Noonan on Obama

Peggy Noonan has opined on Obama's bid for the presidency saying he hasn't the experience to run the country. That he is unburdened by hard work or accomplishment, which is to say that working in State government is somehow a bucolic lark (strange rhetoric indeed from a Reaganite). Implicit is that his accomplishments in the State legislature somehow don't count on the national stage. Where she really misses the boat methinks is when she says he does not have an issue.

Anyone who heard his speech at the Democratic convention knows his issue, the divisiveness of todays politics. He brings an even handedness that has even seized the imaginations of some conservatives like David Brooks. The polarization of the body politic is his issue and it is the ideologues wrapped in their bare knuckle infighting that are blind to it.

Noonan claims he stands for nothing, but notes he gets a 100% rating from liberal groups, an interesting trick. In fact he stood against the Iraq war at a time when few in either party were willing to. In her heart I believe what Noonan fears most is that Obama is the mirror image of Ronald Reagan who will advance liberal ideas with charisma and charm. The reality is that Obama is worse than she fears, because he is both more capable and thoughtful than Reagan.

Don't make me shoot you a whole bunch of times in the head Bob

My wife is substitute teacher. She was talking to this other teacher about kindergartners the other day. He had been passing the boys room when he heard some Kindergartners making a ruckus. He popped his head in and this little boy who was raising cain in there looks at him and says, "Is your name Bob"?

He says no, and explains to them that they really need to quiet down, conduct their business and go out on the playground. This boy looks at him again and says, "OK Bob!" After another little chat he lets them go. It's a running joke in our house now to ask somebody who is telling you something you don't want to hear, "Is your name Bob"?

Unregulated Militias

Max Weber defined government as needing a monopoly on the use of force. When viewed from this perspective, you can see what a disaster Iraq has become. Through history, governments are largely a farce unless they control the armed forces. These militias have to be disarmed and disbanded, the Washington Post in their editorial is exactly right in their Editorial, A Slipping Last Chance:

How to rescue the situation? Mr. Maliki and Mr. Bush are likely to discuss a reinforcement of U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad, which might help. Those forces will have to be more aggressive in confronting Shiite as well as Sunni forces -- especially the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, which, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, seeks to create a state within a state to fight its own wars.

Currently Iraq is suffering roughly 3,000 civilian casualties a month, thats like having one World Trade Center every single month in a country with less than 10% the population of the United States. It would be as if we lost 30,000 dead every month on a per capita basis.

These militias have a long history. In the aftermath of our own civil war, the Ku Klux Klan, Red Shirts and the like wrought a terrible vengeance on their political enemies and made a mockery of our democratic process, not to mention the 14th and 15th amendments. The Freedmen were eventually left to serve a century of what amounted to peonage. In post World War I Germany the Freikorps served the same purpose, providing a platform of chaos that the Nazi party would eventually ride to completely dominate Germany. Hezbollah too creates the chaos that provides a tilt towards extremism. The current Lebanese government is unable to control this militia, and has been thrust unwillingly into the fray. Sometimes governments use these militias as a fig leaf of deniability as with the shanghaied in Darfur.

Given all these examples you have to wonder that the Bush Administration has so frequently looked the other way, not disarming the Mehdi militia in Iraq, allowing the warlords to hold corrupt sway in the south of Afghanistan, and actually funding warlords in Somalia. At some point we need to come grips with the fact that as difficult as disarming is, the alternative is far worse.

Gettysburg

July 1, 1863, the first day of the watershed battle unfolded. Robert E. Lee had moved his army up into Pennsylvania. He was feeding off the land and so it was dispersed when word came that the Army of the Potomac under the newly promoted general Meade was concentrating to his rear. He ordered his army to concentrate drawing it together like the clenching of a fist, each had instructions not to bring on a general battle. Lee found himself without his great cavalry commander, the flamboyant Jeb Stuart. Although he had several brigades of cavalry at his disposal, he missed Stuart's ability to sow chaos and see opportunities in Union positions.

The Union cavalry had been used piece meal and ineffectively was newly inspired by reorganization, refitting as well as tactical improvements. Two brigades of Northern cavalry were posted in front of the small town of Gettysburg. Commanded by General Buford he saw the strategic town was a crossroads and determined that the Union should take the best ground there.

Lee's army short on supplies as always had heard that shoes were in Gettysburg and General Hill determined to take them. As he came up the road he ran right into Buford's men with their breech loaded carbines, a dramatic improvement over muzzle loaders. The cavalry put up a ferocious defense dismounted, outnumbered three to one. Worse than that one in four was holding the horses. Just as things began to look dire, up came General Reynolds with his Union corps, including the hard fighting 'Iron brigade' that never backed down.

Troops from both sides were now marching to the sound of the guns, Lee's request not to have a general battle had long since been abandoned. Four Southern divisions launched themselves against the Union positions that included Howard's 11th corps. The 11th corps made a sad career of being overrun in virtually every engagement, most recently at Chancellorsville. Today was no exception, and yet the Southern army came up somewhat short at Cemetery hill. Lee gave orders to take it 'if practicable' but Ewell, recently promoted to take Stonewall Jackson's place demurred. Both sides spent the night bringing up as many reinforcements as they could muster.

The War on Terror

Sometimes you find folks that say what you think, but say it better and then have the audacity to add perspectives that never occur to you. I hate those people. I stumbled across the blog of Mark Grimsley, who wrote a book on Sherman's March (Hard Hand of War) many moons ago. He has some thoughtful insights on the War on Terror and Rumsfeld's reign as Secretary of Defense. It's well worth a look and can be found at http://warhistorian.org/blog/, I'm going to add it to my permanent list of links as well.

The New York Times, Bush and Everything

It's a funny thing about the visceral reaction the New York Times gets. If there is no such thing as bad press, the right wing bloggers and Bush have done more for the beleaguered Grey Lady than anything since social security. I can't help but feel there is a certain false passion to the issue, not unlike the gay marriage and flag burning amendments brought up for votes recently. The New York Times is sort of like the weather, everyone likes to talk about it, but nobody does anything. The really interesting part is that three papers went with the story, The LA Times, The Wall Street Journal and the NY Times; granted the NY Times was first.

Why are 95% of the comments on just the NYTs, many will also mention the LA Times, another left leaning rag, but virtually nobody mentions the stately WSJ which is somehow steeled against the storm of protests. I can't help that in this instance folks don't really hate the sin, but the sinner.

Despite all that, you have to wonder why the papers published. The NY Times does seem to have an edge since it swallowed so many fairy tales in the lead up to the Iraq War. In some cases this has led to proper exposure of questionable practices including illegal wire tapping and invasion of privacy. Since the Bush administration has gone back on the Geneva conventions and made use of secret jails and due process for 'illegal combatants' a certain skepticism seems healthy. Certainly the Republican Congress has been a dutiful mushroom, content to wallow in the dark feasting on manure (with apologies to Arlen Specter and John McCain). The Congress was only properly informed when it became clear that the Times had the story, had it a better record of veracity another outcome might have been possible.

But for all that the papers have gone one toke over the line here. While there has been a disturbing pattern of reckless hubris on the part of the President, this program has been productive. The Times may argue that it will still be effective, but certainly it is less likely given the fire-storm of publicity. Certainly tracking financial details was known to be occurring, but the scale and process may prompt them to better cover their tracks. Ultimately the motives for the paper were good, but misguided. The thing that fairly drips with irony is that pretty much sums up Bush's presidency as well; perhaps the reflection of himself is what really angers this President so.

Testing

Just checking out blogging in general. Not sure I will have much to say or much time to say it in.