Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iraq is not Vietnam, no matter how much the left says so
So I was reading the front pages of a few major national newspapers this week, and almost all of them focused on the 2000 deaths in the war in Iraq. Most newspapers, either in the main body or in their opinion pieces, warned that Iraq could turn into "Another Vietnam."
And then I recieved my Newsweek and on the last page was an article by Anna Quindlen warning us that "[T]he war in Iraq is a disaster in the image and likeness of its predecessor."
Well, I don't want to correct Quindlen's chronology but we were in Panama, Kosovo, Iraq & Afghanistan between Vietnam and this current war. But, I'm getting off topic. Let me point out a few major difference in the two wars:
(1) we would have to continue in Iraq for over 50 years at this rate to reach the death toll of Vietnam.
(2) Obviously our soldiers would rather not go to war, and when they do they want to come home. No kidding, I recommend anyone who wants to deal with the conflict of a healthy mind in war should read Catch-22 and leave the rest of us alone. Because, it is only human nature to not want a war, and its human nature to miss your family. But, let me remind you, this is a volunteer military, we have not "drafted" one combatant for this war.
(3) do not try to compare Lyndon J to George W. At least the current president told the American people that this would be a long, difficult WAR. He is not trying to sugarcoat the war by calling it a CONFLICT. I remember watching him on TV after the quick fall of Baghdad when the president said the invasion was a victory, but the job was not done.
(4) President Bush is committed to letting the military run the war. Say what you will about the cabinet and Bush's advisors; at least we don't have a former business man making all the decisions, and stressing over "confirmed kills," and running the war like a sales spreadsheet (McNamara).
The only way in which Vietnam and Iraq are similar is in the slanted perspective the American public gets beamed to them on television every day.
Let me refresh the memories of some of our reporters. Remember the Tet Offensive? It was that massive attack by the North Vietnamese against almost every major US stronghold. In case you don't remember, the US held their ground and the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the North. But in the US newspapers, the offensive was a strategic victory for the North. All of the negative-US press the offensive received helped turn the tide of public opinion. Well, in this regard Quindlen and all of her fellow journalists have one thing correct: Iraq is like Vietnam, in the horribly biased press the American people are receiving. What about the schools we are building? What about the electric, water, sewer the troops are building. What about the growing rights of women in Iraq. What about the success of getting such a culturally diverse state like Iraq to ratify a Constitution?
Well, I guess people are allowed to believe what they want. I just recently saw John Kerry talking about the US exit strategy for Iraq, he must still believe he won the election and that we care what he has to say. I know a lot of people still have Kerry '04 bumper-stickers, I guess they have a right to live in a state of denial too. But, for those who do live in reality, and those who do realize the importance of a "free and independent" Iraq, those people must not believe the dooms day predictions in the news.
Yes, even 1 death is too many. But this is a war, and to quote Patton, "Soldiers die." The question is not, "Will another soldier die?" Becasue I can tell you the answer is, "Yes." The real question is, "Will their deaths be in vain?" That I can not answer. Stay the course, make it happen, believe in the cause and the answer will be, "No, our soldiers will not die in vain." Listen to the negative press that wants us to pull out and leave Iraq to civil-war, sandwiched between an Isreali hot-zone and a time-bomb in Iran and the answer may be, "Yes." You decide.
And then I recieved my Newsweek and on the last page was an article by Anna Quindlen warning us that "[T]he war in Iraq is a disaster in the image and likeness of its predecessor."
Well, I don't want to correct Quindlen's chronology but we were in Panama, Kosovo, Iraq & Afghanistan between Vietnam and this current war. But, I'm getting off topic. Let me point out a few major difference in the two wars:
(1) we would have to continue in Iraq for over 50 years at this rate to reach the death toll of Vietnam.
(2) Obviously our soldiers would rather not go to war, and when they do they want to come home. No kidding, I recommend anyone who wants to deal with the conflict of a healthy mind in war should read Catch-22 and leave the rest of us alone. Because, it is only human nature to not want a war, and its human nature to miss your family. But, let me remind you, this is a volunteer military, we have not "drafted" one combatant for this war.
(3) do not try to compare Lyndon J to George W. At least the current president told the American people that this would be a long, difficult WAR. He is not trying to sugarcoat the war by calling it a CONFLICT. I remember watching him on TV after the quick fall of Baghdad when the president said the invasion was a victory, but the job was not done.
(4) President Bush is committed to letting the military run the war. Say what you will about the cabinet and Bush's advisors; at least we don't have a former business man making all the decisions, and stressing over "confirmed kills," and running the war like a sales spreadsheet (McNamara).
The only way in which Vietnam and Iraq are similar is in the slanted perspective the American public gets beamed to them on television every day.
Let me refresh the memories of some of our reporters. Remember the Tet Offensive? It was that massive attack by the North Vietnamese against almost every major US stronghold. In case you don't remember, the US held their ground and the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the North. But in the US newspapers, the offensive was a strategic victory for the North. All of the negative-US press the offensive received helped turn the tide of public opinion. Well, in this regard Quindlen and all of her fellow journalists have one thing correct: Iraq is like Vietnam, in the horribly biased press the American people are receiving. What about the schools we are building? What about the electric, water, sewer the troops are building. What about the growing rights of women in Iraq. What about the success of getting such a culturally diverse state like Iraq to ratify a Constitution?
Well, I guess people are allowed to believe what they want. I just recently saw John Kerry talking about the US exit strategy for Iraq, he must still believe he won the election and that we care what he has to say. I know a lot of people still have Kerry '04 bumper-stickers, I guess they have a right to live in a state of denial too. But, for those who do live in reality, and those who do realize the importance of a "free and independent" Iraq, those people must not believe the dooms day predictions in the news.
Yes, even 1 death is too many. But this is a war, and to quote Patton, "Soldiers die." The question is not, "Will another soldier die?" Becasue I can tell you the answer is, "Yes." The real question is, "Will their deaths be in vain?" That I can not answer. Stay the course, make it happen, believe in the cause and the answer will be, "No, our soldiers will not die in vain." Listen to the negative press that wants us to pull out and leave Iraq to civil-war, sandwiched between an Isreali hot-zone and a time-bomb in Iran and the answer may be, "Yes." You decide.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
When helping others, when is it enough?
I do not have an answer to my following observation.
But it is such a prevalent problem today, it deserves a strong dialogue.
When helping people when does one draw the line and say, "Enough is enough."
In business, people can be given second chances. Exceptions can be made. However, eventually a poor performer is demoted or fired. If a consistent poor performer, after reasonable attempts at correction, is not fired it sets a poor example. The precedent will be set. It will not take people long to learn that they can not try at work and still get paid. There is a reason words like criteria, standards, performance, par, assesment and development exist.
Similarly, when raising a child, a parent may need to discipline their child. If a parent continuously threatens a child with punishment, and the punishment never comes, then the child will never behave. Obviously, just like in the business case, exceptions are made and children are given many chances to improve their behavior.
These are two everyday examples of "drawing a line." These are two examples that I feel most people can identify with and agree with. Now keeping these situations in mind I would like to extend the argument to government aid.
When the government gives aid to people to get themselves back on their feet and re-establish a life, when should the government stop giving? "Sooner than later," some will argue; "Never," others will refute. As a side note, I believe that most Americans will agree that a life on welfare is no way to live and raise a family. That being said, under our county's current aid system people are helped just enough so they can get by. Decreasing aid is inhumane because current aid recipients can barely keep their head above water as it is. On the other hand, increasing aid seems outrageous because by providing a higher standard of living it does not motivate people to get jobs. So when should the government say, "No." Telling aid recipients that all their elligible aid is gone and letting them starve to death is an unacceptable way to set an example. But to give aid with no end in sight does not motivate those who are happy to "just make it." I do not have an answer. All I do know is that as a human I want people who need help to get help; however, as a hard working, tax payer, I want these multi-generational welfare recipients to get jobs and become productive.
One of the surest ways to get people off of government aid is to educate them. Here is the second part of my point. How many times can a school give a child a second chance before they are kicked out of school. On one side of the argument, by expelling a child we are setting them up to be future government aid recipients, potential criminals, at best marginally employable and worst of all they become parents who do not instill the importance of education in their children. On the other side of the argument, by continuing to pass these students along to the next grade we destroy the integrity of a diploma or a degree, and worse we set the example that sub-par performance will be tolerated. How long must a student be given chances?
I do not have the best answer to any of these questions. But something has to do done. A line must be drawn somewhere. As a nation we can not (1) provide a basic standard of living for everyone, (2) and rush to the aid of every country with a problem, (3) and continually accept poor academic performance while opening our colleges to more and more foreign scholars, (4) and maintain the appropriate level of national protection without drawing a line in the sand and saying, "No." If being a socialist-nation were the best way to go, the Soviet Union would be the predominant world power, instead of the United States of America.
