Part II of the WaPost serialization of Bob Woodward's new book is out today. Fascinating stuff, especially the inner machinations of the Joint Chiefs. It is obvious that Pete Pace simply ran out of steam at some point, as we saw in the summer of 2007 when he was replaced by Mike Mullen.
A couple of things to think about.
One of the beauties of this republic is civilian control of the military, and this series is showing just how beautiful that concept is (just as LBJ's target selection meetings showed how faulty it can also be). George Bush has assiduously avoided meddling in "the situation on the ground". He relied on the advice and counsel of his senior DOD and military advisers, he gave them what they asked for, and they made a mess of it. We hired him to lead, and so he did. He sought other opinions, asked probing questions...but more than anything else, he refused to lose. Professor Eliot Cohen has a great book called "Supreme Command" in which he details the relationships between Commanders in Chief and their subordinate military leaders. He concludes (among other things) that war is too important to be left solely to the generals (and admirals). Clausewitz had it right...war is a continuation of policy (politics). It is an inherently political act.
So when the Joint Chiefs got their panties in an uproar about "surging" and "breaking the force", because it was going to use up the "strategic reserve", the President made a political decision: that the use of the strategic reserve was called for in a situation in which we were about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Chiefs just never got this...they never understood the political dimension of losing in Iraq. Why did it have to take the President pointing out the chaos in a capital undercuts ANY real sense of progress elsewhere?
I'm also glad that it this book (again, a first draft of history), shows that there WAS disagreement between the JCS and the President, and that that disagreement was aired. The Chiefs didn't just sit in their offices and grouse. They disagreed with the President, and they told him so. Any public view of these guys as sycophants should be undercut by these revelations. Their job is to make their reservations known, to as articulately and forcefully advocate for their positions as they can, and then salute the flag and carry out the mission they are given. That's how our system works. Yes, they disagreed with the President. But there was no coup d'etat. We are not now ruled by a military junta. They went back to the drawing board and figured out how to implement the POLITICAL direction they were given by the Commander-in-Chief.
I hope you are all proud of how this process works. Again, you might not like the political objective chosen by the President, but the process is a damn sight better than anything else in the world.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
New Blog Link
I've added a link to the History News Network, after discovering the editor by reading an editorial of his this morning.
Looks like a smart, timely and interesting site. Enjoy.
Looks like a smart, timely and interesting site. Enjoy.
Woodward and Bush
Bob Woodward has written another book on the Bush Administration (I think his fourth), and it is something I will definitely read. The Post is serializing it this week, with part 1 in this morning's paper.
Woodward's previous books about the Bush Administration were remarkable for the access he had and the people he got to talk to him. His stature as the best investigative reporter in the country is well earned, and it helps him get the sources he wants.
Few of the revelations in his books have been favorable to George Bush. One consistent theme in the books I've read however (which are in fact, first drafts of history) is how smart and engaged the President REALLY is. Read this article. You might disagree vehemently with George Bush's policies, you might think our entry into the War in Iraq was misguided and poorly executed...but if you continue to believe George Bush is stupid, incurious, walled off, unengaged or not up to the job...you have simply decided to ignore the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
On another note, General Petreaus' predecessor as Viceroy of Iraq is a guy named General George Casey. Casey apparently sang like a canary for Woodward in this book. After strategically misinterpreting Iraq throughout his two year tour there, he has decided to ensure his version of events make their way into the record. Oh...in case you're wondering what happened to General Casey? He was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. President Bush, like they say...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Woodward's previous books about the Bush Administration were remarkable for the access he had and the people he got to talk to him. His stature as the best investigative reporter in the country is well earned, and it helps him get the sources he wants.
Few of the revelations in his books have been favorable to George Bush. One consistent theme in the books I've read however (which are in fact, first drafts of history) is how smart and engaged the President REALLY is. Read this article. You might disagree vehemently with George Bush's policies, you might think our entry into the War in Iraq was misguided and poorly executed...but if you continue to believe George Bush is stupid, incurious, walled off, unengaged or not up to the job...you have simply decided to ignore the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
On another note, General Petreaus' predecessor as Viceroy of Iraq is a guy named General George Casey. Casey apparently sang like a canary for Woodward in this book. After strategically misinterpreting Iraq throughout his two year tour there, he has decided to ensure his version of events make their way into the record. Oh...in case you're wondering what happened to General Casey? He was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. President Bush, like they say...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
On Sprawl
They say the states are laboratories of democracy, and I believe it. I'm still studying this proposal, but it seems that the State of California is considering legislation that would give infrastructure and transportation improvement precedence to existing "high-density" areas where people already live and work (rather than fueling sprawl by providing easy access to outlying areas).
