My wife, son and I had the distinct honor of walking among tens of thousands of anti-war protesters at Washington, D.C.’s National Mall yesterday.
As a child of the ’60s who shared lungfuls of teargas with rioting anti-war protesters on the Washington Monument lawn over 35 years ago, I found yesterday’s protest to be both nostalgic and quite surprising.
Despite “peace” and “love” being the buzzwords of the Vietnam era, anti-war protests were neither peaceful nor loving. Obscenities flew and vulgar chants echoed off Washington’s marble and stone. At a circa ’69 star-studded Fourth of July concert in support of American troops in Southeast Asia, a tie-died, hirsute mob managed to drown out a military band with “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your fucking war,” and my favorite, “Fuck Bob Hope, fuck Bob Hope.”
Why they were mad at Bob Hope, I still haven’t figured out. But I do know the ’60s were about anger. The “hippies” had lots to be mad about and the Vietnam War has long since proven to be a monumental blunder, but the youth of that time were not just anti-war. They were often anti-government, anti-military and anti-American. They burned flags, touted socialism and often behaved as disciples of anarchy.
But Saturday’s massive protest was different. By my estimation, at least 100,000 came to the National Mall to voice their opposition to the war and Bush’s recently proposed “surge.” What erupted was, well, a festival.
There were plenty of college-age kids, but I estimate the average age of the protesters to be over 30. Many were over 40 or 50. Grandmothers, grandfathers, and sometimes entire families, carried signs. There were priests and nuns. With the exception of one sign that proclaimed, “Fuck George Bush,” the messages were civil.
The myriad slogans were direct, like “Bush lies, soldiers die” and “Bring our troops home now.”
One young man, who ostensibly woke up late and couldn’t think of a catchy slogan, proudly carried his home-made poster, which read: “War is bad.”
There were dogs with signs draped across their backs, a protester wearing a Richard Nixon mask and an Uncle Sam on stilts. A large, inflatable arch proclaimed the participants as the “True Majority.” A stage served as focal point for the protest and celebrities took turns deriding Bush’s decisions concerning Iraq.
One young man took the microphone and claimed to be an Iraqi opposed to our “occupation,” and while I have no reason to doubt him, his accent and speech reminded me more of a Saturday Night Live skit than the rabble-rousing, anti-war rant it was supposed to be.
A few protesters handed out underground magazines, like “Socialist Worker” and “Militant,” yet when rebuffed with a polite, “No thank you,” they smiled and moved on.
I never saw or heard a single anti-soldier or anti-American comment. No flags (that I know of) were burned. I heard no profanity. Red, white and blue was everywhere.
These protesters wanted their soldiers to come home and they were mad at Bush for sending them into harm’s way, yet there wasn’t a violent vibe in the clear blue sky. People laughed and children played. I smiled and soaked it up. Throw in a livestock competition and an apple-pie-eating contest and it would have been a state fair.
In this post-9/11 era when overzealous security threatens our daily liberty, 100,000 anti-war Americans gathered near the U.S. Capitol, the very seat of power in the free world, and you could hardly find a cop.
There were no police in riot gear slapping batons in their palms. The cops you did see were on the periphery, leaning against their squad cars, sipping coffee and watching like the whole event was a Shriner’s parade. The city even did it’s best to accommodate the crowds by placing block-long rows of porta-poties along the Mall.
My 13-year-old son had never seen such a protest in person. He was surprised so many anti-war protesters could get so close to the nation’s Capitol so easily. He asked what would happen if everyone suddenly charged the Capitol steps in an effort to take the building.
I told him I’m sure many would die, but most would get in. He looked at me, incredulous, yet eventually got the point. Trust is a vital element of freedom.
We wandered carefree amid thousands of strangers, each with a visceral devotion to ending the Iraq war, yet we felt as safe as if we were at a neighborhood park. The reason is simple, but unique to this country. We were with fellow Americans … patriots, every one.
Painful Pundit
###
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
The State of our Disunion
When Congress gave President Bush the authorization to go to war with Iraq, I was skeptical. Not just about the stated reasons for war, but also about the reasons Congress so readily agreed. It seemed to me that the reason members of Congress voted yea had less to do with the reasons put forth by the administration and more to do with getting re-elected. Can we really believe that Cynthia McKenny alone had the insight to recognize the bull coming from the White House?
Here we are 6 years later and Congress has seemingly found their backbone - or have they. More likely they are basing their public statements with an eye towards 2008.
Maybe I'm just cynical. But if we can’t trust our leaders to make intelligent choices, why do we even bother to vote? There’s something wrong with a system that requires our leaders to spend the bulk of their time raising money and running for re-election. It’s very depressing. Rather than vote their conscious, they vote the poll numbers or vote their party.
