree.  I will publish anything you have to say on the subject.   1:28:38 PM    comment []

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

An answer to "What Happened" This answer to my piece "What Happened" was written by my wife.  I thought it deserved its own space. MP I read your blog. Rather mild, I thought.  Yes, I always knew WE were the "idiots" offering up such a weak candidate. I couldn't imagine how he would win nor could I imagine four more years of Bush but the democratic "party" choose to present a man with no real plan and no charisma. Again, my conspiracy theory begins to ruminate in my mind. Today, I'm struck with the power of evil disguised as faith.  I looked at the electoral map and the blood red states indicating support for Bush - most of the center of the country.  I read something congratulating the "Christians" for getting out the vote, claiming "Christian" support as responsible for his re-election. God help us all.  These ignorant, narrow-minded people, generally on a witch-hunt for non-believers, are now in charge.  People who dunk themselves in polluted rivers, proclaiming religion and doing nothing to help anyone are now dictating the course of history.  These are the people, who with their magical, misguided beliefs are going to protect our grandchildren from the gap-toothed barbarians across the sea (or right next door)  who are determined to kill us! I think this election marked the beginning of another "Dark Age."  When this holy war plays itself out, I wonder what will be left. Terry Polatchek 7:23:43 PM    comment []

What happened! It is 3:22 AM after election day and it appears that George W. Bush will continue as President.  What happened?  I have one friend who said recently that people will have to be morons to vote for Bush a second time around. Not that the Bush voters are morons, but maybe the rest of us are not as bright as we thought. For most Americans, particularly Bush supporters, what they called the war on terror - what I call the war against Muslim extremism - was the paramount issue.  The President tapped into the truth that a majority of Americans, in their minds,  merged the Iraq war into the wider war on Muslim extremism.  They were less appalled by the mess that has become Iraq than by the danger imposed by that wider war. Bush asks a simple question.  "Don't you feel safer with me as commander in chief?"  Clearly the resounding answer has been yes.  In spite of all the casualties in Iraq, in spite of the continued taunting of Osama Bin Laden, in spite of all the venality and self-serving words and outright lies of the administration there is one salient fact. We have not been attacked again.  It does not mean we won't be attacked tomorrow, but George Bush cannot be denied when he says, "I kept you safe". So, I go back to my wonderful dedicated friend who thinks it would be moronic to vote for Bush.  If you remembered the day of 9/11, when you went to vote it might have been the smart thing to vote for the man who has not let another attack occur. The other side is those of us who opposed Bush.  We nominated a flawed candidate who never came out with a principled position on the Iraq war.  He came out with an aggressive position in time for the debates, but all the time leading up to that point in the campaign he did exactly what he was accused of doing. He flip flopped on the war. My opposition to Bush was based on his failures.  He failed to protect us from the original attack. He failed to find fault with any of his subordinates.  Not a single person of rank lost their job.  He failed to complete the job in Afghanistan.  He failed to achieve a diplomatic consensus for the move into Iraq and he has failed to bring peace to that beleagured country.  I believe when you fail in you job, you should be fired.  I was willing to put my hopes on a candidate who was flawed from the very beginning who mostly spoke like a professor of philosophy, picking and pulling at every thread in his speeches until you were never sure what he was talking about.  I who hated the schoolyard bully attitude of the Bush people supported a candidate who wrapped himself up in his Vietnam military record and made his personal militarism the centerpiece of his campaign. Whose vote was cast moronically?  Melvyn Polatchek   3:52:34 AM    comment []