Morning Coffee (87)

I hope that everyone is relatively warm. The map indicates that it is certifiably frigid throughout our nation. But do you know what is not frigid? That’s right. Your Morning Coffee. I wonder though, how the cold will affect the turnout for the hugely important and greatly interesting caucus in Iowa…you know our citizens. If voting is in any way inconvenient, you can forget it.

Edwardian Politics:

John Edwards, he of the flashy smile and expensive hair, has revealed unto us his plan for Iraq. Should he become President, he will withdraw virtually all US troops from the country within 10 months, including those who are training the Iraq military and police. In this, Edwards defeats his rivals in one way that will be appealing to Democratic voters; his withdraw plans are far more thorough and will be accomplished in a far shorter time period than either Clinton or Obama.

Edwards’s plan consists of the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and then the withdrawal of the rest within 9 or 10 months. He would leave 3,500-5,000 in place to protect the Embassy and maybe humanitarian aid workers. To combat any increase in sectarian violence, which he acknowledges as a possible side effect of such a rapid withdrawal (or “redeployment” as some Democrats call it) in a nation so thoroughly addicted to US troops, Edwards would keep a quick reaction force (QRF) in Kuwait or Jordan. That sounds good, right? Even reasonable. We could rapidly redeploy troops a few hundred miles to another country that doesn’t want a large contingent of US troops in order to rapidly redeploy them should the initial redeployment prove ill-advised, or cause genocide. I wonder though, if Edwards has bothered to speak with Jordanian or Kuwaiti officials, or if he just assumed that they’d be okay with hosting an undetermined number of redeployed troops.

Which leads me to further wonder, since Edwards’s figures seem pretty specific already, if he has an idea as to many troops he would keep in Kuwait or Jordan? Or would he defer to the judgment of the military on that one? I would find that interesting, since he’s ignoring what most senior military officials (and an NIE) are saying regarding the unfeasibility of such rapid and comprehensive troop withdrawals. Wouldn’t that be ironic? The military deciding on the numbers of troops to maintain in the region which would be there for pretty much the sole reason of saving Edwards’s skin should his plan, which is the complete opposite of what the military suggests, not produce results? Basically, we’ll keep ‘em close by just in case we shouldn’t have took them out in the first place.

Whatever the numbers, it doesn’t sound like Edwards has much faith in his plan, the main crux of which is that we must leave Iraq to force the Iraqi leadership into finally doing things for themselves. How benevolent of us. We’re like parents, kicking out our children because they’ve become too much of a burden, and doing so will only force them to clean up their act and become responsible adults. Except that it doesn’t really work that way. Because we’re not parents and the Iraqis are not children. In this case, they’re grown men, and each separate group in Iraq has a different set of agendas, all of which will be contrary; not only to each others’ interests, but our interests. If we leave prematurely, it will not be the nice, friendly, peace loving Iraqis that inherit power; it will be the brutal, power-hungry types who will do anything who will secure power. If we are going to leave just to let a brutal, anti-US regime take power, then why did we topple the previous regime, which in the end might actually turn out to have been LESS brutal and anti-US than a new one? If we’re beholden to our mores of spreading democracy, we would simply be forced to remove another regime in a few years, otherwise we’d be cast as hypocrites. It matters not what the true reasons we demolished Saddam’s regime were, we later billed the endeavor as an opportunity to spread democracy to the Middle East, thus it can be argued that this is where our obligation lies.

In the same article, Edwards asserts that we (he) must restore our moral standing in the world. I’m not sure I see how leaving Iraq and sparking widespread conflict and chaos does this. In 1991, we ceased providing aid to Afghanistan. We had no further use for them, since our only goal was to provide them with the means to defeat the Soviets. You may think this is apples and oranges. Surely, our intent there was not to spread democracy or even leave the Afghans with a stable government or economy. But since this was not a priority, and we gave it hardly a thought, leaving Afghanistan unstable and in the hands of warlords turned out to be a bad idea. It embittered a generation of Muslims against the United States, which they felt simply abandoned fellow Muslims after their use had expired. We didn’t create al-Qaida and its knockoffs by providing them with money and training during the Soviet-Afghan War, we created them by leaving Afghanistan to poverty and a dozen years of war and chaos. The situation in Iraq has the potential to be even worse. We did not support the Iraqis in some proxy war with our chief rival, which left them impoverished and war-stricken. Instead, we obliterated a stable (albeit brutal) regime, conducted non-stop combat operations against an insurgency which ravaged Iraq’s infrastructure and economy, helped create an un-bridgeable gap in the demographics of the country where there had previously been few and then abruptly redeployed troops. We do this because Mr. Edwards (or whoever else) believes that it’s time to make the Iraqis stand on their own because we’re tired of shouldering the burden on their behalf. We were directly responsible for their situation, unlike in Afghanistan. This does nothing to improve our moral standing. I would argue that this accomplishes the opposite of what Mr. Edwards intends. Surely, we’ll continue to pump money into Iraq’s infrastructure even after we redeploy troops because it has oil, so unlike in Afghanistan, there’s a more practical reason for providing aid. And if we don’t do so, the Chinese will. So economically, the outlook, at least temporarily, is better than it was for Afghanistan. But how long will conflict there continue after we leave? And will this conflict make any potential aid moot?