The problems as I see it are these.
1. Running for office requires too much money. That makes it difficult for any politician, even the honest, conscientious one, to avoid having to spend all their time fundraising.
2. The 2 party system results in gridlock most of the time. The ruling party does everything they can to sabotage the minority party and vice versa. Its not about issues its about winning.
3. We are not being well served by the media. Rather than focus on important issues, we get Natalie, Michael, OJ, TomCat, Federline, Rosie and the Donald. Of course, that’s what we want, they say.
4. Of course the root of all of these problems is us. Negative campaigning works. People vote their party and we have the collective attention span of a two year old.
IMHO we need the following.
1. We need government-funded elections. We need to get past this “Money is the same as speech” argument. It isn’t.
2. We need better candidates for office. How about a selection process at least as rigorous as American Idol. Of course that’s not a perfect system either. (Taylor Hicks)
3. How about a salary and spending cap per party? If they’ve spent their cap, they can’t put up another candidate. I think that would do very well stimulating the creation and growth of other political parties.
4. We need to have a lot more civics education in school. Its sad when the government knows more about you than you know about your government. Scary too.
Of course none of this will happen in my lifetime.
Here we are 6 years later and Congress has seemingly found their backbone - or have they. More likely they are basing their public statements with an eye towards 2008.
Maybe I'm just cynical. But if we can’t trust our leaders to make intelligent choices, why do we even bother to vote? There’s something wrong with a system that requires our leaders to spend the bulk of their time raising money and running for re-election. It’s very depressing. Rather than vote their conscious, they vote the poll numbers or vote their party.
The problems as I see it are these.
1. Running for office requires too much money. That makes it difficult for any politician, even the honest, conscientious one, to avoid having to spend all their time fundraising.
2. The 2 party system results in gridlock most of the time. The ruling party does everything they can to sabotage the minority party and vice versa. Its not about issues its about winning.
3. We are not being well served by the media. Rather than focus on important issues, we get Natalie, Michael, OJ, TomCat, Federline, Rosie and the Donald. Of course, that’s what we want, they say.
4. Of course the root of all of these problems is us. Negative campaigning works. People vote their party and we have the collective attention span of a two year old.
IMHO we need the following.
1. We need government-funded elections. We need to get past this “Money is the same as speech” argument. It isn’t.
2. We need better candidates for office. How about a selection process at least as rigorous as American Idol. Of course that’s not a perfect system either. (Taylor Hicks)
3. How about a salary and spending cap per party? If they’ve spent their cap, they can’t put up another candidate. I think that would do very well stimulating the creation and growth of other political parties.
4. We need to have a lot more civics education in school. Its sad when the government knows more about you than you know about your government. Scary too.
Of course none of this will happen in my lifetime.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Civilians With AK-47s are Not Civilians
Nice words from Montana Gramps. But the "civilian" Iraqi population he wants to protect IS the problem. That’s where the religious fanatics come from.
He makes it sound like there are four major groups: the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds and the civilians. Nay-nay, grizzly-breath. The "civilians" we're protecting in Iraq are also the sectarian fighters and insurgents. Trying to separate the minority of innocent, American-loving civilians from the hoards of Islamic zealots willing to fight and die for their flavor of religion is impossible and naïve.
The vast majority of Iraqis don’t want us there and the vast majority insist that our presence INCREASES violence. This is a no-brainer. Say bye-bye.
Guard the boarders; guard the oil fields; offer air support; drop smart bombs. Invest, rebuild and advise. But get our sons and daughters off the streets in flimsy Humvees, offering apple pie to armed, pissed-off Iraqis who want a religious, sectarian government and will kill us to get it.
Painful Pundit
He makes it sound like there are four major groups: the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds and the civilians. Nay-nay, grizzly-breath. The "civilians" we're protecting in Iraq are also the sectarian fighters and insurgents. Trying to separate the minority of innocent, American-loving civilians from the hoards of Islamic zealots willing to fight and die for their flavor of religion is impossible and naïve.
The vast majority of Iraqis don’t want us there and the vast majority insist that our presence INCREASES violence. This is a no-brainer. Say bye-bye.
Guard the boarders; guard the oil fields; offer air support; drop smart bombs. Invest, rebuild and advise. But get our sons and daughters off the streets in flimsy Humvees, offering apple pie to armed, pissed-off Iraqis who want a religious, sectarian government and will kill us to get it.
Painful Pundit
Friday, January 19, 2007
Where do we go from here?
I'll admit right up front that I'm a liberal democrat. I've also been against our folly in Iraq since the beginning. I've written editors, bloggers and my circle of friends and I haven't been shy in sharing my views. I'm also not a big fan of this President.
Given my views and the path this war has taken, it would be easy to just say "I told you so" and to demand that we pull out of Iraq. It would also be easy to ask that we impeach this President.
But I'll do neither. We are where we are and "I told you so's" won't do anyone any good.
I'm also not a big believer in solving problems with military muscle. But I'm a realist. Sometimes the only options you have are bad and worse.
Iraq is one of those problems. We've created a hell of a mess in Iraq. And its a bi-partisan mess at that. While I supported President Clinton, the eight years of "no-fly-zones" and almost daily bombings has contributed to the mess we're in. So I don't lay the entire blame at Bush's feet (just most of it).
Its pretty clear that we're in the middle of a civil war. Not only that, its a war between religious factions. So its highly unlikely that one side will ever surrender. So all of the military muscle in the world won't 'fix" Iraq.
The best we can hope to do at this point is to try and limit the collateral damage. The current shift in strategy in Iraq changes our mission from defeating the insurgents (which will never happen) to protecting the civilian population. I cannot dismiss this change out of hand. Its currently the right thing to do and pretty much our only course.
In my opinion, it would be immoral to leave the civilian population to the mercy of these fanatical religious groups. We broke Iraq and we have some moral obligation, at the very least, to fix it.
As for Bush. I don't want him impeached. I want him jailed, and in Gitmo if possible.
Given my views and the path this war has taken, it would be easy to just say "I told you so" and to demand that we pull out of Iraq. It would also be easy to ask that we impeach this President.
But I'll do neither. We are where we are and "I told you so's" won't do anyone any good.
I'm also not a big believer in solving problems with military muscle. But I'm a realist. Sometimes the only options you have are bad and worse.
Iraq is one of those problems. We've created a hell of a mess in Iraq. And its a bi-partisan mess at that. While I supported President Clinton, the eight years of "no-fly-zones" and almost daily bombings has contributed to the mess we're in. So I don't lay the entire blame at Bush's feet (just most of it).
Its pretty clear that we're in the middle of a civil war. Not only that, its a war between religious factions. So its highly unlikely that one side will ever surrender. So all of the military muscle in the world won't 'fix" Iraq.
The best we can hope to do at this point is to try and limit the collateral damage. The current shift in strategy in Iraq changes our mission from defeating the insurgents (which will never happen) to protecting the civilian population. I cannot dismiss this change out of hand. Its currently the right thing to do and pretty much our only course.
In my opinion, it would be immoral to leave the civilian population to the mercy of these fanatical religious groups. We broke Iraq and we have some moral obligation, at the very least, to fix it.
As for Bush. I don't want him impeached. I want him jailed, and in Gitmo if possible.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Soundbites Are Not Good Military Policy
Stay the course. Don’t cut and run. Failure is not an option. Pithy catch-phrases all, and probably good motivation when you’re building a college football program, trying to stay on a diet or saving a marriage.
The phrases might even motivate troops to fight with zeal, but they should never be the inflexible credo of a military commander. In war, people who have nothing to do with the decision to engage in battle die hideous deaths; young people; innocent people. Making decisions about war based on egotistical and evocative sound bites is immoral.
Refusing to retreat can be bad military strategy. You don’t stay the course when the road ahead is mined. When faced with a losing scenario, smart commanders retreat to fight another day. Just ask the men of Dunkirk.
In 1940, the German army pinned down hundreds of thousands of British and French forces in the coastal town of Dunkirk, France in what would be named the Battle of France. They faced certain annihilation, yet most certainly would have fought to their deaths if given the order.
Thankfully, Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay and Winston Churchill devised Operation Dynamo, an outrageous plan to use almost every sailing vessel in Great Britain to rescue these soldiers. While many boats and ships were sunk, and countless soldiers died, the operation saved over 300,000.
Those left behind were killed or captured.
Many British soldiers thought they would suffer public scorn for running away in one of the first major battles of what would become World War II, yet the English public considered the operation a glorious victory. Most Brits were certain the Germans would invade England next, and they were thankful for every soldier spared in Dunkirk.
What is little known about Operation Dynamo is that some soldiers immediately returned to the Battle of France to re-engage the Germans. Most were killed or captured and were unavailable to protect their homeland or assist in the decisive battles that ultimately won the war.
A smart military commander doesn’t use his troops as an ablative shield for political posturing or chest-thumping bravado. A smart military commander picks his battles, and carefully weights the potential gain against the potential losses.
Our government’s new plan for Iraq is the same old plan. There have been troop surges in ’04, ’05 and the summer of ’06. Yet December ’06 became one of the deadliest for U. S. soldiers in the conflict’s history.
