Cut and Run Campaign

Democrats are the party of the cut and run. This is the newest campaign strategy from the brilliant mind of Karl Rove. Leaving Iraq now would make the U.S. look like cowards in the eyes of the world and our enemies. This is a great campaign strategy because it limits Democrats choices of response. If they don’t respond it leaves the impression they don’t have an answer to the charge. By responding Democrats gives the charge merit and sends a message of defensiveness, which adds credence to Rove’s claim. Not to mention the resources and time democratic candidates will spend defending their patriotism. All it has cost Rove is the time it took to say three words. Cut and Run. As an added bonus it fits great on a bumper sticker and just in time for election season. Meanwhile, the issues of who’s been managing and mishandling the war, immigration, the nation’s economy and security go unexamined. Mr. Rove is great at his job. He is a master manipulator of the electorate and winner of the electoral game. Even though he was under investigation for leaking classified information for political gain he’s still able to question the patriotism of others with impunity. Honestly, credit needs to go where credit is due. Well done Mr. Rove.
Which bring us to the next point. What do Democrats do to fight back against this political logic trap set by Rove? The answer is to fight Rove’s strategy by using it against him. Cut and run is what Karl claims Democrats want to do. If Karl means Democrats want to stop soldiers from being killed without a clear mission, then yes it’s time to cut and run from such a flawed policy. Does Karl believe that Democrats want to cut and run from plans and policies that are costing taxpayers billion of dollars with no concrete return? Karl would be right. While isolating Americans in the eyes of our allies and embolden our enemies to build and seek out nuclear weapons to keep from sharing Iraq’s fate the Bush plan has wasted much in the way of time and resources. Troops on the ground have paid the highest toll. To cut and run from such policies only make prudent sense. The president’s critics have been pleading with him. Cut Rumsfield from the cabinet and run to a more cohesive and effective strategy regarding, not only Iraq, but gas prices, the economy and the war on terror in general. For months now leaders on both sides of the aisle have asked the President to cut and run from bad decisions made in the past in order to capitalize on opportunities and conditions in the here and now. Karl's found a very clever way to restate the obvious. Critics of the administration, by definition want to cut and run from these failed strategies. Karl’s own strategy of attacking the resolve, courage and patriotism of critics rather than trumpeting administration successes shows that given the opportunity Karl would cut and run from the record and facts if he was able. The best he can do is ignore the record and distract the rest of us from it. Karl is a genius of political manipulation and for that he has my appreciation and respect. Is it also possible to label Karl as a genius of courage or of ethics? These titles unfortunately elude him. I would settle and would hope for a genius of policy somewhere in the halls of the White House. Karl’s good at what he does, but he does not add value to the political process only noise and distraction. We all have our talents and Karl Rove certainly has his.

Change of Perspective

The development of agriculture transformed human culture thousands of years ago. The ability to manage our food supply allowed for larger populations and a more stable and complex cultural model. How we produce and gather our food has colored language, art and religion longer than history is able to remember. The very idea of a nation of people was built on a group’s common diet. Different groups having contact with each other was rare and often resulted in violence and fear. This model of human behavior played out relatively unchanged until the most recent of times. The First World War became one of the first to be fought using these old ideas of nationalism and the new tools of the industrial age. The last century was made one of the most violent in history thanks to this dangerous combination.
The human perspective changed the day we saw the Earth through the eyes of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. On July 21, 1969 we were shown the small boat that carries us all from a vantage point unprecedented in the history of the world. Now we have moved into the information age. Coming into contact with people different than us is all but impossible to avoid. Eliminating cultures and people is no longer seen as a moral or realistic goal. Live in peace or not at all have come to be our only options. The challenge today is finding a way to maintain our own identity while accepting and integrating others with strange and different values. Differences are easy to notice as we look at our neighbors. What we have in common takes more time to draw out and see. Muslims have been a focus of our national attention since 9/11. 5 years after those attacks what do we really know about the 22 percent of the human population that call themselves Islamic? Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim a cultural heritage back to Abraham. Liberals and Conservatives both point to the Constitution as the source of their political conviction. What else do these groups have in common? Sometimes finding out is as simple as asking. We set ourselves to battle over which culture has the better worldview without looking to see what views we share. In our mobile and connected society we are bumping into one another more and more. The old way of seeing those on the inside of a community as good and those on the outside as bad will not work anymore. The future depends on finding a new way of seeing ourselves. Perhaps the best place to start is from the perspective of the moon.