I, frankly, do not care about the spread of democracy as an end, nor about the use of the military as a means to that end. I care about Iraq for far more practical reasons. We were involved with helping Japan regain its footing after WWII longer (seven years) than we have been involved in Iraq, and we didn’t even have an insurgency with which to contend. We helped the Japanese despite the fact that they actually attacked us. We did the same for Germany (four years). So committed to stabilizing Japan were we, that we banned a religion (Shinto). We stayed and helped these two nations because we learned this lesson once before. Germany and Germans, not feeling militarily beaten, were bitter and resentful of the crushing repatriations and military limitations of the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed upon them by the Allies. Hitler brought to the Germans hope and a chance for redemption. Perhaps much like Salafism and bin Ladin. For practical reasons, we have an obligation, if not to the Iraqis then to ourselves. For prematurely “redeploying troops”, i.e. abandoning Iraq, will likely cause us more problems in the future; potentially worse than our abandonment of Afghanistan. Staying in Iraq and helping create a stable, secure Iraq is a propaganda win; a moral win. Showing people that we clean up our messes and do not abandon people is valuable. I’m surprised that Iraq is not seen as an opportunity for a moral victory by Democrats, especially considering that they generally paint themselves as more idealistic than Republicans (role reversal anyone?). But the demand for an end to what they call an “illegal war” (authorized by Congress) is more about political expediency, which in our nation is always more important than idealism, even for idealists, who generally prove to be politically practical enough to abandon ideals when necessary. If only their political practicality could inform their policies on this occasion.

Edwards’s policy on Iraq will change a great deal once he were to see the situation through the lens of the Presidency, of this I’m certain. But as it stands right now, I view his policy as even less appropriate and more ridiculous than his Democratic rivals. He’s simply trying to be more “hard core” in order to pander to the anti-war crowd and others who are disillusioned (and who will fail to realize that this plan still requires an unknown number of troops to be deployed overseas), never mind that it’s simply a bad policy. But who cares when all you’re trying to do is win the office? But does this manner of thinking surprise anyone? Aren’t they all the same? I wish I could discuss Iraq policies free from the soft, fuzzy glow of Presidential politics, but unfortunately that is impossible right now.

As a side note, I heard a political ad from Hillary Clinton this morning, proclaiming that it is time to take a new path, one that is different from the path we’ve been on for the previous seven years. Hillary is a master of the obvious, considering this is an election year in which the incumbent cannot run, and thus it must be time for a new path no matter who wins. I get her point, but I still find this commercial absurd. Apparently though, it needed to be said, and she paid for it to be said. Oh, and each vote in Iowa costs $200, based on the amount of money candidates have spent there and predicted voter turnout. Neat.

Word of the Day: Arcanum (noun): 1. A secret; a mystery. 2. Specialized or mysterious knowledge, language, or information that is not accessible to the average person (generally used in the plural, which is arcana). Reminds me of the specialized knowledge that politicians have, which is not accessible to the average person.

On This Day in History: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator, philosopher, lawyer, political theorist and politician, was born (106 BCE). Leonardo da Vinci fails in his tests of a flying machine (1496). As discussed previously in the MC, Pope Leo X excommunicates Martin Luther (1521).

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.”

“Even if you have nothing to write, write and say so.”

“Next to God we are nothing. To God we are Everything.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero. I find the last quote interesting considering monotheism wasn’t exactly en vogue in Rome while Cicero lived. Sounds like someone revised Cicero’s statement somewhat…revisionism at its finest.

Morning Coffee (71)

The Morning Coffee has been serving up hot, steaming cups of opinion and fact, sans cream and sugar, for almost 13 months now; 70-ish editions. The Coffee Pot was out of order for about six months, so if you take out that period of time, my numbers look a lot better – basically 10 editions per month. See, stats really CAN do anything. Anyway, the Morning Coffee is proudly back online, in blog form, and will be updated as I brew. It is current now, up to the most recent edition. Here’s the link: http://the-morning-coffee.blogspot.com. Someone check it, because I cannot do so at present. That also means that I cannot post the MC to the blog in the mornings.