This is an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions by creating less of a need for people to drive to the places they need to go. I look forward to seeing how this turns out, but on the face of it, it looks like enlightened policy using market forces (yes, the government is a player in the market) to combat sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions.
This is an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions by creating less of a need for people to drive to the places they need to go. I look forward to seeing how this turns out, but on the face of it, it looks like enlightened policy using market forces (yes, the government is a player in the market) to combat sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions.
On the American Voter
Interesting article this morning in the Post about American voters. Citing "5 Myths", the author does a good job of skewering the romantic (and widely held) view of American voters as somehow knowledgeable and informed. It was nice to see that Rush Limbaugh listeners were (on the average) more knowledgeable about politics and social issues than the average American. I'm not a Rush listener, but most of the callers I hear when I do tune in (rare) are generally up to speed on the issues (after they impoverish themselves by saying "mega dittoes" or whatever it is they say).
O'Reilly on the other hand is a different story. Again, I'm not surprised that his viewers are at least as knowledgeable as those who watch the Daily Show (aim high, huh?). I'm just can't stand O'Reilly. He should never be considered conservative. He's a classic populist, and I just don't like populists (grandstanders, least common denominator, you know the type).
I'm also heartened by the myth of young voters--they tend to be energetic, emotional, involved....and I think they give off a sense that there are more of them because of this.
O'Reilly on the other hand is a different story. Again, I'm not surprised that his viewers are at least as knowledgeable as those who watch the Daily Show (aim high, huh?). I'm just can't stand O'Reilly. He should never be considered conservative. He's a classic populist, and I just don't like populists (grandstanders, least common denominator, you know the type).
I'm also heartened by the myth of young voters--they tend to be energetic, emotional, involved....and I think they give off a sense that there are more of them because of this.
On a Coalition of Denial
News this morning of a planned naval exercise between the Venezuelans and the Russians (hat tip to Mudge) to take place later this year. We're probably going to have to get used to the machinations of this "Coalition of Denial" as time goes by.
What do I mean by this? Well, the basic thrust is this (flows from a lot of the work we did on the maritime strategy and a the work of a number of international relations theorists): the global economy and the global system works largely to the benefit of the nations who participate in it. The degree to which ones economy is integrated in that system is a sign of that nation's support for and investment in that economy.
There are plenty of nations out there who look at this global system as a cafeteria if you will, one in which they walk down the line of markets and fully participate in some, partially participate in others, and choose not to participate in still others. We are not one of these nations, nor is Europe, much of South and Central America, much of Asia and increasingly, China. The prosperous (and increasingly free) portions of the earth generally tend to be more fully vested in the global system.
There are nations out there who for whatever reason, haven't gotten fully in the game. In some cases, it is because they are simply economic basket cases, and they cannot muster the table stakes to meaningfully participate in the game. In others, domestic politics drive a sense of aloofness from (or more malignantly, superiority to) the system. As we sought to lay out a series of alternative futures into which our emerging Maritime Strategy would fit, we looked very closely at just such a dynamic, one in which a "coalition of denial" emerges. More specifically, nations without as much investment in a cooperative and interdependent global system would tend to form alliances and relationships designed largely to exercise power in spite of the larger system. Take to an extreme, these countries would cooperate in order to subvert the system.
Who are the likely participants in this growing club? Well, Russia and Venezuela for instance. And Iran. And Cuba (though I honestly think Fidel's death WILL bring them closer to the global system). And a host of Central and South American nations who have turned to elected socialism in reaction to globalization. And some nations in Africa who are resource rich but liberty poor.