It’s reported that 78 percent of Iraqis believe that the current troop presence provokes more violence than it prevents. They would know.
How will the Iraqi citizens respond to an escalation in U. S. troop strength?
“More forces, U.S. and coalition forces, create the impression of an occupation,” said Donald Rumsfeld.
A troop surge could very likely result in the expansion of insurgent violence against Americans.
As long as coalition forces are willing to do the heavy lifting for the Iraqi government, it’s unlikely they will step up and do what needs to be done. Our withdrawal could indeed spark a blood bath of sectarian violence, but it’s likely to happen regardless of when we leave. Leaving now saves American lives.
It’s possible that if we begin a withdrawal, the Iraqi government will finally assume responsibility for their security and do what needs to be done to maintain the peace.
The things that have to change in Iraq are out of our hands. Even pro-surge pundits admit that for our “course” to be successful, we must essentially heal the Sunni-Shiite rift. I would not be willing to gamble one American life against the odds of mending centuries of religious hate. Any commander who would isn’t worth a salute.
Iraq is different than Dunkirk in many ways, but the military value of a strategic retreat remains a viable option in almost any conflict. The Iraqi people have to learn to live with themselves, and U.S. troops aren’t likely to make that happen.
Over 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, and over 22,000 wounded in Iraq. Let’s bring the rest home. Now.
The Painful Pundit
###
The phrases might even motivate troops to fight with zeal, but they should never be the inflexible credo of a military commander. In war, people who have nothing to do with the decision to engage in battle die hideous deaths; young people; innocent people. Making decisions about war based on egotistical and evocative sound bites is immoral.
Refusing to retreat can be bad military strategy. You don’t stay the course when the road ahead is mined. When faced with a losing scenario, smart commanders retreat to fight another day. Just ask the men of Dunkirk.
In 1940, the German army pinned down hundreds of thousands of British and French forces in the coastal town of Dunkirk, France in what would be named the Battle of France. They faced certain annihilation, yet most certainly would have fought to their deaths if given the order.
Thankfully, Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay and Winston Churchill devised Operation Dynamo, an outrageous plan to use almost every sailing vessel in Great Britain to rescue these soldiers. While many boats and ships were sunk, and countless soldiers died, the operation saved over 300,000.
Those left behind were killed or captured.
Many British soldiers thought they would suffer public scorn for running away in one of the first major battles of what would become World War II, yet the English public considered the operation a glorious victory. Most Brits were certain the Germans would invade England next, and they were thankful for every soldier spared in Dunkirk.
What is little known about Operation Dynamo is that some soldiers immediately returned to the Battle of France to re-engage the Germans. Most were killed or captured and were unavailable to protect their homeland or assist in the decisive battles that ultimately won the war.
A smart military commander doesn’t use his troops as an ablative shield for political posturing or chest-thumping bravado. A smart military commander picks his battles, and carefully weights the potential gain against the potential losses.
Our government’s new plan for Iraq is the same old plan. There have been troop surges in ’04, ’05 and the summer of ’06. Yet December ’06 became one of the deadliest for U. S. soldiers in the conflict’s history.
It’s reported that 78 percent of Iraqis believe that the current troop presence provokes more violence than it prevents. They would know.
How will the Iraqi citizens respond to an escalation in U. S. troop strength?
“More forces, U.S. and coalition forces, create the impression of an occupation,” said Donald Rumsfeld.
A troop surge could very likely result in the expansion of insurgent violence against Americans.
As long as coalition forces are willing to do the heavy lifting for the Iraqi government, it’s unlikely they will step up and do what needs to be done. Our withdrawal could indeed spark a blood bath of sectarian violence, but it’s likely to happen regardless of when we leave. Leaving now saves American lives.
It’s possible that if we begin a withdrawal, the Iraqi government will finally assume responsibility for their security and do what needs to be done to maintain the peace.
The things that have to change in Iraq are out of our hands. Even pro-surge pundits admit that for our “course” to be successful, we must essentially heal the Sunni-Shiite rift. I would not be willing to gamble one American life against the odds of mending centuries of religious hate. Any commander who would isn’t worth a salute.
Iraq is different than Dunkirk in many ways, but the military value of a strategic retreat remains a viable option in almost any conflict. The Iraqi people have to learn to live with themselves, and U.S. troops aren’t likely to make that happen.
Over 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, and over 22,000 wounded in Iraq. Let’s bring the rest home. Now.
The Painful Pundit
###
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Iraq and a hard place
Welcome. This is the inaugral posting to Iraq and a Hard Place, a blog dedicated to our ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror. Anyone may comment on our posts (moderated of cource) and we will even entertain guest authors who we deem creditable.
So begin posting.
So begin posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)