Moving on. I was worried that I would suffer from performance anxiety with the new blog commitment, but it seems that there’s a lot to write about today, and I want to do each topic justice. Just don’t get used to the length or frequency.

Afghanistan Revisited:

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway would like to draw down Marine forces in Iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan, right? It’s that place right between Pakistan and Iran. It’s easy to forget about the first battlefield in the so-called War on Terror, what with all the excitement in Iraq. Besides, the Taliban were utterly wiped out right after 9/11, and Afghanistan is a stable democracy with a thriving economy based on the production and export of benign agricultural goods. Unfortunately, the entire last sentence is false, and Conway knows this. It appears that not many other people know this, however. The ones who do seem too focused on the political.

The Marine Corps was sent to one of the most troublesome spots in Iraq (al-Anbar), and after a time, their tactics yielded remarkable results. The Army has begun to use some of these tactics as well. But Afghanistan is growing increasingly problematic, with a resurgent Taliban in the southeast. Every year, poppy production sets a new record, and the government of Afghanistan is having a difficult time dealing with either by itself. With little attention paid to the Crossroads of Civilization by our leadership, we run the risk of losing whatever we’ve worked for there. The Corps would like to prevent this, and bring an actual combat element (a so-called “kinetic bent”) to bear in Afghanistan.

This plan is not received with open arms by many in the military and government. For one, some think that it’s the Marine Corps’ attempt to disengage from Iraq while the going is somewhat good and get involved in Afghanistan, taking a leading role in the theater that has the most public support. A mere PR move, basically. But in addition to this, there are fears that the military would lose a great deal of experience in dealing with the various factions in al-Anbar. Probably true. But perhaps more importantly, the Army would feel that it is shouldering the burden of Iraq alone, and if things got worse there, it would then shoulder the blame – alone. And if the Marine Corps went to Afghanistan and had the same success as it did in Anbar, well, that wouldn’t look good on the Army, and the Corps, which virtually never has the recruiting problems the Army has, would further endear itself to the American public and the public of Afghanistan.

The main-stage may be in Iraq, but along with the glory are the searing lights; the glare of public and governmental scrutiny. It seems as if the Army is worried that success might not be attainable (with or without the Marine Corps), and they want someone to share the inevitable blame that will be doled out to the military. The success the Corps had in Anbar merely builds the legend further. Near single-handed success on the side-stage (but nevertheless, in a WHOLE COUNTRY) by the Corps would make the Army feel bad. And we cannot have that. We cannot even run the risk of hurting feelings, no matter how important Afghanistan may be geopolitically, and let’s not forget, strategically. No matter the Corps’ goals and intentions, this is pure CYA. I doubt if the proposition will even be seriously entertained by the powers at be simply because, well, this sort of talk is bold and radical. See yesterday’s edition for snide remarks on the prospects for the bold and radical.

Side note – the US Air Force also feels bad that it’s not taking an active role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s worried that funds will be cut because of this. The latter is probably true, due to the unfortunate short-sightedness of our elected officials. But to address the USAF for a second, I suggest this: keep on practicing bombing things to devastating affect, and keep working to achieve air superiority against all enemies. I have a feeling we’ll be in need of your services in due time.

Army Recruiting Revisited:

I wrote a bit about this yesterday, but a new article by the Wall Street Journal has given me more to discuss. In this article, it is revealed that the Army has realized that it must assuage the fears of “mom and dad” before it can sink its hooks into America’s children. You know, like, “what will my kid do when he gets out of the Army”, that sort of thing. The Army has the answers, and the answers are slick.

The “Army Advantage Fund” (not to be confused with the “Army Disadvantage Fund” in which you are divested of your limbs in return for service) is being rolled out which will give enlistees money for the purchase of homes or the starting of businesses upon the completion of service. Do 18-year-olds think about mortgages and business ventures? No. But 45-year-old parents do, hence the desire to go after “influencers.” Not bad when you consider Col Sterling’s statement: “In marketing terms, the Army’s core product – military service – is a tough sell right now. That means the Army needs to develop new ways of reaching people. We need a new kind of competitive advantage.” That’s a fact. Serving your country, as discussed yesterday, just ain’t what it used to be. There’s simply no glory in it.

You may have noticed the Army has gone through a few recruiting slogans recently. “Be All That You Can Be” was a winner. But it apparently didn’t reach the “Me Generation.” So they moved onto “An Army of One” which sounded more like it belonged on a trailer of a Rambo movie. Since that one sucked, they started using “Army Strong,” as in, “you made him strong, we’ll make him Army strong.” Frankly, I don’t really know what that means. With the lowered standards, does it mean, “we’ll expose him to organized crime, gangs, arsonists, make him fat and morally bankrupt?” Of course, I exaggerate, but does anyone know what that means? With the Army Advantage Fund, the next slogan should simply be, “We’ll Give You Everything You Need. Period.” Never mind giving you the mindset necessary to make something of yourself when you leave, we’ll just give it to you.

