The View from Right Field

Six of One – #2

Another collection of short comments.

Free Speech – Or Maybe Not

Jan Witold Baran and Robert F. Bauer wrote an Op-Ed article, "More Rule, More Money," in The New York Times on August 8, 2006. The article was about, as they called it in their conclusion, "three decades of misguided efforts at reform."

While the article was interesting, more interesting was the letter to the editor from Trevor Potter (of the Campaign legal Center) and Fred Wertheimer (of Democracy 21) which appeared five days later. Potter and Wertheimer’s letter concluded: "Regulated entities and their lawyers usually oppose being regulated, so the complaints of Mr. Baran and Mr. Bauer should be understood in that context."

Omigosh. Potter and Wertheimer are calling political parties and public interest groups, exercising their First Amendment rights, "regulated entities." That is a terrifying thought – because when free speech is regulated, it isn’t free.

Airport Security and Profiling

Two comments on Dick Meyer’s interesting post on CBSNews.com, "Toothpaste Terror In The Skies."

First, why do we think airport security will work? The people in charge of this are, after all, the same people who brought us the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Bridge to Nowhere (if they could have), far too many of our inner city public schools, and the War in Iraq (whichever side you are on). Given this ineptitude, all we can hope for is that, if they do a lot, some small part of it might work.

Second, what about profiling, especially of young Muslim-looking men? The first objection is that there are plenty of dangerous people who are not Muslim-looking. The August 27 Chicago Tribune mentions Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, and Timothy McVeigh, which is true, except that none of them ever tried to blow up an airplane or to fly an airplane into a building.

The second objection is that focusing on young Muslim-looking men will cause the Islamic terrorists to use other types of people. That may be true, but it will take time to recruit other types of people, and there will probably be fewer of them who are willing to do it.

The third objection is that focusing on young Muslim-looking men will create such anger in the Muslim community that it will create more terrorists. While this should not be true (Muslims should acknowledge the reality of the fact recent terrorist attacks have disproportionately involved young Muslim-looking men), it probably is. Obvious profiling of young Muslim-looking men could be counterproductive.

But if we cannot profile, we should at least learn from what profiling would tell us so that our non-profiling checking is more focused and productive. The only problem with that thought is my first point above.

Did Hezbollah Really Win Or Is It Another Tet?

Immediately after the ceasefire took hold in Lebanon, the news media, even the serious ones, proclaimed a "victory" for Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah. For example, the cover of the August 19 Economist proclaimed "Nasrallah wins the war". But I wonder if this is another case of the news media declaring a winner without knowing what really happened.

Amir Taheri’s article in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal, "Hezbollah Didn’t Win," certainly presents a different view. Who is right? The fact is we do not know yet.

In any case, the Hezbollah-Israel fight was not a war. It was, rather, a battle in the multipolar war that I have written about before. And who won this battle may depend more on what we do in the future than what actually happened here.

Jimmy Carter – Now He’s an International Embarrassment

A while ago (actually, a long time ago) I thought Jimmy Carter was a good ex-President. His work on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, etc., was good. It was just too bad he had to be President first.

Unfortunately, he is no longer even a good ex-President. Former President Carter has improperly interfered in foreign affairs in the past. For example, in 1990 he wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council, without sending a copy of his letter to President George H. W. Bush, urging them to vote against the U.S.-sponsored resolution telling Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait or face military action, an action that Brent Scowcroft thought was a clear violation of the Logan Act prohibition against private citizens conducting diplomacy. (A World Transformed, p. 414) However, things seem to have gotten worse since he "won" the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. (I put "won" in quotation marks because comments at the time made it seem the awarding of the Peace Prize to former President Carter was meant more to criticize President George W. Bush than to honor former President Carter. See here and here and here.)

Former President Carter’s interview with Der Spiegel two weeks ago was bad enough, but his comments about Prime Minister Tony Blair in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph were beyond the pale. Until former President Carter came along, the rule was that ex-Presidents did not directly criticize their successors. Former President Carter has not only broken that rule; he has now taken it on himself to criticize the leaders of our closest friends, too.

I do not have the time to go into all of what was wrong with what former President Carter said or the fact he was saying it. For now I just want to say I am appalled by his comments and embarrassed on behalf of my country by his behavior.

Six of One, Plus One More

I have been away for a while. Instead of something long, here are some thoughts on things that have come up in the last two weeks.

The Cost of Going to College

On Thursday Mayor Richard Daley (of Chicago, of course) suggested high school should be expanded to five years, so college could be shortened to three years. He suggested it as an idea to help parents with college costs. It would be one more year of low-cost high school and one less year of high-cost college.

While a fifth year of high school is not the answer, college costs are a problem. College costs too much. There is no good reason for it. Colleges are not well run from a financial point of view, but they do not have to be. The good ones can get all the kids they want no matter how much they charge.

It is like a really sick person. He or she will pay just about anything to get well. When it comes to college, there are lots of parents who are willing to pay anything to get the best college for their child. And if they are willing to pay almost anything, the colleges will charge it.

We are not going to get college costs down until we introduce some market discipline into college tuition. Once enough people refuse to pay what colleges charge, colleges will lower their tuition. Until then, it is not going to happen.

Iraq – Comment #1

Why is it that just about the only time the media reports on our soldiers in Iraq (or Afghanistan), it is about claims of abuse or violating rules?

I was at least happy to see the Chicago Tribune ran an article about a Marine investigator who said that what the Marines did at Haditha* appeared to have been appropriate. But even here, the article is about an alleged massacre and violation of rules. Where are the articles about the tough fights and the heroic efforts, the good deeds and the brave soldiers? They are happening, but the news media is not reporting them.

---------------

* This is the incident Democratic Representative John Murtha called a cold-blooded massacre before the investigation was complete – but don’t worry, Representative Murtha supports the troops, even if he does think a bunch of them are war criminals.

Katrina – It’s Really Rudy’s Fault

I see Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans has said, in response to a question about the slow efforts to rebuild New Orleans, "You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

Actually, Nagin does hit on a point (unintentionally, of course) that I have not seen mentioned in all of the finger pointing over the response to Hurricane Katrina. One of the people I think needs to be blamed for the poor response to Katrina is Rudy Giuliani.

I think FEMA and the rest of the federal government were misled by Rudy Giuliani’s response to September 11. Rudy Giuliani led the feds to think local government could actually be competent in an emergency and could actually do something to help its citizens. Ray Nagin has reminded us how wrong that is. If you really want to see what local government can do in an emergency, don’t look at Rudy Giuliani, look at New Orleans.

It All Makes Sense If You Think George Bush Is the Biggest Terrorist

The anti-war Democrats (which, it seems, are most of them) have had a lot to cheer about lately. First, Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman. Then a federal judge in Detroit, Anna Diggs Taylor, issued an opinion holding Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, which monitors phone calls and Internet activity between suspected foreign terrorists and people in the United States, was not only illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 but also unconstitutional. Her opinion, including such carefully restrained statements as "there are no hereditary Kings in the America," read more like a Teddy Kennedy campaign speech than a judicial opinion.

And this is the problem. If you are going to let judges decide questions like this, it has to be on the basis that they are making their decision on the law, not just their political opinions or their politicized view of the law.

If judges’ decisions reflect nothing more than their politics, if judges’ opinions are nothing more than campaign speeches in black robes, then why is a judge’s decision any better or deserving of respect than a President’s or a legislator’s. Presidents and legislators take oaths to defend the Constitution, too. Why should we defer to judges, if they are nothing more than politicians appointed for life?

At some point I hope to come back to this, but for now let me just raise the question.

Danny Davis Finds an Interesting Travel Agent

I see Representative Danny Davis of Chicago went on a junket to Sri Lanka last year that was paid for by the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group. As the Chicago Tribune asked on Friday, "What, was Hezbollah’s junket filled?"

In any case, how long do you think it will be before the liberals who criticized Tom DeLay say something about Representative Davis? I am not sure, but I think the answer involves the amount of time it takes light to travel to the edge of the universe – and come back.

Iraq – Comment #2

With all of the articles in the newspapers and claims by politicians that our soldiers are committing atrocities and deliberately killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is amazing to me that any of the members of our Armed Forces are reenlisting. Except for a very few, these are good people doing a tough job while being criticized by a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Vacation Plans

I am going on vacation in October this year. Next year, however, we will have to go in September. I’m going to be busy in October.

Break

I will be on break for a couple of weeks, visiting our daughter in Washington, D.C., and taking our son back to college in Omaha.

Real Men May Eat Quiche, But Real Cubs Fans Don't Do the Wave

When our son and I were at the Cubs game on Saturday (in the bleachers), a group of people tried to start a wave in the top of the ninth. We were leading by two in the top of the ninth, and these people were trying to do a lousy wave. Incredible.

Then I read in Monday’s Chicago Tribune that people at Sunday’s Cubs game not only tried to do the wave, but enough of them actually joined in that a wave made it around the park a couple of times in the bottom of the fourth inning.

This is appalling. As noted in the Tribune article and in my post "Hey, Old Style, Cubs Fans Don’t Do the Wave," real Cubs fans don’t do the wave.

Real Cubs fans go to the park to watch baseball, not to join in some kind of mindless, group-think calisthenics for drunks. More importantly, we don’t do the wave because of 1984. The people doing the wave (also known as idiots) are not Cubs fans. They probably think Cap Anson is something you wear on your head, and Gabby Hartnett is related to the star of "Wicker Park."

Let me explain what a Cubs fan is: Ten years ago, when our son was in fourth grade, his class put on a show for the parents. At one point in the song they were singing, all of the kids were supposed to do the wave. Even though our son was only ten years old, even though he was born two years after 1984, he didn’t do it because he knew what these people don’t know: Cubs fans don’t do the wave.

If you want to do the wave, go to San Diego, go to any of the six minor league parks in the Chicago area, go wherever you want. But don’t come to Wrigley Field – because Cubs fans don’t do the wave.

[Revised: August 9, 2006 - 10:30 p.m.]

"Don't Worry. It Will Only Take a Few More Restrictions on Your Freedom – And If That Doesn't Work, We Can Always Add a Few More"

According to an Op-Ed article in today’s New York Times by Jan Witold Baran and Robert F. Bauer, the new legislation proposed by the architects of McCain-Feingold (less McCain) would replace the current Federal Election Commission with a new Federal Election Administration. Instead of six members, the new agency would have "a more nimble three." The chairman would be more powerful and would be appointed for a ten-year term. Also, the members could not include recent candidates, party officials or election law lawyers; i.e., people who might know what they are doing.

That is a scary proposal: A nimble federal agency with a powerful chairman appointed to a ten-year term, effectively accountable to no one, and members with no real world experience – all with power over the bedrocks of our democracy: our election process and our freedom of speech.

Being a naiveté sort, it is mind-boggling to me this kind of an anti-free speech proposal could attract any support at all, let alone enough support to have a chance to pass, but attract support it will. If the Supreme Court continues to fail to protect our free speech rights, then our best hope, until the case for freedom can be more effectively made, is that the parties will split, one opposing what the other favors for fear their opponents will gain an advantage. If, however, the bipartisan party of incumbency unites behind this proposal, our democracy and our freedom will take a hit.

Democratic Activists on Iraq: "Out! Now!"

On Iraq there is a disconnect between Democratic leaders in Washington and many Democratic activists in the field. What is interesting, however, is this disconnect is not just between leaders such as Hillary Clinton and the activists. There is even a disconnect between the activists and those Democrats who have called for an early withdrawal from Iraq, people like John Kerry and John Edwards.

Kerry, for example, has called for getting all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this year. But even that is not what the activists want. They do not want to get out by the end of 2006. They want to get out now, right now. This month. This week.

National Democratic leaders realize this is impossible. They understand an immediate withdrawal would mean a level of violence and massacres throughout Iraq that would make what is happening now look like a Sunday School picnic. They also realize the effect such a pullout would have on the United States’ position and credibility in the world. Therefore, they want it to at least appear they are giving the Iraqis enough time to work things out before we leave. That way, when the inevitable happens, they can at least say it is not their fault.

