Quote and Counter-Quote

LT G offers up Dead Guy Quote (10):

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." -- Dwight Eisenhower

I like, um, it.

Others, lots of them in Ithaca no doubt, would reply that Ike also warned of the Military Industrial Complex:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Some would say to LT G, you're just a cog in the machine man, can't you see it!?

But they ignore the totality of Ike's farewell address. For a mere handful of lines later he says (and this is particularly worthy of consideration in the context of Global Warming):

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The same elites who warn of danger via Ike's address in the Military-Industrial Complex, if they acknowledge this later warning at all call it anti-intellectualism.

Framing

Framing.

"If you are among those who wonder why the Democrats have a reputation for being anti-military and soft on national defense, look no further"

The entire post is worth your attention. TigerHawk on Nancy Pelosi framing the looming testimony from Gen. Petraeus. Who's framing here? Congressional Democrats or, right-of-center bloggers depends on your, er, frame of reference.

But in Ithaca, I know where most people stand on the issue. I just wonder if our Senator (C-type) will be present to question the General after her last round during which she, more or less, called him a liar and he went on to turn Iraq from a war about to be a lost and a political hand grenade into a winnable war and a potentially winning political issue (witness John McCain).

Also, I'd just like to point out, in 2006 Tompkins County gave Hillary Clinton over 67% of it's vote in compared to 27% for the Republican candidate. Heck, the Green Party candidate got 5%!

But, that's Ithaca.

Decoy or Placeholder?

George W. Bush, with help from others no doubt, has secured NATO agreement to build a ballistic missile shield in Europe. But those same NATO allies have refused to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance (see NYT piece).

Russia objects to both the shield and the admission of the two former Soviet, er, Republics. France and Germany object to the admission of the two former Soviet states on the grounds that it would stir Russia's ire. As if the missile shield will not.

One In From The Cold characterizes this outcome more or less as a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" outcome. He says, more or less, that clearing a path for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO would have angered Putin and Russia but that having backed down:

"is likely to embolden Russia, which will continue its campaign of threats and economic sanctions against both countries."

That's not exactly ideal. But I wonder, was the Ukraine/Georgia issue a real issue at all? Was it a mere placeholder for future expansion? Or, was it a decoy to help EU NATO members feel as if they had reach compromise with Bush by avoiding undue NATO expansion but agreeing to the missile sheild?

Only time will tell.

EDIT (7:49PM EST) The Belmont Club seems to hold the view that Bush has set down a placeholder with regard to Ukraine and Georgia. I tend to agree. I try not to be overly cynical about these things.

Priorities and Perspective.

Which is more important? I admit, at present, it's impossible to know as we could be at the precipice of global economic catastrophe. But nonetheless, I put it to you.

On economy, GOP chair prefers McCain
Mike Sigler / Guest Column

A lot of hay has been made over an offhand remark by John McCain that economics was not his strongest suit. That would carry some weight with me if Democrats Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama were well versed in economic policy, but they're not. So it's curious that they're making it a talking point in their campaigns. Just from their positions and votes, I hope it's clear to everyone that McCain has a better grasp of economics than his opponents.

The columnists argument goes: taxes, free-trade, entitlements. I like it. Most ithacans will not. I assure you.

Meanwhile...

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

'NATO Is not a Land-Grabbing Monster'
The US may want NATO to admit Ukraine and Georgia but Germany and France argue that such a move would unnecessarily provoke Russia. Many German papers on Wednesday question whether enlargement eastwards would really do anything to enhance security.

You may ask: Ukraine? Seriously? With Iraq (the "worst foreign policy disaster in US History") you're asking about Ukraine? I'd point out that Ukraine (an Eastern Orthodox country) sits between the expanding EU and a neo-czarist Russia and currently owns the world's 3^rd largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. That is, larger than the UK's or France's.

Georgia, has no atomic arsenal. It was once the Democratic Republic of Georgia before being destroyed by the Red Army and made into a Soviet Republic (around the same time and in the same manner as was Ukraine BTW). Now, like Ukraine, it sits along one of the 'bloody borders' of two great civilizations (in this case, Georgia happens to border Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam).

Recession sux. Bringing these two states into the western fold might be more important. Er, how about: Allowing states like the Ukraine and Georgia to slip back uunder Moscow's domination (with their nuclear arsenals and strategic locations) might amount to the first real diplomatic disaster of the 21^st century? Isn't undermining the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative more important than an economic blip?