Honor:

This is a great story; one of the shining examples of honor and courage. Bill Krissoff’s son, Marine Lt (1^st or 2^nd I don’t know) Nathan Krissoff, was killed in Iraq. Bill is an orthopedic surgeon with a well-off practice, and he wanted to honor his son by joining the Navy as a combat surgeon. Can you believe this?! A 61 year old man leaving a life of luxury because he wanted to honor his son who died in combat while serving his nation. But, he’s 61, and a bit too old. What to do?

In Reno, Bill was in a room with a bunch of families who also lost loved ones in Iraq. They were meeting with Bush. The President asked if there was anything he could do, likely a question for which he wanted no answer. But he got one from Bill: “Yeah, there is one thing. I want to join the Navy medical corps and I gotta get some help here.” The Navy called him three days later; his waiver was granted. Bill has been commissioned a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy. Unbelievable courage and honor. It’s what we need more of.

Word of the Day: Kvetch (intransitive verb (also used as a noun)): to complain habitually.

On This Day in History: The UN General Assembly passed UN Resolution 37/37 which stated that the Soviet Union should withdraw forces from Afghanistan (1982). Clearly, that worked, since the Soviet Union stayed until 1989 – what a waste of time – a mere suggestion Perhaps a resolution stating that the sun should not set would be worthy of UN consideration.

“...the glorious memory of brave men is continually renewed; the fame of those who have performed any noble deed is never allowed to die; and the renown of those who have done good service to their country becomes a matter of common knowledge to the multitude, and part of the heritage of posterity.” – Polybius. If only this were the case…

“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” – Plutarch

Morning Coffee (01)

I'm thinking of doing maybe a daily (perhaps weekly) morning update. Sort of a "what I'm thinking about" while I drink my coffee. It's not that I'm arrogant enough to think that what goes on in my head is so important that everyone should know. It's merely a couple of thoughts or ideas to get the mind going. Topics will stay within the professional realm for the most part.

First things first: Jen, I miss your coffee. In fact, this whole thing is named in honor of your coffee. You rarely ever make a bad pot, and that can be blamed on our fickle coffee maker. But sometimes you make this coffee that is so "spot on" that it must be the nectar of the gods. Well, the intel gods anyway. Trust me folks, I know my way around a coffee maker, but this woman is in another class.

11 Sep 2001. I was just thinking about it this morning. Some guy in the office mentioned that movie United 93 or whatever; guess that's why. The first thing I thought about was the flags. All the flags on virtually every vehicle on the road in the weeks after that day. Flags hanging from over-passes, shop windows, trees, you name it and it likely had a flag on it. You remember that? Well, after that I remembered the day, during which I was at Naval Air Station Fallon, NV. I recounted the events of that day in my head: the wake-up call from my Lieutenant, the call to my wife, watching the television with her on the other end of the phone, seeing those towers collapse. Then it gets embarrassing. Yeah, I cried a little. It was the first time (of maybe three of four times) you saw/heard me cry Jen. But beyond that emotion of saddness, I felt "the rush." I felt the rush of current, crisis intelligence. It is, to me, the best drug out there. It is similar to the hot flush of passion, but with less edge and more focus - in that you can still think (i.e. you're not acting on mostly instinct), if that makes any sense. The only thing that was better was the whole birthing process with Jen and my son (I mean 09-10 Aug 2004). Some of you in the "to" line know what I'm talking about. Some of you have yet to feel the euphoria, and imminent withdrawal pains of this rush. You will know it when you feel it though.

I felt that rush a lot over the next few weeks. Afghanistan kicked off. Then the work-ups to Iraq (which in the end, I was denied a part in). I have yet to feel that rush here. Perhaps in time.

Election Day is next Tuesday. Don't forget to vote. I know that you're all diligent Americans who know the importance of this responsibility, but I'm going to remind you anyway. I don't care who you vote for, so long as you vote for who you think will do the best job. Let your conscience and intellect (not your party) be your guide.

Finally, I hope everyone had a Happy (and safe) Halloween. It was my semi-anniversary, and all in all, a pretty good night (thanks Jen!). I demand that everyone have a good day, or at least as good as humanly possible. If you want to be taken off the Morning Coffee distro list, let me know. If you think of someone who might need an add, let me know that too (since I cannot access my private email, I have no one's address). And by the way, this is the First Edition, so save it. Might be worth something (when I become either famous or infamous).

Word of the Day: Prevaricate (intransitive verb): to depart from or evade the truth; to speak with equivocation.

On this Day in History: US tests first hydrogen bomb (1952).