June 25, 2005
Never complain. Never explain. Never apologize.
There is merit in this muscular piece of human relations advice. There are valid reasons to complain, when you want to correct a defect, for example. Valid reasons to explain might be so another person understands what he needs to do and why. You should apologize, when you have made an obvious error and you plan to correct it. But besides explaining factually and social lubricant apologies, these things should be done sparingly.
Apolgies
Apologizing is the most abused. Apologizing is appropriate if some negative thing happened because of your OWN behavior AND you intend to make amends OR it is just some social thing. If these conditions are not met, an no apology is appropriate. Having government or corporate officials apologize for things that happened before they were in office or even were born is something the craven do and the weak-minded demand.
Apologies become a crutch for losers. We all know people who feel guilty all the time. They keep on doing the same stupid things that cause trouble. Then they apologize again and feel guiltier. I have come to understand that this is their life adaptation. They don't intend to ever do better. They think feeling guilty is sufficient compensation.
There is a lot of talk of historical apologies, but here the problem (besides that of actual responsibility) is history. I recall the case of an Irish family that so hated the English because an English officer had killed their great-grandfather. Well, somebody did the genealogy and found that the English officer WAS their great grandfather. They got the family legend backwards. My ancestors are Polish and German. My family has been killing, raping and burning "our" property for a thousand years. I carry the genes of both the perpetrators and the victims (in addition to those of Mongols, Turks and others who just passed through and left a little of themselves). Given the way people in close proximity promiscuously mate, so does everyone else.
Explaining
We don't mean explaining how to build a cabinet or find your way to the shopping mall. The explaining that is offensive is the self-justification. After a screw up, everyone wants to explain why its not their fault. Just don't do it. Nobody cares. If you fail at something, you have failed at something. Explanations are in order only if there is a process you want to study to avoid similar mistakes in future.
Complaining
This is the most annoying as well as most pernicious to the person doing the complaining. Complainers eventually convince themselves that they have a reason to complain and complaining becomes an end in itself (as apologizing). If you have something to complain about all the time, and you have not made some adjustments or adaptations to remedy the situation, what does that say about you? Let me give you a hint. It begins will "L". If you are not (or cannot) doing anything to fix the problem, stop bothering everyone else and making yourself crazy.
To relate this to politics.
Howard Dean - The things he says are outrageous, but he seems to believe them and he is not going to change. He should not apologize. He might try to explain why he hates all Republicans and present data to show that most of them have never earned an honest living, but I would not accept an apology from Howling Howard and I would like him even less if he proffered one.
Karl Rove - He hurt Dem's feeling and committed the historical fallacy of projecting today's liberal attitudes onto an earlier period. He should make a limited apology for the historical fallacy and explain what he meant. And Dems should think of how their current attitudes on enforcing laws would have helped prevent 9/11 (or not).
Dick Durbin - He was just plain stupid. His comments demonstrated a lack of understanding of history and a vindictiveness unbecoming a Senator. He should not apologize, but he should promise to read some books by Alexander Solzenitzen or Elie Weisel so he won't make the same mistake again.
Let me go international, the Japanese should not apologize any more to the Chinese (several thousand times is enough), but they should set up some kind of scholarship fund to study the historical period. The Chinese killing 30-50 million of their own people during the Great Leap Forward could also do with a little historical perspective.
I apologize for going over my 500-word limit and will stop now.
Anthony,
I find myself agreeing with you about apologizing and the political ramifications of such behaviour. However, you did forget one category that is a little more extreme than complaining.
Attacking
This method completely distracts from the issue at hand and is designed to take pressure off any potential weakness sensed by the potential of apology.
Posted by: sdiddy at June 25, 2005 11:44 AMJ. Matel~
Excellent! In fact I thought about becoming an editor to say just about that same thing!
Apologies are rediculous in these senerios…like a five year old sighing and rolling his eyes while he tries to utter the very words…SORRY!
I urge people to simply make a mental note if something rubs you the wrong way, and then demand a change where it counts…at the polls!
Posted by: Traci at June 25, 2005 11:55 AMWhy should they apologize when they mean every word?
If Durbin had not said Nazi, I doubt Gitmo’s Torture would even make the News. His mistake was not predicting how myopic Americans are in focusing on Torture and Death of Millions as opposed to a few hundred.
If Rove had not insulted Liberals, the media’s main focus would still be on Iraq Insurgency’s Death Throes or lack thereof. Surviving Liberal Name-calling is easier than explaining to Americans that Iraq is a 10 year war.
If Howard Dean had not insulted Republicans, the DNC won’t get as much money as they did before. The Democrats have always has money problems and the best way to get money is to excite your Base. Terri Schiavo, anyone? Given a choice of having money and being liked by Republicans, Dean choose money.
So you see these are not accidents. In the age of polling, all is measured and predicted. This is a few of them.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 12:09 PMBy the way, the Chinese are upset Japan edited WW2 in their History Books. What the Chinese want is Japan to face its own people with the truth. Very few Japanese, for example, know anything about the Nanking Massacre because it is deliberately banned from all Japanese Texts by LAW.
The Chinese do not want apologies, they want the atrocity to be remembered.
Aldous
That is why I didn’t ask these guys to apologize in my article above.
I stopped apologizing (except as a social lubricant) about fifteen years ago. If I feel bad about the things I do, I stop doing them. If I don’t, I see no reason to apologize. The same goes for public figures.
I am sick of all the crybabies calling for apologies. Of course, I am cynical enough to advocate apologies if it shuts them up, but I don’t think it will.
Aldous
I don’t really have a dog in the Chinese/Japanese fight. As a person interested in history, I believe the Japanese should for that reason keep their books honest. But a Japanese high school student has no reason to feel guilty about what happened before he was born or perhaps even before his parents were born.
Anyway, the Chinese government can hardly be outraged by the short historical memory. The invasion of Tibet or the millions murdered by the revolution would give them plenty to think about. The Great Leap Forward was the world’s most costly (in human terms) mistake in history. They could study how and why that happened if they have the need to look for historical villains.
Jack:
It is my position that it is all deliberate. Its like kicking someone’s nuts and saying “Sorry”. No way its an accident.
The only exception, I think, is Dick Durbin. I had the impression he said what he said out of sheer frustration. When the Media doesn’t bother to report on crime, what is left except extremism?
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 12:36 PMJack:
This has nothing to do with Japanese Students and everything to do with Japanese Politics and Culture. I know this issue well. There are political, cultural and religious reasons for the Japanese Government to whitewash Nanking. It is not to protect the “High School Students”.
As for the Great Leap Forward, what has one atrocity to do the other? Should one murder cancel out another? In any case, I am also aware of that Atrocity and it is nothing compared to the Rape of Nanking.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 12:46 PMWhether you should apologize or not simply depends on whether you believe you’ve done something wrong. Dick Durbin seemed to honestly believe he did something wrong. He apologized. Good for him.
There are also those who refuse to apologize even once they know they’ve done something wrong. These people are simply afraid of looking weak. They deserve no respect at all, and they deserve no quarter.
The Bush Administration, for example, will not apologize even if it did lead the nation into war under false pretenses, as the Downing Street memos clearly suggest. The Administration thought it was doing the right thing. So be it. The American people shouldn’t ask for an apology but instead a fair investigation into the facts.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 25, 2005 12:49 PMJack
Two thoughts
I know of a mother of two sons who when they get into one of those youthful disagreements, she will order them to tell the other they are sorry. They do it, but their heart is not in it. The appologies from the Washington hot shots is the same thing. The party or one of their people who they rely on tells them to apologize. They act like dumb sheep led to the slaughter. They willfully obey, but their heart is not in it.
The bible has a verse in Proverbs. Proverbs 23:7 says that “For as he thinks in his hert so is he”. In the book of James. James 3:5 says “Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
Whether one believes in the bible or not, there is truth and wisdom in the two references above.
We all say and do thinks that we are truly sorry for and we do apologize and repent for them. When a politician stands up and reads a prepared statement, that means he/she either prepared the statement or had a trusted aide do it. Either way the one who reads the statement has reviewed it and probably agrees with the content or it would not be delivered orally. In that case I am not touched by any backtracking by the messenger.
Our government belongs to the people. We elect them, we hire them. As our employees, it is not right for them to withhold explanations, to be unapologetic even when wrong, and to be intolerant of complaints from those who they serve.
Apologies are not crutches for losers. You are right in that they need to be sincere, and for behavior one has accountability for, but sometimes it is what is necessary for groups to move on past their greivances. Essentially there is nothing wrong with asking forgiveness for the wrongdoing of the past, for recognizing the darkness in history.
Explanations:
It is a cynical P.R. exercize that you don’t explain. It’s done so that messages can be delivered punchily, without the burden of facts, figures, or whatnot. Maybe for more authoritarian governments it’s right, but when a government acts by the consensus of the people, as ours does, it is only right that our politicians explain themselves. A government like our current one that maintains secrecy about its dealings, even when security is not at stake, is one that seeks to avoid it’s responsibilities. It also places a burden on our leaders to both understand what they speak of, and the logic that they justify their actions by.
The question is one of surface area. Look at a tree. It’s not one big leaf, one solid root, to go with the trunk. Instead, it takes a much more efficient arrangement that allows it to waste few resources, yet reach optimum yields. The same with our understanding of situations. If we only get a generalized picture of the situation we the public are in, our responses will be vague and ineffectual.
If we we learn more things about these things, and find better interpretations, we can use more of our intuitive and rational faculties to properly judge the course of action.
We have to spread out our knowledge of our government’s dealings, and that means relying on them to tell us the truth, and encouraging them to give the most unvarnished accounting of their actions possible. Something this president has little skill at.
Complaints-
First Amendment- we have the right to petition for the redress of greivances. In modern English? Complain to our government about what we think it’s doing wrong. Ours is a government built on the notion that government that can refuse to listen to the problems of it’s citizens is not one worthy of power.
Howard Dean-
His sin is that he’s playing the Republican’s game their way, instead of disowning it. The GOP has been unapologetically bashing their opposition for ages. Dean is a sign of a Liberal movement that wants it’s Democrat leaders to hit back when people like Bush hit first. I can’t say I blame them, even as I would take another course in being an assertive opposition party to the Republicans
Karl Rove-
He’s the poison pill that makes you feel better before he kills you. His comments about liberals and 9/11 may serve to further deprive Republicans of the support of 9/11 victims, and may indeed provoke a backlash. I have said before that efficiency all depends on your intentions. Well, here, Rove has done what he set out to do in terms of enraging Democrats, and done that well. Unfortunately for him and you, the collateral damage of taking that swipe at the Democrats may eventually be open hostility from the very people they are supposed to represent.
Dick Durbin-
This is a case where a simple explanation would have served its purpose. He did not in fact call American Soldiers Nazis. He said that accounts of the torture at Gitmo, taken out of context, would resemble what the tyrants we so hate do. His apology is more deserving of criticism. He should have stood up to the Republican Media machine and stood by his point, which was legitimate. His was not a sensitivity problem. His was a problem with standing by his principles.
Aldous
I don’t believe that I am biased in favor of either the Japanese or the Chinese, but I am biased in favor of accurate historical perspectives. What I object to about this particular case is the selectivity. A good historical perspective describes events, but also puts them in the context of other events.
Both sides are playing politics here. The Chinese refuse to acknowledge the carnage of the Great Leap Forward, the invasion of Tibet or the general destruction of the revolution. The authorities are trying turn all the historical anger in only one direction. The rape of Nanking was terrible, but it was not the most terrible thing that happened in China.
So yes, the Japanese should consider the problems of their past. And so should the Chinese. It is not good scholarship to eliminate either path of inquiry.
I love history. We should learn from the mistakes of the past as well as the successes. What I don’t like about the politicization of history is the attempt to blame today’s societies for the sins of their ancestors.
This is wrong from many perspectives. Any society produces both good an bad. Sometimes the beneficiaries of a “misdeed” are not the obvious perpetrators. We also have mixed with each other both culturally and physically.
I didn’t say and do not believe that the Japanese government is bowdlerizing its textbooks to protect HS students. What I am saying is that today’s Japanese HS student is not more responsible for Nanking than your or I am.
You probably know more about the Japanese/Chinese conflict than I do. But from what I read, the Chinese demands sound a lot more like an accusation of guilt than a call for better historical scholarship.
I enjoyed every comment and do agree with nearly all of them. Well done!
It strikes me that the people of this nation deserve a party that does not complain, will not apologize unless it makes a horrible mistake and a party that will just “Get it done.”
The National American Party is forming, a party that truly invites anyone to join who will support it’s platform. This new party will not have bickering children as it’s leadership, but rather common citizens who show good common sense and believe in the United States of America.
The party’s platform is simple. No more illegal immigration. Those who cross the borders illegally will be executed onsight, not deported. Social welfare programs will end, except for those who are severely disabled. This party will call for the immediate explusion of the United Nations. Foreign policy shall be one of America first in every negoiation. No more foreign aid either monetary or military. All armed forces will be brought home to assist in national security. The war in Iraq will be fought without restrictions, it shall be raw warfare and total victory. Any nation supporting terrorism will become an enemy of the United States and face economical sanctions as well as potential military strikes.
The public school system shall be overhauled and will return to the basic education promised. The National Education Association will be banned. Students will be required to comply with a strict dress code and be held accountable for their actions. This party supports Congressional reform and the end of large salaries or sweetheart retirement deals for congressmen and senators.
The National American Party believes that anyone should have the means necessary to run for political office. To this end the party supports equal funding and media access for any canidate running for national office.
This is a small sample of the party platform, if you find it interesting, please feel free to offer your advice or comment.
The NAP is going to be America’s “Get it done!”, party.
Stephen
I don’t think we are talking about the same things. I mentioned that apologies are appropriate when it is your fault AND you plan to change. Explanations of fact are good and complaining in an attempt to correct a defect is productive.
I have rarely seem a politician apologize in an appropriate context. Any apology from George Bush would be inappropriate. I think he has made mistakes, but they were in the nature of his work as president. You will notice that I also did not seek an apology from Dick Durbin or Howard Dean.
Apologies are the crutch for the loser, if they will not change as a result. It also causes you trouble. I used to apologize to my wife for habits I didn’t want to change. Then next time I did it, she would get indignant. After I told her that was just the way I was and I would remain as I had been, she got mad one more time and we talk about it no longer. I did, however, work to change the things that were possible for me. It is a two way street.
I guess what I am asking for is people to be consequent. If you are not doing what you think is right, change. If you are doing what you think is right, there should be no reason to explain, complain or apologize. Therefore, people who habitually have to do those things are either not living as they think is right or are too timid to stand up for what they believe – losers in any case.
Jack:
There are textbooks about the atrocities in the Great Leap Forward sold in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the rest of the planet written by Chinese intended for Chinese consumption.
There are NO Japanese Books detailing the Rape of Nanking or any other crime on the PLANET. No Japanese will talk about it. Ever. How can you say it is in the past when you can’t admit it ever took place?
By the way, the Rape of Nanking IS the most terrible thing to happen to China. It is on par with Auchwitz. The Chinese are right to be angry like the Jews are angry about the Holocaust.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 01:41 PMJust a couple of comments and observations.
1.) YIKES! I am a conservative…but does this political party that stivdi is promoting scaring anyone else here? Isolationism combined with militarism combined with a commitment to mass murder is NOT my idea of conservatism.
2.) Just what does China and Japan have to do with our (our…not their) political left and right slugfest? See how easy we get “off topic” here? Someone starts discussing minutia in an arguement and “off we go” to a completely different subject.
3.) So many people screaming such vile things at each other and so many other people DEMANDING an apology for their vile rantings. Are they really such vile rantings…or are those rantings taken out of context for consumption by our A.D.D. society? Are those rantings structured to target our “MTV video” attention span? Perhaps we as a people should develop the patience to listen to the ENTIRE arguement…instead of the 10 second sound byte politics that we are practicing now.
4.) It’s time to put an end to all the name calling. It’s time to retire all the “Nazi” references. It’s time to retire all the “Pinko” references. It’s time to retire all the hurtful references that serve only to devide our country.
Most of all…it’s time to retire the people who practice divisive politics.
It’s time to retire Rove.
It’s time to retire Dean.
It’s time to retire Reid.
It’s time to retire DeLay.
It’s time for the American people to send a message to Washington that we will not put up with all the political infighting, the name calling and the B.S. (and I don’t mean ‘beautiful sunshine’) that we the people have been subjected to.
It’s time to send a message that we are YOUR boss…not the other way around.
It’s time to send a message that we the people are completely and utterly dissatisfied with their job performance.
It’s time to start thinking of what’s best for the country…liberal or conservative.
Posted by: Jim T at June 25, 2005 01:59 PMAldous
You seem to know more of the details than I do, so I will give you the point. Besides, as Tim says, we have strayed from the topic.
Jim - The NAP is a joke, but I am not sure we would characterize it as conservative in any case. It would have little room for the free market.
Posted by: jack at June 25, 2005 02:27 PMHis apology is more deserving of criticism. He should have stood up to the Republican Media machine and stood by his point, which was legitimate. His was not a sensitivity problem. His was a problem with standing by his principles.
Stephen, Out of all the people mentioned here, Durbin has the most credibility in Washington and he’s respected by many members of both parties, as I understand it. They know him personally and tend to trust him. That’s why most of the insiders seem to think his apology was both legitimate and heartfelt.
BUT, it probably wasn’t good politics. And that’s part of the point. When people act like politicians, we criticize them. When they do and say what’s in their hearts, however, we castigate and disdain them. It’s little wonder we get the politicians we do.
Given this climate, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect many politicians to take the high road. It’s too exposed and dangerous. My feeling is this won’t change until the American people get better about holding politicians responsible for their actions.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 25, 2005 02:38 PMJim T said: “1.) YIKES! I am a conservative…but does this political party that stivdi is promoting scaring anyone else here? Isolationism combined with militarism combined with a commitment to mass murder is NOT my idea of conservatism.”
Yep, it is the American version of the neo-Nazi party. Their core beliefs are ends justifies the means, conformity and lockstep society is superior to a free one, and criticism or outside influence from anyone not in their party WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Their goal: acquire power through coalitions of the extremes, and once in power, annhilate anyone that opposes them in writing, word, or deed. Their creed: Heaven on earth is achieved with an iron fist, an iron will, and an iron cross for the faithful.
David and Tim
That party is not serious. It is written as a provocation and not by a conservative. We don’t have to react to it.
Posted by: jack at June 25, 2005 03:27 PMJack:
The fact that stivdi sounds Conservative tells you something. Let’s face it. How far are Conservatives from his “Perfect America”? The President’s Chief Advisor just called Liberals Traitors and Cowards. What’s left? Imprisonment without due process? Opps… we did that with Jose Padilla. Suppression of Information? Opps… BushCo just added YEARS to the Freedom of Information Act.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 03:38 PMReed
Durbin’s apology was ordered by Chicago Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley is in charge of politics in Illinois, not just Chicago. People bow and bend to the mayor when it comes to politics. Senator Durbin did just that. The tear he shed in his remarks called an apology, was phoney. He thought out what he said in the statements he made that got him to his so called apology. He chose his words carefully. He meant what he said. Since he meant what he said, then why apologize? A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Aldous
He doesn’t sound conservative to me. The key aspect of American conservatism is free market. There is nothing about that there. Also re immigrants, you find more support among Republicans than Democrats for immigration. President Bush’s proposals would increase legal immigration. And conservatives are more likely to support NAFTA, CAFTA etc. They are more likely to oppose tariffs and trade restrictions. I have never heard any conservative support equal funding or media access for all in elections. Very little in that sounds typically conservative except love of country.
No that was obviously written by a liberal to describe what he thinks a conservative is. As I mentioned many times before, you guys don’t get it. You are fighting an enemy of your own fantasies. That’s why we win the elections and you guys hold the rhetorical advantage.
It’s a funny thing but I have been thinking lately that the Republican motto is:
Being a Republican means never having to say “I’m sorry.”
And here you are coming along to prove it.
You really hit me when you say you should not complain. For years we have heard Republicans complain about liberals destroying society, liberals seducing children, liberals taking over the media, liberals being in league with the devil, liberals hating America, liberals being traitors, and on and on.
I look forward to the day when Republicans stop complaining about liberals. Even you who hate complaining managed to complain about Dean and Durbin - and to excuse Rove.
Now, about explaining and apologies. Explaining is needed to communicate with others so they understand you and what you are trying to do. Bush, the number 1 Republican, does exactly the opposite. He says one thing and does another.
Apologies are a fundamental part of a civil society. When you cut someone off who is talking, you applogize. When you inadvertently bunk into someone on the street, you apologize. When you hurt or if you think you hurt someone in any way, you apologize.
Apologizing is not a sign of weakness. Apologizing means you are a mensch, you have empathy, you are concerned with the welfare of others.
Liberals apologize when they hurt someone. I hope Republicans learn the lesson as well.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 25, 2005 03:57 PMJack,
If we did put an end to all of this infighting and B.S. then there would be nothing to talk about on this blog. I agree with your comments, and lay in bed at night dreaming of that same eutopian political system. We all have to remember that the candidates, that we elect, are a product of our society, and they are merely working to gain or maintain support. However, these “sound byte wars” are unfornately undermining our democratic political process further. Our government officials have been hijacked by marketing experts who now are in the political business. This problem must be addressed with the American people, and if we can not find a way to address the root of the issue, then there is no reason to complain.
Daniel
The following is the witt and wisdom of Geroge W. Bush and Carl Rove.
Enough said
Jack:
Interesting you only mentioned Free Trade and Immigration. What happened to Smaller Government, State’s Rights and Supporting the Troops?
As for Free Trade, America imposes tariffs and subsidies that is one of the reasons South America cannot compete. Perhaps you mean THEY should lower their Protections and let the US sell subsidized goods at a fraction of the cost?
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 04:48 PMJack,
Without the “liberals” to bash, the republicans would probably be on the outside looking in.
Without Rove, Bush would be on the outside looking in and McCain would probably be leading the country.
Posted by: Rocky at June 25, 2005 05:03 PMIMO apologies only make sense for relatively minor social blunders.
That said, there is really no need to apologize to someone else for something that you have done because at the time you did it you knew full well there would be “collateral damage”. People that know or, know of you, realize that to begin with and are not expecting an apology.
Apologizing “on behalf” of someone else is ridiculous. It will not change the outcome of what the previous consequenses were. These types of apologies are always perceived as superfluous.
Politicians demanding apologies for opposing party members statements is nothing more than sensationalizing the comments and creating a media frenzy. This is campainging - for something.
Posted by: steve smith at June 25, 2005 05:06 PMAldous
I mentioned the other things in the column re what it means to be an American conservative. I don’t want to repeat the same mantra all the time.
Our trade restrictions are too high, but they are lower than most other countries. The Bush Administration (with some exceptions such as steel quotas) is working to make it easier to trade with the U.S. CAFTA is a good example. It will eliminate tariffs on 80% of exports to the U.S.
Who do you think supports NAFTA, CAFTA etc? Many times more conservatives than liberals.
Emerson said that people’s view of the world is a confession of their characters. Democrats like you constantly accuse conservatives of things that you are guilty of doing. We get blamed for the fact that Democrats attacked Civil Rights protestors with fire hoses and dogs. Democrats oppose free trade agreements. Democrats oppose greater legal immigration. Democrats put Japanese Americans in camps. Democrats got us into the Vietnam War. But somehow these things are blamed on us. If one Republican joins ten Democrats, we get blamed.
Paul
Read carefully. In the first part of my post, three lines from the top I wrote, “You should apologize, when you have made an obvious error and you plan to correct it.” I also accepted social apologies, such as (in your words) when you bump someone. But apologies are vastly degraded when we apologize for things we didn’t do and we can’t apologize for others, as Steve points out.
As long as I am in full rank, let me mention something I do believe is a liberal failing. Liberals often are generous on other people’s behalf. You can’t apologize for anyone else. You can’t be generous with someone else’s (or tax) money. You can’t be magnanimous when somebody else will have to carry out the tasks.
Rocky
I know you live in Arizona and McCain is your Senator. Most of us here on this blog would probably agree that McCain would make a good president. I was an early McCain supporter in 1999/2000 and put my money and time where my mouth was as long as there was hope. When McCain runs in 2008, I will still support him. If he gets the nomination, I will work for his election. Most of the liberals on these pages will quickly become disaffected from him. If you are standing with me, we might be very lonely. Liberals favor McCain because he sometime speaks out against the Republican establishment. But McCain is no liberal (thank God).
There are a number of Congresspersons going to GITMO. In contrast to these conversations posted here, it will be interesting who will sigh and who will cry. I do not expect any of them to change their minds. But I do expect some of them will put some perspective on the posting.
Posted by: tom at June 25, 2005 05:52 PMIan
Use a capital Y.
You are. I expect you wanted a verb in your sentence.
Use an not a before a vowel.
A period after ass is good.
Now, what do you mean?
Hello !
I wanted to comment on this . I heard his appology and you know what , that is the lamest excuse for an appology that I have ever heard . I know Bush talks about fighting terrorism and fighting them overseas before they get to Americas shore . Well , you know what until he deals with the borders to our country then terrorist can come in and do whatever they want to distroy us . I wish Bush would get a back bone and protect our borders . I seriously doubt it though . Well , if you are going to fight terrorism you need to protect our borders too .
Posted by: Riley at June 25, 2005 08:10 PMJack,
Bush will address the country on Iraq this Tuesday. I’ll keep in mind those categories of apologies, and look for Bush to apologize for “fixing” the intelligence around the decision to invade. I’ll look for him to apologize for telling the country that ‘invasion was a last resort,’ when in fact the decision was made by July 2002, if not earlier. I’ll look for him to apologize for the bizarre lack of planning for a post-invasion Iraq. I’ll look for him to apologize for suggesting the situation there is good, that the insurgency is, in Cheney’s words, “in its last throes.”
But I won’t hold my breath.
Pardon me for distracting the thread with the next comments.
Riley,
Get over your fear. It’s not easy, because the Bush administration has stoked your fear, again and again. Have you noticed that despite, ongoing shortcomings in Homeland Security and border protection, there have been-
zero
-terrorist attacks within US borders? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Since busting a few potentially dangerous cells in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the threat has been minimal. Think about it. Al Qaida’s reach has not extended to the US for some time, and it’s not a matter of OBL lacking the desire.
No one will be attacking us with nuclear weapons. Terrorists lack the economic infrastructure to produce a bomb, and it’s nearly impossible to obtain such a weapon along with PAL code necessary to detonate it. They also lack the economic infrastructure to produce a biological weapon. And, while attacking with a chemical weapon would be easier- you can produce mustard gas with ingredients under your kitchen sink- but such an attack would be localized, and outweighed by the enormous benefits the US reaps from legal immigration.
Illegal immigration? It’s a problem in terms of worker exploitation, and security, one that should be addressed in measured terms.
But control your fear. Remember the words on Statue of Liberty. We’re a nation of immigrants.
Anyone want to come to America? Come on in!
Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2005 09:27 PMApologizing means you are a mensch
Good post, Paul.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
How about a triple- or quadruple-minded man? Just how many explanations for the Iraq War do we have from Mr. Bush, anyway? I’m betting we can get into double digits.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 25, 2005 09:33 PMPhx8
I hope Bush doesn’t apologize. He has no cause to do so. He perceived a threat to the U.S. and he acted on it.
I have read that memo several times. It shows that Bush was preparing for the eventuality of war with Saddam Hussein. He would have been negligent not to be doing so in light of Saddam’s behavior over the past twenty years, his recent threats against the U.S. and the Clinton era U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq.
Bush’s subsequent actions show he was working to make the case, which he believed might be necessary. You can bet that right now we are talking to allies about Iran, Syria, North Korea and maybe even minor nasties such as Zimbabwe or Sudan. That’s what we do to keep America safe. It is an art, not a science.
Returning to apologies, what if Bush did apologize for everything you think he did and then some. What if he was really contrite and he promised to try to make things right - and he meant it. What would that mean to you? What would you expect him to do differently now? Should he immediately release the terrorists (sorry the innocents and the terrorists) in Guantanamo? Should he immediately pull U.S. troops out of Iraq? What could he do to make you happy?
Dems wanted Bush out of office. They lost the election. Partisan Dems are in the same position partisan Republican were in 1997. They can’t believe they lost the election and they are looking for ways to reverse the will of the people. I didn’t support it then; I don’t support it now. I would ask others to be similarly consistent.
Jack,
In the Tuesday night presidential address on Iraq I would be happy to see 1) honesty, and 2) Bush changing his ways, and acting as the Executive Branch representative for all Americans.
As for honesty- you’ve seen the polls. Another speech about ‘staying the course’ and all the progress being made in Iraq won’t get it done, and will lost the support of the American people.
Bush should acknowledge the facts on the ground- the increasing attacks by foreign jihadists, as outline by General Abazaid in his testimony- the inability to build infrastructure for electrical generation & oil, due to sabotage- the high number of attacks occurring per day- and tell the American people what we’re going to do to change the course. Firing Rumsfeld would be a great start.
Bush needs to explain the stakes in detail, particularly the dangers of ethnic conflict between the Shias, Sunnis, & Kurds, and what we will do to prevent it. Explain how we’ll integrate the Shia militias and Pesh Merga into a national army. Or, better yet, partition the country, and make democracy something the Sunnis can look forward to, rather than a tool to put them under the Shia heel.
Finally, stop acting like a president who represents only the right wing of the Republican party. Fire Rove. Explain the change of heart, the desire to be a uniter rather than a divider, and fire Rove. Go out on the stump, conduct town hall meetings and actually admit Democrats and liberals to the meetings. What a unique concept!
Bush is right; we cannot afford to lose in Iraq. But unless he changes his manner of leadership, addresses the people honestly, shows flexibility in his approach to Iraq, and includes ALL Americans by moving to an inclusive middle, we will most certainly lose.
Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2005 10:20 PMPhx8
Sounds good.
I don’t currently agree about partition and I don’t think he should fire Karl Rove, but I commend you on a well thought out idea.
Let’s see how our president does.
Posted by: jack at June 25, 2005 10:45 PMJack,
Firing Rove has nothing to do with recent comments on 9/11 & refusal to apologize; or rather, those are symptomatic of the larger problem. Rove is a political advisor who goes for the jugular. He’d might be appropriate as a replacement at the RNC, or as a campaign manager for another candidate. If sticking it to Democrats is the goal, then Rove is the man. But if Rove continues to advise Bush to push a far right agenda, or blame liberals for losing Iraq, the results will be disastrous for the country.
The time to go for the jugular is past. Bush is a lame duck. A divisive, political approach, at which Rove excels, is no longer good for Bush or the country.
Well, I don’t believe for a second Bush will show adaptability & flexibility in his address Tuesday night… wishful thinking… Actions speak louder than words, so we’ll see.
Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2005 11:43 PMStephen, Paul, Reed, phx8 — all excellent and very well-reasoned posts. In fact, you’ve done so well, I think I’ll take the opposite tack…
Jack,
That’s a great philosophy - for Attila the Hun.
Here I’d thought Western Civilization had really come a long way, but I guess everything old is new again, eh? Well if you can’t beat em…
Karl Rove is a Neo-Nazi with pictures of Der Fuhrer and another of the Swastika tattooed on his big, fat, cellulite-covered ass. He also loves to indulge in kinky sadomasochistic sex games with the great grand-niece of Eva Braun on a thrice weekly basis. As you might’ve guessed, he’s the one who wears the black leather dog collar with spikes that gets tied up and thrashed within an inch of his life, while she’s the one yelling “shut the hell up, Scumbag!” when wielding the cat o’ nine tails to his barely healed scars, and burning him with lit cigarettes until he cries for his “mummy”.
Now, I won’t explain how this information was conveyed to me, and I won’t apologize for it’s extremely disgusting nature. And the way you see it, no one should be so big a loser as to start complaining about it, right?
Because with the dawn of the new millennium and the reign of our current leaders, all the rules of civilization have been turned backwards, and we can now all say whatever we want about the opposing side simply because we don’t agree with their political philosophy.
Posted by: Adrienne at June 25, 2005 11:56 PMJack-
Bush preparing for the eventuality of war with Iraq would be updating the military plans, not putting a war into motion before the case for war, even the evidence to support the war, is in place. This wasn’t something Bush had to do, this was something he plotted and strategized to do. This was a deliberate goal of his administration. There was no eventuality to it. That would have required a real threat.
This wasn’t a war that came naturally to America’s approval. Bush had to build up the semblance of a crisis atmosphere in Iraq, his people had to constantly drop hints and make speeches on the matter, and only when it became absolutely necessary to our support did he present a case for war, or go through the motions of consultation with the UN. Even these he failed to do in good faith.
This war has cost more lives than any of our conflicts since Vietnam, and may look to last just as long. The same damn mistakes, the dishonest reports of progress, and the scapegoating of critics for bad strategy, are being committed here with this war.
With the debacle this war has become, the fact that it never had to be fought this way in the first place becomes doubly tragic. I can only hope that a third element doesn’t add itself to this tragedy: the next terrorist attack that our war in Iraq will do nothing to defend us against.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2005 12:01 AMWhat could he do to make you happy?
I agree with phx8’s last paragraph and with the idea that Bush should act like the president of more than half the nation. I also agree Rumsfield should go. He’s had enough time to get this thing right. But I’m sure he’ll stay for now. When did the Bush Ad ever hold anyone accountable for failures? For perceived betrayal, yes, but never for failure.
I think the partition notion is very tricky right now and shouldn’t be part of this speech. That decision will be up to the Iraqi people, though we and UN could offer some diplomatic help and advice. Perhaps Iraq needs to be a loose federation in which all oil wealth is shared on a per capita basis. A completely independent Kurdistan is probably unacceptable to Turkey unless the U.S. offers some very serious incentives.
Another thing Prez Bush could do is say he’d be open to an independent council to look into the allegations surrounding the Downing Street memo. That would put him above the fray to a degree and ultimately he’d probably be vindicated, unless there’s some other evidence that we don’t know about. This might even help whatever Republican runs in 2008. But I’m not holding my breath. I don’t think enough Americans are pushing for this and the media has been pretty lax on the subject. (Though both pro and con arguments for giving the subject more attention are still being made.)
What I personally want most is a sense that Mr. Bush has a workable plan. Don’t apologize but do explain. Make us proud and hopeful. Please.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 26, 2005 12:35 AM“Now, I won’t explain how this information was conveyed to me, and I won’t apologize for it’s extremely disgusting nature.”
Adrienne,
You’re a baaad gurl.
Posted by: Rocky at June 26, 2005 01:03 AMSwastika tattooed on his big, fat, cellulite-covered ass
Jeez Louise, Adrienne! How the heck are either the Red or Blue team members going to burn that horrible image out of their brains? Need…much…liquor…fast.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 26, 2005 01:17 AMNice one, Adrienne. :)
Jack, interesting article. I agree that none of those guys should apologize. Though Durbin can be excused for apologizing to the Holocaust survivors, he certainly didn’t apologize for the gist of his statement. Boy, did that piss off right-wing radio! :)
I don’t want an apology from Rove. I want a resignation. The guy is dividing Americans in the war on terror - and not by accident. You can be sure Bush will blame his failures there - and in Iraq - on “the liberal media”, turn-coat Democrats, and RINOs.
Oh, and it’s good to be back in the USA!
Posted by: American Pundit at June 26, 2005 02:47 AMAdrienne,
Hunter S Thompson would have been proud.
Reed,
Good post. You’re right. Now is not the time to bring up the idea of partition. That issue should have been addressed a long time ago. If it comes up again, it won’t be until the October 15th referendum on the Iraqi constitution, and then only if the constitution fails to garner enough votes in the Sunni provinces.
The Bush speech on Iraq Tuesday night does feel like a crossroad, an event nexus, a moment of opportunity to turn the situation around.
Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2005 02:47 AMWith the debacle this war has become, the fact that it never had to be fought this way in the first place becomes doubly tragic.
I’m interested to know how you think this war should have been fought, especially since our military overran Saddam’s forces in 42 days. You’re right in one respect - Bush shouldn’t have attempted to “lead” the public into this war; the public should have been intelligent enough to realize that this war had already started. It started on August 2nd, 1990. What began on August 6th, 1990 with the institution of the UN sanctions ended sometime after March, 2003 when we removed Saddam’s government. During that time, from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Americans did not “concern” themselves with the war (in my opinion). We continued our daily lives, limiting our involvement in this war to complaining about rising gas prices - all except the men and women who have fought, bled, and died attempting to bring freedom to those without it. That is not a debacle, that is what every man and woman in the world is gauranteed by whatever they call God. What’s tragic isn’t that this war is being fought, it’s that people like you, Stephen, attempt to belittle it. We are doing the right thing.
Also, this war is not Vietnam. Vietnam wasn’t lost militarily, it was lost politically. We lost Vietnam because China and Russia armed them. We lost Vietnam because Diem was stupid enough to begin relocating the South Vietnamese under his “hamlet” program (which backfired and created an entire contingent of VC sympathizers). We lost Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was intelligent enough to adapt his battle tactics, while America suffered under a patchwork of command leadership (Westmoreland and Pacific thousands of miles apart from each other and each not in complete control of the ground forces). Away from our homeland, fighting an ever-increasing army of guerillas pouring in from neighboring countries and fighting on their home turf, with terrible leadership and communications, and (most importantly) an ever increasing public outcry, there was no other option but to lose.
This is not Vietnam. We successfully overran Saddam in 42 days, and are now fighting to bring peace to a nation, a peace kept by the members of that nation. Peace isn’t easy, as every American knows.
In conclusion:
- This is not Vietnam, they are completely different excluding the battle tactics used by dislocated insurgents (the VC had a central command and was backed by two different, powerful nations).
- This war is not a debacle, it is testament to our will to bring freedom to those who don’t have it.
- The only thing that stands between us and true peace in Iraq is the perseverance of the American public.
We lost Vietnam politically, let’s not make the same mistake in this war.
Posted by: Brian at June 26, 2005 04:36 AMAdrienne et al
Re apologies
Everyone is still attacking points I didn’t make or sometimes even contradicted. I said that we should live according to our ideals. If we are doing so, we have nothing to apologize about except (as I stipulated) when we make and obvious error THAT WE INTEND TO CORRECT or for social reasons.
If you are doing what you think is right and you continue to apologize for it, you must be weak mined or have no backbone. If you are not doing what you think is right, you should change. If you can’t or won’t, you are craven.
You should not apologize for things you didn’t do OR won’t be change. This is a horrible hypocrisy. I don’t obviously mean things like “sorry for your loss” or “sorry I bumped you and you got hurt.” But real apologies for real things.
It is interesting to me that I got so many honest objections. I think it must be my fault for not explaining well enough, because I don’t believe we could disagree. Beyond the social lubricant apology, do you think we should apologize for things we didn’t do? Should we apologize for doing what we think is the right thing? Should we apologize for what other people have done without our control or permission? If you answer yes to these questions, you confirm what some conservatives (not me until now) think about liberals.
I think we have a responsibility to live our lives according to our ideals. We will occasionally fail. At that time an apology is in order. But if this happens too often there is something wrong with us. I try not to do things I will have to apologize for. This is a much higher standard than the willingness to say you are sorry all the time for things you should not have done.
We also need not apologize (except the social one) for things that just didn’t work. I have three interns in my office. Last week one of them did all the right things, but her program didn’t work out as planned. The manager of another section criticized her and she came back to me very upset and apologized. What should I have done? I found out what had happened and saw that she had made no significant mistakes. I told her she had done nothing to be sorry for and to learn from the part of the situation she might have done better. I then I went to my fellow manager and told him to lay off my interns who are only trying to make his operation work better. I did make him apologize to my intern because he had done something obviously wrong and he wasn’t going to do it again (at least not to my interns) This is the mature way to live.
Rocky:
“Adrienne,
You’re a baaad gurl.”
:^D Nah, I’m for the forces of good — not evil!
And trust me, my own proclivities are positively boring in comparison to Herr Karl’s…
Reed:
“Jeez Louise, Adrienne! How the heck are either the Red or Blue team members going to burn that horrible image out of their brains?”
I know it’s rough, but I believe it’s now time for the Evil Puppet-Master to be on the receiving end of a good Swiftboating whenever, and wherever possible.
“Need…much…liquor…fast.”
:^) I do hope you don’t have a hangover. If so, and you have access to an authentic Mexican restaurant, you might want to order the tripe soup. I consider it nasty stuff, but when you drink the broth, it works just like a charm. Seriously.
American Pundit:
“Oh, and it’s good to be back in the USA!”
Oh, and it’s good to have you here in WB again! It was only a few days that you were gone, but to me it seemed something essential was missing.
phx8:
“Adrienne,
Hunter S Thompson would have been proud.”
:^) Thanks. Truth is, with you guys being so consistently brilliant all the time, Gonzo Street is often the only road not taken.
Jack:
“I don�t obviously mean things like �sorry for your loss� or �sorry I bumped you and you got hurt.� But real apologies for real things.”
Rove:
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,”
In my case, “sorry for your loss” actually applies since I lost dear friend on 9/11. As it would to any wife or parent, child or friend who lost someone in the WTC, or at the Pentagon, or in that field in Pennsylvania on 9/11, who happens to be a liberal. Or to any wife, parent, child or friend of one of our fallen or injured soldiers from either of our two on-going wars who happens to be a liberal.
Real things, Jack. Real People with Real Feelings of Loss who happen to be Liberal.
There may be no apology that could cover for Rove’s comments, but standing up and admitting when you say a horribly insensitive and idiotic thing is simply what Civilized people automatically think to do, rather than continue to claim they did nothing wrong. Currently the White House is not filled with civilized people — and they just keep proving this fact at every turn.
Defend Rove’s lying words and the entirely heartless and brutal attitude the Right has been showing for the Left as a terrific political move if you wish — but I say that’s BULLSHIT.
you might want to order the tripe soup
Adrienne, Thanks. I’ll consider it. Isn’t that what they serve up at the White House press briefings these days?
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 26, 2005 12:54 PM“A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable,
but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.”
George Bernard Shaw
“Examine what is said, hot him who speaks.”
I propose an exercise to you; you criticize the actions and words of politicians without using either liberal or conservative. When I do this I can perceive with clarity the import of their deeds and speeches. I am not saying stop following either class of ideology; I am suggesting that you forego using terms that cover a range of political thought. Analyze and refute the words if you can. Criticize the deeds. All members of an ideology do not support all the principles, ideas, and ideals of that ideology. Generalizations impede lucid thought.
Apologize when wrong in simple honest speech, not with tortuous reservations and explanations. Explain your actions and ideas clearly so that your audience and you may truly understand them.
You may not need to complain if you insist that the people who represent you explain clearly their ideas and deeds, and if they do not throw the rascals out of office.
Reed:
Re: tripe soup
“Isn’t that what they serve up at the White House press briefings these days?”
Yes, it comes gratis with the fillet of subterfuge.
;^)
I made typographical error and forgot to provide the source of the quote.
“Examine what is said, not him who speaks.”
Rrab Proverb
JimT,
I have to agree with you 100%.
Only insted of retiring just the ones you mentioned, how about we retire all 537 of the nut cases and start all over. If the voters would do that about everyother election maybe the politicians will finally get the message and start listening to THEIR BOSSES.
Bryan-
We lost Vietnam and are losing Iraq for much the same reason: We’re not controlling the strategic centers of gravity. Since we are occupying Iraq, the center of gravity is control of ground. Bush took us in real fast, and we engaged in a brilliant blitzkrieg offense that knocked Saddam out of the park.
Trouble is, we had neither the time nor the troops to own the land we were covering, which meant our soldiers were stuck in the midst of a country they didn’t really control. When the looters and bandits were able to act freely, that compounded things by breaking the illusion that power had gone over to us.
What has Bush’s response been?
First, he’s attempting a strategy of attrition. That, though, becomes problematic when the other side can conscript or recruit quick enough to sustain heavy losses. This is what’s happened.
Second, he’s trying to wait them out. While Bush has had nothing but contempt for the suggestions that he create a timeline for departure from Iraq, he’s been following his own timeline for years. He’s promised on multiple occasions that if we just got to the next big event in that timeline, it would all be over. From the end of major combat operations to the Iraqification of the conflict in the works, Bush’s attitude has been that if he moves us along on his timeline, things will get good and done because people will be motivated to make things work.
But timelines are about more than just dates. They are about strategical landmarks, and those Bush has missed, regardless of his scrupulous following of the dates. Without those, there is no magic effect that a set of dates on a piece of paper can work.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2005 03:26 PMJune 26, 2005
A Hard Pill To Swallow For Seniors
It should come as no surprise that Congress voted to deny coverage of impotent drugs to the elderly as they did on Friday by a two- to-one margin— if you consider Congress as a collective body are impotent in passing any constructive legislation, they clearly lead dysfunctional lives, and thanks to Clinton, they can’t have sex with interns anymore.
So, the reasoning goes, if Congress is miserable, everyone else should be too.
-Bill Lucey
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/mrbilllucey
Add “never make sense” and “never tell the truth” and you’ve got it about right. Oh - and “hide everything”. The dems are disorganized and spout nonsense sometimes, but at least they aren’t lying about everything they do.
Posted by: finn at June 26, 2005 05:05 PMBill Lucey,
Are you referring to the erectile disfunction drugs and, fertilization drugs for seniors. What age has been defined for seniors?
It may be a good thing for seniors because now they will be able to get them cheaper in Mexico and Canada.
This could be the best news seniors have had all month.
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 07:07 PMIt is amazing.
Five or six posts into every blog, most of you prove you should go back and graduate from third grade.
Posted by: George at June 27, 2005 05:00 PMStephen Daugherty:
First, he’s attempting a strategy of attrition. That, though, becomes problematic when the other side can conscript or recruit quick enough to sustain heavy losses. This is what’s happened.Second, he’s trying to wait them out. While Bush has had nothing but contempt for the suggestions that he create a timeline for departure from Iraq, he’s been following his own timeline for years. He’s promised on multiple occasions that if we just got to the next big event in that timeline, it would all be over. From the end of major combat operations to the Iraqification of the conflict in the works, Bush’s attitude has been that if he moves us along on his timeline, things will get good and done because people will be motivated to make things work.
Sound familiar? Johnson/Nixon? Vietnam? 1967/1968?
I have spoken about my brother-in-law in the past, and feel compelled to relay his opinion. He is retired Marine Corps thru and thru, with 2 tours in Vietnam and was Bush the older’s personal security man in Gulf I. He was even in Time Magazine with GB. I have been trying to get him to come on WB himself—I hate being a go-between.
At any rate, he says wars of attrition are generally unwinnable. Even at the point that you feel you have “attritted” the enemy, wiped him out, they may just be laying in wait for you to leave and re-establish their presence, or just re-gathering their force for a major offensive. Wow. Long sentence.
Further, waiting them out is futile. This only serves as a repite for them to catch their breath, replan strategy, and sting you where it hurts. Other than the original, brilliant offensive, GW has bollixed up this hole mess.
With reference to explain, complain, and apologize—who cares? Intellectually, we can use these phrases to legitimise long-winded speaches that keep the electoral base engorged and enrage our opponents, hopefully into more of the same type of speech that requires explanation, complaining from the opposition, and half-witted, half-baked, half-hearted apologies. You see, it is a never ending circle from which, once entered, you can never escape and come out whole.
So if you want to rationalize and intellectualize what politicians say, I say good luck with that. Most people simply listen and make a judgement as to truth or crap.
Chi Chi-
Your leatherneck brother in law has more or less expressed the logical conclusions I came to on the same subject.
But on the subject of Complaining, explaining and apologizing, I would not submit it’s a losing cause. It’ll just never be a perfectly solvable problem.
My theory of mind is this: There is no hard and fast rule of thought that the human mind can’t think its way past. The very basis of our intelligence is the ability to reshape our own thoughts. Left to itself, a mind can spin in loops forever.
But we aren’t left alone. The mind occupies a place in reality, with a body that has needs, and a society that has strong tendencies, if never absolute ones.
That can be used against those who endlessly spin. The key is to make being honest the lazy default among options, the simplest thing to do. The bigger the lie they try to tell, the harder we make it for them.
But that takes an informed society, a strong, independent press, and people who are not resigned or coopted to the corruption and willfulness of our leaders.
That I’ll admit, will take some work. But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s the point of Democracy. Government will always have it’s power over our lives, and the officials in that government the edge in the game for power. Our democracy gives us the ability to compete, to fight for our freedoms here and abroad. We should take advantage of that, and not surrender to the powers that be.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2005 12:32 AMChi chi,
Good post on the war of attrition. I caught Stephen’s earlier reference, certainly gives me something to ponder.
A war of attrition could work, but it would depend on several ratios, and it would depend upon the amount of communication between the battlefront and the public.
Attrition could take the form of Grant’s campaigns at the end of the Civil War. It worked; but Cold Harbor was such a disaster that, when the public found out, the North nearly lost its stomach for the war.
The Russian campaign against the Nazis at the end of WWII also amounted to a war of attrition.
Factors such as economics also come into play, along with other ratios. For example, the US attempted to bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail ‘back into the Stone Age.’ Unfortunately, it wasn’t far beyond that point already; and so, dropping $100,000 bombs on bicycles simply didn’t make economic sense.
Technology now makes a war of attrition untenable for a technologically advanced country. The US public might protest losses of hundreds of its soldiers. The death of thousands of jihadists might not even register on the public in technologically primitive Afghanistan.
Morale, motivation, & dedication play a great role in a war of attrition. In the case of Iraq, it’s hard to compete with the dedication of suicide bombers.
Not sure where to go with this, but you’ve given me something to think about, appreciate it.
Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2005 01:36 AMTo continue…
A war of attrition in Iraq makes no sense for us. But there is a solution-
Co-opt the Sunni insurgents.
We co-opted the Shia hothead, al-Sadr. We left his militias relatively intact, essentially withdrew from southern Iraq, and gave him an opportunity to go for the brass ring of political power. In exchange, al-Sadr stood down, and agreed to personally refrain from seeking political office for the time being. He’s happy, because the Shias are assured of self-determination & self-rule, he retained power, and he may still go for the brass ring at some point down the road. We’re taking a calculated gamble that more moderate factions will ultimately restrain him.
Why not co-opt the Sunni insurgents?
Partition the country.
Offer the Sunnis political power, and withdrawal of most occupying forces; in exchange, they refrain from attacking their ethnic neighbors, & reject the foreign jihadists. The US serves as peacemaker, keeping the Sunnis, Shias, & Kurds from going at one another’s throats. We would have to provide the Sunnis substantial economic assistance, since they would lack oil revenues. We would also have to foot the bill for relocating the Shias of Bagdhad to southern Iraq if they so desire, Sunnis from southern Iraq to central, etc.
In the case of the Kurds, we’d have to draw a neon-bright line; you have your country- go no further. We can be great friends & allies; but cross that bright line, & we’ll help the Turks do the same thing to you, that you & the Turks did to the Armenians a century ago. Don’t doubt it for a second.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Bush administration has the strategic flexibility to think in these terms, in terms of partition. They’re blinded by visions of oil, & permanent military bases…
Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2005 02:15 AMphx8:
A war of attrition could work, but it would depend on several ratios, and it would depend upon the amount of communication between the battlefront and the public.
I have to disagree, at least in this instance. A war of attrition requires certain circumstances be fulfilled or known. First, are the combatants identifiable. If they are not, it is impossible to unequivicably know when the enemy is attritted. Second, do we know how many insurgents there are now. Clearly, we do not. Third, do we know the sources of the insurgents so we can be better able to kill the source. There is debate on what we know vs what we think we know. I am unconvinced, but hopefull Iraq’s neighbors will cooperate more fully in stopping the flow to Iraq. And finally, are we totally committed to attrition. If not, there is no point to fighting this style of war.
I am not convinced that a war of attrition will work against this type of enemy in a modern setting. Their motivation is, I think, completely different from the Nazi’s, the Vietnamese, or the civil war insurgents. They blend into the civilian population quite well, and still seem to be very well equipped and organized. I have referred people many times to AP’s article on 4GW. I don’t think attrition can work in this environment.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 28, 2005 09:24 AMI write to express my dismay and concern regarding H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005. I have read “What Every Conservative Needs to Know about ‘Postal Reform’ (H.R. 22)” and wish to correct a number of misconceptions and errors included in its text:
— The Postal Service has not suffered from an inability to control costs — it has slashed postal employment by nearly 100,000 workers over the past five years as mail volume growth has stagnated. The fact that labor costs represent a larger percentage of revenues in the USPS than in private companies like UPS and FedEx does not mean that the USPS is inefficient or that postal employees are overpaid. It just means that the Postal Service’s business (mostly letters) is inherently more labor-intensive than that of the private firms (mostly parcels). This fact results from a universal service obligation not shared by UPS and FedEx: The USPS delivers to 143 million addresses each day six days a week while the private companies deliver to between 12-15 million addresses per day five days a week.
— The 2003 law to reform the Postal Services CSRS pension funding formula was not a “bailout.” It simply corrected an error that required postage rate-payers to over-fund the Postal Service’s pension liabilities. Your paper states that the law “cost” taxpayers $7.1 billion — suggesting that the Treasury transferred $7.1 billion to the USPS. That did not happen. The Postal Service and its largely business customers were simply spared the unfair burden of over-funding their CSRS pension liabilities. This helped keep postage rates stable and business costs low.
— The Postal Service is a self-supporting government agency that receives no direct taxpayer subsidy and therefore returning the responsibility for military pension costs to all American taxpayers — who all benefit from the national defense — instead of heaping them on the relatively narrow class of American businesses that generate most of the nation’s mail volume cannot be fairly called a “bailout.” These costs were traditionally paid for by the U.S. Treasury and were mistakenly transferred to the USPS by the 2003 CSRS reform law.
There is nothing “conservative” about helping to shrink the middle class and leaving millions of rural state residents without adequate postal services by shuttering postal facilities and cutting postal pay and benefits. H.R. 22 is a balanced piece of legislation developed over many years in a bipartisan manner — it was reported out of the House Government Reform Committee on a unanimous vote of 39-0. Conservatives can and should support it. Indeed, all 22 Republicans on the Committee, including all seven RSC members on the Committee, voted for the bill. Of these, 15 have been rated by the American Conservative Union and eight have received a “pro-conservative” rating of 90 percent or more.
I urge them to retract “What Every Conservative Needs to Know about ‘Postal Reform’ (H.R. 22)” or at least correct its inaccuracies. The members of this Committee and the American people deserve no less.