Or, in a few years will we be asking, who lost Ukraine/Georgia?

Media Literacy

I often champion media literacy among my close friends, family, etc. But, if you can figure this bit out, please enlighten me.

The first article.

U.S. Armor Forces Join Offensive In Baghdad Against Sadr Militia
Americans Appear To Take the Lead As Iraqi Units Wait

By Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, March 28, 2008; Page A01

BAGHDAD, March 27 --

...

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army's AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead...

This was indeed published in the midst of the Sadrist uprising of late with some accompanying estimates as to the dead and wounded. Today the following was published.

The second article.

U.S. Appears to Take Lead in Fighting in Baghdad
U.S. Forces Battle Mahdi Army in Sadr City, Aircraft Target Basra

By Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 1, 2008; 9:58 AM

BAGHDAD, March 28 --

...

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of U.S. weapons, along with the Mahdi Army's AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

So, I see that it was filed on the 28^th and that surely accounts for the nearly identical early narrative and language. But still, it concludes with, er, estimates as to the dead and wounded, and not a statement to the fact that the Sadrists have called off the revolt inspite of the fact that 'additional reporting' was provided by a number of people likely in the DC office.

What's the process here?

And yes, I know what a wire service report is. I read them (AFP mostly). Is WaPo a wire service? Now?

It's hard to see this as a wire service report...it's certainly not timely (note the 3 day delay in filing and publishing!).

Right, Meet Left.

One of my favorite bloggers, TigerHawk, is often critical of the NYT for various things that appear in The Paper of Record. For example, here, dripping with distaste at having to praise the paper. I am not being [un]critical of the NYT in this post.

Right, Meet Left.

Hands not ideologies or party wings. As in, "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" (original meaning, now modified). Even this modified meaning is not really applicable here. The two NYT articles The War on Error and Death in the Pacific are in the same edition, same section (Sunday Book Review) and are on the same topics (War & America).

The left hand, knows exactly what the right hand is doing. Only, what does the left hand make of what the right hand is doing?



The War on Error reviews No End in Sight, a book accompanying a 2007 documentary film. Death in The Pacific reviews Retribution: The Battle for Japan 1944-45, a book.

IN THE FRIST case we are told that for No End in Sight (the book) its creator took the material from the film and added new information to include, "additional interviews...[and] his own interpolated commentary and a charming introduction". But still no primary source or first-hand information from key decision makers who still refuse to speak to him.

According to this narrative a series of mistakes, caused by knot-headed ideologues in DC caused Iraq to fall to pieces. The big mistake being disbanding the Iraqi Army. The closer is, "Where do we go from here". It is, afterall, a quagmire. All very 'conventional wisdom'.

IN THE SECOND readers are told that Japanese brutality brought out American ruthlessness. From refusing to pickup Japanese survivors at sea to sinking ships that might have been transporting Allied POWs to fire-bombing Japanese cities. America's "Bomb and burn ’em till they quit." policy won the war.

NOW, MANY POINTS could be made in regard to these two articles. For example, those who oppose the American intervention in Iraq often refuse to accept any comparison what-so-ever to any conflict other than Vietnam. That would be wrongheaded. I think most, if not all, wars begin with a lie. WWII was no exception:

"USS Reuben James (DD-245) sunk after being torpedoed by German submarine U-562 south of Iceland, 31 October 1941."

And it's not as if there were no mistakes made in the Pacific either. Would we not consider Pearl Harbor a massive intelligence failure (like failing to see there were no WMD in Iraq in 2003 or, failing to foresee the insurgency)? Or, what happened in the Philippines to be a result of massive incompetence (akin to the CPA)? Even futher, what about American diplomatic incompetence with regard to the end of the war with Japan and missed a chance to end the war without the use of atomic weapons which were ultimately indecisive.

SO SOME QUESTIONS might be: Why does this war require anything other than ruthlessness? And why will articles like Death in The Pacific and books like Retribution: The Battle for Japan 1944-45 not be written about Iraq in 60 years time?

Cold Spring

P0001370
Originally uploaded by gtiness

Took this picture Saturday morning. It probably would have been "sparklier" (if that's a word) if I had taken it earlier but, we would have been late for dance class.

On an entirely different note. Check out A Cold Spring over at Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal.