The View from Right Field

Gettysburg and Vicksburg: The 150th Anniversaries

The 150th anniversaries of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3) and the surrender of Confederate forces at Vicksburg (July 4) are upon us.  Being of an age that I can remember the 100th anniversaries of these battles, it is amazing, to me at least, how much less notice these anniversaries are getting today than they did then.

Maybe it is because of the wars we have been in since 1963 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al).  Maybe it is what seems to be the lack of interest in history.  You would think it would be an even bigger deal today than it was then.  After all, on the 150th anniversary of the war that freed the slaves, we have a black president.  How appropriate is that.  But then, President Obama does not seem to be that interested in American history.  Sure, sometimes he will talk about it, but you don’t get the feeling he really means it.  When President Reagan talked about the Boys of Pointe du Huq on the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, you knew he meant it.  It took President Obama over four years to get to Berlin, the place where the Cold War was won.  Even when he got there, he didn’t focus on the heroes of that war, but mostly gave us a rehash of speeches he had given elsewhere.

Today, however, is a day to celebrate the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg because, together, they were a turning point of the war.  While they did not guarantee a Union victory*, they made sure the Confederacy would not defeat the North militarily.

Others can, and have, written better than I can on these two battles.  I would make just two comments.  Most of what is written on Gettysburg focuses on Robert E. Lee, which means we miss one of the most amazing facts of the battle:  General George Meade, who commanded the Army of the Potomac in the battle, assumed command only three days before the battle, when President Lincoln finally fired John Hooker.  Think about that.  George Meade took command of the Army of the Potomac just three days before what may have been the significant battle of the Civil War (or at least the most significant battle of the eastern theater), and yet he was able to defeat the Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.  General Meade deserves more credit than he gets for what he, and the Army of the Potomac, accomplished in those three days.

If Robert E. Lee inappropriately overshadows George Meade at Gettysburg, then Gettysburg itself overshadows the surrender of Confederate forces at Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.  Union forces had been trying to split the Confederacy in half, by taking control of the Mississippi, since the beginning of the war, but Vicksburg stood in the way.  Finally, General Ulysses S. Grant figured out a way to it.  Instead attacking Vicksburg directly, he determined to abandon his supply lines and have his troops live off the countryside, while attacking Vicksburg from the east.  Which he did in one of the most audacious decisions of the war.  Vicksburg surrendered on 87th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.**

Gettysburg and Vicksburg:  Anniversaries that deserve to be remembered.
-----------
* It was only General William Tecumseh Sherman’s capture of Atlanta and Admiral David Farragut’s victory in Mobile Bay in August/September of 1864 that guaranteed a Union victory by assuring that President Lincoln would be reelected in November of 1864.  If Lincoln had lost, the South would probably have been able to negotiate some kind of a settlement with a President McClellan (or whomever).  Fortunately, we never found out.

** I realize that the Declaration of Independence was really adopted on July 2, but the Fourth of July is the holiday, so I will go with it for these purposes. 

President Obama Wants to Cut Nuclear Weapons. It Sounds Like a Good Idea, But It Isn’t.

As I previously mentioned, President Obama was in Berlin last week.  He finally got to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate.*  Among other things, the President renewed his call for more reductions in nuclear weapons.  The President said, “I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.”

There are a couple of problems with this idea.  First, Russia isn’t interested.  According to The Wall Street Journal, on the same day that President Obama spoke, President Putin

“warned that Russia needs to preserve its deterrent and strategic stability in face of threats from U.S. missile-defense plans as well as from nonnuclear weapons that he said ‘are approaching the level of strategic nuclear arms in their strike capability.’”

President Obama is missing several things in expecting Russia to cut its nuclear arsenal.  Russia’s nuclear arsenal is just about the only thing that makes Russia a major power anymore.  Its economy stinks.  Its natural gas isn’t as important in Europe as it used to be.  Etc., etc.  But Russia does have nuclear weapons, so it’s important.  Which is important to the Russian psyche, as well as President Putin’s.

Also, as part of a defense structure, nuclear weapons are cheap.  When the Soviet Union had a huge army in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. relied on its own nuclear weapons to counterbalance Soviet conventional forces.  But U.S. conventional forces aren’t a threat to Russia you might say.  That’s true, but China’s might be – or at least Russia might think they are.  China has a big army.  Russian nuclear weapons can counterbalance China’s conventional forces, just as U.S. nuclear weapons helped counter Russian conventional forces in Europe before the Wall came down.

This raises another point.  Russia and the United States are not the only nuclear powers anymore (and I am not talking about France and Great Britain).  For example, we don’t know how big China’s nuclear arsenal is, but Russia is worried about it.  Other countries have nuclear weapons, too: North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran (any day now), and maybe others.  Cutting our nuclear weapons without involving these countries is shortsighted, at best.  Russia won’t do it.  Also, who knows how some of our allies would feel about it.

A fact that is often not mentioned when people talk about abolishing or cutting nuclear weapons is that our nuclear weapons not only protect us, they protect a lot of other countries, too.  Our nuclear umbrella extends to countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others.  Some people might say we shouldn’t worry about those countries.  Except if we don’t provide them the protection of our nuclear arsenal, they might decide they need to get their own.  If nuclear proliferation is a concern, then a strong, reliable U.S. nuclear umbrella is important.  If Japan and South Korea don’t trust us to protect them with our nuclear weapons, the number of countries with nuclear weapons might increase by two. 

(In this regard, I note that the reliability of our nuclear umbrella is based on several things.  First, other countries have to believe our promises to protect them with our nuclear weapons.  Second, our nuclear arsenal has to be big enough to make that promise believable.  Third, our weapons have to be reliable enough to provide assurance.  This last point is a concern that I talked about here.)

Second, I find it somewhat humorous that President Obama says he wants to negotiate cuts in nuclear weapons with Russia to “move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.”  Negotiating with the Russians (née Soviets) is all about the Cold War.  If President Obama is trying to get beyond the Cold War, he needs to negotiate with a lot more countries than Russia.  President Obama did say he would “work to build support in the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.”  Whether a nuclear test ban would really protect our security is unclear.  Certainly, the nuclear test ban has not stopped North Korea from testing nuclear weapons.  If Iran is stopped from developing nuclear weapons (which is doubtful {see here and here}), it won’t be because of a nuclear test ban treaty.  Also, if a nuclear test ban raises doubts about the reliability of our nuclear forces and our nuclear umbrella, it could result in more countries developing nuclear weapons (see above). 

President Obama also called “on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.”  Once again, I find it hard to believe such a treaty is going to stop any country from developing nuclear weapons if its leaders think nuclear weapons are necessary for their security.  The Kellogg-Briand Pact didn’t stop wars.  Why is a treaty going to end the production of fissile materials?

What President Obama misses in his calls for the reduction, and eventual abolition, of nuclear weapons is that, for some people, they work.  Moammar Gaddafi gave up Libya’s nuclear weapons.  Compare what happened to Libya (and him) to what hasn’t happened to North Korea.  I am not suggesting we should do anything to North Korea, but the human suffering in North Korea is far beyond anything that happened in Libya or that Gaddafi threatened to do.  Part of the reason why we haven’t done anything about this suffering may be that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

The final reason some people suggest we should (i) cut our number of nuclear weapons, (ii) cut spending on modernizing our nuclear weapons, etc., is so we can serve as an example to the rest of the world.  In other words, if we do it, others will, too.  The idea is that we can’t call on other nations may believe this (talk about a faith-based initiative), but I don’t.  I don’t think Kim Sung Un believes it.  I don’t think Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, believes it.  For that matter, I doubt that President Park Geun-hye of South Korea or Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan believe it, either.

To those who say that Ronald Reagan called for the abolition of nuclear weapons, I would reply that the world was different in 1986.  I would also reply that Ronald Reagan wasn’t right on everything.  This is one of them.
----------
* In 2008, then-Senator Obama went to Berlin to give a speech.  He had wanted to give it in front of the Brandenburg Gate, but the German government refused.  He wound up having to give his speech in front of the Siegessäule (Victory Column) and, until last week, hadn’t been back since.

Goodbye, Carlos Marmol. We’ll Miss You.

I mean that.  This season hasn’t been good for Carlos, but he’s not the reason the Cubs are doing so badly.  I have some really good memories of Carlos Marmol.  When he was on, he was really fun to watch.  I hope he is able to catch on with another team and that he does well.  He’s a good guy.  He deserves another chance.

Spying, Targeting and Snooping

All kinds of spying, targeting and snooping seem to be going on in Washington (and elsewhere) these days.  One or more people in the Internal Revenue Service decided that targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups was the best way to see if any groups were inappropriately applying for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

The Department of Justice, with Attorney General Holder’s approval in at least one case, has been issuing subpoenas for phone records of journalists and their employers.  (This has gotten so bad, at least in the press’s view, that The New York Times has complained about a subpoena issued to a Fox News reporter.)

And, of course, the National Security Agency has undertaken a massive data collection program with respect to our phone calls and e-mails.

I don’t object to NSA program.  People in charge say it has helped, and, as the details have come out, it appears that any imposition is minor.  I am glad President Obama has come around to supporting programs like this.

The subpoenas on the news media seem to be a part of the big effort to stop leaks.  All presidents dislike leaks.  President Obama seems to dislike them more than most.  As mentioned, he has subpoenaed reporters’ phone records.  His administration has also broiught more charges against alleged leakers under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all previous presidents combined.  They even threatened a reporter with charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 for allegedly seeking a leak.  (Also here.)

The IRS targeting of Tea Party groups is the worst, however.  It doesn’t matter if it was ordered by people at the top or if it was an idea that some lower level people came up with on their own.  This is an attack by a part of the federal government on groups of people with a particular set of political beliefs.  President Obama was right to criticize it strongly, but we now need a real and trustworthy investigation to make sure we figure out why it happened and how we can make sure it never happens again.  Statements by people such as Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md) that it is overblown and no big deal are not helpful.  (Also, see here.)  We need a real investigation to restore people’s trust in the government.

We need to restore that trust so people will trust programs like the NSA program.  If you can’t convince people that things like the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups aren’t going to happen again, then you are going to have problems getting people to trust necessary programs like the NSA effort.  To do this, the Administration needs to understand that the people who need to be convinced are not its own supporters.  It’s the people who were targeted.  This is not a partisan issue.  This is not about winning the next election.  This is about restoring the trust of the American people in their government – so the government can do what it needs to do to protect us from foreign threats. 

Restoring that trust is going to take a big effort by the Administration – and by the President himself.  This isn’t going to be easy for an Administration – and a President – that seems to take offense easily and often doesn’t give the other side credit for having honest motives, but it needs to be done.  The President needs to explain why the IRS targeting isn’t going to happen again.  He also needs to do a lot more work explaining why the NSA program is necessary.  It isn’t just a matter of going on “Charlie Rose” on PBS.  The President needs to talk to, and convince, the people who don’t support him, too.

In this regard, when he talks to them, he needs to get his facts right.  The President shouldn’t say, as he did on “Charlie Rose,” that the NSA program is transparent.  It isn’t.  It’s secret, and it needs to be secret.  He needs to defend that secrecy.  Also, the President shouldn’t imply that he set up the FISA court.  He didn’t.  It was in place before he was elected.  And he definitely shouldn’t defend the program on the basis that it’s okay now because he’s president.

This is not going to be easy for the President.  No president likes to try to convince his opponents.  It’s hard, but it needs to be done.  I hope he does it.

Why Is Obamacare Behind Schedule? Why Is the President Letting This Happen?

It is both amazing and, in another way, not amazing, but there is a good chance that the health care exchanges that are supposed to be providing health care to individuals and small businesses under Obamacare aren’t going to be ready on time.

According to The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday:

“Government officials have missed several deadlines in setting up new health-insurance exchanges for small businesses and consumers—a key part of the federal health overhaul—and there is a risk they won't be ready to open on time in October, Congress's watchdog arm said.

The Government Accountability Office said federal and state health officials still have major work to complete, offering its most cautious comments to date about the Obama administration's ability to bring the centerpiece of its signature law to fruition.

‘Whether [the government's] contingency planning will assure the timely and smooth implementation of the exchanges by October 2013 cannot yet be determined,’ said the GAO in twin reports to be released Wednesday.”

It is amazing to me that there are these problems.  Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, was passed three years ago.  What have they been doing for three years?  If the Affordable Care Act is supposed to be Barack Obama’s signature program, the passing of which is to secure his place in history, why are things so far behind?  Hasn’t he been paying attention?  If something was my legacy, I’d make darn sure it was going to work.

In his commencement address at The Ohio State University, President Obama told the graduates about the ability of government to do good.  And yet, here is a chance for him to show that, and it doesn’t look like it is going to happen.

I am not a big fan of government programs in certain areas or in the federal government doing things that it doesn’t need to do.  I don’t think the federal government is good at doing things in many of these areas.  But I am still surprised at how badly this program is being implemented.  It’s not like they are trying to do it in year or even two years.  They have already had three years, and they will have three and one-half years by the time October 1 rolls around.

If time is a problem, why didn’t they start earlier?  If getting the bureaucrats to do their job is the problem, why isn’t the President doing whatever is necessary to get things done? 

According to The Wall Street Journal:

“Enroll America, an administration-backed nonprofit group, opened its ‘Get Covered America’ campaign Tuesday.  ‘We are at a place where…78% of the uninsured aren't even aware of what's coming their way,’ said Anne Filipic, the group's president.”

Why do 78% of the uninsured not know “what’s coming their way”?  What has the Administration been doing?  The President likes to give speeches.  Why hasn’t he been giving speeches about this?

One final point:  If the implementation of Obamacare fails, in whole or in part, the President’s supporters will say it is the Republicans’ fault.  The Republicans have put up roadblocks, they will say.  The Republicans convinced states not to participate in the exchanges, etc., etc.  I am sorry, but that doesn’t work.  Of course, the Republicans don’t like Obamacare.  If the Democrats thought anything else was going to happen, they were kidding themselves.  If states decided not to build their own exchanges so late that now there isn’t enough time for the federal government to do it, then the federal government needed to set the deadlines earlier, and not extend them.

The President says (admits-?) says that there will be “glitches and bumps” in the implementation of Obamacare.  It appears that may be an understatement.  In any case, how many of those “glitches and bumps” could have been avoided if the Administration had done a better job than it apparently has so far in implementing the President’s biggest program?

President Obama’s Speech in Berlin: Ruined By the Sun?

The Corner at National Review Online has this about President Obama’s speech in Berlin yesterday (thanks to JustOneMinute for the pointer):

“MSNBC host and Obama sycophant Chris Matthews blamed the sun for spoiling the president’s speech in Berlin today.

‘I think a lot of the problem he had today was the late afternoon sun in Berlin ruined his use of the teleprompter and so his usual dramatic windup was ruined,’ Matthews said immediately after the speech.  ‘I think he was really struggling with the text there.’

Speaking behind a glass bulletproof shield, Obama appeared to be using the text of the speech rather than reading off of teleprompters.”

As I said here, it’s what you say, not how you say it, that counts.  When John F. Kennedy said, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he mispronounced “ich,” but it didn’t matter because the substance of what he was saying was what counted.  I’m not sure some of President Obama’s supporters understand this.

Our Foreign Policy Elite Is Excited by Iran’s Election. Does That Say More About Iran – Or Them?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. and its European allies are “encouraged” by the election of Hassan Rohani as the next president of Iran. Mt. Rohani is a “centrist figure” and is seen as “a moderate candidate.” I wonder. If Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is really the main decision-maker in Iran, including on Iran’s nuclear program, what substantive difference does it make who the president is?

Also, I wonder if these “encouraging” feelings are more a matter of Western foreign policy elites projecting their views onto the Iranian political situation than any real change in Iran. When Kim Jung Il died in North Korea, there were articles about how his son, Kim Jung Un, would be more moderate and less aggressive.  (See, for example, here and here.)  Except it hasn’t worked out that way, to say the least. What was happening in those articles was a transference, by our foreign policy elites, of their worldview onto the new leader of North Korea. In their view, any rational person would think a certain way. They assumed the new North Korean leader would be rational, as they defined “rational,” and would think like they did. Except maybe what they think is rational isn’t rational in North Korea. Or maybe they have different goals than Kim Jung Il does. They think a country’s leader should want to improve things in his or her country. But maybe Kim Jung Un just wants to keep power. Maybe that’s what’s rational to him, and maybe what he is doing is the rational way to accomplish that goal in the North Korean system.

The same thing is very probably true in Iran. We don’t know what the goals of the new Iranian president are or what the best way is to accomplish those goals are in the Iranian political system. Plus, we don’t know how much power he really has. In other words, don’t get your hopes up. It’s still early.

Ian Stewart Takes the Hit for His Mistakes – And Other People’s, Too

I am not sure I fully understand why Ian Stewart got a 10-game suspension for saying things, many of which were pretty much true.  This report says that the suspension is because he violated the “loyalty clause” in his contract.  I understand private employers have the right to punish employees who say things about them that the employer doesn’t like.  Still, in Ian Stewart’s case, it is pretty clear he is not going to be getting back to Chicago, as he said.  Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people in Chicago don’t like him.  The idea, however, that the Cubs are getting good production out of the third base spot is silly.  The people we have at third base are basically other teams’ utility players or people they have released.

I can’t help but wonder if the problem here is the embarrassment that Ian Stewart has caused for Cubs’ management.  Not only was the trade of Tyler Colvin and D. J. LaMahieu to the Rockies for Ian Stewart a bad deal.  But the re-signing of Stewart for another $2 million over the past winter compounded the mistake.  Tom Ricketts keeps telling us he can’t afford to spend more money on players, and then Theo, et al, spend $2 million on a guy who did his injury rehabbing last year at home, instead of with the team.  That should have been a sign, but apparently it wasn’t.  And now it looks like the Cubs are happy to have an excuse to save a little money on a contract they should have never signed.

Drugs for Children – And Precision In Language

The Wall Street Journal reports that the federal government is dropping its appeal of a court order requiring the Food and Drug Administration to eliminate all age and other restrictions on the sale of the Plan B contraceptive, also known as the “morning after pill”:

“In a court filing Monday, the Justice Department said the Food and Drug Administration would make the Plan B pill available without age or point-of-sale restrictions, such as having to show identification to buy it.

The government said that would make it comply with an April order from U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn, N.Y., ordering the FDA to eliminate age and other restrictions on who may buy Plan B.”

The FDA had previously agreed to allow the Plan B drug to be sold to people 15 and older without a prescription, lowering the minimum age from 17.  The FDA’s previous order still required girls under 15 to get a prescription to buy the drug.  Now, even that age requirement will be gone.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said:

“‘We are pleased that women should soon be able to buy Plan B One-Step without the arbitrary restrictions that kept it locked behind the pharmacy counter when they needed it most urgently.’”

Um, Ms. Northrup, women could already buy Plan B One-Step without restrictions.  What the FDA is now allowing is for children to buy it.  Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, is not the point.  The point is we need to be precise in our language.  This new decision is not allowing women to buy this drug without a prescription.  Women could already buy it without a prescription.  This new decision is allowing children to buy this drug, without a prescription and without any adult’s knowledge.

US and Chinese Presidents Talk Cybersecurity

I understand that President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are discussing cybersecurity in their summit at Rancho Mirage, California.  What I wonder, though, is whether President Obama is complaining to President Xi about Chinese hacking of US computers – or asking him how to spy on US citizens better. 

Alternatively, if the President wants to save money, maybe he could outsource his data collection program to the Chinese.  They’re probably already doing most of it anyway.  Whatever extra they have to do, shouldn’t cost that much.