What does this mean for the US? It means a continued important and dominant role of leadership in the globalized economy and the global political order. I know, I know, I sound a little like a "citizen of the world" type. That's not what I'm saying. We are a sovereign nation with our own interests. Our interests are however, very closely aligned with others for whom the global economy brings prosperity and freedom. Our relationship with these other nations is in our national interest--as is our continued leadership within that system.
What do I mean by this? Well, the basic thrust is this (flows from a lot of the work we did on the maritime strategy and a the work of a number of international relations theorists): the global economy and the global system works largely to the benefit of the nations who participate in it. The degree to which ones economy is integrated in that system is a sign of that nation's support for and investment in that economy.
There are plenty of nations out there who look at this global system as a cafeteria if you will, one in which they walk down the line of markets and fully participate in some, partially participate in others, and choose not to participate in still others. We are not one of these nations, nor is Europe, much of South and Central America, much of Asia and increasingly, China. The prosperous (and increasingly free) portions of the earth generally tend to be more fully vested in the global system.
There are nations out there who for whatever reason, haven't gotten fully in the game. In some cases, it is because they are simply economic basket cases, and they cannot muster the table stakes to meaningfully participate in the game. In others, domestic politics drive a sense of aloofness from (or more malignantly, superiority to) the system. As we sought to lay out a series of alternative futures into which our emerging Maritime Strategy would fit, we looked very closely at just such a dynamic, one in which a "coalition of denial" emerges. More specifically, nations without as much investment in a cooperative and interdependent global system would tend to form alliances and relationships designed largely to exercise power in spite of the larger system. Take to an extreme, these countries would cooperate in order to subvert the system.
Who are the likely participants in this growing club? Well, Russia and Venezuela for instance. And Iran. And Cuba (though I honestly think Fidel's death WILL bring them closer to the global system). And a host of Central and South American nations who have turned to elected socialism in reaction to globalization. And some nations in Africa who are resource rich but liberty poor.
What does this mean for the US? It means a continued important and dominant role of leadership in the globalized economy and the global political order. I know, I know, I sound a little like a "citizen of the world" type. That's not what I'm saying. We are a sovereign nation with our own interests. Our interests are however, very closely aligned with others for whom the global economy brings prosperity and freedom. Our relationship with these other nations is in our national interest--as is our continued leadership within that system.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Looks like Uncle Sugar is going to ride in to the rescue of these anomalous institutions. Word is they are going into "conservatorship" rather than "receivership". The distinction here is beyond me, but as defined in the article, conservatorship sets the business up to return to private operation, and receivership sets it up to be dismantled.
The problem though, is that these are NOT private operations. They are quasi-private, with the US Government still acting as an oversight authority.
What is needed is a temporary state in which the US government exercises increased control, prior to completely privatizing them. Both are huge Democratic Party hobby-horses, but the time has come for them to sink or swim in the market.
The problem though, is that these are NOT private operations. They are quasi-private, with the US Government still acting as an oversight authority.
What is needed is a temporary state in which the US government exercises increased control, prior to completely privatizing them. Both are huge Democratic Party hobby-horses, but the time has come for them to sink or swim in the market.
Karma Sucks, Huh Charlie (Rangel)
It seems the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (he of the three rent-controlled apartments rolled into one in Harlem) also was unaware of his responsibilities to pay taxes on income generated from his luxury condo property in the islands. You know, the one that he bought with an interest free loan....
Rangel is a machine politician in every sense of the word. His sense of entitlement knows no bounds. It causes me a great deal of happiness to see him begin to get the scrutiny he deserves.
Rangel is a machine politician in every sense of the word. His sense of entitlement knows no bounds. It causes me a great deal of happiness to see him begin to get the scrutiny he deserves.
Waiting for a Tropical Storm
It appears we here on the Eastern Shore may be spared Hanna's greater impact, but I can't tell for sure. All I can say is right now, things look pretty good here. I've included a picture (from last Autumn) of the view from the window where I write. We're about 70 feet from the embankment, with the Miles River just on the other side. Catherine's been through storms like this her whole life out here, and it has been interesting to watch her work through her check-0ff list.
Unfortunately, the storm has caused my buddies and I to pass on today's UVA/Richmond game.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Washington Post Paints Itself in a Corner
This editorial should come back to haunt the Post. Making the point that one good speech does not a record of experience and accomplishment make, the Post clearly leaves itself open to a charge of inconsistency if it endorses Senator Obama for President. By some measures, Senator Obama is less qualified for the Presidency than is Governor Palin.
I'm getting sick of the new answer to Senator Obama's inexperience...that somehow the experience of running for President and winning a nomination is somehow indicative of the experience necessary to be President. This is not the case, and is clearly not the case in the Democratic Party, where voters tend to fall in love with candidates (while Republicans tend to nominate the guy whose turn it is....)
I'm getting sick of the new answer to Senator Obama's inexperience...that somehow the experience of running for President and winning a nomination is somehow indicative of the experience necessary to be President. This is not the case, and is clearly not the case in the Democratic Party, where voters tend to fall in love with candidates (while Republicans tend to nominate the guy whose turn it is....)
Getting Aggressive in Pakistan
An interesting story here about a joint US/Afghan special forces raid into the "ungoverened' territories of Pakistan.
I had been a bit troubled by our government's distancing itself from Musharraf as he came to the ignominious end of his political tenure. I am troubled no more. I see evidence of a tacit deal here, one in which the Paks said that "...if you keep quiet about moving Musharraf aside, we'll work harder to crack down on the Islamists in Waziristan (which they have) and we'll keep quiet if you conduct operations here (which we have)".
If selling out Musharraf is the price of getting Bin Laden, then I'm ok with paying it.
I had been a bit troubled by our government's distancing itself from Musharraf as he came to the ignominious end of his political tenure. I am troubled no more. I see evidence of a tacit deal here, one in which the Paks said that "...if you keep quiet about moving Musharraf aside, we'll work harder to crack down on the Islamists in Waziristan (which they have) and we'll keep quiet if you conduct operations here (which we have)".
If selling out Musharraf is the price of getting Bin Laden, then I'm ok with paying it.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
On Governor Palin's Speech
Well done, well delivered. This is a woman with whom to be reckoned. She's going to be formidable on the stump, and an excellent Vice President.
I am really excited about this ticket.
I am really excited about this ticket.
Great Days Ahead for the National GOP
As I watch Governor Palin give her speech, read about Bobby Jindal down in Louisiana, and think about Tim Pawlenty up in Minnesota, I'm convinced that no matter how this election goes, the Republican Party's got some stars ready to pick up the flag and carry it into future battles.
On Airline Leapers
I have identified yet another annoying brand of air traveler I despise (can anyone forget the "Headrest Snapper"?), someone I have identified as an "Airline Leaper".
You know the type (perhaps you are the type. Heavens. Not one of my readers). These folks are the ones you hear clicking their seatbelts open long before the jet has come to a complete stop and the captain has extinguished the seatbelt sign. Irrespective of how many rows they are from the door, they leap up into the aisle to retrieve their belongings from the overhead bin and then camp out in the aisle, usually conducting banal cell phone conversation with someone lucky enough to have been contacted with the great news of our subject's arrival. There they stand, uncomfortably violating my personal space (I'm an aisle seat guy) while they stand there seemingly surprised that they cannot immediately exit the airplane. Sit down, Jack. And wait your turn to leave.
Another guy I don't like too much is the business traveler whose doffing of the standard issue sportcoat turns into a matador-like performance in which the (cape) jacket eventually winds up folded neatly into the overhead bin, whilst other passengers patiently await the end of the show so that they might proceed to their seats.
Just thought you'd like to know.
You know the type (perhaps you are the type. Heavens. Not one of my readers). These folks are the ones you hear clicking their seatbelts open long before the jet has come to a complete stop and the captain has extinguished the seatbelt sign. Irrespective of how many rows they are from the door, they leap up into the aisle to retrieve their belongings from the overhead bin and then camp out in the aisle, usually conducting banal cell phone conversation with someone lucky enough to have been contacted with the great news of our subject's arrival. There they stand, uncomfortably violating my personal space (I'm an aisle seat guy) while they stand there seemingly surprised that they cannot immediately exit the airplane. Sit down, Jack. And wait your turn to leave.
Another guy I don't like too much is the business traveler whose doffing of the standard issue sportcoat turns into a matador-like performance in which the (cape) jacket eventually winds up folded neatly into the overhead bin, whilst other passengers patiently await the end of the show so that they might proceed to their seats.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Repeat After Me: "It isn't the Government's Money"
Another story here about the horrors of folks dipping into their 401K's to alleviate short term debt problems. This is not a problem, folks, no matter what the nanny state (or the nanny media) tell us.
Fidelity has 1.4% of its 401K holders with loans....which means, 98.6 % of its customers DO NOT HAVE LOANS AGAINST THEIR 401K's!!!
This money belongs to the people who have saved it. While there are rules against its liquidity, there are provisions for withdrawals and loans specifically because these pools of money are effective hedges against short term debt. What would our reporter have these people do? Go further into debt? Ruin their credit ratings? Silly. They have the money, so they should use it to lighten their debt load.
Stories like this belong in The Onion with headlines like, "Local Man Withdraws Own Money", "Area Woman Makes On-time Mortgage Payment".
Fidelity has 1.4% of its 401K holders with loans....which means, 98.6 % of its customers DO NOT HAVE LOANS AGAINST THEIR 401K's!!!
This money belongs to the people who have saved it. While there are rules against its liquidity, there are provisions for withdrawals and loans specifically because these pools of money are effective hedges against short term debt. What would our reporter have these people do? Go further into debt? Ruin their credit ratings? Silly. They have the money, so they should use it to lighten their debt load.
Stories like this belong in The Onion with headlines like, "Local Man Withdraws Own Money", "Area Woman Makes On-time Mortgage Payment".
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
At the Airport, Again
I'm at Dulles, awaiting a non-stop to San Francisco. The new job is going to require frequent travel to California, so I think I'd better get used to the scene here.
Interesting how many of the guys in the terminal this morning seem to know each other...a little fraternity of road warriors? Bi-coastal lives? But still an overwhelmingly male traveling cohort this early in the morning. Wonder if all the ladies are just a bit smarter than we.
Interesting how many of the guys in the terminal this morning seem to know each other...a little fraternity of road warriors? Bi-coastal lives? But still an overwhelmingly male traveling cohort this early in the morning. Wonder if all the ladies are just a bit smarter than we.
Monday, September 1, 2008
On Media Coverage of Hurricanes
First of all, to readers in the impending path of Gustav, my best to you. Though anyone smart enough to be reading this blog has in all likelihood, already skedaddled.
Now let's talk a bit about media coverage of hurricanes. Has there EVER been an event more tailor-made for the 24 hour news cycle? For days and days, hour after hour, our friends in the newsrooms can update the track of the storm, use footage from old hurricanes, drag out old saws about Katrina, and finally--when the storm hits--they can send their hapless correspondents out to report as the waves break over the seawall.
There honestly must be kind of a feeling of letdown in these newsrooms as storms are downgraded.
Seems old Gustav's only a Cat 2 and he's fading.
Now let's talk a bit about media coverage of hurricanes. Has there EVER been an event more tailor-made for the 24 hour news cycle? For days and days, hour after hour, our friends in the newsrooms can update the track of the storm, use footage from old hurricanes, drag out old saws about Katrina, and finally--when the storm hits--they can send their hapless correspondents out to report as the waves break over the seawall.
There honestly must be kind of a feeling of letdown in these newsrooms as storms are downgraded.
Seems old Gustav's only a Cat 2 and he's fading.
Welcome to International Readers
Just took a look at things on Google Analytics, and it looks like we're now over 1000 distinct visitors to the site.
Also, we now have some international readers. We've been visited by folks from Australia, Russia, China, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, Malaysia, South Korea, India, Iran, Iraq, the UAE, Norway, Lithuania, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, France, Portugal, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and Brazil. Now of course, some of these hits may be from traveling Americans (or US Military), but most of the towns checking in are not big tourist spots.
So if we are indeed attracting international readers, you are most welcome here! I look forward to hearing from you.
Also, we now have some international readers. We've been visited by folks from Australia, Russia, China, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, Malaysia, South Korea, India, Iran, Iraq, the UAE, Norway, Lithuania, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, France, Portugal, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and Brazil. Now of course, some of these hits may be from traveling Americans (or US Military), but most of the towns checking in are not big tourist spots.
So if we are indeed attracting international readers, you are most welcome here! I look forward to hearing from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