But it is such a prevalent problem today, it deserves a strong dialogue.
When helping people when does one draw the line and say, "Enough is enough."
In business, people can be given second chances. Exceptions can be made. However, eventually a poor performer is demoted or fired. If a consistent poor performer, after reasonable attempts at correction, is not fired it sets a poor example. The precedent will be set. It will not take people long to learn that they can not try at work and still get paid. There is a reason words like criteria, standards, performance, par, assesment and development exist.
Similarly, when raising a child, a parent may need to discipline their child. If a parent continuously threatens a child with punishment, and the punishment never comes, then the child will never behave. Obviously, just like in the business case, exceptions are made and children are given many chances to improve their behavior.
These are two everyday examples of "drawing a line." These are two examples that I feel most people can identify with and agree with. Now keeping these situations in mind I would like to extend the argument to government aid.
When the government gives aid to people to get themselves back on their feet and re-establish a life, when should the government stop giving? "Sooner than later," some will argue; "Never," others will refute. As a side note, I believe that most Americans will agree that a life on welfare is no way to live and raise a family. That being said, under our county's current aid system people are helped just enough so they can get by. Decreasing aid is inhumane because current aid recipients can barely keep their head above water as it is. On the other hand, increasing aid seems outrageous because by providing a higher standard of living it does not motivate people to get jobs. So when should the government say, "No." Telling aid recipients that all their elligible aid is gone and letting them starve to death is an unacceptable way to set an example. But to give aid with no end in sight does not motivate those who are happy to "just make it." I do not have an answer. All I do know is that as a human I want people who need help to get help; however, as a hard working, tax payer, I want these multi-generational welfare recipients to get jobs and become productive.
One of the surest ways to get people off of government aid is to educate them. Here is the second part of my point. How many times can a school give a child a second chance before they are kicked out of school. On one side of the argument, by expelling a child we are setting them up to be future government aid recipients, potential criminals, at best marginally employable and worst of all they become parents who do not instill the importance of education in their children. On the other side of the argument, by continuing to pass these students along to the next grade we destroy the integrity of a diploma or a degree, and worse we set the example that sub-par performance will be tolerated. How long must a student be given chances?
I do not have the best answer to any of these questions. But something has to do done. A line must be drawn somewhere. As a nation we can not (1) provide a basic standard of living for everyone, (2) and rush to the aid of every country with a problem, (3) and continually accept poor academic performance while opening our colleges to more and more foreign scholars, (4) and maintain the appropriate level of national protection without drawing a line in the sand and saying, "No." If being a socialist-nation were the best way to go, the Soviet Union would be the predominant world power, instead of the United States of America.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Mixed Message - Hurricane Response
There are a number of issues and arguments being made about the recent hurricanes which do not make a whole lot of sense to me.
1) Ever since I was a kid, the education system in the "deep south" has been a sort of running joke. Even as a youngster I could have told you that the gulf coast region of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisianna were the poorest and least educated section of the Union. So if I knew that as a kid, why are all the adults running around saying how this storm exposed the poverty of the gulf coast? The poverty has always been there and we all know it. So, a note to the media, please stop treating these storms as some kind of life altering wake up call - you can't wake people up to things they already know and intentionally ignore.
2) People trashed the president for not responding quickly enough to Hurricane Katrina. But, when he is totally involved and on top of Hurricane Rita, he was accused of over compensating. Before the next national disaster strikes maybe we could take a Gallup poll and see how the American people would like our president to respond.
3) For hypothetical reseasons, lets say that those who were stuck in New Orleans had no way of getting out. Plus, since they survived so many storms in the past, lets even say that they had the historical precedent to assume they were safe. Now fast forward to Hurricane Rita. The entire world watched Hurricane Rita for a week as it crossed the Gulf and headed toward Texas. I could have driven from Chicago to Texas, grabbed some provisions, and driven back to Chicago in that amount of time. So, that being said, can anyone explain to me why after Hurricane Rita passed by I watched people crawling out from under their houses wondering what happened? Furthermore, why were reporters spending time interviewing these "victims," talking about property damage and how lucky these peolple were to be alive?