My Lai Revisited

Young soldiers are trained to follow orders. Failure to do so can get people killed during the fog of war. The wisdom of the military command structure comes from the very nature of war. War is chaos and confusion wrapped in fear. The basic chain of command keeps young soldiers able to do their duty while still holding on to their souls. What happens then when this chain is broken? This system begins to fail when those in command are filled with more fear and confusion of purpose than the young soldier whose feet have marched for so long to the orders of his superiors. What a terrible burden for those caught between doing their duty and refusing to turn away from what makes them human.
Numerous has been the comparisons of the Iraq war to Viet Nam. The most recent and chilling comparison comes from Haditha Iraq, where 24 civilians were killed by Marines frustrated by endless sorrow from lost friends killed by unseen enemies, no objective to win, no front line to hold or take. 37 years separate this event and those of a small village of Viet Nam called My Lai. On March 16, 1968 after being killed and wounded by landmines, snipers and trail side traps (today we refer to them as improvised explosive devices) soldiers of Charlie Company were agitated, exhausted and thirsty for revenge against the unseen enemy. When Lt. William Calley gave the order to search and destroy the village a horror and tragedy occurred when 300 unarmed civilians were brutally murdered.
The Haditha killings were triggered by an IED explosion that killed the driver of a humvee on the morning of November 19th 2005. Ordered to move into the neighborhood to look for the perpetrators of the attack. Soldiers found release for their rage and expression for their revenge in the killing of 24 unarmed men, women and children as young as 2. Just as in Viet Nam there was an attempted cover up. Now that the facts are coming to light “Core Values Training” is being reviewed for all personnel in Iraq. A clear policy of battlefield ethics can be a valuable tool for those on the front lines. To adhere to a list of things a soldier shall not do, no matter what the order or from whom it is given, is just another duty we now ask our young soldiers to perform. What standards of ethics should war planners be held to? What responsibility does the Secretary of Defense hold as creator of the situation in Iraq that has tested and strained the ethical boundaries of those facing fear on the streets day in and day out. It is not by coincidence that My Lai and Haditha share so much. Viet Nam and Iraq share common flaws of planning and goals. Now the two conflicts share common tragedies and shame. It’s not too late to acknowledge mistakes made in the past and let history help us navigate the future. As the situation continues to deteriorate into the policy mess that was Viet Nam, the slogan of “Support our Troops” takes on a more profound and urgent meaning. More can be lost by service men than life and limb. At stake is a loss of innocence. At stake is the trust a soldier needs in the orders he is given and the righteousness of the duty he is called to perform. Moral failures on the streets of Iraq are extensions of failures in planning made in command centers and Pentagon war rooms. At the source of all this tragedy is the lack of leadership and moral guidance given by the top of the command chain. The Commander and Chief is not at fault for all that has happened since the Iraq invasion. The Commander in Chief carries the responsibility. For the safety and security of all of our men and women serving in such a difficult situation I hope this chain of command is mended soon.

The Zarqawi Opportunity

In the fall of 2002 the Bush administration used it’s political capital to put pressure on Iraq. The administration along with congress demanded Iraq readmit UN weapon inspectors into the country. After 5 months of looking Hans Blix, head of the UN investigation of Iraq, strongly requested more time to search for weapons in Iraq. At this point the Bush administration could have claimed a great success. With a limited use of political pressure and resources the President was able to get inspectors back on the ground in Iraq and focus attention once more on this dangerous regime. Unfortunately the administration was inpatient or set on specific results that the inspectors weren’t giving him. Whatever the motive the administration began the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. This decision came with the burden of great expense and loss. The invasion has cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and the diplomatic respect of the U.S. from the rest of the world. The Iraqi military was defeated, and Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. Had we a plan and infrastructure in place to secure the peace after the fall of Saddam we might have had another great victory against tyranny and moved our military and humanitarian might to other targets in the war on terror. This post war plan never materialized and within the chaos that followed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rose to prominence.
It is the nature of all politicians to take credit for the hard work of others. George Bush will surly add the killing of Zarqawi to his list of accomplishments. We should remember however that it was the unknown and unnamed men and women of the U.S. armed forces that took the risks, made the sacrifices and did the job. When given goals that have clear objectives and targets our military shines as the most efficient and effective in the world. Finding and ultimately killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi took all the skills and perseverance our service men and women have to give. The Bush administration should not receive credit for successes without acknowledging the mistakes they have made creating the situation that we have today. That having been said, I would be willing to pin a medal on President Bush myself if I thought he would use this opportunity to begin pulling our forces out of harms way in Iraq. With the removal of Zarqawi and the dismantling of his network violence that he caused should diminish in the days to come. Pulling even a symbolic number of troops back and out of the country would signal a possible end to it at last. Hope, not only for our forces but the nation of Iraq itself. Such a move toward the end of the occupation would boost poll numbers for the President, encourage Republican voters this November and let Iraqis know that we are not there to stay. The message we could now send to people of Iraq is that our faith and our hope lies with them and not with our military might to bring about a better Iraqi nation. I, of all people, don’t want to see George Bush given undue credit for cleaning up messes he helped create but, if the price of success in Iraq is credit given to the President then so be it. Taking advantage of this opportunity now will add to Republican prospects in the coming elections. Democrats should do everything they can to help and encourage the administration to take advantage of this new opportunity, even at the expense of their own political position come November. The gate is closing rapidly on another opportunity to change world events for the better. To take full advantage of the heroism of those that brought justice to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi it will take a united effort of Democrat and Republican. I hope election year politics don’t get in the way of this chance at a hopeful Iraq we all want.