But the activists do not care. In response to warnings about what would happen if we withdrew immediately, their response is, "Not our problem." They did not want to go in. Bush is not their president (he stole two elections, after all). It is Bush’s problem or the Republicans’ problem or the Sunnis’ or Shias’ problem, but it is not their problem. If you tell them how many people will die in the chaos that would follow an immediate withdrawal, they just shrug their shoulders. They may try to claim more people will die if we stay than if we go, but that is just something they have to say. The fact is they don’t care.

It is the "me generation" coming back to politics. It does not matter what our government promised. It does not matter what commitments we made. They want out, and the heck with everybody else. They were ultimately able to do it to the South Vietnamese in 1975. If they have their way, the United States will do it to the Iraqis today.

[Title Revised: August 8, 2006]

Books Worth Reading

Included, in a sidebar on the left, is a list of "Books Worth Reading." As with everything in this blog, and all blogs, the list is idiosyncratic. These are a few of my favorite books, many from a long time ago. Some are included as a sample of an author’s works or of a genre. Others are singular. I will, from time to time, write a short post on why a particular book is included.

"The 11 Days of Christmas"

Books about the Vietnam War generally focus on the Kennedy/Johnson years, basically the period up through the Tet Offensive and President Johnson’s decision to not run for reelection. This is unfortunate. By focusing on our failures, both general and military, during this time period, we fail to look at what really were some successes in the next four years. While one can learn from one’s failures, one can also learn from what works, especially when the latter follows the former. It is too late to change the failure of Vietnam, but by looking at our whole time there, perhaps we can learn some lessons that might be of use today.

There are not a lot of books on the military situation in Vietnam after Tet. The 11 Days of Christmas: America’s Last Vietnam Battle is one of them. It tells the story of the "Christmas bombing" that President Nixon ordered in December of 1972 when the Paris peace talks stalled. For the first time, B-52s were sent over Hanoi. The battle was, as the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, "a damned close-run thing." The United States prevailed, but just barely. The story of the men who flew the planes, the Air Force leaders who almost lost the battle, and the interaction of the military and the political leaders makes for a griping history.

Two other books worth reading are A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam by Lewis Sorley and America’s Last Vietnam Battle: Halting Hanoi’s 1972 Easter Offensive by Dale Andrade.

A Better War tells the story of the war after Tet, focusing on the changes in strategy implemented by General Creighton Abrams when he took over from General William Westmoreland in 1968. The book tells how Abrams’ changes in the conception and conduct of the war achieved different results.

Instead of Westmoreland’s search and destroy tactics and uncoordinated approach to pacification and helping the South Vietnamese armed forces, Abrams instituted a "one war" strategy with a single objective: security for South Vietnam’s villages and hamlets, while improving the South Vietnamese armed forces.

The successes this approach achieved makes one wonder what might have happened if Abrams’ ideas had been followed earlier. You also wonder to what extent the successes we achieved back then might give us some guidance for what we should be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Dale Andrade’s America’s Last Vietnam Battle tells the story of the biggest battle of the Vietnam War, the battle fought by American airpower, South Vietnamese troops and American advisers to stop Hanoi’s spring 1972 offensive. While ultimately it was U.S. airpower that made the difference, the bombers could not have won without the South Vietnamese troops on the ground. Though not as good as it could have been (or needed to be once the US totally withdrew), in 1972 it was the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, along with its American advisers, that held An Loc and retook Quang Tri.

As A Better War raises the question of whether a different result might have happened if the U.S. followed a different operational strategy earlier, this book leaves one wondering what would have happened if the U.S. had not given up and abandoned its former South Vietnamese allies, refusing to provide even basic supplies when the North Vietnamese launched their offensive in 1975.

Even though the Vietnam War has been over for 30 years, there is much that can be learned from it. These three books give a good overview of the last years of the war and raise questions, the answers to which are relevant not only for what happened then but a guide for what may happen in the future.