4) Speakin of people left behind in Texas, did anyone notice the race of most of the people left behind in Texas, they were white. So, even after plenty of notice, a large number or poor/uneducated white people stayed at home to take their chances with Hurricane Rita. Yet, not one politician has been accued of racism, or classism, or any other "ism" with respect to the white people left behind. Yet, when the people left behind in New Orleans were just as poor and just as uneducated, it was obviously racism that motivated politicians to be poorly prepared since the victims are primarily black. Yep, I didn't think that made much sense either.
5) Now this is the biggest point I would like to address. Given the magnitude of our recent national disasters, many people have said that the military is the only organization ready to respond in a timely and efficient manner to sucure an area and save as many lives as possible. Now, this may be true; however, I warn people of the potential ramifications of such a decision. Going back to revolutionary times Americans have been strongly opposed to the military getting involved in domestic affairs. Now, with something as "once in a life time" as Katrina, I think the military should be used (and was used) to restore order to an area. However, be wary of any power you give our president when it comes to deploying our troops in the USA. Someday, the very people who (using the full benefit of hindsight) wish they would have had the military in New Orleans earlier, may be the same people complaining when a future president send the US Military into a domestic situation without asking permission or being asked for help. A president with our military in hand, running all over the country using military might to fix everything may sound a little scary. But, was George W not attacked for not being to formal with government procedure? Didn't people say he should have been more proactive and just taken over the situation; stomping on states rights with one hand and bringing the military in with the other? Okay, maybe those very words were not spoken, but there underlying meaning was just the same.
Be careful what you wish for America, someday you may just get it.
1) Ever since I was a kid, the education system in the "deep south" has been a sort of running joke. Even as a youngster I could have told you that the gulf coast region of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisianna were the poorest and least educated section of the Union. So if I knew that as a kid, why are all the adults running around saying how this storm exposed the poverty of the gulf coast? The poverty has always been there and we all know it. So, a note to the media, please stop treating these storms as some kind of life altering wake up call - you can't wake people up to things they already know and intentionally ignore.
2) People trashed the president for not responding quickly enough to Hurricane Katrina. But, when he is totally involved and on top of Hurricane Rita, he was accused of over compensating. Before the next national disaster strikes maybe we could take a Gallup poll and see how the American people would like our president to respond.
3) For hypothetical reseasons, lets say that those who were stuck in New Orleans had no way of getting out. Plus, since they survived so many storms in the past, lets even say that they had the historical precedent to assume they were safe. Now fast forward to Hurricane Rita. The entire world watched Hurricane Rita for a week as it crossed the Gulf and headed toward Texas. I could have driven from Chicago to Texas, grabbed some provisions, and driven back to Chicago in that amount of time. So, that being said, can anyone explain to me why after Hurricane Rita passed by I watched people crawling out from under their houses wondering what happened? Furthermore, why were reporters spending time interviewing these "victims," talking about property damage and how lucky these peolple were to be alive?
4) Speakin of people left behind in Texas, did anyone notice the race of most of the people left behind in Texas, they were white. So, even after plenty of notice, a large number or poor/uneducated white people stayed at home to take their chances with Hurricane Rita. Yet, not one politician has been accued of racism, or classism, or any other "ism" with respect to the white people left behind. Yet, when the people left behind in New Orleans were just as poor and just as uneducated, it was obviously racism that motivated politicians to be poorly prepared since the victims are primarily black. Yep, I didn't think that made much sense either.
5) Now this is the biggest point I would like to address. Given the magnitude of our recent national disasters, many people have said that the military is the only organization ready to respond in a timely and efficient manner to sucure an area and save as many lives as possible. Now, this may be true; however, I warn people of the potential ramifications of such a decision. Going back to revolutionary times Americans have been strongly opposed to the military getting involved in domestic affairs. Now, with something as "once in a life time" as Katrina, I think the military should be used (and was used) to restore order to an area. However, be wary of any power you give our president when it comes to deploying our troops in the USA. Someday, the very people who (using the full benefit of hindsight) wish they would have had the military in New Orleans earlier, may be the same people complaining when a future president send the US Military into a domestic situation without asking permission or being asked for help. A president with our military in hand, running all over the country using military might to fix everything may sound a little scary. But, was George W not attacked for not being to formal with government procedure? Didn't people say he should have been more proactive and just taken over the situation; stomping on states rights with one hand and bringing the military in with the other? Okay, maybe those very words were not spoken, but there underlying meaning was just the same.
Be careful what you wish for America, someday you may just get it.
